1: %\documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
3: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4:
5: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities
6: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}
7: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}
8: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B
9:
10: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
11: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
12: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
13:
14: %\nofiles
15:
16: \newcommand{\Li}{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}}\nolimits}
17: \newcommand{\Si}{\mathop{\mathrm{S}}\nolimits}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \preprint{DESY~06-074\hspace{11.5cm} ISSN 0418-9833}
22: \preprint{July 2006\hspace{14.9cm}}
23:
24: \boldmath
25: \title{Strong-Coupling Constant with Flavor Thresholds at Five Loops in the
26: $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ Scheme}
27: \unboldmath
28:
29: \author{B.A.~Kniehl}
30: \author{A.V.~Kotikov}
31: \altaffiliation[Also at ]{Bogolyubov Laboratory for Theoretical Physics, JINR,
32: 141980 Dubna (Moscow region), Russia.}
33: \author{A.I.~Onishchenko}
34: \altaffiliation[Also at ]{Theoretical Physics Department, Petersburg Nuclear
35: Physics Institute, Orlova Roscha, 188300 Gatchina, Russia.}
36: \author{O.L.~Veretin}
37: \altaffiliation[Also at ]{Petrozavodsk State University, 185910 Petrozavodsk,
38: Karelia, Russia.}
39: \affiliation{{II.} Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
40: 22761 Hamburg, Germany}
41:
42: %\date{\today}
43: \date{June 5, 2006}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: We present in analytic form the matching conditions for the strong-coupling
47: constant $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ at the flavor thresholds to four loops in
48: the modified minimal-subtraction scheme.
49: Taking into account the present knowledge on the coefficient $\beta_4$ of the
50: Callan-Symanzik beta function of quantum chromo-dynamics, we thus derive a
51: five-loop formula for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ together with appropriate
52: relationships between the asymptotic scale parameters $\Lambda^{(n_f)}$ for
53: different numbers of flavors $n_f$.
54: \end{abstract}
55:
56: \pacs{11.10.Hi, 11.15.Me, 12.38.-t, 12.38.Bx}
57: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}
58: \maketitle
59:
60: The strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)=g_s^2/(4\pi)$, where $g_s$
61: is the gauge coupling of quantum chromo-dynamics (QCD), is a fundamental
62: parameter of the standard model of elementary particle physics;
63: its value $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is listed among the constants of nature
64: in the Review of Particle Physics \cite{pdg}.
65: Here, $\mu$ is the renormalization scale, and $n_f$ is the number of active
66: quark flavors $q$, with mass $m_q\ll\mu$.
67: The $\mu$ dependence of $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ is controlled by the
68: Callan-Symanzik beta function of QCD,
69: \begin{eqnarray}
70: \label{rge}
71: \mu^2\frac{d}{d\mu^2}\,\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}{\pi}
72: &=&\beta^{(n_f)}\left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}{\pi}\right)
73: \nonumber\\
74: &=&{}-\sum_{N=0}^\infty\beta_N^{(n_f)}
75: \left(\frac{\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)}{\pi}\right)^{N+2}.
76: \end{eqnarray}
77: The calculation of the one-loop coefficient $\beta_0^{(n_f)}$ about 33 years
78: ago \cite{gro} has led to the discovery of asymptotic freedom and to the
79: establishment of QCD as the theory of strong interactions, an achievement that
80: was awarded by the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.
81: In the class of schemes where the beta function is mass independent, which
82: includes the minimal-subtraction (MS) schemes of dimensional regularization
83: \cite{bol}, $\beta_0^{(n_f)}$ and $\beta_1^{(n_f)}$ \cite{jon} are universal.
84: The results for $\beta_2^{(n_f)}$ \cite{tar} and $\beta_3^{(n_f)}$ \cite{rit}
85: are available in the modified MS ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme \cite{bar}.
86: As for $\beta_4^{(n_f)}$, the term proportional to $n_f^4$,
87: \begin{equation}
88: \beta_4^{(n_f)}=\left[\frac{1205}{2985984}-\frac{19}{10368}\zeta(3)\right]
89: n_f^4+O\left(n_f^3\right),
90: \end{equation}
91: where $\zeta$ is Riemann's zeta function, was found in the large-$n_f$
92: expansion \cite{Gracey:1996up}, while the residual terms, of
93: $O(n_f^3)$ and below, are presently unknown.
94: However, the latter were estimated by an educated guess, through weighted
95: asymptotic Pad\'e approximant predictions (WAPAP's), which are improved by
96: including asymptotic corrections with respect to the usual Pad\'e approximants
97: and performing a weighted average over negative values of $n_f$
98: \cite{Ellis:1997sb}.
99: In the case of $\beta_3^{(n_f)}$, leaving aside the quartic Casimir terms,
100: which appear there for the first time, the WAPAP's approximate the exact
101: coefficients of $n_f^n$ with $n=0,1,2$ amazingly well, at the one-percent
102: level.
103: One may thus expect that the WAPAP's for $\beta_4^{(n_f)}$ work similarly
104: well, except for the quartic Casimir terms, which cannot be predicted quite
105: as reliably.
106: For the reader's convenience, $\beta_N^{(n_f)}$ $(N=0,\ldots,4)$ are listed
107: for the $n_f$ values of practical interest in Table~\ref{tab:beta}.
108: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
109: \begin{table}
110: \caption{\label{tab:beta}$\overline{\rm MS}$ values of $\beta_N^{(n_f)}$ for
111: variable $n_f$.
112: $\beta_4^{(n_f)}$ is estimated by WAPAP's with quartic Casimir terms omitted
113: \cite{Ellis:1997sb}.}
114: \begin{ruledtabular}
115: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
116: $n_f$ & $\beta_0^{(n_f)}$ & $\beta_1^{(n_f)}$ & $\beta_2^{(n_f)}$ &
117: $\beta_3^{(n_f)}$ & $\beta_4^{(n_f)}$\\
118: \hline
119: $3$
120: & $\frac{9}{4}$
121: & $4$
122: & $\frac{3863}{384}$
123: & $\frac{445}{32}\zeta(3)+\frac{140599}{4608}$
124: & 162
125: \\
126: $4$
127: & $\frac{25}{12}$
128: & $\frac{77}{24}$
129: & $\frac{21943}{3456}$
130: & $\frac{78535}{5184}\zeta(3)+\frac{4918247}{373248}$
131: & 119
132: \\
133: $5$
134: & $\frac{23}{12}$
135: & $\frac{29}{12}$
136: & $\frac{9769}{3456}$
137: & $\frac{11027}{648}\zeta(3)-\frac{598391}{373248}$
138: & 107
139: \\
140: $6$
141: & $\frac{7}{4}$
142: & $\frac{13}{8}$
143: & $-\frac{65}{128}$
144: & $\frac{11237}{576}\zeta(3)-\frac{63559}{4608}$
145: & 124
146: \\
147: \end{tabular}
148: \end{ruledtabular}
149: \end{table}
150: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
151:
152: In MS-like renormalization schemes, the Appelquist-Carazzone decoupling
153: theorem \cite{app} does not in general apply to quantities that do not
154: represent physical observables, such as beta functions or coupling constants,
155: {\it i.e.}, quarks with mass $m_q\gg\mu$ do not automatically decouple.
156: The standard procedure to circumvent this problem is to render decoupling
157: explicit by using the language of effective field theory.
158: As an idealized situation, consider QCD with $n_l=n_f-1$ massless quark
159: flavors and one heavy flavor $h$, with mass $m_h\gg\mu$.
160: Then, one constructs an effective $n_l$-flavor theory by requiring
161: consistency with the full $n_f$-flavor theory at the heavy-quark threshold
162: $\bar\mu={\cal O}(m_h)$.
163: This leads to a nontrivial matching condition between the couplings of the two
164: theories.
165: Although, $\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(m_h)=\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(m_h)$ at leading and
166: next-to-leading orders, this relationship does not generally hold at higher
167: orders in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme, {\it i.e.},
168: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ starts to exhibit finite discontinuities at the flavor
169: thresholds.
170: If the $\mu$ evolution of $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ is to be performed at $N+1$
171: loops, {\it i.e.}, with the highest coefficient in Eq.~(\ref{rge}) being
172: $\beta_N^{(n_f)}$, then consistency requires that the matching conditions be
173: implemented in terms of $N$-loop formulae.
174: Then, the residual $\mu$ dependence of physical observables will be of order
175: $N+2$.
176: The QCD matching conditions at the flavor thresholds to two \cite{ber} and
177: three \cite{Chetyrkin:1997sg} loops are known in analytical form; they are
178: routinely used in the literature and even copied to the Review of Particle
179: Physics \cite{pdg}.
180: %\cite{Caso:1998tx}.
181: Recently, the four-loop result was found, in semi-analytical form
182: \cite{Schroder:2005hy}.
183: In fact, the most intricate four-loop tadpole master integrals involving one
184: non-vanishing mass among the basic set that enters any such calculation could
185: so far only be computed numerically, with limited precision
186: \cite{Schroder:2005hy,Schroder:2005va,Chetyrkin:2006xg}.
187: It is the purpose of this Letter, to overcome this bottle-neck by presenting
188: the four-loop matching condition for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ entirely in terms
189: of elementary transcendental numbers.
190: This requires the analytic evaluation of the massive four-loop tadpole diagram
191: that is called $X_0$ or $T_{91}$ in the recent literature
192: \cite{Schroder:2005hy}.
193: Together with the results of Ref.~\cite{Kniehl:2005yc}, we thus enhance the
194: knowledge of the basic set of massive four-loop tadpole master integrals in
195: analytic form.
196:
197: Prior to explaining the core of this analysis and presenting our analytic
198: result for the four-loop matching condition for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$, we
199: derive the five-loop formula for this coupling for fixed value of $n_f$.
200: In order to simplify the notation, we introduce the couplant
201: $a^{(n_f)}(\mu)=\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)/\pi$ and omit the labels $\mu$ and $n_f$
202: wherever confusion is impossible.
203: Integrating Eq.~(\ref{rge}) leads to
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: \label{con}
206: \lefteqn{\ln\frac{\mu^2}{\Lambda^2}=\int\frac{da}{\beta(a)}
207: =\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left[\frac{1}{a}+b_1\ln a
208: +a\left(-b_1^2+b_2\right)
209: \right.}
210: \nonumber\\
211: &&{}+a^2\left(\frac{b_1^3}{2}-b_1b_2+\frac{b_3}{2}\right)
212: +a^3\left(-\frac{b_1^4}{3}+b_1^2 b_2-\frac{b_2^2}{3}
213: \right.\nonumber\\
214: &&{}-\left.\left.
215: \frac{2}{3}b_1b_3+\frac{b_4}{3}
216: \right)+O(a^4)\right]+C,
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: where $b_N=\beta_N/\beta_0$ ($N=1,\ldots,4$), $\Lambda$ is the so-called
219: asymptotic scale parameter, and $C$ is an arbitrary constant.
220: The second equality in Eq.~(\ref{con}) is obtained by expanding the integrand.
221: The conventional $\overline{\rm MS}$ definition of $\Lambda$, which we adopt,
222: corresponds to choosing $C=(b_1/\beta_0)\ln\beta_0$ \cite{bar,fur}.
223: Iteratively solving Eq.~(\ref{con}) yields,
224: with $L=\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)$,
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: \label{alp}
227: \lefteqn{a=\frac{1}{\beta_0L}-\frac{b_1\ln L}{(\beta_0L)^2}
228: +\frac{1}{(\beta_0L)^3}\left[b_1^2(\ln^2L-\ln L-1)+b_2\right]}
229: \nonumber\\
230: &&{}+\frac{1}{(\beta_0L)^4}\left[
231: b_1^3\left(-\ln^3L+\frac{5}{2}\ln^2L+2\ln L-\frac{1}{2}\right)
232: \right.
233: \nonumber\\
234: &&{}-\left.
235: 3b_1b_2\ln L+\frac{b_3}{2}\right]
236: +\frac{1}{(\beta_0L)^5}\left[b_1^4\left(\ln^4L-\frac{13}{3}\ln^3L
237: \right.\right.
238: \nonumber\\
239: &&-\left.
240: \frac{3}{2}\ln^2L+4\ln L+\frac{7}{6}\right)
241: +3b_1^2b_2(2\ln^2L-\ln L-1)
242: \nonumber\\
243: &&{}-b_1b_3\left(2\ln L+\frac{1}{6}\right)
244: +\left.\frac{5}{3}b_2^2+\frac{b_4}{3}\right]
245: +O\left(\frac{1}{L^6}\right).
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: The particular choice of $C$ \cite{bar,fur} in Eq.~(\ref{con}) is predicated
248: on the grounds that it suppresses the appearance of a term proportional to
249: $({\rm const.}/L^2)$ in Eq.~(\ref{alp}).
250:
251: \begin{figure}
252: \begin{center}
253: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{dias.eps}
254: \caption{\label{fig:dia}Four-loop tadpole diagrams (a) $X_0$ and (b) $J_0$.
255: Dashed and solid lines represent massless and massive propagators; a dot on
256: a line duplicates that propagator.}
257: \end{center}
258: \end{figure}
259: We now turn to the analytic evaluation of the four-loop matching condition for
260: $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ at the flavor thresholds.
261: The underlying formalism was comprehensively explained in
262: Refs.~\cite{ber,Chetyrkin:1997sg}, and most of the technical issues related to
263: its application at four loops were already discussed in
264: Ref.~\cite{Schroder:2005hy}.
265: For lack of space, we thus concentrate here on the missing link of this
266: analysis beyond the scope of Ref.~\cite{Schroder:2005hy}, namely the analytic
267: evaluation of the massive four-loop tadpole diagram $X_0$, which is depicted
268: in Fig.~\ref{fig:dia}(a).
269: This task may be simplified by noticing that $X_0$ does not represent a master
270: integral, but may be reduced to simpler integrals with less lines, all of
271: which are analytically known \cite{Schroder:2005va}, some for a short time
272: only \cite{Kniehl:2005yc}, except for the one ($J_0$) shown in
273: Fig.~\ref{fig:dia}(b).
274: The integral $J_0$ is finite, and the coefficients of its expansion in
275: $\epsilon$, where $D=4-2\epsilon$ is the dimensionality of space-time, have
276: only one level of trancendentality \cite{Fleischer:1998nb}, {\it i.e.}, they
277: contain poly-logarithms $\Li_k$ and zeta functions $\zeta(k)$ with the same
278: value of $k$.
279: These properties reduce the number of terms and thus simplify the calculation.
280: In order to evaluate $J_0$, we temporarily introduce an artificial mass
281: splitting among the four massive lines in Fig.~\ref{fig:dia}(b), by assigning
282: the mass $m$ to any two of them and the mass $M$ to the other two.
283: We then perform an expansion in the ratio $x=m^2/M^2$ using the large-mass
284: expansion technique and recover the complete series in $x$ as explained in
285: Ref.~\cite{Fleischer:1998nb}.
286: Through $O(\epsilon^2)$, we have
287: \begin{eqnarray}
288: \lefteqn{(1-\epsilon)(m^2M^2)^{2\epsilon}m^2J_{0}
289: =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}x^n\left\{-\frac{8}{(2n-1)^3}
290: \right.}
291: \nonumber\\
292: &&{}+16\epsilon\left[
293: -\frac{\zeta(3)-\tilde{S}_3}{2n-1}+\frac{2 \tilde{S}_2}{(2n-1)^2}
294: +\frac{4 \tilde{S}_1}{(2n-1)^3}\right]
295: \nonumber\\
296: &&{}+16\epsilon^2\left[
297: \frac{9\zeta(4)+8\zeta(3)\tilde{S}_1-4\tilde{S}_2^2-8\tilde{S}_1\tilde{S}_3
298: -3\tilde{S}_4}{2n-1}
299: \right.
300: \nonumber\\
301: &&{}+\frac{4\zeta(3)-16\tilde{S}_1 \tilde{S}_2- 4 \tilde{S}_3}{(2n-1)^2}
302: -\frac{\zeta(2)+16\tilde{S}_1^2+4\tilde{S}_2}{(2n-1)^3}
303: \nonumber\\
304: &&{}-\left.\left.
305: \frac{2}{(2n-1)^5}\right]+O(\epsilon^3)\right\},
306: \label{J1b}
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: where we introduced the short-hand notation
309: $\tilde{S}_a =2^{a-2} S_a(2n-1) - S_a(n-1)$, with
310: $S_a(n)=\sum_{j=1}^n j^{-a}$ being harmonic sums, and omitted irrelevant terms
311: involving $\ln x$.
312: We then put $x=1$ and exploit the identities
313: \begin{eqnarray}
314: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
315: \frac{ \tilde{S}_a}{(2n-1)^c} &=& -\frac{2^a}{8}
316: \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
317: \frac{1-(-1)^l}{l^c}[S_a(l)+2S_{-a}(l)],
318: \nonumber\\
319: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}
320: \frac{ \tilde{S}_a \tilde{S}_b}{(2n-1)^c} &=& \frac{2^{a+b}}{32}
321: \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
322: \frac{1-(-1)^l}{l^c}[S_a(l)+2S_{-a}(l)]
323: \nonumber\\
324: &&{}\times[S_b(l)+2S_{-b}(l)],
325: \end{eqnarray}
326: %where $l=2n-1$,
327: at trancendentality levels $k=a+c$ and $k=a+b+c$,
328: respectively.
329: The sums with $k<5$ may be found in Ref.~\cite{Fleischer:1998nb}, while those
330: with $k=5$ may be obtained from there through integration,
331: \begin{equation}
332: \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
333: \frac{f(l) x^l}{l^{c+1}} = \int^x_0 \frac{dy}{y}
334: \sum_{l=1}^{\infty}
335: \frac{f(l) y^l}{l^c},
336: \end{equation}
337: where $f(l)=S_{\pm a}(l),\ldots$.
338: After some algebra, we find an analytic expression for $J_0$ and hence also
339: for $X_0$,
340: \begin{equation}
341: X_0=-318\zeta(4)\ln 2+\frac{873}{2}\zeta(5)-48 b_5+ O(\epsilon).
342: \end{equation}
343: Here and in the following, we use the constants
344: \begin{eqnarray}
345: a_4&=&\left(-2\zeta(2)+\frac{\ln^2 2}{3}\right)\ln^2 2
346: +8\Li_4\left(\frac{1}{2}\right),
347: \nonumber\\
348: a_5 &=&\frac{1}{3}\left(2\zeta(2)-\frac{\ln^2 2}{5}\right)\ln^3 2
349: +8\Li_5\left(\frac{1}{2}\right).
350: \end{eqnarray}
351:
352: If we measure the matching scale $\bar\mu$ in units of the
353: $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass $m_h\left(\bar\mu\right)$, our result for the
354: ratio of $a^\prime=a^{(n_l)}\left(\bar\mu\right)$ to
355: $a=a^{(n_f)}\left(\bar\mu\right)$ reads
356: %\begin{widetext}
357: \begin{eqnarray}
358: \label{msb}
359: \lefteqn{\frac{a^\prime}{a}=
360: 1
361: -a\frac{\ell}{6}
362: +a^2\left(\frac{\ell^2}{36}-\frac{11}{24}\ell+c_2\right)
363: +a^3\left[-\frac{\ell^3}{216}
364: \right.}
365: \nonumber\\
366: &&{}+\left.\ell^2\left(\frac{53}{576}-\frac{n_l}{36}\right)
367: +\ell\left(-\frac{955}{576}+\frac{67}{576}n_l\right)
368: +c_3\right]
369: \nonumber\\
370: &&{}+a^4
371: \left\{\frac{\ell^4}{1296}
372: +\ell^3\left(-\frac{1883}{10368}-\frac{127}{5184}n_l+\frac{n_l^2}{324}\right)
373: \right.
374: \nonumber\\
375: &&{}
376: +\ell^2\left(\frac{2177}{3456}-\frac{1483}{10368}n_l-\frac{77}{20736}n_l^2
377: \right)
378: +\ell\left[\frac{7391699}{746496}
379: \right.
380: \nonumber\\
381: &&{}-\frac{2529743}{165888}\zeta(3)
382: +n_l\left(-\frac{110341}{373248}+\frac{110779}{82944}\zeta(3)\right)
383: \nonumber\\
384: &&{}+\left.\left.
385: \frac{6865}{186624}n_l^2\right]
386: +c_4
387: \right\}
388: +O(a^5),
389: \end{eqnarray}
390: %\end{widetext}
391: where $\ell=\ln\left[\bar\mu^2/m_h^2\left(\bar\mu\right)\right]$
392: and
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: \label{cms}
395: &&c_2=\frac{11}{72},\qquad
396: c_3=\frac{564731}{124416}-\frac{82043}{27648}\zeta(3)
397: -\frac{2633}{31104}n_l,
398: \nonumber\\
399: &&c_4=\frac{291716893}{6123600}
400: -\frac{2362581983}{87091200}\zeta(3)
401: -\frac{76940219}{2177280}\zeta(4)
402: \nonumber\\
403: &&{}+\frac{9318467}{362880}\zeta(4)\ln2
404: -\frac{12057583}{483840}\zeta(5)
405: +\frac{3031309}{435456}a_4
406: \nonumber\\
407: &&{}+\frac{340853}{90720}a_5
408: +n_l\left(
409: -\frac{4770941}{2239488}
410: +\frac{3645913}{995328}\zeta(3)
411: \right.
412: \nonumber\\
413: &&{}-\left.\frac{541549}{165888}\zeta(4)
414: +\frac{115}{576}\zeta(5)
415: +\frac{685}{41472}a_4\right)
416: \nonumber\\
417: &&{}+n_l^2\left(-\frac{271883}{4478976}
418: +\frac{167}{5184}\zeta(3)\right).
419: \end{eqnarray}
420: The counterpart of Eq.~(\ref{msb}) in the on-shell scheme of mass
421: renormalization may be obtained by substituting the three-loop relationship
422: between $m_h(\mu)$ and the pole mass $M_h$ \cite{Melnikov:2000qh}.
423:
424: \begin{figure}
425: \begin{center}
426: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fig2.eps}
427: \caption{\label{fig:asmz}$\bar\mu$ dependence of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ from
428: $N$-loop evolution and $(N-1)$-loop matching, with $N=1$ (dotted), 2
429: (short-dashed), 3 (dot-dashed), 4 (long-dashed), and 5 (solid).}
430: \end{center}
431: \end{figure}
432: Going to higher orders, one expects, on general grounds, that the relationship
433: between $\alpha_s^{(n_l)}(\mu^\prime)$ and $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$, where
434: $\mu^\prime\ll\bar\mu\ll\mu$, becomes insensitive to the choice of
435: $\bar\mu$ as long as $\bar\mu={\cal O}(m_h)$.
436: This has been checked in Ref.~\cite{Chetyrkin:1997sg} for four-loop evolution
437: in connection with three-loop matching.
438: Armed with our new results, we are in a position to explore the situation at
439: the next order.
440: As an example, we consider the crossing of the bottom-quark threshold.
441: In particular, we wish to study how the $\bar\mu$ dependence of the
442: relationship between $\alpha_s^{(4)}(M_\tau)$ and $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ is
443: reduced as we implement five-loop evolution with four-loop matching.
444: Our procedure is as follows.
445: We first calculate $\alpha_s^{(4)}(\bar\mu)$ with Eq.~(\ref{alp}) by
446: imposing the condition $\alpha_s^{(4)}(M_\tau)=0.34$ \cite{pdg}, then obtain
447: $\alpha_s^{(5)}(\bar\mu)$ from the on-shell version of Eq.~(\ref{msb})
448: with $M_b=4.85$~GeV \cite{pdg}, and finally compute $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ with
449: Eq.~(\ref{alp}).
450: For consistency, $N$-loop evolution must be accompanied by $(N-1)$-loop
451: matching, {\it i.e.}, if we omit terms of ${\cal O}(1/L^{N+1})$ in
452: Eq.~(\ref{alp}), we need to discard those of ${\cal O}(a^N)$ in
453: Eq.~(\ref{msb}) at the same time.
454: In Fig.~\ref{fig:asmz}, the variation of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$ with
455: $\bar\mu/M_b$ is displayed for the various levels of accuracy, ranging
456: from one-loop to five-loop evolution.
457: For illustration, $\bar\mu$ is varied rather extremely, by almost two
458: orders of magnitude.
459: While the leading-order result exhibits a strong logarithmic behavior, the
460: analysis is gradually getting more stable as we go to higher orders.
461: The five-loop curve is almost flat.
462: Besides the $\bar\mu$ dependence of $\alpha_s^{(5)}(M_Z)$, also its
463: absolute normalization is significantly affected by the higher orders.
464: At the central scale $\bar\mu=M_b$, we encounter an alternating convergence
465: behavior.
466:
467: As we have learned from Fig.~\ref{fig:asmz}, in higher orders, the actual
468: value of $\bar\mu$ does not matter as long as it is comparable to the
469: heavy-quark mass.
470: In the context of Eq.~(\ref{msb}), the choice $\bar\mu=\mu_h$, where
471: $\mu_h=m_h(\mu_h)$ is the renormalization-group (RG) invariant
472: $\overline{\rm MS}$ mass, is particularly convenient, since it eliminates the
473: RG logarithm $\ell$.
474: With this convention, we obtain from Eqs.~(\ref{con}), (\ref{alp}), and
475: (\ref{msb}) a simple relationship between $\Lambda^\prime=\Lambda^{(n_l)}$ and
476: $\Lambda=\Lambda^{(n_f)}$, viz
477: \begin{eqnarray}
478: \label{lam}
479: \lefteqn{\beta_0^\prime\ln\frac{\Lambda^{\prime2}}{\Lambda^2}=
480: \left(\beta_0^\prime-\beta_0\right)l+\left(b_1^\prime-b_1\right)\ln l
481: -b_1^\prime\ln\frac{\beta_0^\prime}{\beta_0}}
482: \\
483: &&{}+\frac{1}{\beta_0l}\left[b_1\left(b_1^\prime-b_1\right)\ln l
484: +b_1^{\prime2}-b_1^2-b_2^\prime+b_2+c_2\right]
485: \nonumber\\
486: &&{}+\frac{1}{(\beta_0l)^2}\left[
487: \frac{b_1^3}{2}(\ln^2l-1)
488: -b_1^\prime b_1^2\left(\frac{1}{2}\ln^2l-\ln l-1\right)
489: \right.
490: \nonumber\\
491: &&{}-b_1\left(b_1^{\prime2}-b_2^\prime+b_2+c_2\right)\ln l
492: -\frac{b_1^{\prime3}}{2}
493: +b_1^\prime\left(b_2^\prime-b_2-c_2\right)
494: \nonumber\\
495: &&{}-\left.\frac{1}{2}\left(b_3^\prime-b_3\right)+c_3\right]
496: +\frac{1}{(\beta_0l)^3}
497: \left\{-b_1^4\left(\frac{1}{3}\ln^3l-\frac{1}{2}\ln^2l
498: \right.\right.
499: \nonumber\\
500: &&{}-\left.\ln l-\frac{1}{6}\right)
501: +b_1^\prime b_1^3\left(\frac{1}{3}\ln^3l-\frac{3}{2}\ln^2l-\ln l
502: +\frac{1}{2}\right)
503: +b_1^2
504: \nonumber\\
505: &&{}\times\left(b_1^{\prime2}-b_2^\prime+b_2+c_2\right)(\ln^2l-\ln l-1)
506: +b_1\left[b_1^{\prime3}-2b_1^\prime
507: \right.
508: \nonumber\\
509: &&{}\times\left.\left(b_2^\prime-b_2-c_2\right)
510: +b_3^\prime-b_3-2c_3\right]\ln l
511: +\frac{b_1^{\prime4}}{3}
512: -b_1^{\prime2}\left(b_2^\prime
513: \right.
514: \nonumber\\
515: &&{}-\left.b_2-c_2\right)
516: +\left(b_2^\prime-b_2\right)
517: \left(\frac{b_2^\prime}{3}-\frac{2}{3}b_2-c_2\right)
518: -c_2^2
519: +b_1^\prime\left(\frac{2}{3}\right.
520: \nonumber\\
521: &&{}\times\left.
522: \left.b_3^\prime-\frac{b_3}{2}-c_3\!\right)\!
523: -\frac{b_1b_3}{6}
524: -\frac{1}{3}\left(b_4^\prime-b_4\right)
525: +c_4\!\right\}\!+O\!\left(\!\frac{1}{l^4}\!\right)\!,
526: \nonumber
527: \end{eqnarray}
528: where $l=\ln(\mu_h^2/\Lambda^2)$.
529: The ${\cal O}(1/l^3)$ term of Eq.~(\ref{lam}) is new.
530: Equation~(\ref{lam}) represents a closed four-loop formula for
531: $\Lambda^{(n_l)}$ in terms of $\Lambda^{(n_f)}$ and $\mu_h$.
532: For consistency, it should be used in connection with the five-loop
533: expression~(\ref{alp}) for $\alpha_s^{(n_f)}(\mu)$ with the understanding that
534: the underlying flavor thresholds are fixed at $\bar\mu=\mu_h$.
535: The inverse relation that gives $\Lambda^{(n_f)}$ as a function of
536: $\Lambda^{(n_l)}$ and $\mu_h$ emerges from Eq.~(\ref{lam}) via the
537: substitutions $\Lambda\leftrightarrow\Lambda^\prime$;
538: $\beta_N\leftrightarrow\beta_N^\prime$ for $N=0,\ldots,4$; and $c_N\to-c_N$
539: for $N=2,3,4$.
540:
541: In conclusion, we have extended the standard description of the
542: strong-coupling constant in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization scheme to
543: include five-loop evolution and four-loop matching at the flavor thresholds.
544: These results will be indispensable in order to relate the QCD predictions for
545: different observables at next-to-next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order.
546:
547: \begin{acknowledgments}
548: We thank J.A.M.~Vermaseren for a useful communication regarding
549: Ref.~\cite{Ellis:1997sb}.
550: A.V.K. was supported in part by the RFBR Foundation through Grant No.\
551: 05-02-17645-a and by the Heisenberg-Landau-Programm.
552: This work was supported in part by BMBF Grant No.\ 05 HT4GUA/4 and HGF Grant
553: No.\ NG-VH-008.
554: \end{acknowledgments}
555:
556: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
557:
558: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, S.~Eidelman {\it et al.},
559: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592}, 1 (2004); URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov/.
560: %and 2005 partial update for the 2006
561: %edition available on the PDG WWW pages (URL: http://pdg.lbl.gov/).
562:
563: \bibitem{gro} D.J.~Gross and F.~Wilczek,
564: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf30}, 1343 (1973);
565: H.D.~Politzer, {\it ibid.}\ {\bf30}, 1346 (1973).
566:
567: \bibitem{bol} C.G.~Bollini and J.J.~Giambiagi,
568: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf40B}, 566 (1972);
569: G. 't~Hooft and M.~Veltman, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B44}, 189 (1972);
570: G. 't~Hooft, {\it ibid.}\ {\bf B61}, 455 (1973).
571:
572: \bibitem{jon} D.R.T.~Jones, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B75}, 531 (1974);
573: W.E.~Caswell, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf33}, 244 (1974);
574: \'E.Sh.\ Egoryan and O.V.~Tarasov, Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf41}, 26 (1979)
575: [Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf41}, 863 (1979)].
576:
577: \bibitem{tar} O.V.~Tarasov, A.A.~Vladimirov, and A.Yu.\ Zharkov,
578: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf93B}, 429 (1980);
579: S.A.~Larin and J.A.M.~Vermaseren, {\it ibid.}\ B {\bf303}, 334 (1993).
580:
581: \bibitem{rit} T.~van Ritbergen, J.A.M.~Vermaseren, and S.A.~Larin,
582: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf400}, 379 (1997).
583:
584: \bibitem{bar} W.A.~Bardeen, A.J.~Buras, D.W.~Duke, and T.~Muta,
585: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf18}, 3998 (1978).
586:
587: \bibitem{Gracey:1996up}
588: J.A.~Gracey,
589: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf373}, 178 (1996).
590:
591: \bibitem{Ellis:1997sb}
592: J.~Ellis, I.~Jack, D.R.T.~Jones, M.~Karliner, and M.A.~Samuel,
593: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf57}, 2665 (1998).
594:
595: \bibitem{app} T.~Appelquist and J.~Carazzone,
596: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf11}, 2856 (1975).
597:
598: \bibitem{ber}
599: W.~Bernreuther and W.~Wetzel,
600: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B197}, 228 (1982); {\bf B513}, 758(E) (1998);
601: S.A.~Larin, T.~van Ritbergen, and J.A.M.~Vermaseren,
602: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf B438}, 278 (1995).
603:
604: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1997sg}
605: K.G.~Chetyrkin, B.A.~Kniehl, and M.~Steinhauser,
606: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 2184 (1997);
607: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B510}, 61 (1998).
608:
609: \bibitem{Schroder:2005hy}
610: Y.~Schr\"oder and M.~Steinhauser,
611: JHEP {\bf 0601}, 051 (2006);
612: K.G.~Chetyrkin, J.H.~K\"uhn, and C.~Sturm,
613: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B744}, 121 (2006).
614:
615: \bibitem{Schroder:2005va}
616: Y.~Schroder and A.~Vuorinen,
617: JHEP {\bf 0506}, 051 (2005);
618: K.G.~Chetyrkin, M.~Faisst, C.~Sturm, and M.~Tentyukov,
619: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B742}, 208 (2006).
620:
621: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:2006xg}
622: K.G.~Chetyrkin, J.H.~K\"uhn, C.~Sturm,
623: Report No.\ SFB/CPP-06-21, TTP06-15, hep-ph/0604234;
624: R.~Boughezal, M.~Czakon, T.~Schutzmeier,
625: Report No.\ hep-ph/0605023;
626: R.~Boughezal and M.~Czakon,
627: Report No.\ hep-ph/0606232.
628:
629: \bibitem{Kniehl:2005yc}
630: B.A.~Kniehl and A.V.~Kotikov,
631: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf638}, 531 (2006);
632: Report No.\ DESY 06-073.
633:
634: \bibitem{fur} W.~Furmanski and R.~Petronzio,
635: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf11}, 293 (1982).
636:
637: \bibitem{Fleischer:1998nb}
638: J.~Fleischer, A.V.~Kotikov, and O.L.~Veretin,
639: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B547}, 343 (1999).
640:
641: \bibitem{Melnikov:2000qh}
642: K.~Melnikov and T.~van Ritbergen,
643: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482}, 99 (2000).
644:
645: \end{thebibliography}
646:
647: \end{document}
648: