1: %\documentclass[aps,amsfonts,amssymb,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: \documentstyle[12pt,amsfonts,amssymb,amsbsy,epsf]{article}
3: \hoffset=-1cm
4: \voffset=-2cm
5: \textwidth=167mm
6: \textheight=220mm
7: \newcommand{\Rsub}{\rm\scriptscriptstyle}
8: \begin{document}
9: \title{Renormalization group improvement of truncated
10: perturbative series in QCD.\\ Decays of $\tau$-lepton and
11: $\eta_c$-charmonium}
12: \author{V.V.Kiselev,\\[2mm]
13: \small Russian State Research Center ``Institute for
14: High Energy Physics'', \\
15: \small Division of Theoretical Physics, Protvino,
16: Moscow Region, 142280 Russia\\
17: \small E-mail: kiselev@th1.ihep.su, Fax: -7-0967-744937}
18: \date{}
19: %\email{kiselev@th1.ihep.su}
20: %\affiliation{Russian State Research Center ``Institute for
21: %High Energy Physics, Division of Theoretical Physics, Protvino,
22: %Moscow Region, 142280 Russia}
23: %\begin{equation}
24:
25: \maketitle
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We formulate a general scheme to improve the truncated perturbative
28: expansion in $\alpha_s$ by means of the renormalization group in QCD
29: for the single-scale quantities. The procedure is used for
30: the evaluation of hadronic decay rates of $\tau$-lepton
31: and $\eta_c$-charmonium. The scale dependence of result
32: for $\eta_c$ is studied in the scheme of fixed value for
33: the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-mass of charmed quark.
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38: \label{sec:1}
39:
40: For many physical cases in QCD, an observable quantity is usually
41: expressed in terms of truncated series in the coupling constant
42: $\alpha_s$ with given coefficients, so that in the
43: next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N$^3$LO) we get
44: \begin{equation}
45: \label{eq:1}
46: {\cal R} = 1 + c_1\,\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}+
47: c_2\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)^2+
48: c_3\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)^3,
49: \end{equation}
50: where $c_{1\,,2,\,3}$ are some numbers, and $\Lambda$ is a fixed scale.
51: So, the value $\cal R$ is the single-scale quantity. The exhausted
52: examples are the followings:
53: \begin{enumerate}
54: \item
55: The hadronic fraction of $\tau$-decay width \cite{1,PDG}
56: \begin{eqnarray}
57: && {\cal R}_{\tau} = \frac{\Gamma[\tau\to \nu_{\tau}\mbox{hadrons}]}
58: {\Gamma[\tau\to \nu_{\tau}e^+\nu_e]} = \nonumber\\ &&
59: {\cal R}_{\tau}^{[0]} \left(
60: 1 + c_1^{\tau}\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_{\tau})}{\pi}+
61: c_2^{\tau}\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_{\tau})}{\pi}\right)^2+
62: c_3^{\tau}\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_{\tau})}{\pi}\right)^3
63: +\Delta r_{\mbox{\small NP}}\right),
64: \label{eq:2}
65: \end{eqnarray}
66: where ${\cal R}_{\tau}^{[0]}=3.058$, the coefficients are given by
67: \begin{equation}
68: \label{eq:3}
69: c_1^{\tau}=1,\quad c_2^{\tau}=5.2,\quad c_3^{\tau}=26.4,
70: \end{equation}
71: and $\Delta r_{\mbox{\small NP}}=-0.014\pm 0.005$ is a nonperturbative
72: contribution.
73: \item
74: The hadronic fraction of $\eta_c$-decay width \cite{2}
75: \begin{eqnarray}
76: \label{eq:3}
77: {\cal R}_{\eta_c} & = &\frac{\Gamma[\eta_c\to \mbox{hadrons}]}
78: {\Gamma[\eta_c\to \gamma\gamma]} = %%\\ &&
79: {\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{[0]} \left(
80: 1 + d_1\,\frac{\alpha_s(2 m_c)}{\pi}\right),
81: \end{eqnarray}
82: where
83: \begin{equation}
84: \label{eq:4}
85: {\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{[0]} = \frac{C_F}{2N_c}\,\frac{1}{e_c^4}\,
86: \frac{\alpha_s^2(2m_c)}{\alpha^2_{\rm em}}
87: \end{equation}
88: with $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/2 N_c$, $N_c=3$ is the number of colors,
89: $e_c=2/3$ is the electric charge of charmed quark, and the coefficient
90: $d_1$ is given by
91: \begin{equation}
92: \label{eq:5}
93: d_1 = \frac{199}{6}-\frac{13\pi^2}{8}-\frac{8}{9}\,n_f-
94: \frac{2}{3}\ln 2,
95: \end{equation}
96: where $n_f=3$ is the number of `active' flavors, and $m_c$ is the pole
97: mass of charmed quark.
98: \end{enumerate}
99:
100: The above formulae can be used for the extraction of $\alpha_s$ at the
101: appropriate scale. The value of $\alpha_s$-corrections is numerically
102: significant. So, the problem is how the truncated series can be improved.
103: The well-established approach to the solution of such the problem is
104: a resummation of some significant terms. We mention two of such techniques.
105: The first is the summation of $(\beta_0\alpha_s)^n$ contributions, where
106: $\beta_0= 11 - \frac{2}{3}\, n_f$ is the first coefficient of
107: $\beta$-function in QCD \cite{3,4}.
108: The second procedure is based on an appropriate
109: change of renormalization scheme by $\bar\alpha_s=\alpha_s (1+b_1
110: \alpha_s+\ldots)$ to the given order in the coupling constant, which allows
111: one to decrease a role of higher-order corrections or even to minimize it
112: with the modification of $\bar \beta(\bar\alpha_s)$-function resulting
113: in a different running of $\bar\alpha_s$ \cite{5}. The disadvantage of above
114: methods is twofold. First, the next-order correction while computed exactly
115: can essentially differ from the approximation of $\beta_0\alpha_s$-dominance.
116: Second, the redefinition of renormalization scheme leads to the scale or
117: normalization-point dependence of matching procedure.
118:
119: In this paper we present a procedure to improve the truncated series
120: in the framework of renormalization group by introducing an auxiliary
121: scale and taking a single-scale limit. A general formalism is given in
122: Section \ref{sec:2}. The numerical estimates are presented in
123: Section \ref{sec:3}. The analysis of scale dependence for the
124: $\eta_c$-decay rate is performed, since the normalization
125: at the pole mass involves the additional problem caused by the residual
126: change of $m_c$ by the variation of normalization point in the
127: $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-mass $\bar m_c(\mu)$ \cite{6}.
128: Our results are summarized in Conclusion.
129:
130:
131: \section{Renormalization group improvement}
132: \label{sec:2}
133:
134: For the sake of clarity, let us start with the consideration of
135: first-order correction.
136: \begin{equation}
137: \label{eq:6}
138: {\cal K}={\cal R}/{\cal R}^{[0]} = 1+c_1 \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}.
139: \end{equation}
140: Introduce an auxiliary scale $\Lambda^\prime = \kappa\,\Lambda$, so that
141: \begin{equation}
142: \label{eq:7}
143: {\cal K}= 1+\frac{c_1}{\ln \kappa}\, \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\,
144: \ln\kappa.
145: \end{equation}
146: Making use of the renormalization group relation to the first order
147: in $\alpha_s$,
148: \begin{equation}
149: \label{eq:8}
150: \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)} = 1+
151: \frac{\beta_0}{2\pi}\,\alpha_s(\Lambda)\ln\kappa,
152: \end{equation}
153: we clearly get
154: \begin{equation}
155: \label{eq:9}
156: {\cal K}(\kappa) = \left[\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)}
157: \right]^{\displaystyle \frac{2 c_1}{\beta_0\ln\kappa}},
158: \end{equation}
159: which gives the ordinary presentation improved by the renormalization group.
160: Note, that one finds the limit
161: \begin{equation}
162: \label{eq:9a}
163: \lim_{\ln\kappa\to 0}\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}\ln\kappa}\,{\cal K}(\kappa)
164: \equiv 0,
165: \end{equation}
166: which will be correct for the further consideration at a fixed order
167: in $\alpha_s$.
168:
169: The single-scale limit of $\ln\kappa\to 0$ can be easily evaluated
170: \begin{equation}
171: \label{eq:10}
172: {\cal K}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}= \exp\left[c_1 \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}
173: \right],
174: \end{equation}
175: which is our result for the case of first-order correction.
176:
177: In order to proceed with the higher-order corrections, let me perform
178: the derivation in another way. So, the $\beta$-function has the form
179: \begin{equation}
180: \label{eq:11}
181: \beta({\mathfrak a}) = \frac{{\rm d}\ln {\mathfrak a}(\mu)}
182: {{\rm d}\ln \mu^2} = -\beta_0\,{\mathfrak a}-\beta_1\,{\mathfrak a}^2-
183: \beta_2\,{\mathfrak a}^3
184: \end{equation}
185: with ${\mathfrak a}=\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}$.
186: To the first order it gives
187: \begin{equation}
188: \label{eq:12}
189: \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)} \approx
190: \exp\left[\frac{\beta_0}{2\pi}\,\alpha_s(\Lambda)\ln\kappa\right],
191: \end{equation}
192: at $\ln\kappa\to 0$. Then,
193: \begin{equation}
194: \label{eq:13}
195: \left[\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)}
196: \right]^{\displaystyle \frac{2 c_1}{\beta_0\ln\kappa}}\approx
197: \exp\left[c_1 \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi} \right],
198: \end{equation}
199: and expanding in $\alpha_s$, we rederive the renormalization group
200: improvement (RGI) for the first-order correction.
201:
202: Further, we can easily find the RGI for the third order
203: in $\alpha_s$ (N$^3$LO). Indeed, since
204: \begin{equation}
205: \label{eq:14}
206: \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)} \approx
207: \exp\left[(\beta_0+\beta_1\,{\mathfrak a}+
208: \beta_2\,{\mathfrak a}^2)\ln\kappa^2\right],
209: \end{equation}
210: we get
211: \begin{equation}
212: \label{eq:15}
213: \left[\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)}
214: \right]^{\displaystyle \frac{c_1+4\bar c_2\,{\mathfrak a}+16
215: \bar c_3\,{\mathfrak a}^2}{\beta_0+\beta_1\,{\mathfrak a}+
216: \beta_2\,{\mathfrak a}^2}\frac{4}{\ln\kappa^2}} =
217: \exp\left[c_1 \frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}+\bar c_2
218: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)+\bar c_3
219: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right) \right],
220: \end{equation}
221: where we put
222: \begin{equation}
223: \label{eq:16}
224: \bar c_2 = c_1-\frac{1}{2}\, c_1^2,\qquad
225: \bar c_3 = c_3 -\frac{1}{6}\,c_1^3- c_1\,\bar c_2^2.
226: \end{equation}
227: Expanding in $\alpha_s$ at $\ln\kappa\to 0$, we find
228: $$
229: {\cal K}(\kappa) = \left[\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\alpha_s(\kappa\Lambda)}
230: \right]^{\displaystyle \frac{c_1+4\bar c_2\,{\mathfrak a}+16
231: \bar c_3\,{\mathfrak a}^2}{\beta_0+\beta_1\,{\mathfrak a}+
232: \beta_2\,{\mathfrak a}^2}\frac{4}{\ln\kappa^2}}\approx
233: 1 + c_1\,\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}+
234: c_2\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)^2+
235: c_3\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)^3.
236: $$
237: Thus, the third-order improved expression has the form
238: \begin{equation}
239: \label{eq:17}
240: {\cal K}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}= \exp\left[ c_1\,\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}+
241: \bar c_2\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)^2+
242: \bar c_3\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(\Lambda)}{\pi}\right)^3\right]
243: \end{equation}
244: We stress the renormalization group motivation used in contrast
245: to {\em ad hoc} method of Pad\'e approximants.
246:
247: Let us show how the improvement works in a simple example. So, we consider a rather oscillating sum,
248: $$
249: {\cal E} = 1 -0.5+0.3 =0.8,
250: $$
251: which reveals a `slow' convergency, since
252: $$
253: {\cal E}^{[0]}=1,\quad
254: {\cal E}^{[1]}=0.5,\quad
255: {\cal E}^{[1]}=0.8,
256: $$
257: while
258: $$
259: {\cal E}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}= \exp[1-0.5+(0.3-0.5^3)]
260: $$
261: results in
262: $$
263: {\cal E}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}_{[0]} = 1,\quad
264: {\cal E}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}_{[1]} = 0.61,\quad
265: {\cal E}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}_{[2]} = 0.72,
266: $$
267: which is `more stable'.
268:
269: Thus, we expect that ${\cal K}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}}$ possesses a more numerical
270: stability in the truncated series. Of course, if a series is essentially
271: asymptotic, the improvement cannot cancel a `bad' convergency.
272:
273: Next, we have to mention the numerical problem often appearing with
274: the $\alpha_s$-corrections to the amplitudes and the amplitudes squared if
275: those corrections are significantly large. Indeed, the correction
276: to the amplitude
277: $$
278: {\cal A}={\cal A}^{[0]}(1+c_1\alpha_s)
279: $$
280: should lead to
281: $$
282: {\cal A}^2 =\left({\cal A}^{[0]}\right)^2(1+2\,c_1\alpha_s),
283: $$
284: so that the ratio
285: $$
286: (1+2\,c_1\alpha_s)/(1+\,c_1\alpha_s)^2
287: $$
288: numerically deviates from unit. The RGI has no such the problem,
289: since the exponent does not involve the above mismatching.
290:
291: Finally, we stress that the RGI does not present some kind of resummation
292: of higher orders. In the resummation technique one certainly suggests
293: a form of higher-order terms. In contrast, we give the exact expression
294: produced by the renormalization group. At small $\alpha_s$ as dictated
295: by the perturbative paradigm, the expression can be expanded till the
296: appropriate order. Thus, one could claim that the RGI procedure looks like
297: overflying the accuracy. To my opinion, one should use the RGI point
298: as a central value of the calculated quantity, while the expansion truncated
299: to the given order would indicate a systematic error of numerical estimate.
300:
301:
302: \section{Numerical estimates}
303: \label{sec:3}
304:
305:
306: \subsection{Hadronic fraction of $\tau$-lepton width}
307: \label{sec:3.1}
308:
309: The RGI formula for the $\tau$-lepton decays into hadrons reads off
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: && {\cal R}_{\tau}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}} =
312: {\cal R}_{\tau}^{[0]} \left\{\exp\left[
313: c_1^{\tau}\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_{\tau})}{\pi}+
314: \bar c_2^{\tau}\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_{\tau})}{\pi}\right)^2+
315: \bar c_3^{\tau}\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s(m_{\tau})}{\pi}\right)^3\right]
316: +\Delta r_{\mbox{\small NP}}\right\},
317: \label{eq:17a}
318: \end{eqnarray}
319: where
320: \begin{equation}
321: \label{eq:18}
322: \bar c_2^{\tau}=4.7,\quad
323: \bar c_3^{\tau}=22.53.
324: \end{equation}
325: Implementing
326: $$
327: {\cal R}_{\tau}^{\rm exp} = 3.635\pm 0.014,
328: $$
329: we find
330: \begin{equation}
331: \label{eq:20}
332: \alpha_s(m_{\tau}) = 0.333\pm 0.009,
333: \end{equation}
334: which results in
335: \begin{equation}
336: \label{eq:21}
337: \alpha_s(m_{\rm Z}) = 0.119\pm 0.001,
338: \end{equation}
339: where we include the experimental uncertainty, only. For the sake
340: of comparison, the PDG value extracted by the same measurement
341: of $\tau$ rate reads off $\alpha_s(m_{\tau}) = 0.353\pm 0.007(\mbox{exp})
342: \pm 0.030(\mbox{th}),$ which respectively gives $\alpha_s(m_{\rm Z}) =
343: 0.121\pm 0.003$. We point out that the theoretical uncertainty
344: in PDG is slightly overestimated, to our opinion, since the
345: displacement of central value extracted in two ways equals
346: $\Delta\alpha_s =0.02$.
347:
348: Thus, the preferable value of coupling constant following from
349: the $\tau$-lepton hadronic width is given by
350: \begin{equation}
351: \label{eq:22}
352: \alpha_s(m_{\rm Z}) = 0.119\pm 0.002
353: \end{equation}
354: with the central point closer to the `world average'.
355:
356: \subsection{Hadronic width of $\boldsymbol \eta_c$-charmonium}
357: \label{sec:3.2}
358:
359: The problem with the estimate of hadronic width of $\eta_c$-charmonium
360: is twofold. First, the scale setting in the $\alpha_s$-correction is
361: beyond the accuracy, since its variation contributes to $\alpha_s^2$.
362: So, we should put the arbitrary scale by
363: \begin{equation}
364: {\cal R}_{\eta_c} =
365: {\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{[0]} \left(
366: 1 + d_1\,\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{\pi}\right).
367: \label{eq:4a}
368: \end{equation}
369: The second point is the prescription for the pole mass of charmed quark.
370: In the perturbative QCD, the pole mass is strictly defined.
371: The relation between the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-running mass $\bar m_c(\mu)$
372: and the pole mass is known to the $\alpha_s^3$-order \cite{7}.
373: Explicitly, to the $\alpha_s^2$-terms \cite{8} we put
374: \begin{equation}
375: m^{\rm pole} = \bar m(\mu) \left(1+ c_1(\mu) \frac{\alpha_s^{\overline{\Rsub
376: MS}}(\mu^2)}{4 \pi} +c_2(\mu) \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{\overline{\Rsub
377: MS}}(\mu^2)}{4 \pi}\right)^2\right),
378: \label{pole}
379: \end{equation}
380: with
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: c_1(\mu) &=& C_F (4+3 {L}),\\
383: c_2(\mu) &=& C_F C_A \left(\frac{1111}{24}- 8 \zeta(2)- 4 I_3(1)+\frac{185}{6}
384: L+\frac{11}{2}L^2\right)\nonumber\\
385: &&- C_F T_F n_f \left(\frac{71}{6}+ 8 \zeta(2) + \frac{26}{3} L + 2 L^2
386: \right)\\
387: && + C_F^2 \left(\frac{121}{8}+30 \zeta(2)+8 I_3(1)+\frac{27}{2} L +
388: \frac{9}{2}L^2\right) - 12 C_F T_F (1-2 \zeta(2)),\nonumber
389: \end{eqnarray}
390: where $I_3(1) = \frac{3}{2}\zeta(3)- 6 \zeta(2)\ln 2$, and $L=2\ln(\mu/m^{\rm
391: pole})$.
392: Th evalue of pole mass is the renormalization invariant. However,
393: at reasonable scales $\mu$, the residual dependence due to the truncation
394: of perturbative series is numerically significant. The reason of such
395: the dependence is a growth of coefficients in series as caused
396: by the renormalon. In fact, the pole mass becomes a scale-dependent quantity.
397: To avoid this problem, the operative procedure is to fix a short-distance
398: mass $m_{\sc qcd}$ free off the renormalon and to perform the calculations
399: with the series expressed in terms of $m_{\sc qcd}$. We exploit two schemes,
400: which lead to results close enough to each other.
401:
402: The first scheme is given by the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$-running
403: mass $\bar m(\mu)$. Taking
404: $$
405: \bar m_c(\bar m_c) = 1.4\;\mbox{GeV},
406: $$
407: we calculate the pole mass shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}. We have checked
408: that the implication of RGI procedure to the relation between
409: the pole and running masses is consistent with the above result, and
410: the effect of RGI can be absorbed into the decrease
411: of $\bar m_c(\bar m_c)$-value by about $50$ MeV, which below
412: the systematic accuracy of matching procedure as discussed below.
413: \begin{figure}[ht]
414: \begin{center}
415: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
416: \begin{picture}(100,70)
417: \put(3,3){\epsfxsize=100\unitlength \epsfbox{33.eps}}
418: \put(90,0){$\mu$, GeV}
419: \put(0,67){$m_c$, GeV}
420: \end{picture}
421:
422: \caption{The pole mass of charmed quark calculated in two schemes
423: versus the normalization scale. The dashed line gives the
424: result of matching in the potential approach, the solid line
425: does by the perturbative relation between the pole and running
426: masses shifted with $-\Delta m$ in (\ref{eq:23})
427: at $\alpha_s(m_{\sc z})=0.118$, the short-dashed
428: line is the same as
429: the solid one but at $\alpha_s(m_{\sc z})=0.121$. }
430: \label{fig:1}
431: \end{center}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: The second is the potential scheme described in ref \cite{KKO}. In this case,
435: we calculate the scale-dependent matching of perturbative 2-loop scatic
436: potential $V_{{\rm pert}}(r,\mu)$ involving the 3-loop running $\alpha_s$
437: with the phenomenological QCD-motivated static potential $V(r)$ containing both
438: the 2-loop short-distance coulomb-like contribution as well as
439: the long-distance linear confining term preserving the infrared stability.
440: Then, the potential and, hence, the $V$-masses are free off the renormalon.
441: The heavy quark masses are fixed by the measured spin-average mass-spectra of
442: heavy quarkonia. So,
443: \begin{equation}
444: m_c^{\Rsub V} = 1.468\;{\rm GeV,}\quad
445: m_b^{\Rsub V} = 4.873\;{\rm GeV.}
446: \label{mcmb}
447: \end{equation}
448: The matching of scale-dependent perturbative potential $\delta V(\mu)=
449: V(r)-V_{{\rm pert}}(r,\mu)$ is extracted numerically as described
450: in ref \cite{KKO}.
451: Thus, the cancellation of renormalon in the sum of $2 m^{\rm pole}+
452: V_{{\rm pert}}(r,\mu)$ gives
453: \begin{equation}
454: \label{eq:23}
455: m_c^{\rm pole}(\mu) = m_c^{\Rsub V}+\frac{1}{2}\delta V(\mu)-\Delta m,
456: \end{equation}
457: up to a constant shift $\Delta m$ independent of the scale. The matching with
458: the perturbative pole mass in (\ref{pole}) gives $\Delta m = -155\pm 15$ MeV,
459: depending on the variation of coupling constant $\alpha_s(m_{\sc z})$
460: in the limits of $0.118-0.123$. The value of $\Delta m$ indicates the accuracy
461: of matching procedure. The result is presented in Fig.\ref{fig:1},
462: which reveals a good agreement of two schemes used.
463:
464: \begin{figure}[th]
465: \begin{center}
466: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
467: \begin{picture}(100,70)
468: \put(3,3){\epsfxsize=100\unitlength \epsfbox{22.eps}}
469: \put(90,0){$\mu$, GeV}
470: \put(0,67){${\cal R}_{\eta_c}$}
471: \end{picture}
472: \caption{The fraction of hadronic width for the $\eta_c$-charmonium
473: calculated with the fixed value of pole mass for the charmed quark
474: $m_c=1.64$ GeV (the short-dashed curve) and with the scale-dependent
475: pole mass in the schemes of fixed running mass (the solid curve) and of
476: potential approach (the dashed curve).}
477: \label{fig:2}
478: \end{center}
479: \end{figure}
480:
481: Then, the perturbative formula (\ref{eq:4a}) with (\ref{eq:23}) results
482: in the ${\cal R}_{\eta_c}$ shown in Fig. \ref{fig:2}, wherefrom we get
483: \begin{equation}
484: \label{eq:24}
485: {\cal R}_{\eta_c} = 2.6\cdot 10^3
486: \end{equation}
487: at $\mu = 3.9$ GeV with
488: $$
489: \alpha_s(2 m_c) = 0.242,\quad
490: \alpha_s(\mu) = 0.240,\quad
491: m_c = 1.64\;{\rm GeV}.
492: $$
493: The estimate in (\ref{eq:24}) is slightly greater than the value
494: ${\cal R}_{\eta_c} = 2.1\cdot 10^3$ given by Bodwin and Chen \cite{4}.
495: We stress the scale-stability of our result.
496:
497: Further, at the same scale we find
498: \begin{equation}
499: \label{eq:25}
500: {\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{\mbox{\sc rgi}} = 3.7\cdot 10^3.
501: \end{equation}
502: Then, comparing (\ref{eq:25}) with (\ref{eq:24}) we obtain the final estimate
503: including the theoretical uncertainty due to possible contributions
504: of higher orders and, hence, the induced scale-dependence
505: by the variation of central values as
506: \begin{equation}
507: \label{eq:26}
508: {\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{\rm th} = (3.7\pm 1.1)\cdot 10^3,
509: \end{equation}
510: which is in agreement with the experimental value
511: $$
512: {\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{\rm exp} = (3.3\pm 1.3)\cdot 10^3,
513: $$
514: to be compared with ${\cal R}_{\eta_c}^{\sc nna} =
515: (3.01\pm 0.030\pm 0.034)\cdot 10^3$ obtained in \cite{4} under
516: the resummation of $(\beta_0\alpha_s)^n$-terms. We point out that
517: the improvement of the experimental accuracy combined with the
518: calculation of $\alpha_s^2$-correction would give a good opportunity
519: to extract the mass of charmed quark. In this respect, we refer to ref.
520: \cite{mc}, where the $\alpha_s^2$-corrections were taken into account in
521: the ratio of widths for the decays of $J/\psi \to e^+ e^-$ and
522: $\eta_c \to \gamma \gamma$, so that the analysis suffers from the
523: uncertainties related with the relativistic corrections entering the ratio
524: for the different initial states. The advantage of ${\cal R}_{\eta_c}$ is the
525: cancellation of such the initial state corrections.
526:
527:
528: \section{Conclusion}
529: \label{sec:4}
530:
531: We have developed a general scheme to improve the estimate of
532: truncated perturbative series in QCD by the tool of renormalization group
533: for the single-scale quantities. The method allows one to get more
534: realistic central values of the quantities as well as to estimate
535: the theoretical uncertainty of results by comparison of RGI values with
536: the perturbatively expanded ones.
537: The RGI receipt for the calculation of quantity (\ref{eq:1}), (\ref{eq:6})
538: is given by (\ref{eq:16}) and (\ref{eq:17}).
539:
540: We have applied the approach to the fractions of hadronic widths for the
541: $\tau$-lepton and $\eta_c$-charmonium, which allows us to get
542: realistic estimates of $$\alpha_s(m_{\tau})\quad \mbox{and}\quad
543: {\cal R}_{\eta_c} =
544: {\Gamma[\eta_c\to \mbox{hadrons}]}/{\Gamma[\eta_c\to \gamma\gamma]}$$
545: in a reasonable agreement with the appropriately measured values.
546:
547: The author thanks prof.G.Bodwin for an exciting presentation of his results on
548: the resummation technique for the hadronic fraction of $\eta_c$ width
549: as he gave at the Heavy Quarkonium Workshop held in CERN, Nov. 8-11, 2002.
550: A special gratitude goes to the organizing Committee of the Workshop,
551: and personally to Antonio Vairo and Nora Brambilla for the invitation
552: and a kind hospitality. I also thank prof.R.Dzhelyadin for the possibility
553: to visit CERN in collaboration with the LHCB group, to which members
554: I express my gratitude for a hospitatily. I thank prof.A.K.Likhoded, who
555: asked me for the meaning of resummation technique, which initiated this work.
556:
557: This work is in part supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research,
558: grant 01-02-99315.
559:
560:
561: \begin{thebibliography}{**}
562: \bibitem{1}
563: S.~Narison and A.~Pich,
564: %``QCD Formulation Of The Tau Decay And Determination Of Lambda (Ms),''
565: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 211}, 183 (1988);\\
566: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B211,183;%%
567: E.~Braaten, S.~Narison and A.~Pich,
568: %``QCD analysis of the tau hadronic width,''
569: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373}, 581 (1992);\\
570: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B373,581;%%
571: A.~L.~Kataev and V.~V.~Starshenko,
572: %``Estimates of the higher order QCD corrections to R(s),
573: %R(tau) and deep inelastic scattering sum rules,''
574: Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 10}, 235 (1995)
575: [arXiv:hep-ph/9502348].
576: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9502348;%%
577: \bibitem{PDG}
578: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
579: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
580: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
581: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
582: \bibitem{2}
583: R.~Barbieri, E.~d'Emilio, G.~Curci and E.~Remiddi,
584: %``Strong Radiative Corrections To Annihilations Of Quarkonia In QCD,''
585: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 154}, 535 (1979);\\
586: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B154,535;%%
587: K.~Hagiwara, C.~B.~Kim and T.~Yoshino,
588: %``Hadronic Decay Rate Of Ground State Paraquarkonia
589: %In Quantum Chromodynamics,''
590: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 177}, 461 (1981).
591: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B177,461;%%
592: \bibitem{3}
593: M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,
594: %``Naive nonAbelianization and resummation of fermion bubble chains,''
595: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 348}, 513 (1995)
596: [arXiv:hep-ph/9411229],
597: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411229;%%
598: %``Heavy quark effective theory beyond perturbation theory:
599: %Renormalons, the pole mass and the residual mass term,''
600: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 426}, 301 (1994)
601: [arXiv:hep-ph/9402364].
602: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402364;%%
603: \bibitem{4}
604: G.~T.~Bodwin and Y.~Q.~Chen,
605: %``Resummation of QCD corrections to the eta/c decay rate,''
606: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 114008 (2001)
607: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106095].
608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106095;%%
609: \bibitem{5}
610: J.~G.~Korner, F.~Krajewski and A.~A.~Pivovarov,
611: %``Strong coupling constant from tau decay
612: %within renormalization scheme invariant treatment,''
613: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 036001 (2001)
614: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002166].
615: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002166;%%
616: \bibitem{6}
617: M.~Beneke,
618: %``Renormalons,''
619: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 317}, 1 (1999)
620: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807443].
621: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807443;%%
622: \bibitem{7}
623: K.~Melnikov and T.~v.~Ritbergen,
624: %``The three-loop relation between the MS-bar and the pole quark masses,''
625: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482}, 99 (2000)
626: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912391];\\
627: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912391;%%
628: K.~G.~Chetyrkin and M.~Steinhauser,
629: %``The relation between the MS-bar and the on-shell quark mass
630: %at order alpha(s)**3,''
631: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573}, 617 (2000)
632: [arXiv:hep-ph/9911434].
633: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911434;%%
634: \bibitem{8}
635: N.~Gray, D.~J.~Broadhurst, W.~Grafe and K.~Schilcher,
636: %``Three Loop Relation Of Quark (Modified) Ms And Pole Masses,''
637: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 48}, 673 (1990);\\
638: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C48,673;%%
639: D.~J.~Broadhurst, N.~Gray and K.~Schilcher,
640: %``Gauge invariant on-shell Z(2) in QED, QCD and
641: %the effective field theory of a static quark,''
642: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 52}, 111 (1991).
643: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C52,111;%%
644: \bibitem{KKO}
645: V.~V.~Kiselev, A.~E.~Kovalsky and A.~I.~Onishchenko,
646: %``Heavy quark potential as it stands in QCD,''
647: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 054009 (2001)
648: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005020];\\
649: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005020;%%
650: V.~V.~Kiselev, A.~K.~Likhoded, O.~N.~Pakhomova and V.~A.~Saleev,
651: %``Leptonic constants of heavy quarkonia
652: %in potential approach of NRQCD,''
653: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 034013 (2002)
654: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105190].
655: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105190;%%
656: \bibitem{mc}
657: A.~Czarnecki and K.~Melnikov,
658: %``Charmonium decays: J/psi $\to$ e+ e- and eta/c $\to$ gamma gamma,''
659: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519}, 212 (2001)
660: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109054].
661: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109054;%%
662: \end{thebibliography}
663: \end{document}
664: