1: \documentclass[twoside,12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{amssymb}

4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

7: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

8: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

9: \newcommand{\lb}{\label}

10: %\usepackage[english]{babel}

11: %\usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

12: %\newcommand\be{\begin{equation}}

13: %\newcommand\ee{\end{equation}}

14: %\newcommand\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

15: %\newcommand\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

16: %\newcommand\nn{\nonumber}

17: %\topmargin-2.8cm \oddsidemargin-1cm \evensidemargin-1cm

18: %\textwidth18.5cm \textheight25.0cm

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: \pagestyle{myheadings}

22: \markright{\LaTeX\ guidelines for Elsevier Major Reference Works}

23: 

24: \parindent 0mm

25: \parskip 6pt

26: 

27: % Start with the article header information

28: % Include all author details, including postal and e-mail addresses

29: 

30: \title{On the running coupling constant in QCD}

31: 

32: \author{G. M. Prosperi, M. Raciti and C. Simolo\\

33: Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Milano\\

34: Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Milano\\

35: Via Celoria 16, I20133 Milano (Italy)}

36: 

37: \date{15 April 2006}

38: 

39: \maketitle

40: 

41: \begin{abstract}

42: We try to review the main current ideas and points of view on the

43: running coupling constant in QCD. We begin by recalling briefly the

44: classic analysis based on the Renormalization Group Equations with

45: some emphasis

46: on the exact solutions  for a given number of loops,

47: in comparison with the usual approximate expressions. We

48: give particular attention to the problem of eliminating the

49: unphysical Landau singularities, and of defining a coupling that remains

50: significant at the infrared scales. We consider various proposal of

51: couplings directly related to the quark-antiquark potential 

52: or to other physical quantities (effective charges) and discuss optimization

53: in the choice of the scale parameter and of the renormalization scheme. 

54: Our main focus is, however,

55: on dispersive methods, their application, their relation with non-perturbative

56: effects. We try also to summarize the main results obtained by Lattice

57: simulations in particular in various MOM schemes. We conclude briefly recalling the

58: traditional comparison with the experimental data.

59: \end{abstract}

60: \tableofcontents

61: %11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

62: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

63: \section{Introduction}

64: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

65: The renormalization procedure in field theory consists in a redefinition

66: of the unrenormalized constants that appear in the Lagrangian, in such a

67: way that the observable quantities can be kept finite when the

68: ultraviolet cut off $\Lambda_{\rm UV}$ is removed. In the framework of

69: any given renormalization scheme (RS), dimensional reasons require the 

70: introduction of a new quantity $\mu$ with the dimension of a mass. 

71: Note that observables must be independent of the particular RS and 

72: of $\mu$ by definition. Intermediate quantities, like renormalized 

73: coupling constants, masses and field normalization factors depend on RS

74: and on $\mu$ by construction and a change in RS amounts to a

75: redefinition of such quantities. Obviously, approximate expressions 

76: of the observables depend in general on $\mu$ and RS.\\

77: In QED the masses of the charged particles have a direct physical

78: meaning, so there exists a natural scale referring to which 

79: $\mu$ can be fixed. In QCD, due to confinement, such a natural scale

80: does not exist and RS and $\mu$ have to be chosen with other

81: criteria, those of simplicity and of convergence.\\

82: In QCD we have a single coupling constant $g_{\rm s}$, or the usually

83: more convenient $\alpha_{\rm s}= {g_{\rm s}^2\over 4\pi}$, and various 

84: quark masses $m_f$ with $f=u,\,d,\,\dots, \,t$. We refer to their 

85: dependence on $\mu$ in the framework of a given RS ($\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2),~

86: m_f(\mu^2),~\dots$)  as to the running coupling constant, to the 

87: running masses and so on. $\overline{\rm MS}$ is the simplest and most 

88: commonly used scheme but, being essentially perturbative, alternative

89: definitions of $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ may be more appropriate in 

90: many cases.\\

91: Even in QED perturbative expansion is believed to be only 

92: asymptotic. As known this means that the approximation

93: to the considered quantity improves as the number of terms included

94: increases, until a maximum number $N_*$ is reached. After this the

95: single terms become progressively larger and the series loses any

96: meaning. In QED $\alpha \sim 1/137$ and $N_*\sim1 /\alpha \sim 137$,

97: so in practice no problem arises from this lack of convergence. However 

98: in QCD $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is nearly two orders of magnitude larger 

99: and $N_*$ is of order 1. An appropriate choice of $\mu$

100: and possibly of RS becomes therefore essential.\\

101: The $\mu$ dependence of the renormalized quantities is controlled by the

102: renormalization group (RG) equations.  

103: Let us concentrate on coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ which is 

104: related to the unrenormalized constant, $ \alpha_s^{\rm ur}$, 

105: by the usual equation 

106: %

107: \be

108: \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)\,\, Z_\alpha \left(\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2),\,{\mu^2 \over

109:     \Lambda^2_{\rm UV}} \right )\,=\,\alpha_s^{\rm ur}\,

110: \lb{intr1}

111: \ee 

112: %

113: where $\Lambda^2_{\rm UV}$ is the cut-off parameter. 

114: The corresponding differential equation

115: %

116: \be

117: \mu^2{d\alpha_{\rm s} \over d\mu^2}=\beta (\alpha_{\rm s})\,,

118: \lb{intr2}

119: \ee

120: %

121: can be obtained differentiating eq.(\ref{intr1}).

122: $\,\beta (\alpha_{\rm s})$ remains obviously finite as $\Lambda_{\rm UV} \to \infty$

123: and in perturbation theory takes the form

124: %

125: \be

126: \beta(\alpha_{\rm s})=-\alpha_{\rm s}^2(\beta_0 + \beta_1 \alpha_{\rm

127:   s} + \beta_2  \alpha_{\rm s}^2 + \dots )\,.

128: \lb{intr3}

129: \ee

130: %

131: As is known, the various terms in $\beta_0,~ \beta_1,~ \beta_2,~ 

132: \dots$ correspond to one loop, two loops, three loops \dots

133: contributions; $\beta_0$ and $ \beta_1$ are universal in the mass 

134: independent schemes.\\ 

135: Note that, for a general RS, $Z_\alpha$, $ \beta(\alpha_{\rm s})$,

136: $\beta_0,~\beta_1,~\dots$ depend also on quark masses through the

137: variables $m_f^2/\mu^2$, not explicitly

138: indicated. However, according to the decoupling theorem, all quarks with

139: masses much larger than the energy scale of interest (in

140: particular $m_f \gg \mu$) can be ignored. On the contrary, if $m_f \ll

141: \mu$, we can often neglect $m_f$. Then, the discussion can be greatly

142: simplified if for every $\mu$ we divide the quarks in active 

143: quarks with $m_f=0$ and inactive ones,

144: which we simply ignore. Within this framework $\beta_0,~

145: \beta_1,~\dots$ depend on $\mu$ only through the number of active 

146: quarks $n_f$, which changes by $\pm1$ any time $\mu$ crosses 

147: a quark threshold $m_f\,$. 

148: Furthermore the first two coefficients, $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$, 

149: are RS independent, while all the others depend on the scheme. 

150: In the one loop approximation (i.e. keeping only the first term in 

151: (\ref{intr3})) eq.(\ref{intr2}) gives

152: %

153: \be

154: \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)={\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2) \over 1+ 

155: \beta_0 \,\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2)\ln(\mu^2/\mu_0^2)}=

156: \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2) \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left (-  

157: \beta_0\, \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2)\ln {\mu^2 \over \mu_0^2}

158: \right)^n \,,

159: \lb{intr4}

160: \ee

161: which explicitly expresses $\alpha_{\rm s}$ at the $\mu$ scale as a

162: function of the same quantity at the $\mu_0$ scale. 

163: Eq. (\ref{intr4}) clearly shows that a change in the value of $\mu$

164: consists in a reorganization of the perturbative expansion of any

165: observable or, what is the same thing, in a resummation of various 

166: contributions. Setting

167: %

168: \be

169: \Lambda^2 = \mu_0^2 \exp \left [-{1 \over \beta_0}

170: {1 \over \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2)} \right ]\,,

171: \lb{intr5}

172: \ee

173: %

174: $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ can be written in terms of the overall scale

175: $\Lambda$, without any reference to a specific $\mu_0$

176: %

177: \be

178: \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)= {1 \over \beta_0 \ln(\mu^2/\Lambda^2)}\,.

179: \lb{intr6}

180: \ee

181: %

182: As concerns the best choice of $\mu^2$ in a specific calculation, let us

183: consider the perturbative expansion of an amplitude or observable

184: $G(q,x)$ of canonical dimension 0. We assume $G$ written in terms of

185: an overall momentum $q$ and

186: a set of dimensionless variables (angles, Bjorken variables and so on) 

187: which we collectively denote by $x$. According to

188: the process we are considering $q$ may be space-like, $q^2<0$ 

189: (a momentum transfer), or time-like, $q^2>0$ (an energy). We shall often

190: set $q^2=\mp Q^2$ ($Q^2$ being as a rule positive) or also $q^2=s$ 

191: in the time-like case.\\

192: Under the above mentioned assumption that the active quark masses

193: can be neglected, we can write

194: %

195: \be

196: G = g_0\left({Q^2 \over \mu^2},x\right) + 

197: g_1\left({Q^2 \over \mu^2},x\right)

198: {\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2) \over \pi} + 

199: g_2\left({Q^2 \over \mu^2},x\right)

200: \left ({\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)\over \pi}\right )^2 

201: + \dots \,.

202: \lb{intr7}

203: \ee

204: %

205: As we mentioned, $G$ must be independent of $\mu^2$, so

206: %

207: \be   

208: \mu^2{d \over d \mu^2} G = \left ( \mu^2{\partial \over \partial

209:   \mu^2} + \beta (\alpha_{\rm s}){\partial \over \partial\alpha_{\rm s}}\right ) G = 0 \,.

210: \lb{intr8}

211: \ee

212: %

213: Then by replacing (\ref{intr7}) and  (\ref{intr3}) in  (\ref{intr8}), 

214: we obtain a

215: system of differential equation in the coefficients of (\ref{intr7}), 

216: whose solution gives (see e.g. sec. 3.3 for details)

217: %

218: \bea

219: && g_0 =\overline g_0(x) \qquad \qquad g_1 =\overline g_1(x) \nn \\

220: && g_2 =\overline g_2(x) - \pi\beta_0\,\overline g_1(x)

221:      \ln{Q^2 \over \mu^2}\lb{intr9} \\

222: && g_3 =\overline g_3(x) - \left(\pi^2\beta_1 \overline g_1(x)

223:     +2\pi\beta_0\overline g_2(x)\right ) \ln{Q^2 \over \mu^2}+

224:      \pi^2\beta_0^2 \overline g_1(x) \ln^2{Q^2 \over \mu^2}

225:    \nn 

226: \eea

227: %

228: Let us assume that $\overline g_0(x), ~\overline g_1(x),~\dots$

229: decrease sufficiently fast in order (\ref{intr7}) to become significant when

230: $Q^2 \sim \mu^2$. This would clearly no longer be true for

231: very different values of $Q^2$. We must obviously modify

232: $\mu^2$ choosing it always on the scale of interest. In particular it

233: may be convenient to chose exactly $\mu^2 = Q^2$ and then

234: (\ref{intr7}) takes the form

235: %

236: \be

237: G(q,x) = \overline g_0(x)+\overline g_1(x) {\alpha_ {\rm s}(Q^2) 

238:  \over \pi} + 

239: \overline g_2(x)

240: \left ({\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)\over \pi}\right )^2 

241: + \dots \,,

242: \lb{intr10}

243: \ee

244: %

245: showing that $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)$ is actually the most convenient

246: expansion parameter for calculating the quantity $G(q,x)$.\\

247: Now let us go back to eq. (\ref{intr4}). We have $\beta_0=

248: {1 \over 4\pi}(11-2n_f/3)$ and, since the 

249: number of presently known  flavors is 6 , this remains positive 

250: at least in the entire range so far accessible. Then, for $\mu \to

251: \infty$ we have $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2) \to 0$ (asymptotic freedom) 

252: and as we can see (see sec. 2) this remains true even if a larger 

253: number of terms is taken into account in (\ref{intr3}).\\

254: Conventionally  the mass of the $Z_0$ boson, $M_Z\sim 91.2$ GeV, 

255: is used as $\mu_0$ reference value. The world average 

256: of all determination is currently  

257: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_Z^2)=0.1189\pm 0.0010$ \cite{bethke,pdg}.\\

258: With diminishing $Q^2$ we may expect expansion (\ref{intr7}) or 

259: (\ref{intr10}) to remain meaningful up to a few GeV if $q$ is 

260: space-like. The situation requires more attention for 

261: time-like $q$, $q^2=s>0$, as discussed in sec. 2.5. Then, in fact, in (\ref{intr9})

262: $\beta_0 \ln {Q^2 \over \mu^2} \to \beta_0 \ln {-s-i0 \over \mu^2} 

263: = \beta_0 (\ln {s \over \mu^2} -i\pi) $ and, even if we take

264: $\mu^2=s$ to control the logarithms, now the coefficients

265:  $\overline g_2,~\overline g_3~ \dots$ are modified for

266: terms  proportional to powers of $\beta_0 \pi$, which become 

267: rather large as the order increases (see sec. 2.5). Then the ``space-like'' coupling  

268: $\alpha_{\rm s}(s)$ remains a good expansion parameter for large $s$,

269: but for some intermediate $s$ may be more appropriate to define a new

270: ``time-like'' coupling  $\tilde \alpha(s)$ in which the terms

271: in  $\beta_0 \pi$ are reabsorbed, so that the coefficients remain small. 

272: This can be easily done starting from eq.(\ref{intr10})

273: rather than (\ref{intr7}) and considering the analytic continuation of the

274: coupling rather than the coefficients. Naturally using the

275: time-like coupling rather than the  space-like one can be

276: interpreted as a change of RS and, as such, the two expressions become

277: identical for large $s$.\\

278: Note furthermore that  $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)\,$, as given by (\ref{intr6}), 

279: has a pole in $\mu^2=\Lambda^2\,$. In the $\overline {\rm MS}$

280: scheme, the expression remains singular even if more loops are taken into 

281: account in (\ref{intr3}), and the singularity structure changes. Such

282: singularities are obviously related to lack of convergence of the series

283: occurring in (\ref{intr4}) but they are clearly

284: non physical.

285: In fact in a generic scheme and in a generic gauge $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)\,$

286: is a kind of intermediate quantity only indirectly related to actual

287: observables and it is often chosen with criteria of formal simplicity. It

288: is just the case for the mentioned $\overline {\rm MS}$ scheme and for the 

289: Landau gauge to which as a rule we shall refer. 

290: On the contrary we know that on general grounds 

291: $G(q,x)$ is analytic in the entire $q^2$ complex plane apart from a cut 

292: on the real positive axis from some threshold to $+\infty$ and in its exact

293: expression the above non physical singularities must cancel. Correspondingly, 

294: eq.(\ref{intr10}) suggests that it is possible to define schemes in which 

295: $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2) $ can be extended again to the entire complex $Q^2$ plane 

296: apart from a cut on the real negative axis. 

297: To solve the problem of the elimination of the above spurious singularities

298: various strategies have been proposed. 

299: We remind here for instance the Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie (BLM) criterion 

300: \cite{Brodsky:1982gc}, which fixes the scale $\mu$ such that the 

301: next-to-leading order (NLO) coefficient of perturbative series is independent 

302: of $n_f\,$, and also the so-called ``Fastest Apparent Convergence'' (FAC) 

303: technique \cite{Grunberg:1980ja}, that amounts to setting the scale $\mu$ so 

304: that the NLO coefficient and all the higher ones are  zero. 

305: The latter is related to the 

306: {\it effective charges} \cite{Grunberg:1980ja}, \cite{dokshitzer2}-\cite{ALEPH}, 

307: which consist in defining new coupling constants $\alpha_{\rm eff}(Q^2)$ 

308: in more strict connection with some physical observable (see sec. 3.2). 

309: Typically let us assume that the 

310: quantity $G$ in (\ref{intr10}) is independent of $x$ (or $x$ has been 

311: fixed on some special value) and set exactly 

312: %

313: \be

314: G(Q^2)= \overline g_0 + \overline g_1 {\alpha_{\rm eff}(Q^2)  \over \pi}

315: \,. 

316: \lb{intr11}

317: \ee

318: %

319: Effective charges are obviously well defined everywhere in principle

320: and easily extracted from the data. They depend on the particular

321: observables chosen and, accordingly, can be either of the time-like or

322: space-like type. However, they can be related to each other by

323: referring back to the $ {\rm \overline {MS}} $ scheme. In fact, comparing 

324: (\ref{intr11}) and (\ref{intr10}), we have

325: %

326: \be

327: {\alpha_{\rm eff}(Q^2)  \over \pi}=

328: {\alpha_{\rm \overline {MS}}(Q^2) \over \pi} + 

329: {\overline g_2 \over \overline g_1} \left (

330: {\alpha_{\rm \overline {MS}}(Q^2)\over \pi}\right )^2 

331: + \dots\,.

332: \lb{int7}

333: \ee

334: %

335: Another device is the Optimized Perturbation Theory (OPT)

336: \cite{stevenson}-\cite{higgs}, which consists in improving the 

337: convergence of the perturbative expansion by choosing the value 

338: of $\mu^2$ and of some of the RS parameters (like $\beta_2,~\beta_3$ 

339: themselves) at every order according to a criterion of minimum 

340: sensitivity. This has been discussed as a matter of example in some 

341: details in sec. 3.3, with reference to the theoretical predictions it

342: yields on the IR behavior of the coupling.\\

343: Finally another method , summarized in sec. 4, consists in requiring ab initio the desired

344: analyticity properties for $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)\,,$ by rewriting

345: this as a dispersion relation and applying the perturbative theory 

346: to the spectral function ${\rm Im}\,[\alpha_{\rm s}(-m^2-i0)]$ rather 

347: than to $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ itself 

348: \cite{Shirkov:1997wi}-\cite{Krasnikov:1995is}. In this way

349: Landau singularities are suppressed at their very roots. In

350: the one loop approximation from eq.(\ref{intr4}) we find

351: %

352: \be

353: {\rm Im}\,[\alpha_{\rm s}(-m^2-i0)]={\pi\beta_0\alpha^2_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2)

354: \over \left [1 + \beta_0   

355: \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2) \ln(m^2/\mu_0^2) \right ]^2

356: +(\pi\beta_0\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2))^2}\,,

357: \lb{int8}

358: \ee

359: %

360: which is finite everywhere on the positive $m^2$ axis and can be

361: considered in some way as a reorganization of the series occurring in the

362: last term in eq.(\ref{intr4}) after evaluation of the imaginary part.\\

363: It must be stressed that all these techniques lead to a finite

364: $\alpha_{\rm s}(0)$ and  are essentially consistent. Furthermore 

365: all of them use as input the coefficients of the power expansion of 

366: $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ itself or of specific observables in terms of  

367: $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu_0^2)$. In this sense we may call them perturbative

368: \footnote{However, at the one loop level, the

369: analytic coupling can be written explicitly in terms of the ordinary

370: coupling in the form (see later)

371: %

372: $\alpha_{\rm an}=\alpha_{\rm s}+{1\over \beta_0}\left( 1-e^{1

373:   \over \beta_0 \alpha_{\rm s}}\right )^{-1}$

374: %

375: that has an essential singularity in $\alpha_{\rm s}=0$ and in this

376: sense can be said non perturbative. On the contrary the relation between 

377: $ \alpha_{\rm an}(\mu^2)$ and $\alpha_{\rm an}(\mu_0^2)$ 

378: is analytic.}.\\

379: However, we believe that there are  intrinsically non perturbative 

380: effects in the theory. These are in part related to the Gribov problem of 

381: the multiple solutions of the gauge fixing equation \cite{Gribov:1977wm}, 

382: and more seriously with the occurence of the singularities in $\alpha_{\rm s}=0$ 

383: which can not be obtained by any manipulation of perturbative expansions. 

384: Confinement and string tension, condensates, topologically non trivial 

385: classical solutions are of this type. In this context, unfortunately, 

386: we can not rely on any rigorous methods in the continuum. We have achieved 

387: some intuitions and very partial results, but we are far from a comprehensive 

388: understanding of the all the matter. Within this framework, what we

389: can do is to parametrize such non perturbative effects in terms of

390: some universal quantities that occur in different types of

391: phenomena. In particular, according to perturbation theory, in high 

392: energy processes observables should vanish logarithmically with 

393: the energy (apart from mass corrections). Non perturbative effects 

394: are expected to appear in terms of powers of the ${A_{\nu} \over 

395: Q^\nu}$ and ${A^\prime_{\nu} \over Q^\nu}\ln Q^2$ form (see sec. 4.5). 

396: Such terms should in principle be

397: detected  at somewhat intermediate energies even if the experimental

398: situation is not sufficiently clear. In this context the coupling is 

399: written as the sum of a perturbative $\alpha_{\rm s}^{\rm PT}(Q^2)$  

400: and a non perturbative part $\alpha_{\rm s}^{\rm NP}(Q^2)$. The latter 

401: is supposed to vanish fast enough out of the infrared region and the 

402: coefficients  $A_{\nu}$, $A^\prime_{\nu} $ can be expressed in terms of 

403: moments of $\alpha^{\rm NP}_{\rm s}(Q^2)$ or of its time-like counterpart

404: $\tilde \alpha_{\rm s}^{\rm NP}(m^2)$ \cite{dokshitzer2}.\\

405: The only really first principle method that we have to handle

406: non perturbative effects is to approximate the continuum with

407: a lattice and then rely on numerical simulations. As applied to the 

408: running coupling this method delivers results in substantial agreement with

409: those obtained in the continuum. The significance of the latter

410: result is however uncertain, due to finite size limitations.\\  

411: In this review the emphasis is put on the IR behavior of the

412: coupling constant and in particular on the analytic methods. 

413: We have tried to give a unified presentation of the matter. To this end we

414: often took the liberty of modifying notations used in the original

415: papers. Due to the extent of the literature on the subject, 

416: and to space limitation, we had to make appropriate choices. 

417: In this sense we do not claim our paper to be exhaustive or complete. 

418: The choice we have made is obviously due to our personal 

419: taste or to the specific point of view we have adopted. 

420: In particular in some cases we have discussed with a greater detail

421: some specific papers as an example of a more general methodology. In

422: such a context we apologize in advance for giving less attention 

423: to some papers than to others, even very significant.

424: As a rule, we have kept to a general theoretical level and

425: referred to application only occasionally. Apart from a brief

426: summary of significant results in the concluding remarks, no

427: attempt was made to discuss the actual methods by which the coupling is

428: extracted from experiments at the various energies. For this we

429: refer interested people to specific reviews on the subject such as 

430: \cite{bethke} and \cite{pdg}.\\

431: The plan of the paper is as follows. 

432: In sec. 2 we have summarized the main results of the usual perturbation

433: theory as reference. For details and bibliography on this subject we 

434: refer to standard books and reviews (see e.g. 

435: \cite{monograph,Shirkov:1999hj,Collins,Yndurain}). 

436: We have tried to

437: emphasize the importance of exact solutions to renormalization group

438: equations with a given number of loops in comparison with the usual iterative

439: solutions appropriate for high energies. This was due to our 

440: interest in the IR region \footnote{In this connection it should be

441: recalled that the expansion in numbers of loops is an expansion in

442: the Planck constant $\hbar$ and is conceptually different, even if related,

443: to a power coupling expansion.}. Some attention has also been  given to the

444: need to define a specific time-like coupling. 

445: In sec. 3 we have considered some purely phenomenological modifications

446: of the coupling constant expression, suggested essentially by the

447: quark-antiquark potential theory. We have also discussed some significant 

448: examples of physical couplings, a classic application of the optimized 

449: perturbation theory.

450: Sec. 4 is entirely devoted to the dispersive approach, analytic

451: coupling constant and relation between space-like and time-like 

452: expressions, 

453: the parametrization of non-perturbative effects and the so 

454: called Analytic Perturbation Theory.

455: In sec. 5 we have tried to summarize the present state of the

456: studies on the running coupling on the lattice. 

457: In sec. 6 we outline our conclusive remarks 

458: and also discuss briefly some information 

459: on the coupling under 1 GeV that can be obtained

460: from relativistic studies of the light

461: quark-antiquark spectrum and from a parametrization of other non-perturbative contributions.

462: %22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

463: %\vspace{-0.5truecm}

464: \section{Perturbation Theory}

465: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

466: \subsection{QCD $\beta$ function}

467: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

468: As we mentioned, eq. (\ref{intr2}) is derived applying the

469: operator $\mu^2(d/d\mu^2)$ to eq. (\ref{intr1}). Thus one 

470: needs to compute the renormalization factor for the coupling 

471: $Z_\alpha$ and this can be accomplished in several ways. One 

472: can start from the quark-gluon vertex $Z_{\bar q qg}$ 

473: together with renormalization factors of quark and gluon 

474: propagators $Z_{q}$ and $Z_{g}$ to obtain 

475: $Z_{\alpha}=Z_{\bar q qg}^{2}Z_{q}^{-2}Z_{g}^{-1}$, but other 

476: choices, as ghost-ghost-gluon vertex or trilinear and quartic 

477: gluon interactions, equally work. If dimensional regularization 

478: is used the limit $\Lambda_{\rm UV} \to \infty $ can be anticipate 

479: as long as the space dimension $D=4-\varepsilon$ is kept 

480: different from 4. Taking into account the physical dimension of the

481: fields in $D$-dimensional space the coupling constant acquires a not

482: vanishing physical dimension, thus it is usual the parametrization 

483: $\alpha_{\rm s}^{\rm ur}=\mu^{\varepsilon}\alpha_{\rm s}Z_{\alpha}\,$,

484: where in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ renormalization scheme 

485: %

486: \be

487: Z_{\alpha}=1+\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}

488: \varepsilon^{-n}Z^{(n)}_{\alpha}(\alpha_{\rm{s}})

489: \ee

490: %

491: and then

492: \be

493: \beta(\alpha_{\rm{s}})=\frac{1}{2}\alpha_{\rm{s}}^2 \frac{d}{d\alpha_{\rm{s}}}

494: Z_{\alpha}^{(1)}(\alpha_{\rm{s}})\,.

495: \lb{beta2}

496: \ee

497: %

498: From this equation and the explicit perturbative form of 

499: $Z_{\alpha}^{(1)}$ we have \cite{vanRitbergen:1997va}

500: %

501: \bea

502: &&\beta_{0}={1 \over 4\pi} \left[11-\frac{2}{3}n_{f}\right]\nonumber\\

503: &&\beta_{1}={1 \over (4\pi)^2} \left[102-\frac{38}{3}n_{f}\right]\nonumber\\

504: &&\beta_{2}={1 \over (4\pi)^3} \left[\frac{2857}{2}

505:    -\frac{5033}{18}n_{f}+\frac{325}{54}n_{f}^2\right]\nonumber\\

506: &&\beta_{3}={1 \over (4\pi)^4} \left[\Big(\frac{149753}{6}+

507:    3564\zeta_{3}\Big)-\Big(\frac{1078361}{162}+

508:   \frac{6508}{27}\zeta_{3}\Big)n_{f}\right . \nonumber\\

509: &&\qquad+\left . \Big(\frac{50065}{162}+\frac{6472}{81}\zeta_{3}\Big)n_{f}^2

510:   +\frac{1093}{729}n_f^3\right]

511: \lb{beta-coeffs}

512: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

513: \eea

514: where $\zeta_\nu$ is the Riemann zeta-function, $\zeta_3\simeq1.202057$. 

515: The coefficients $\beta_{j}$ generally depend on the RS employed,

516: but the first two are universal among the massless schemes.

517: Moreover, in the $\rm{MS}$-scheme the $\beta$-function is 

518: gauge-independent at any order \cite{Caswell:1974cj}, and in an

519: arbitrary mass-dependent scheme this feature is preserved only 

520: at the first order.\\ 

521: As well known, the universal one-loop coefficient \cite{Gross:1973id} 

522: has a positive sign provided there is a small enough number of quark 

523: fields $(n_f\le33/2)$, thus the theory is asymptotically free, that 

524: is the $\beta$-function has a stable UV fixed point as its argument 

525: approaches zero; indeed this coefficient is the sum of two 

526: contributions, the relevant one with respect to asymptotic freedom 

527: property being the first, which arises from pure gauge field  

528: effects i.e. from the nonlinear Yang-Mills interaction terms. The 

529: two-loop coefficient has been computed for the first time in 

530: \cite{Caswell:1974gg} and is positive up to $n_f=8\,$.\\ 

531: Higher order approximations are scheme-sensitive, and it is common 

532: practice to perform computation within MS or $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ 

533: procedures which have the same the $\beta$-function. The first 

534: calculation of three-loop coefficient is due to \cite{Tarasov:1980au}, 

535: where the ghost-ghost-gluon combination in the Feynman gauge was used. 

536: In a more recent work \cite{Larin:1993tp} the quark-gluon vertex 

537: was instead employed, providing an independent check in an arbitrary 

538: covariant gauge of the previous result and its gauge-independence. 

539: Finally, the original four-loop calculation \cite{vanRitbergen:1997va}

540: has been performed using the ghost-ghost-gluon vertex in a arbitrary

541: covariant gauge, and for a generic semi-simple compact Lie symmetry 

542: group. The result turns out to be gauge-independent as expected 

543: within MS procedure, and involves higher order group invariants 

544: such as quartic Casimir operators; specialized to the standard 

545: SU(3) symmetry, the four-loop coefficient is a positive number 

546: for every positive $n_f$ (see also \cite{Czakon:2004bu} ). 

547: Finally note that all four coefficients 

548: are positive up to $n_f=6$ except for $\beta_2$ which is negative

549: for $6\le n_f\le40\,$. 

550: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

551: \subsection{Running coupling}

552: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

553: Evolution of QCD running coupling can be gained integrating the

554: differential equation (\ref{intr2}), that can be rewritten as

555: \be

556: \ln {\mu^2 \over \mu_0^2 }= \int_{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(\mu_0^2)}^{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(\mu^2)}

557: {d \alpha \over \beta(\alpha)}

558: \lb{RGScoupl}

559: \ee

560: The exact one-loop solution (\ref{intr4}) or (\ref{intr6}) is 

561: obtained by straightforward integration retaining only the first 

562: term in (\ref{intr3}). We report for reference the second form 

563: %

564: \be

565: \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)= {1 \over \beta_0 \ln\left(\mu^2/\Lambda^2\right)}\,.

566: \lb{1loopEC2}

567: \ee

568: As yet noted the dimensional scale $\Lambda$ keeps track of the 

569: initial parametrization $(\mu_0,\alpha_{\rm{s}}(\mu_0^2))$, and it 

570: is scale-invariant; its value is not predicted by the theory 

571: but must be extracted from a measurement of $\alpha_{\rm{s}}$ at a 

572: given reference scale. 

573: Emergence of a scale parameter, sometimes referred to as dimensional 

574: transmutation, breaks naive scale invariance of the massless theory, 

575: and it is commonly believed to be associated with the typical hadron 

576: size i.e. to the energy range where confinement effects set in. 

577: Roughly speaking, $\Lambda$ is the scale at which the (one-loop) coupling 

578: diverges (Landau ghost), and perturbation 

579: theory becomes meaningless. Further, it is scheme-dependent and receives 

580: further corrections at each loop level, but for simplicity we use the 

581: same notation throughout.\\

582: In the next loop level the integration of (\ref{RGScoupl}) leads to a 

583: transcendental equation, that is, starting from the two-loop 

584: approximation to the $\beta$-function in (\ref{intr3}), 

585: straightforward integration in (\ref{RGScoupl}) yields

586: \be

587: \ln\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}=\textrm{C}+\frac{1}{\beta_0\alpha_{\rm{s}}}+B_1\ln\alpha_{\rm{s}} 

588: -B_1\ln\left(1+\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}\alpha_{\rm{s}}\right)

589: \lb{RG2loop-int}

590: \ee

591: where $B_1=\beta_1/\beta_0^2\,$ and the constant term from the 

592: lower end points can be again reabsorbed into the 

593: $\Lambda$-parametrization, with the commonly adopted prescription 

594: (see e.g.\cite{Bardeen:1978yd,Collins})

595: \be

596: \ln\frac{\Lambda^2}{\mu_0^2}=\textrm{C}-B_1\ln\beta_0

597: \lb{lambdafixing}

598: \ee

599: which fixes a specific choice for $\Lambda\,$. Thus we get the 

600: two-loop implicit solution 

601: \be

602: \ln\frac{\mu^2}{\Lambda^2}=\frac{1}{\beta_0\alpha_{\rm{s}}}-B_1\ln\left(B_1+

603: \frac{1}{\beta_0\alpha_{\rm{s}}}\right)\,,

604: \lb{RG2loop-impl}

605: \ee

606: from which the two-loop scaling constant is immediately read with $\mu=\mu_0\,$. 

607: To achieve an explicit expression for the running coupling 

608: at this level one should resort to the many-valued Lambert function 

609: $W(\zeta)$ defined by 

610: \be

611: W(\zeta)\exp\left[W(\zeta)\right]=\zeta\,,

612: \lb{Lamb}

613: \ee

614: %\vspace{-0.3truecm}

615: which has an infinite number of branches $W_k(\zeta)\,$ $k=0,\pm1,\pm2\dots$ 

616: such that $W_n^*(\zeta)=W_{-n}(\zeta^*)\,$

617: (for more details we refer to \cite{Corless:1996}). 

618: The exact solution to eq.(\ref{RG2loop-impl}), being $B_1$ positive, 

619: for $0\le n_f\le8$ reads\footnote{Note that if $9\le n_f\le16$

620: the principal branch $W_0$ is involved, but here and throughout our 

621: discussion is focused on the physical values $n_f\le6\,$.} (see e.g. 

622: \cite{Grunberg98})

623: \be

624: \alpha_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(z)=-\frac{1}{\beta_0B_1}\frac{1}{1+W_{-1}(\zeta)}

625: \qquad\zeta=-\frac{1}{eB_1}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)^{1/B_1}

626: \lb{RG2loop-ex}

627: \ee

628: where $z=\mu^2/\Lambda^2\,$, and $W_{-1}(\zeta)$ is the ``physical'' 

629: branch of the Lambert function, i.e. it defines a regular real values

630: function for $\zeta\in(-e^{-1},0)\,$ which fulfills the asymptotic 

631: freedom constraint. Indeed, $W_{-1}(\zeta)$ as a function of complex 

632: variable has a branch cut along the negative real axis (actually a 

633: superimposition of two cuts starting from $-\infty$ to $-e^{-1}$ and

634: to $0$ respectively), and defining it on the cut coming from the upper

635: complex plane it assumes real values in the interval $(-e^{-1},0)\,$, 

636: with the asymptotics 

637: \be

638: W_{-1}(-\varepsilon)=\ln\varepsilon+O(\ln|\ln\varepsilon|)

639: \lb{lamb1}

640: \ee

641: \be

642: W_{-1}\left(-\frac{1}{e}+\varepsilon\right)=-1-\sqrt{2e\varepsilon}+O(\varepsilon)

643: \lb{lamb2}

644: \ee

645: as $\varepsilon\to0^+\,$. Outside this region of the real axis 

646: it takes on complex values, 

647: indeed it is not a real analytic function. 

648: Though not easy for practical aims, eq.(\ref{RG2loop-ex}) yields 

649: the most accurate expression for investigating the IR behavior of 

650: the running coupling, since it has not been derived by means of deep 

651: perturbative approximations (aside from the truncation of the two-loop 

652: $\beta$ function). 

653: Actually, a frequently used two-loop approximate solution, known as the 

654: \emph{iterative} solution (\cite{Shirkov:1997wi}), is obtained 

655: starting from eq.(\ref{RG2loop-int}) together with a single iteration 

656: of the one-loop formula (\ref{1loopEC2}), that is  

657: \be

658: \alpha_{\rm{it}}^{(2)}(z)=\frac{\beta_0^{-1}}{\ln z+B_1\ln(1+B_1^{-1}\ln z)}\,,

659: \lb{2loopECit}

660: \ee

661: where $z=\mu^2/\tilde\Lambda^2\,$, and $\tilde\Lambda$ now defined by

662: \be

663: \ln\frac{\tilde\Lambda^2}{\mu_0^2}=\textrm{C}-B_1\ln\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}

664: \lb{delta2}

665: \ee

666: in (\ref{RG2loop-int}), related to the standard one (\ref{lambdafixing})

667: by the factor

668: \be

669: \ln(\Lambda/\tilde{\Lambda})=\frac{1}{2}B_1\ln{B_1}\,.

670: \lb{conv1Lambda}

671: \ee  

672: However, the commonly used two-loop solution is an asymptotic formula 

673: which strictly relies on the smallness of $\alpha_{\rm{s}}\,$ for fairly 

674: large $\mu^2$, since it amounts on solving eq.(\ref{RG2loop-int}) (with the

675: choice (\ref{lambdafixing})) where 

676: the last term in the r.h.s. has been neglected. Again after one iteration 

677: of the one-loop formula, the result is then re-expanded in powers of $1/L$, 

678: where $L=\ln z$ and $z$ as before

679: \be

680: \alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(2)}(z)=\frac{1}{\beta_0\ln z}\,\left[1-\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2}

681: \frac{\ln\left(\ln z\right)}{\ln z}\right]\,.

682: \lb{2loopEC}

683: \ee 

684: Eq.(\ref{2loopEC}) is known as the standard two-loop running coupling 

685: and works only in the deep UV regime, i.e. for $L\gg 1\,$ (see fig.1(a)).\\

686: Under the same assumptions one can easily derive the three and four-loop 

687: approximate formulas; at any loop level asymptotic RG solutions are 

688: obtained as a rule through a recursive recipe involving the previous 

689: order result as an input in the transcendental equation arising from 

690: integration of (\ref{RGScoupl}). Starting with the approximate 

691: implicit solution at four-loop level (obtained by expanding the 

692: integrand on the r.h.s. of eq.(\ref{RGScoupl}))

693: \be

694: \ln\frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}=\textrm{C}+\frac{1}{\beta_0\alpha_{\rm{s}}}+\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2}

695: \ln\alpha_{\rm{s}}+\frac{\beta_2\beta_0-\beta_1^2}{\beta_0^3}\alpha_{\rm{s}}

696: +\frac{\beta_1^3-2\beta_0\beta_1\beta_2+\beta_0^2\beta_3}{2\beta_0^4}\alpha_{\rm{s}}^2

697: +O(\alpha_{\rm{s}}^3)\,,

698: \lb{RG4loop-int}

699: \ee

700: the analogous trick which led to eq.(\ref{2loopEC}) yields the UV 

701: asymptotic four-loop running coupling in the standard form of an

702: expansion in inverse powers of the logarithm $L$ for $L\gg1$ (see 

703: e.g. \cite{Chetyrkin:1997sg})

704: \bea

705: &&\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(4)}(\mu^2)=\frac{1}{\beta_0\,L}\,

706: \left\{1-\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2}\frac{\ln L}{L}+

707: \frac{1}{\beta_0^2 L^2}\left[\frac{\beta_1^2}{\beta_0^2}

708: \left(\ln^2L-\ln L-1\right)+\frac{\beta_2}{\beta_0}\right]+\right.\nn\\

709: &&\left.\frac{1}{\beta_0^3L^3}\left[\frac{\beta_1^3}{\beta_0^3}\left(

710: -\ln^3L+\frac{5}{2}\ln^2L+2\ln L -\frac{1}{2}\right)-3\frac{\beta_1\beta_2}

711: {\beta_0^2}\ln L+\frac{\beta_3}{2\beta_0}\right]\right\}\,

712: \lb{4loopEC}

713: \eea

714: which turns out to be nearly indistinguishable from the three-loop

715: curve (see fig.1(b)). Here the one-loop solution eq.(\ref{1loopEC2}) has been 

716: emphasized, and being the leading UV term in (\ref{4loopEC}), it 

717: defines the asymptotic behavior of the perturbative running coupling,  

718: i.e. it clearly exhibits the asymptotic freedom property. 

719: On the other hand, the two and three-loop asymptotic expressions are 

720: easily read from eq.(\ref{4loopEC}) by keeping only the first two or

721: three terms respectively inside the curly bracket.

722: \begin{figure}[t]

723: \begin{picture}(150,230)

724:  \put(-10,235){\mbox{\epsfig{file=frac2E.ps,height=8.5cm,width=6.5cm,angle=-90}}}

725: \put(140,219){ {\tiny $1-\alpha_{\rm ex}/\alpha_{\rm s}$} }  

726:  \put(140,211){ {\tiny $1-\alpha_{\rm ex}/\alpha_{\rm it}$} } 

727: \put(240,50){\mbox{\epsfig{file=asor1.eps,height=6.5cm,width=4.8cm}}}

728: \put(20,50){ {\footnotesize (a)} } 

729: \put(273,50){ {\footnotesize (b)}} 

730: \end{picture}

731: \vspace{-1.9truecm}

732: \caption{\footnotesize (a) We show the fractional difference 

733: between eq.(\ref{RG2loop-ex}) and eqs.(\ref{2loopEC}), (\ref{2loopECit}) (solid and dashed 

734: line respectively), with $\Lambda=350\,$MeV and $n_f=4\,$. 

735: (b) From\cite{bethke}: it is displayed the fractional difference between 

736: the 4-loop and the 1-, 2-, 3-loop approximations to eq.(\ref{4loopEC}), with $n_f=5$

737: and normalizing conditions for all curves at $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_Z^2)=0.119\,$.

738: \vspace{-0.3truecm}} 

739: \label{fig:als-asord}

740: \end{figure}

741: We recall that exact integration of the truncated four (or

742: three)-loop $\beta$-function leads to a more involved structure 

743: than eq.(\ref{RG4loop-int}), which poses serious difficulties in 

744: finding its inverse; nevertheless, in \cite{Grunberg98} a useful 

745: solution has been still worked out at three-loop level via the 

746: real branch $W_{-1}(\zeta)$ of the Lambert function together with 

747: the Pade' Approximant of the related $\beta$-function. Moreover, 

748: in \cite{Kourashev:1999ye} a reliable approximation to higher order 

749: running coupling has been suggested, via a power expansion in the 

750: two-loop exact coupling eq.(\ref{RG2loop-ex}), of the form

751: \be

752: \alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(k)}(\mu^2)=\sum_{n\ge1} p_n^{(k)}

753: \left[\alpha_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(\mu^2)\right]^n

754: \lb{alpha^k}

755: \ee

756: with $k\ge3$ the loop order, and $p_n^{(k)}$ proper functions of the

757: coefficients $\beta_j$. Comparison \cite{Kurashev:2003pt} of these 

758: multi-loop approximants to the coupling, with the relative asymptotic 

759: formulas, eq.(\ref{4loopEC}) and the three-loop analogue, reveals 

760: the better agreement of the former ones with the higher-loop exact 

761: coupling numerically estimated (i.e. starting from the exact 

762: implicit solution), even at low scales (see also 

763: \cite{Magradze:2005ab}).\\

764: Finally, being the definition of the scaling constant $\Lambda$ 

765: not completely unambiguous, few comments are in order. As yet 

766: pointed out, starting from the two-loop level an arbitrary 

767: constant has to be fixed for $\Lambda$ being uniquely defined; 

768: beside the commonly accepted convention (\ref{lambdafixing}) 

769: (or (\ref{delta2})), we just mention that other prescriptions 

770: have been proposed \cite{Radyushkin:1982kg} in order to optimize the 

771: $1/L$-expansion for the running coupling, while (\ref{lambdafixing}) 

772: does remain the preferred one as no further terms of order 

773: $1/L^2$ appear in the two-loop asymptotic formula (\ref{2loopEC}). 

774: Thus, in the higher-loop levels the scaling constant is analogously  

775: related to the initial parameterization, and the four (and three) loop 

776: value reproducing the world average, roughly $\alpha(M_Z^2)=0.119$, is 

777: $\Lambda^{(n_f=5)}_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=220$ MeV with 

778: consistently five active flavors \cite{bethke}.\\

779: A last remark concerns the scheme-dependence of the coupling and

780: the scale parameter. Restricting ourselves to mass-independent 

781: RS (as MS-like schemes or trivially any prescription in the 

782: massless theory), renormalized coupling constants (see 

783: eq.(\ref{intr1})) in two such different schemes can be related 

784: perturbatively at any fixed scale $\mu\,$

785: \be

786: \alpha_{\rm{s}}'=\alpha_{\rm{s}}\left[1+v_1\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}}{\pi}+

787: v_2\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}}{\pi}\right)^2

788: +\dots\,\right]\,.

789: \label{alphaconv}

790: \ee

791: Then, it is easy to verify that the first two coefficients of 

792: the relative $\beta$-functions do not change as the 

793: renormalization prescription is changed, while, for instance,

794: the third ones are related by 

795: $\beta'_2=\beta_2-v_1\beta_1+v_2\beta_0-\beta_0v_1^2\,$. 

796: As a result the running coupling at each loop-level (e.g. 

797: eq.(\ref{4loopEC})) depends on the RS, through the 

798: coefficients $\beta_j$ with $j\ge2$ and the initial 

799: parameterization as well. The latter obviously amounts 

800: in suitably adjusting the scaling constant $\Lambda\,$,  

801: and the relation is given exactly by one-loop calculation 

802: \cite{Gonsalves79}

803: \begin{equation} 

804: \ln\left(\Lambda'/\Lambda\right)=\frac{v_1}{2\pi\beta_0}\,,  

805: \label{conv2lambda}

806: \end{equation}

807: which works through all orders; e.g. 

808: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{\overline{MS}}}/\Lambda_{\mathrm{MS}}=

809: \exp{[(\ln4\pi-\gamma_e)/2]}\simeq2.66$, and with $n_f=4$  

810: we roughly have \cite{Gonsalves79}

811: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{MOM}}/\Lambda_{\mathrm{MS}}\simeq 4.76$ where 

812: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{MOM}}$ refers to a scheme in which the 

813: subtraction of the relevant green functions is performed

814: in the symmetric point and the renormalized coupling is

815: defined through the three gluon vertex.

816: %the $\mu$-subtraction RS.

817: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

818: \subsection{Threshold matching}

819: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

820: Quark mass effects, till now ignored, reveal themselves in 

821: explicit corrections within higher order perturbation theory 

822: (see e.g. \cite{Bernreuther:1997jn}), and in the energy 

823: dependence of the effective (running) quark masses as a 

824: result of the RG improvement \cite{Vermaseren:1997fq}, 

825: but we will not go into further details being these topics 

826: beyond the scope of this report.

827: A direct effect of the quark masses 

828: on the evolution of the coupling is, as yet noted, through 

829: the dependence of the $\beta$ coefficients on the number 

830: $n_f\,$ of active quarks. A quark is active if $m_f\ll\mu\,$, 

831: where $\mu$ is the renormalization scale, and $m_f$ the 

832: $\rm{\overline{MS}}$ quark mass (see e.g. 

833: \cite{pdg}); the definition can be also formulated in terms of 

834: the pole mass $M_f\,$ that can be related to the former 

835: \cite{Melnikov:2000qh}. 

836: Indeed, within 

837: MS-like RS, decoupling of heavy quarks 

838: \cite{Appelquist:1974tg} is made explicit by constructing beside 

839: the full $n_f$ flavors QCD an $(n_f-1)$ effective theory 

840: below a heavy quark threshold \cite{Bernreuther:1983zp}. 

841: Then, to have a unique theory on the whole range, the 

842: two couplings $\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f)}$ and 

843: $\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f-1)}$ must be matched at each heavy quark 

844: mass scale $\mu^{(n_f)}=O(m_f)\,$. As a result the scaling constant 

845: $\Lambda$ depends also on $n_f\,$ (see e.g.

846: \cite{Larin:1994va,Chetyrkin:1997sg,Chetyrkin:1997un}).\\

847: The most straightforward way is to impose continuity of 

848: $\alpha_{\rm{s}}$ by means of the matching condition 

849: $\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f-1)}(m^2_f)=\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f)}(m^2_f)$, 

850: which works up to next-to-leading order. At the one-loop 

851: level e.g., it translates into

852: \be

853: \Lambda^{(n_f)}=\Lambda^{(n_f-1)}\left[\frac{\Lambda^{(n_f-1)}}{m_f}\right]

854: ^{2/(33-2n_f)}\,,

855: \lb{Lmatch}

856: \ee

857: which can be extended up to two-loop, and exhibits explicit 

858: dependence on the $m_f$ values. Since trivial matching does 

859: not generally hold in higher orders within $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ 

860: scheme, a more accurate formula is required in this case (see 

861: \cite{Chetyrkin:1997sg} and refs. therein); specifically 

862: to obtain the global evolution of the four-loop coupling the 

863: proper matching condition reads \cite{Chetyrkin:1997sg}

864: \be

865: \alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f-1)}=\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f)}\left[1+

866: k_2\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f)}}{\pi}\right)^2 +

867: k_3\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(n_f)}}{\pi}\right)^3\right]

868: \lb{L3match}

869: \ee

870: with

871: \be

872: k_2=\frac{11}{72}\,,\qquad k_3=\frac{564731}{124416}-

873: \frac{82043}{27648}\zeta_3-\frac{2633}{31104}(n_f-1)

874: \lb{k_j} 

875: \ee

876: if $\mu^{(n_f)}=m_f\,$ is exactly assumed. With this convention, 

877: eq.(\ref{L3match}) yields the relationship between the scaling 

878: constants $\Lambda^{(n_f-1)}$ and $\Lambda^{(n_f)}$ in the 

879: $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ scheme (see \cite{Chetyrkin:1997sg}). Note

880: that one can equally fix $\mu^{(n_f)}=M_f\,$, that amounts to a 

881: proper adjustment of the coefficients in (\ref{L3match}); for 

882: instance \cite{bethke} starting with (\ref{4loopEC}) and 

883: $\Lambda^{(n_f=5)}=220\,$MeV, the values  

884: $\Lambda^{(n_f=4)}=305\,$MeV and $\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}=346\,$MeV are

885: obtained, with threshold fixed at the pole masses $M_b=4.7\,$GeV

886: and $M_c=1.5\,$GeV.   

887: Finally, we observe that eq.(\ref{L3match}) clearly spoils 

888: continuity of $\alpha_{\rm{s}}\,$; thereby, whenever continuity of the 

889: global coupling and of its first derivative is mandatory, 

890: one can resort to a more sophisticated technique 

891: \cite{Shirkov:1990vw}, which relying upon mass-dependent 

892: RS yields a smooth transition across thresholds.

893: 

894: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

895: \subsection{Landau singularities}

896: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

897: The running coupling is not an observable by itself but plays the

898: role of the expansion parameter for physical quantities. At one 

899: loop-level (cf. eq.(\ref{intr4})), it resums an infinite series of 

900: leading-logs UV contributions 

901: and similarly the two-loop solution yields the next-to-leading-logs

902: approximation; 

903: thus RG formalism provides an iterative recipe 

904: for improving perturbative results.\\

905: However, as a result, the RG resummation significantly modifies the 

906: analytical structure of the series in the complex plane. As yet noted

907: the one-loop coupling (\ref{1loopEC2}) is clearly affected by a 

908: spacelike pole at $\Lambda$ with residue $1/\beta_0\,$ (Landau ghost). 

909: Adding multi-loop corrections does not overcome the

910: hurdle. Rather the singularity structure of the higher 

911: order solutions is more involved due to the log-of-log dependence, 

912: so that a branch cut adds on to the one-loop single pole in the IR 

913: domain of the spacelike axis. 

914: Moreover, at a given loop level Landau singularities sensibly 

915: depend upon the approximation used. For instance, the two-loop 

916: iterative formula (\ref{2loopECit}) has a pole at $z=1$ 

917: ($\mu=\tilde\Lambda\,$, see eqs.(\ref{delta2}) and (\ref{conv1Lambda}))  

918: with residue $1/(2\beta_0)\,$, and a cut for $0<z<\exp{(-B_1)}$ due 

919: to the double logarithm. On the other hand, when considering the same 

920: loop approximation (\ref{2loopEC}), we note how the singularity 

921: in $z=1$ already acquires a stronger character

922: \be

923: \alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(2)}(z)\simeq -\frac{B_1}{\beta_0}\frac{\ln(z-1)}{(z-1)^2}

924: \qquad z\to1

925: \lb{IR2loop}

926: \ee

927: with $z=\mu^2/\Lambda^2\,$, and the cut now runs from 0 to 1.

928: Analogously the three and four-loop asymptotic solutions, as given by

929: eq.(\ref{4loopEC}), nearby the Landau ghost respectively becomes  

930: \be

931: \alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(3)}(z)\simeq \frac{B^2_1}{\beta_0}\frac{\ln^2(z-1)}{(z-1)^3}\,,

932: \qquad\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(4)}(z)\simeq -\frac{B^3_1}{\beta_0}\frac{\ln^3(z-1)}{(z-1)^4}

933: \qquad z\to1

934: \lb{IR3loop}

935: \ee

936: and are equally affected by an unphysical cut. 

937: However, the cumbersome singularity structure of the leading 

938: Landau ghost, and of the unphysical cut as well, are an 

939: artifact of the UV approximations introduced. Therefore to deal 

940: with the IR behavior of the running coupling, e.g. at two-loop 

941: level, it is necessary to face with the exact solution 

942: (\ref{RG2loop-ex}); clearly it is singular when 

943: $W_{-1}(\zeta)=-1$ that is at $z=B_1^{-B_1}\,$ 

944: ($\mu^2=B_1^{-B_1}\Lambda^2\,$), corresponding to the branch 

945: point $\zeta=-1/e$ of the Lambert function. Nearby this point, 

946: due to the asymptotic (\ref{lamb2}) of $W_{-1}(\zeta)\,$, we have

947: \be

948: \alpha_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(z)\simeq\frac{1}{\beta_0}\sqrt{\frac{B_1^{-B_1-1}}{2}}

949: \left[z-B_1^{-B_1}\right]^{-1/2}\,.

950: \lb{IR2loop-ex}

951: \ee

952: i.e., an integrable singularity (note that the awkward factor 

953: in front of $\Lambda$ in the singular point can be reabsorbed 

954: into a proper redefinition of the integration constant, through

955: (\ref{conv1Lambda})).\\

956: A more detailed investigation about IR singularity structure 

957: of higher-order perturbative running coupling is performed on

958: the ground of eq.(\ref{alpha^k}) in the recent work 

959: \cite{Magradze:2005ab}, where in particular the location of 

960: Landau singularities is determined as a function of $n_f\,$. 

961: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

962: \subsection{Time-like coupling}

963: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

964: Until now we have worked exclusively in the space-like region 

965: to derive the evolution of coupling, namely

966: we have implicitly admitted the theory renormalized at 

967: momentum scale with negative squared invariant mass. 

968: However, in perturbation theory one needs to parameterize 

969: observables depending on time-like arguments by means of 

970: an effective parameter, to improve perturbative expansions. 

971: While this poses no special problem in large energy processes, 

972: at any finite energy the issue of which should be the most 

973: suitable parameter in the s-channel must be carefully considered. 

974: For this purpose we briefly sketch the key points of this 

975: subject, and start by noting that the standard practice is to 

976: merely take over to the time-like domain the space-like form 

977: at any loop level, regardless of the crossing between two 

978: disconnected regions, thus importing the same IR singular 

979: structure in a specular way.

980: Nevertheless, from many early works based upon analysis of 

981: $e^+e^-$-annihilation data (see e.g. \cite{Moorhouse:1976qq} 

982: and refs. therein), it is known that this should not be the 

983: case but far in the asymptotic regime. This is because of the 

984: appearance of not negligible corrections ($\pi^2$-terms) to 

985: higher order coefficients of the $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)$-expansions, 

986: due to analytic continuation from space-like to time-like axis. 

987: The problem has not yet been univocally solved, as it is 

988: strongly related to the IR non analyticity of perturbative 

989: running coupling, though it receives a well satisfactory answer 

990: in the framework of Analytic Perturbation Theory (see secs.4.3 and 4.6).\\

991: Referring for definiteness to $e^+e^-$-annihilation into 

992: hadrons, the issue can be stated as follows. Firstly recall 

993: that the main way (see e.g. \cite{Yndurain}) to deal 

994: with the ratio

995: \be

996: R(s)=\frac{\sigma(e^+e^-\to\mathrm{hadrons})}{\sigma(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-)}\,,

997: \lb{Rdef}

998: \ee

999: where $s=q^2>0\,$, is to start with the hadron contribution to photon 

1000: polarization tensor in (space-like) momentum space

1001: \be

1002: \Pi_h^{\mu\nu}(q)=(g^{\mu\nu}q^2-q^\mu q^\nu)\Pi_h(-q^2)

1003: \propto\int d^4x e^{iqx}<0|T(j^\mu(x)j^\nu(0))|0>

1004: \lb{Pdef}

1005: \ee

1006: $j^\mu$ being the quark electromagnetic current operator. 

1007: Then, as known, optical theorem ensures the ratio $R(s)$ to be 

1008: straightforwardly related to the absorptive part of the forward 

1009: scattering amplitude $e^+e^-\to e^+e^-\,$. Indeed, being the 

1010: analytical properties of the two-point correlation function 

1011: (\ref{Pdef}) in the cut complex plane $\mathbb{C}-\{q^2>0\}$ 

1012: well established, 

1013: %(see e.g. \cite{Novikov:1977dq}), 

1014: this amounts 

1015: to taking the discontinuity of $\Pi_h(-q^2)$ across the cut

1016: \be

1017: R(s)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\lim_{\varepsilon\to0}\left[\Pi_h(-s+i\varepsilon)-

1018: \Pi_h(-s-i\varepsilon)\right]\,,

1019: \lb{Rcut}

1020: \ee

1021: having computed the RG improved expansion for 

1022: $\Pi_h(-q^2)$ on the space-like axis ($q^2<0$). To this end 

1023: one formally works with its first logarithmic 

1024: derivative (thus avoiding subtraction constants), the Adler 

1025: $D$-function \cite{Adler:1974gd}, with the same space-like 

1026: argument 

1027: \be

1028: D(-q^2)=-q^2\frac{d\Pi_h(-q^2)}{dq^2}\,,

1029: \lb{Adl}

1030: \ee

1031: which in the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ reads 

1032: \be

1033: D_{\rm{PT}}(Q^2)=3\sum_f Q_f^2\left[1+\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(Q^2)}{\pi}+

1034: d_2\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(Q^2)}{\pi}\right)^2+

1035: d_3\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(Q^2)}{\pi}\right)^3 +\dots\,\right]

1036: \lb{D_ptb}

1037: \ee

1038: being $Q^2=-q^2\,$, $Q_f$ the quark charges, and 

1039: \cite{Chetyrkin:1979bj}, \cite{Gorishnii:1990vf} 

1040: \bea

1041: &&d_2\,\simeq\,1.986-0.115n_f\qquad\nn\\ 

1042: &&d_3\,\simeq\,18.244-4.216n_f+0.086n_f^2-1.24\left(3\sum_fQ_f^2\right)^{-1}

1043: \left(\sum_fQ_f\right)^2\,.\qquad

1044: \lb{D_coefs}

1045: \eea

1046: Then by integration $\Pi_h(Q^2)$ is readily obtained. One should 

1047: be aware that in the massless theory the cut spreads over the 

1048: whole positive axis, 

1049: and when taking into account quark masses the cut starts at the two-pion 

1050: threshold $4m_\pi^2\,$.\\  

1051: Whatever the loop order, the result for $R(s)$ is usually recasted as a series 

1052: in the effective parameter $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)$, naively obtained 

1053: by specular reflection, that is by replacing the space-like argument 

1054: $Q^2=-q^2>0$ straightway with the time-like one $s=q^2>0$ 

1055: in the coupling at a given loop order 

1056: (e.g. eq.(\ref{4loopEC})). This final step displays nontrivial 

1057: correction terms starting from $O(\alpha_{\rm{s}}^3)$, which are 

1058: proportional to powers of $\pi$ and are the drawback of the analytic 

1059: continuation of hadronic tensor nearby the time-like axis.

1060: We then have the ordinary perturbative expansion for $R(s)$ (see e.g. 

1061: \cite{Kataev:1995vh})

1062: \be

1063: R_{\rm{PT}}(s)= 3\sum_f Q_f^2 \left[1+\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)}{\pi}+

1064: r_2\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)}{\pi}\right)^2 +

1065: r_3\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)}{\pi}\right)^3 +\dots\,\right]\,

1066: \lb{R_ptb}

1067: \ee 

1068: \be

1069: r_2=d_2\,;\qquad r_3=d_3-\delta_3\,,\quad \delta_3=\frac{\pi^2b_0^2}{48}

1070: \lb{R_coefs}

1071: \ee

1072: with $d_2$ and $d_3$ the same as in (\ref{D_ptb}), and we have used

1073: the shortcut $b_j=(4\pi)^{j+1}\beta_j$ to emphasize the $\pi$-powers. 

1074: The number $\delta_3$ gives to 

1075: the $O(\alpha_{\rm{s}}^3)$ coefficient a strongly negative contribution 

1076: for each $n_f$, e.g. roughly $\simeq14.3$ for $n_f=4$. Higher order 

1077: $\pi^2$-terms were analyzed in detail in \cite{Bjorken:1989xw}, for 

1078: instance the fourth order correction is

1079: \be

1080: \delta_4\equiv d_4-r_4=\frac{\pi^2b_0^2}{16}\left(r_2+\frac{5b_1}{24b_0}\right)

1081: \lb{delta4}

1082: \ee

1083: roughly $\delta_4\simeq120$ for $n_f=4$; analogous (but more 

1084: cumbersome) behavior is found for still higher orders, from which 

1085: it becomes patent the remarkable growth in these correction terms.\\ 

1086: A similar treatment also holds for other 

1087: s-channel observables \cite{Kataev:1995vh}, as the normalized rate 

1088: for $\tau$-decay into hadrons, showing that the effects of analytical 

1089: continuation make the perturbative expansions in the time-like region 

1090: deeply different from Euclidean ones.\\

1091: Since the $\pi^2$-terms play a dominant role in higher order 

1092: coefficients, expansion (\ref{R_ptb}) works only asymptotically at 

1093: large $s$ (that is when the smallness of $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)$ scales 

1094: down these large coefficients); thus the 

1095: space-like coupling is not a reliable expansion parameter 

1096: in the s-channel at finite energy, and it is not yet clear which one 

1097: is instead to be used. Actually, as yet noted in pioneer works 

1098: \cite{Pennington:1981cw,Pennington:1983rz}, 

1099: the expression of $R(s)$, resulting from eq.(\ref{Rcut}) together with 

1100: the improved perturbative series for $\Pi_h$, exhibits no natural 

1101: expansion parameter (since both real and imaginary parts of 

1102: $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(Q^2)$ enter into the form of $R$), and the choice of 

1103: such a suitable parameter is essentially a matter of expediency, that 

1104: is it should be selected the one which yields better convergence 

1105: properties.\\

1106: Alongside less meaningful attempts, we mention here the 

1107: analysis \cite{Pennington:1981cw} of the use of $|\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-s)|$ as  

1108: expansion parameter for $R(s)$\,. By sensibly reducing 

1109: higher order terms it yields faster convergence than 

1110: $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(s)$; it further possesses the relevant feature of IR 

1111: freezing, in agreement with contemporary phenomenological models 

1112: (e.g. \cite{Parisi:1980jy}), thus avoiding the hurdle of Landau 

1113: singularities on the time-like domain. Indeed for low $s\,$, $|\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-s)|$   is 

1114: anyway less than 0.33 for $n_f=3\,$. According to this prescription 

1115: the one-loop running coupling in this region should read 

1116: \cite{Pennington:1981cw}

1117: \be

1118: |\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-s)|=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left[\frac{1}{\ln^2(s/\Lambda^2)+

1119: \pi^2}\right]^{1/2}

1120: \lb{penn}

1121: \ee

1122: and asymptotically, i.e. for $s\gg\Lambda^2 e^{\pi}$

1123: \be

1124: |\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-s)|=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\frac{1}{\ln(s/\Lambda^2)}\left[1

1125: -\frac{\pi^2}{2}\frac{1}{\ln^2(s/\Lambda^2)}+\dots\,\right]

1126: \ee

1127: resembling the UV behavior of the relative space-like coupling 

1128: (\ref{1loopEC2}). Aside from these nice features, this function 

1129: cannot entirely sum up the $\pi^2$-terms.\\

1130: In order to deal with these corrections a somewhat different 

1131: approach, known as RKP (Radyushkin-Krasnikov-Pivovarov) procedure, has been suggested 

1132: \cite{Radyushkin:1982kg,Krasnikov:1982fx} (see also

1133: \cite{Jones:1995rd}), which is firmly based upon the analytical 

1134: properties of the polarization tensor $\Pi_h(-q^2)$ and of the 

1135: related $D$-function (\ref{Adl}), summarized by the dispersion 

1136: relations, respectively 

1137: \be

1138: \Pi_h(-q^2)=\int_0^\infty ds\frac{R(s)}{s-q^2}\,\,,

1139: \lb{dispPi}

1140: \ee

1141: \be

1142: D(-q^2)=-q^2\int_0^\infty ds\frac{R(s)}{(s-q^2)^2}

1143: \lb{dispAdl}

1144: \ee

1145: where $R(s)$ is given by (\ref{Rcut}), and 

1146: $q^2$ lying in $\mathbb{C}-\{q^2=s>0\}\,$. The key point here is the 

1147: inverse of (\ref{dispAdl}) given by the contour integral

1148: \be

1149: R(s)= \frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{s-i\varepsilon}^{s+i\varepsilon}\frac{dq^2}{q^2}D(-q^2)

1150: \lb{invsAdl}

1151: \ee

1152: to be computed along a path in the analyticity region for 

1153: the $D$-function. Eq.(\ref{invsAdl}) can be then generalized to an 

1154: integral transform mapping a space-like argument function into 

1155: a time-like one

1156: \be

1157: R(s)=\Phi\left[D(-q^2)\right]\,,

1158: \lb{phi}

1159: \ee

1160: that can be straightforwardly applied to the perturbative expansion 

1161: (\ref{D_ptb}), provided that the integration contour is always kept 

1162: far enough from IR space-like singularities. This yields $R(s)$ as 

1163: an expansion into the images of $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(Q^2)$ and of its 

1164: powers, through the map $\Phi$ \cite{Radyushkin:1982kg}

1165: \be

1166: R(s)=3\sum_f Q_f^2\left\{1+\sum_{n\ge1}d_n\Phi\left[\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}(Q^2)}

1167: {\pi}\right)^n\right]\right\}\,,

1168: \lb{R_rkp}

1169: \ee

1170: where $d_n$ are the same as in (\ref{D_ptb}). Eq.(\ref{R_rkp}) is to 

1171: be compared with the standard 

1172: perturbative expansion (\ref{R_ptb}); here the $\pi^2$-terms are 

1173: entirely summed up, with the drawback that within this framework 

1174: there is no uniquely defined expansion parameter. However, it is 

1175: useful to work out its behavior at $O(\alpha_{\rm{s}})$-approximation 

1176: for $R(s)$, i.e.

1177: \be

1178: \tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}(s)\equiv\Phi\left[\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(1)}(Q^2)\right]

1179: =\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left\{\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\pi}\arctan

1180: \left[\frac{\ln\left(s/\Lambda^2\right)}{\pi}\right]\right\}

1181: \lb{alpha_RKP}

1182: \ee

1183: easily obtained by applying the integral transformation (\ref{invsAdl}) 

1184: to the one-loop space-like coupling (\ref{1loopEC2}). The related 

1185: time-like form (\ref{alpha_RKP}) is once more free of unphysical 

1186: singularities at low $s\,$, and for $s\gg\Lambda^2e^{\pi}$ as above 

1187: can be expanded into powers of $\pi/\ln(s/\Lambda^2)$ 

1188: \be

1189: \tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}(s)= 

1190: \frac{1}{\pi\beta_0}\left[\frac{\pi}{\ln(s/\Lambda^2)}-\frac{1}{3}\frac{\pi^3}

1191: {\ln^3(s/\Lambda^2)}+\,\dots\,\right]\,,

1192: \lb{UValpha_RKP}

1193: \ee

1194: Then eq.(\ref {UValpha_RKP}) can be recasted as a power series in the

1195: one-loop space-like coupling 

1196: \be

1197: \tilde{\alpha}^{(1)}(s)=\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(1)}(s)\left[1-

1198: \frac{\pi^2b_0^2}{48}\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(1)}(s)}{\pi}\right)^2+\,

1199: \dots\,\right]\,,

1200: \lb{UValpha_RKP2}

1201: \ee

1202: emphasizing that the two couplings differ in three-loop level.

1203: By comparing (\ref{UValpha_RKP2}) with eqs.(\ref{R_ptb}) and 

1204: (\ref{R_coefs}), it becomes clear how RKP resummation of the 

1205: $\pi^2$-terms into the time-like coupling (\ref{alpha_RKP}) 

1206: does work. 

1207: The main shortcoming of this recipe is that by applying to 

1208: (\ref{alpha_RKP}) the inverse transformation to (\ref{phi}), i.e. 

1209: relation (\ref{dispAdl}), we are not back to the original input 

1210: (\ref{1loopEC2}). Obviously, this is because integral transformations

1211: (\ref{invsAdl}) and its inverse are well behaved as long as the 

1212: integrand possesses the correct analytical properties in the cut 

1213: complex plane; actually this is not the case for the space-like 

1214: coupling (\ref{1loopEC2}) and its higher-loop approximations, and 

1215: we are then forced to compute the integral along a path large 

1216: enough to avoid the IR space-like singularities.

1217: 

1218: %3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

1219: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

1220: \section{Infrared behavior}

1221: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

1222: As we told, Landau singularities are an artifact of the formalism

1223: and are related to a breakdown of the perturbative expansion even 

1224: as an asymptotic expansion.

1225: On the basis of general principles of field theory 

1226: $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ should have

1227: singularities in the $\mu^2$ complex plane only on the negative real

1228: axis, from a threshold to $-\infty$. 

1229: This circumstance is irrelevant as long as we consider high energy

1230: processes in which the energy scale

1231: is much larger than $\Lambda\,$, but leads to serious difficulties 

1232: in other problems in which much smaller values

1233: of $\mu$ are involved. Of this type are the bound state calculations, 

1234: the decay of particles, the annihilation processes and even the deep 

1235: inelastic collisions in particular geometries. 

1236: Let us consider e.g. the ratio 

1237: \begin{equation}

1238:   R_\tau = \frac{\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow \nu_\tau + {\rm hadrons})}

1239: {\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow \nu_\tau + e + \bar \nu_e)}

1240: \label{taudecay}

1241: \end{equation}

1242: between the hadronic and leptonic decay width of the

1243: $\tau$ lepton. The non strange contribution to this quantity can be

1244: written in the form

1245: \bea

1246: &&R_\tau^{\rm nst} = {12 \pi S_{\rm EW} |V_{ud}|^2 \over m_\tau^2}

1247:  \int_{m_\pi^2}^{m_\tau^2} dt \left(1-\frac{t}{m_\tau^2}\right)^2\nn\\

1248: &&\qquad\quad\left\{\left(1+ \frac{2t}{m_\tau^2}\right){\rm Im}\, 

1249: \Pi_{ud}^{(1)}(t) +{\rm Im}\, \Pi_{ud}^{(0)}(t) \right\}\, ,

1250: \label{taudecay2}

1251: \eea

1252: where $S_{\rm EW}$ is the electro-weak factor, $V_{ud}$ the relevant 

1253: CKM matrix element, $\Pi_{ud}^{(1)}(t)$ and $\Pi_{ud}^{(0)}(t)$ are the transversal

1254: and the longitudinal part of the appropriate current-current

1255: correlator respectively. In this expression $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ should be known

1256: in principle from the threshold $m_\pi \sim 0.14$ GeV to $m_\tau =

1257: 1.78$ GeV. 

1258: As we told, to extrapolate $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ to the infrared region, 

1259: various proposals have been advanced. In this section we shall consider some

1260: purely phenomenological attempts, few examples of the so-called physical couplings

1261: and an optimization procedure.

1262: 

1263: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

1264: \subsection{Potential inspired approaches}

1265: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

1266: One of the first attempts to modify the expression for  $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$

1267: in the infrared region was made in the framework of the

1268: quark-antiquark potential. 

1269:       The potential $V(r)$ between two infinitely heavy quark

1270: and antiquark (static potential) can be defined by the equation

1271: %

1272: \begin{equation}

1273:  V(r) =  \lim_{T\to\infty}{i \over T}\ln W[\Gamma]

1274: \label{static}

1275: \end{equation}

1276: %

1277: $\Gamma$ being a rectangular Wilson loop of size $r\times T$ and

1278: %

1279: \begin{equation}

1280: W [\Gamma] = \bigg\langle{1 \over 3} {\rm Tr}\,{\cal P} \exp \left \{i g 

1281: \oint_\Gamma dx^\mu A_\mu(x)\right \}\bigg\rangle  \,,

1282: \label{wilson}

1283: \end{equation}

1284: %

1285: ${\cal P}$ being the ordering prescription on the path $\Gamma$ and Tr

1286: the trace over the color indices.

1287: The simplest assumption is to write $\ln W$ as the sum of its

1288: perturbative expression and a non perturbative term proportional to

1289: the area $S=rT$ delimited by $\Gamma$

1290: %

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: i\ln W  = (i\ln W)_{\rm PT} + \sigma S  \,.

1293: \label{ansatz}

1294: \end{equation}

1295: %

1296: If $(i\ln W)_{\rm PT}$ is evaluated at the first order in the coupling one obtains 

1297: %

1298: \begin{equation}

1299:  V(r) =  - \frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)}{r} + \sigma r \,,

1300: \label{cornell}

1301: \end{equation}

1302: %

1303: where $\mu$ should be taken of the order of the typical $\langle1/r\rangle\,$.  

1304: This is the so called Cornell potential, expressed as the

1305: sum of a Coulombian and linear term. As well known, by solving 

1306: the corresponding Schroedinger equation a reasonable reproduction 

1307: of the spin averaged bottonium and charmonium spectrum can already be 

1308: obtained. 

1309: In the momentum representation (\ref{cornell}) can be

1310: written

1311: %

1312: \begin{eqnarray}

1313:  \tilde V(Q) &\equiv& \langle {\bf k^\prime}|V(r)|{\bf k}\rangle 

1314: ={1 \over (2\pi)^3} \int d^3 {\bf r} e^{-i{\bf

1315:    Q\cdot r}} V(r) =  \nonumber \\ 

1316: &=& - {1 \over 2 \pi^2}{4 \over 3}{\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2) \over 

1317:     Q^2} - {1 \over \pi^2} {\sigma \over Q^4} \,, 

1318: \label{fourier}

1319: \end{eqnarray}

1320: %

1321: where ${\bf k}$, ${\bf k^\prime}$ denote the initial and final center

1322: of mass momentum of the quark and ${\bf Q} =

1323: {\bf k^\prime}-{\bf k}$ the momentum transfer

1324: \footnote{More properly ${1 \over Q^4}$ stays for the limit 

1325:   of ${1 \over (Q^2 + \epsilon^2)^2} - {4 \epsilon^2 

1326: \over (Q^2 + \epsilon^2)^3}$ (the Fourier transform of $ -\pi^2 r

1327:   e^{-\epsilon r}$)

1328: for infinitesimal $\epsilon$. The same recipe should be applied to

1329: regularize eqs.(\ref{richardson1}-\ref{richardson3}).}. 

1330: According to the general rule we should identify in (\ref{fourier})

1331: the scale $\mu$ with $Q$. Since however in heavy quarkonia ($b \bar b$ 

1332: and $ c \bar c $) $ Q $ typically ranges between 200 MeV and 2 GeV, we 

1333: come close to Landau singularities and need to use some kind of 

1334: regularization. In this order

1335: of ideas many years ago it was proposed  \cite{richardson} to write

1336: the entire potential as

1337: %

1338: \begin{equation}

1339:  \tilde V(Q) = - {1 \over 2 \pi^2}{4 \over 3}{\alpha_{\rm V}(Q^2) \over 

1340:     Q^2}

1341: \label{richardson1}

1342: \end{equation}

1343: %

1344: and to take

1345: %

1346: \begin{equation}

1347: \alpha_{\rm V}(Q^2) = {1 \over \beta_0 \ln (1 + {Q^2 \over

1348:     \Lambda^2})}\,.

1349: \label{richardson2}

1350: \end{equation}

1351: %

1352: Note that, defined in this way, $\alpha_{\rm V}(Q^2)$ reproduces the

1353: ordinary one-loop expression (\ref{1loopEC2}) for $Q\to \infty$, while

1354: for $Q \to 0$ it gives

1355: %

1356: \begin{equation}

1357: \alpha_{\rm V}(Q^2) \to {\Lambda^2 \over \beta_0 Q^2}\, .

1358: \label{richardson3}

1359: \end{equation}

1360: %

1361: Replacing (\ref{richardson3}) in (\ref{richardson1}) and comparing it

1362: with (\ref{fourier}) we see that (\ref{richardson2}) incorporate the

1363: confining part of the potential (\ref{cornell}) with 

1364: %

1365: \begin{equation}

1366: \sigma =  {2\Lambda^2 \over 3\beta_0 }\, .

1367: \label{richardson4}

1368: \end{equation}

1369: %

1370: In (\ref{cornell}) the perturbative part of the potential was

1371: evaluated at the first order in $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$. However, 

1372: higher orders corrections have also been considered starting from (\ref{static})

1373: or by other methods \cite{fischler}. As proposed in

1374: \cite{buchmuller}, such corrections can be taken

1375: into account assuming (\ref{richardson1}) as the definition

1376: of a new coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm V}(\mu^2)$ and re-expressing this

1377: in term the ordinary ${\rm\overline{MS}}$ constant. We can write

1378: \footnote{Note that at three loops even terms of the form 

1379: $\left ({\alpha_{\rm \overline {MS}}\over \pi} \right )^4

1380: \ln  \alpha_{\rm \overline {MS}}$ occur \cite{appelquist}.}  

1381: %

1382: \begin{equation}

1383: \alpha_{\rm V}(\mu^2) = \alpha_{\rm \overline {MS}}(\mu^2) \left[1 + u_1

1384:   {\alpha_{\rm \overline {MS}}(\mu^2)\over \pi} + 

1385: u_2 \left({\alpha_{\rm \overline

1386:   {MS}}(\mu^2) \over \pi}\right)^2 + ...\,\right]\,.

1387: \label{alpha-pt1}

1388: \end{equation}

1389: %

1390: with

1391: \be

1392: u_1 = {31\over 12} - {5\over 18}n_f\,;\quad

1393: u_2 \cong 28.538 - 4.145 n_f + 0.077 n_f^2

1394: \label{alpha-pt2}

1395: \ee

1396: %

1397: i. e.  $u_1\cong 1.472$, $u_2\cong 13.190$ for $n_f = 4$. 

1398: Alternatively one can use ordinary one or two-loop equations for the

1399: running $\alpha_{\rm V}(\mu^2)$ but with $\Lambda_{\rm V}$ redefined

1400: as (cf. (\ref{conv2lambda}))

1401: %

1402: \begin{equation}

1403: \Lambda_{\rm V} = \Lambda_{\rm \overline {MS}}\, e^{u_1 \over 2 \pi \beta_0}

1404: \cong 1.42 \Lambda_{\rm \overline {MS}}

1405: \label{Lambda-pt}

1406: \end{equation}

1407: and this should be the value to be used in (\ref{richardson2}). 

1408: Eq.(\ref{richardson2}) can be re-obtained from

1409: (\ref{RGScoupl}) by the modified $\beta$-function \cite{buchmuller}

1410: %

1411: \begin{equation}

1412: \beta_{\rm V}(\alpha) = - \beta_0\, \alpha^2 \left (1- e^{-{1

1413:     \over \beta_0 \alpha}}\right ).

1414: \label{beta-pt1}

1415: \end{equation}

1416: %

1417: More generally one can take

1418: %

1419: \begin{equation}

1420: { 1 \over \beta_{\rm V}(\alpha)} = - {1 \over \beta_0\, \alpha^2 

1421: \left (1- e^{-{1 \over \beta_0 \alpha}}\right )} + {\beta_1

1422:     \over \beta_0^2}{1 \over \alpha} \, e^{-l\alpha}\, ,

1423: \label{beta-pt2}

1424: \end{equation}

1425: %

1426: $l$ being an adjustable parameter. Eq. (\ref{beta-pt2}) reduces to

1427: (\ref{beta-pt1}) for $l\to \infty $, while for finite $l$ produce the

1428: following asymptotic behavior  

1429: %

1430: \begin{eqnarray}

1431: &\beta_{\rm V}(\alpha) \sim -\beta_0 \alpha^2 - \beta_1 \alpha^3 -

1432:   \dots \qquad & {\rm for}\qquad \alpha \to 0 \\ \label{asympta}

1433: &\beta_{\rm V}(\alpha) \sim -\, \alpha + \dots 

1434: \qquad & {\rm for} \qquad \alpha \to \infty 

1435: \label{alpha-pt22}

1436: \end{eqnarray}

1437: %

1438: which corresponds for $\alpha_{\rm V}(Q^2)$ to a two-loop expression of

1439: the type (\ref{2loopECit}) (or (\ref{2loopEC})) 

1440: for $Q\to \infty$ or of the form (\ref{richardson3}) for $Q \to 0\, $.\\

1441: Eqs.(\ref{richardson1}-\ref{richardson4}), or the more general

1442: corresponding to (\ref{beta-pt2}), are very appealing. They do 

1443: not introduce any additional parameters in the theory

1444: and for $\Lambda_{\rm V}\sim 0.5$ GeV (and $l=24$) reproduce well

1445: the spin averaged first excited states in the $b \bar b$ and $c \bar

1446: c$ systems. However, they are not satisfactory from other points of view.  

1447: They correspond to assume that all forces including confinement are

1448: due to the exchange of some effective vectorial object. On the contrary,

1449: if eq.(\ref{ansatz}) is generalized to Wilson loops with distorted

1450: contour (more sophisticate ansatzs also exist \cite{dosh, baker}) and 

1451: some more elaborate method is applied, spin dependent and

1452: velocity dependent (relativistic) corrections can be obtained, which

1453: differ from those that would be derived from the exchange of such a 

1454: vectorial particle alone and seem to be preferred by the data

1455: \cite{eichten,bcp,simonov}. The majority of the analysis seems 

1456: rather in favor of assuming a finite limit for $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$ 

1457: for $\mu \to 0$ and adding a separate term for confinement as in 

1458: (\ref{cornell}). 

1459: Besides hadron spectroscopy there is other abundant phenomenology that 

1460: seems to be consistent with the existence of a finite IR limit for 

1461: $\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)$. This concerns the hadron-hadron 

1462: scattering and the hadron form

1463: factors, the properties of jets, the transversal momentum

1464: spectrum in $W$ and $Z$ production etc.\\

1465: Coming to the explicit form of $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)$ the simplest

1466: modification of the one-loop expression that has been considered is

1467: the ``hard freeze'' assumption

1468: %

1469: \be \alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)  = \left\{

1470: \begin{array}{ll}

1471: {1 \over \beta_0}{1\over \ln (Q^2/\Lambda^2)}  & \mbox{for $Q^2

1472:   \geq Q_0^2$} \\

1473: H \equiv {1 \over \beta_0}{1\over \ln (Q_0^2/\Lambda^2)} & \mbox{for $Q^2

1474:   \leq Q_0^2$} 

1475: \end{array} 

1476: \qquad \label{hard} \right. 

1477: \ee

1478: %   

1479: This equation has been used in hadron spectrum calculations, in a model for

1480: hadron-hadron scattering and in studies on nucleon structure

1481: function \cite{nikolaev92} (see also \cite{Higashijima:1983gx}); the values 

1482: $Q_0\,=$ 0.44 GeV and $\Lambda \,$ corresponding to $\frac{H}{\pi}=0.28\,$GeV have

1483: been found appropriate for the last two applications, a little smaller 

1484: value ${H \over \pi}\, = $ 0.26 GeV comes from other phenomenology. 

1485: Other convenient interpolation formulas between the large $Q$

1486: perturbative expression and a finite $\alpha_{\rm s}(0)$ have been

1487: used again in hadron spectrum studies \cite{isgur} with 

1488: ${\alpha_{\rm s}(0) \over \pi}\,\sim\, 0.19-0.25$. In a fully

1489: relativistic treatment in \cite{Zhang} it was found that in order to

1490: obtain a $\pi$ mass so much lighter than the $\rho$ mass a value

1491: ${\alpha_{\rm s}(0) \over \pi}\,=\, 0.265$ was necessary. A

1492: similar results was obtained in \cite{Baldicchi:2004wj} with a

1493: one-loop analytic coupling (see later) with $\Lambda=0.18$ GeV corresponding to

1494: ${\alpha_{\rm s}(0) \over \pi}= 0.44$ but, what is really

1495: relevant, to an average value of $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2) \over \pi$ in 

1496: the interval between 0 and 0.5 GeV about 0.22. 

1497: Finally in many analysis the successful phenomenological hypothesis

1498: was adopted that the gluon acquires an effective dynamical mass $m_g$

1499: \cite{Ball:1995ni,Cornwall:1981zr, Field:2001iu}.  

1500: We shall come back in the following to this point, for the

1501: moment let us observe that to the leading order the following

1502: equation generalizes naively (\ref{richardson2})

1503: %

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: \alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2) = {1 \over \beta_0 \ln ({4m_g^2+Q^2 \over

1506:     \Lambda^2})}\,.

1507: \label{gluonmass}

1508: \end{equation}

1509: %

1510: In particular the mentioned hadron-hadron scattering model gives

1511: in this case  $\Lambda\,=\, 0.3$ GeV and $m_g\,=\, 0.37$ GeV 

1512: (${\alpha_{\rm s}(0) \over \pi}\,=\, 0.26$) \cite{Halzen:1992vd}.\\

1513: All the above mentioned attempts are essentially in agreement for

1514: what concerns the qualitative behavior of $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)$ in

1515: the infrared region, even if they differ in the details. The point is that

1516: for many purposes we can simply introduce an

1517: infrared-ultraviolet matching point in the range of variability of

1518: $Q$; let us say  $Q_{\rm I} = 1$ or 2 GeV. Then one can use ordinary 

1519: perturbative expressions of the type (\ref{1loopEC2}) for $Q>Q_{\rm I}$

1520: and treat the quantities 

1521: %

1522: \begin{equation}

1523: \langle {\alpha_{\rm s} \over \pi}\rangle = {1\over Q_{\rm I}}

1524:  \int _0^{Q_{\rm I}} dQ {\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2) \over \pi}

1525: \label{dks1}

1526: \end{equation}

1527: %

1528: or corresponding higher moments as adjustable parameters. Various

1529: event shape in $e^+e^-$ annihilation can be reproduced simply assuming

1530: $Q_{\bf I}=1$ GeV and $\langle {\alpha_{\rm s} \over \pi}\rangle \, 

1531: \approx 0.2 $  \cite{dokshitzer1} . Such procedure is believed to be a 

1532: way to parametrize and derive from experience truly non-perturbative effects

1533: (sec 4.5).

1534: 

1535: % 3.3 ................................

1536: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

1537: \subsection{Physical couplings}

1538: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

1539: By physical couplings we mean any type of {\it effective charges} 

1540: \cite{Grunberg:1980ja, Beneke:1994qe}, defined by (\ref{intr11}), and in 

1541: general any other observable related coupling. 

1542: The advantage of such quantities is that they are in principle well 

1543: defined at every scale and that can be easily extracted from experience. The

1544: disadvantage is that they are observable dependent. However, as we told they

1545: can be expanded in terms of the $\overline {\rm MS}$ coupling (cf.(\ref{int7})) 

1546: and related to each other \cite{Brodsky:1994eh}.\\

1547: First we may consider the typical case of the quantity

1548: $R_{e^+e^-}(s)\,$, (eq.(\ref{Rdef})) and the related Adler function 

1549: eq.(\ref{Adl}). Their perturbative expansions in the $\overline {\rm MS}$

1550: scheme are given by (\ref{R_ptb}) and (\ref{D_ptb}), respectively. 

1551: Correspondingly two different effective charges $\alpha_{\rm R}(s)$

1552: and $\alpha_{\rm D}(Q^2)$ can be defined 

1553: %

1554: \be

1555: R_{e^+e^-}(s)=3\sum_f Q_f^2 \left[1+{\alpha_{\rm R}(s) \over

1556:     \pi}\right], \quad 

1557: D(Q^2)=3\sum_f Q_f^2 \left[1+{\alpha_{\rm D}(Q^2) \over

1558:     \pi}\right]

1559: \lb{brd1}

1560: \ee

1561: %

1562: The first of these is of time-like, the second of space-like

1563: type. As apparent from eq.(\ref{dispAdl}), they are related by the

1564: transformation (\ref{phi}), i.e. 

1565: $\alpha_{\rm R}(s)=\Phi\left[\alpha_{\rm D}(Q^2)\right]\,$, 

1566: and are actually the model over which (\ref{alpha_RKP}) is written.\\

1567: A third effective charge, that has been used in 

1568: analysis of the $\tau$

1569: decay, can be defined with reference to the quantity $R_\tau$

1570: (cf.(\ref{taudecay}) and (\ref{taudecay2})), which we discuss in

1571: some more detail as an example. We can consider

1572: separately the contributions due to the vector and the axial currents

1573: and set \cite{brodsky03,ALEPH}

1574: %

1575: \bea

1576:  R_\tau^{\rm V/A}(s)= 12\pi S_{\rm EW} |V_{ud}|^2 \int_0^s {dt \over s}

1577:  \left(1-\frac{t}{s}\right)^2\qquad\qquad\nn\\

1578: \qquad\left\{\left(1+ \frac{2t}{s}\right) {\rm Im}\, 

1579:  \Pi_{\rm V/A}^{(1)}(t) +{\rm Im}\, \Pi_{\rm V/A}^{(0)}(t) \right\}\,.

1580: \lb{brd2}

1581: \eea

1582: %

1583: For $s=m_\tau^2$ eq.(\ref{brd2}) gives the ordinary $R_\tau^{V/A}$ for

1584: the $\tau$ lepton, for $s<m_\tau^2$ gives the corresponding expression

1585: for a fictitious $\tau^\prime$ with mass $m_{\tau^\prime} = \sqrt s$. In

1586: analogy with (\ref{brd1}) we can define a vector and axial coupling

1587: $\alpha_\tau^{\rm V/A}(s)$ by 

1588: %

1589: \be

1590:  R_\tau^{\rm V/A}(s)={ R_\tau^{0}\over 2}\left[1+

1591: {\alpha_\tau^{\rm V/A}(s) \over

1592:  \pi}\right]\,,

1593: \lb{brd3}

1594: \ee

1595: %

1596: where $R_\tau^{0}$ denotes the same quantity at zero order in the 

1597: strong coupling. It is also defined a global $\alpha_\tau (s)$ by

1598: %

1599: \be

1600: R_\tau (s) = R_\tau^{\rm V}(s) + R_\tau^{\rm A}(s)=

1601:  R_\tau^{0}\left[1+{\alpha_\tau(s) \over

1602:     \pi}\right]

1603: \lb{brd4}

1604: \ee

1605: %

1606: and $\alpha_\tau(s)={1 \over 2}\left[\alpha_\tau^{\rm V}(s)

1607:   +\alpha_\tau^{\rm A}(s)\right]\,$. 

1608: The quantity ${\rm Im}\, \Pi_{\rm V}^{(0)}(s)$ may be assumed to

1609: vanish for small quark masses and ${\rm Im}\, \Pi_{\rm A}^{(0)}(s)$ to

1610: be given only by the pion pole, ${\rm Im}\, \Pi_{\rm A}^{(0)}(s)= 

1611: {\pi \over m_\pi^2} \delta (s-m_\pi^2)$. Under the same hypothesis the quantities 

1612: ${\rm Im}\, \Pi_{\rm V}^{(1)}(s)$ and ${\rm Im}\, \Pi_{\rm

1613:   A}^{(1)}(s)$ should be identical at the

1614: perturbative level and they are expected to differ asymptotically

1615: only for powers of $1/s$ which have a non-perturbative origin. The same

1616: must be true for $\alpha_\tau^{\rm V}(s)$ and $\alpha_\tau^{\rm

1617: A}(s)$. Note that, due to isospin invariance $\rm Im\Pi_{V}^{(1)}$ is proportional

1618: to the isovectorial component $\rm Im\Pi_{em}^{(\rm I=1)}\,$, and 

1619: $\alpha_\tau^{\rm V} (s)$ and $\alpha_{\rm R}(s)$ are

1620: related by

1621: %

1622: \be

1623: \alpha_\tau^{\rm V} (s) = 2\,\int_0^s {dt \over s}\left(1-{t \over s} \right)^2

1624:  \left(1+ \frac{2t}{s}\right) \alpha_{\rm R}(t)\,.

1625: \lb{rd5}

1626: \ee

1627: %

1628: Since the first coefficients of the perturbative expansion of

1629: $R_{e^+e^-}$ and $R_\tau$ in the $ \overline {\rm MS}$ scheme are known, even 

1630: the coefficients $v_1, v_2, v_3$ of (\ref{alphaconv}) and 

1631: $\beta_2^{\tau},~\beta_3^{\tau}$ can be calculated.

1632: Therefore the couplings $\alpha_\tau (s)$ and $\alpha_{\rm R}(s)$ that can

1633: be extracted directly from experience can be immediately translated in

1634: terms of a 

1635: $\alpha_{\overline{\rm MS}}(s)$ value. Note, however, that in the

1636: expressions of $v_3$ and $\beta_3$, which we do not report, there appears 

1637: a quantity $K_4$ that has been only estimated, $K_4=25\pm50$ \cite{pich}. 

1638: We report in fig.\ref{alphas}(a) taken from \cite{brodsky03}

1639: the experimental value for $\alpha_\tau^{\rm V}(s)$, $\alpha_\tau^{\rm A}(s)$ 

1640: and $\alpha_\tau(s)$ as extracted from the data of OPAL collaboration 

1641: \cite{ALEPH}. The results are confronted with the resolution of the RG

1642: equation for the approppriate $\beta_{\tau}(\alpha_{\tau})\,$. 

1643: As it can be seen the 3-loop $\alpha_\tau(s)$ and 4-loop for

1644: $K_4=\pm25$ have a finite limit for $s\to 0\,$; the latter fits data very well 

1645: for $K_4=25$ down to $s\,\sim\, 1\, {\rm GeV}^2$. The strong enhancement of the

1646: experimental  $\alpha_\tau(s)$ below such value can be related to the

1647: pion pole that has not been included in the RG treatment.\\

1648: A last definition of effective charge has been given recently 

1649: \cite{Grunberg:2006jx} in the context of the Sudakov resummation

1650: formalism. 

1651: Let us consider, e.g., the Mellin transform $\hat F_2(Q^2,N)$ of the

1652: structure function  $F_2(Q^2,x)$ in DIS ($x$ being the Bjorken

1653: variable). Even after the mutual cancellation of the infrared 

1654: singularities due to the soft real and virtual gluons, $F_2(Q^2,x)$ has

1655: a logarithmic singularity at any order for $x \to 1$ which makes 

1656: ordinary perturbation theory inapplicable. Such a singularity which is 

1657: translated in the Mellin N-space in $\ln N$ power behavior for $N\to \infty$, can

1658: however be resummed \cite{sudakov}. One can then obtain the following

1659: asymptotic equation

1660: %

1661: \bea  

1662: &&Q^2{\partial \ln \hat F_2(Q^2,N) \over \partial Q^2}=\qquad\lb{sud1}\\

1663: &&{{\rm C}_F \over \pi}

1664: \left[\int _0^1 dx {x^{N-1}-1 \over 1-x} A_{\cal S}[(1-x)Q^2]+\right. 

1665: \left.H(Q^2) +O\left({1 \over N}\right)\right]\,,\nn

1666: \eea

1667: %

1668: where $ A_{\cal S}$ and $H$ have the usual 

1669: expansions  

1670: % 

1671: \be

1672: A_{\cal S}[Q^2] = \alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2) [1 + a_1 \alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)

1673: +\dots ]\,.

1674: \lb{sud2}

1675: \ee

1676: %

1677: Then $A_{\cal S}[Q^2]$ is assumed as an effective charge (Sudakov charge). 

1678: For large $n_f$ the Borel transform of

1679: (\ref{sud2}) $B[A_{\cal S}](t)$ can be given as an analytic expression

1680: without singularities. The corresponding $A_{\cal S}[Q^2]$ turns out

1681: to be free of Landau singularities but for $Q\to 0$ behaves as $-{1

1682: \over 2 \beta_0}[{\Lambda ^4 \over Q ^4}- {\Lambda ^2 \over Q^2}]$.

1683: This embarrassing singularity can be compensated with a non-perturbative

1684: term and leads to corrections in $1/Q$ (see sec 4.5).\\  

1685: Another very interesting physical coupling is introduced in

1686: \cite{dokshitzer2}.  This is a generalization to QCD

1687: of the Gell-Mann Low effective coupling for QED. It can be 

1688: considered a generalization of the coupling $\alpha_V(Q^2)$ discussed

1689: in sec. 3.1 and it is also related to the pinch scheme  

1690: discussed in \cite{Watson:1996fg}, which is somewhat more involved but

1691: explicitly gauge-independent.\\ 

1692: Let us isolate in a Feynman integrand the factor corresponding to

1693: the exchange of one dressed gluon between two quark lines

1694: %

1695: \be

1696: {-i \alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2) \over q^2 + i0} {1 \over 1- 

1697: \Pi[q^2;\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2),\mu^2]}\,,

1698: \lb{dks2}

1699: \ee

1700: %

1701: and set, e.g. in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme

1702: %

1703: \be

1704: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

1705: \alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2)= \left[{Z_{\bar q q g}^{\rm NA}(\mu^2) 

1706: \over Z_{\bar q q g}^{\rm NA}(Q^2)}\right]^2\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)

1707: {1 \over 1- \Pi[-Q^2;\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2),\mu^2]}\,,

1708: \lb{dks3}

1709: \ee

1710: %

1711: where $Z_{\bar q q g}^{\rm NA}(\mu^2)$ is the appropriate

1712: renormalization factor that makes the definition independent of the initial

1713: scale $\mu^2$. Obviously

1714: %

1715: \be

1716: Z_{\bar q q g}^{\rm NA}(\mu^2) = [Z_\alpha(\mu^2) Z_g(\mu^2)]^{1 \over 2}=

1717: Z_{\bar q q g}(\mu^2)Z_q^{-1}(\mu^2)\,,

1718: \lb{dks4}

1719: \ee

1720: %

1721: where we have used the same notation as in sec. 2.1.  Note that in

1722: an abelian theory, like QED, $Z_{\bar q q g}^{\rm NA}=1$ due to 

1723: Ward identity. In QCD the quark factor $Z_q$ cancels only 

1724: the ``abelian part'' of the vertex factor $Z_{\bar q q

1725:   g}$. This is the meaning of the superscript NA (non abelian part). 

1726: The index SGD in eq.(\ref{dks3}) means ``single gluon dressing''.\\

1727: From (\ref{dks3}), if $\Pi$ is evaluated in the $\rm \overline{MS}$ scheme, 

1728: we can write, setting $\mu=Q$,

1729: %

1730: \be

1731: \alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2) = \alpha_{\rm \overline{MS}}(Q^2) \left [

1732: 1 + k_1 { \alpha_{\rm \overline{MS}}(Q^2)\over \pi} + \dots \right]\,.

1733: \lb{dks40}

1734: \ee

1735: %

1736: Here $k_1$ depends on the constant terms occurring in the renormalized $\Pi$ 

1737: and it is so gauge dependent; e. g. in the Feynman gauge  

1738: $k_1=(31 - 10n_f/3) /12$. Note, however, that eq. (\ref{dks3}) can be 

1739: related to the pinch scheme and $k_1$ made gauge independent simply

1740: including in the definition of $\Pi$ additional constants coming

1741: from the {\it pinch parts} (selfenergy like parts originating from

1742: contraction of internal lines as a concequence of Ward identities) of 

1743: the vertex and the box diagrams \cite{Watson:1996fg}. In this way we

1744: obtain  $k_1=(67 - 10n_f/3) /12\,$. On the contrary, if we absorb

1745: the pertinent soft gluon corrections in a redefinition of 

1746: $\alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2)$, we find $k_1=(67-3\pi^2-10n_f/3) /12\,$ 

1747: \cite{cmw,dokshitzer2}. It is the latter value which is used in connection with the 

1748: considerations of sec. 4.5.  

1749: 

1750: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

1751: \subsection{Optimized perturbation theory}

1752: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

1753: By optimized perturbation theory it is

1754: generally  meant some kind of perturbative expansion in which the

1755: expansion variable, or the splitting of the Lagrangian in an

1756: unperturbed and a perturbation part, is chosen in dependence on a

1757: number of arbitrary parameters. Such parameters should not appear in the 

1758: exact result, but obviously they occur in any expansion which is 

1759: stopped to a certain maximum term $n$. However, it is immediately 

1760: shown even by very simple examples, that the convergence of the series 

1761: is greatly improved if for every $n$ the parameters are chosen at 

1762: some stationary value (optimized choice) that depends on $n$.\\ 

1763: In QCD, due to the arbitrariness in the choice of the RS, the 

1764: optimization can be required in the variables that control such a 

1765: scheme, e.g. the subtraction point $\mu$  and the 

1766: scheme dependent coefficients $\beta_2,~\beta_3,~\dots\,$. 

1767: Obviously every choice corresponds to a different definition of the 

1768: coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm s}\,$. 

1769: Let us e.g. consider the quantity  $R_{e^+e^-}(s)$ 

1770: defined by eq.(\ref{Rdef}), and rewrite expansion (\ref{R_ptb}) with an arbitrary 

1771: choice of $\mu^2$ (for the moment different from the total energy $s$) and 

1772: in a arbitrary RS

1773: %

1774: \begin{eqnarray}

1775: &&R_{e^+e^-}(s)= \nonumber\\

1776: &&3\sum_f Q_f^2 \left[1+\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)}{\pi}+r_2(s)

1777: \left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)}{\pi}\right)^2 +

1778: r_3(s)\left(\frac{\alpha_{\rm s}(\mu^2)}{\pi}\right)^3 + \dots

1779: \right]\,.

1780: \label{OPTR} 

1781: \end{eqnarray}

1782: % (4.2.1)

1783: The quantity $R_{e^+e^-}(s)$ must be RS independent and, if 

1784: we neglect the masses of active quarks, we can write

1785: %

1786: \begin{eqnarray}

1787: && \left({\partial \over \partial \tau} + \beta(\alpha_{\rm s}){\partial 

1788:    \over \partial \alpha_{\rm s}} \right) R_{e^+e^-} = 0 \qquad \nonumber \\

1789: &&\left ({\partial \over \partial \beta_j} - \beta(\alpha_{\rm s}) \int _0^{\alpha_{\rm s}}

1790:     d\alpha^\prime {\alpha^{\prime {j+2}}\over [\beta(\alpha^\prime)]^2}

1791: {\partial \over \partial \alpha_{\rm s}} \right ) R_{e^+e^-} = 0\,,

1792: \label{OPTRG}

1793: \end{eqnarray}

1794: % (4.2.2)

1795: where $j=2,3,\dots$, $\tau =\ln(\mu^2/\tilde \Lambda^2)$ (recall eq.(\ref{conv1Lambda}))  

1796: and we have used

1797: %

1798: \begin{equation}

1799: {\partial \alpha_{\rm s} \over \partial \beta_j}=

1800: -\beta(\alpha_{\rm s}) \int_0^{\alpha_{\rm s}} d\alpha^\prime

1801: {\alpha^{\prime j+2} \over [\beta(\alpha^\prime)]^2} = 

1802: \frac{\alpha_{\rm s}^{j+1}}{\beta_0}\left(\frac{1}{j-1}-\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}

1803: \frac{j-2}{j(j-1)}\alpha_{\rm s}+\dots\right)\,,

1804: \label{OPTAUS}

1805: \end{equation}

1806: % 4.2.3

1807: as it can be seen deriving eq.(\ref{RGScoupl}). 

1808: Eq.(\ref{OPTRG}) can be used, first to obtain $r_2,~r_3,\dots$ in an 

1809: arbitrary RS when we know this quantities in a specific RS (cf. eq.(\ref{intr9})), 

1810: and then to make the 

1811: optimal choice for $\tau,~\beta_2,~\beta_3,\dots$, when we have stopped

1812: expansions (\ref{OPTR}) and (\ref{intr3}) to a certain maximum

1813: order; let us say to the term in $r_3$ in (\ref{OPTR}) and

1814: to three-loop (i.e. to the term in $\beta_2$ ) in (\ref{intr3}).\\

1815: From now on we will use the notations $b_j=(4\pi)^{j+1}\beta_j$ and 

1816: $a=\alpha_{\rm s}/\pi\,$.

1817: Replacing (\ref{OPTR}) in (\ref{OPTRG}), asking that this

1818: equations for 

1819: a given $\mu^2$ are satisfied for an arbitrary value of $a$ we obtain 

1820: differential equations for $r_2,~ r_3,\dots\,$. Restricting to $r_2$  and $r_3$ 

1821: and $j = 2$ we have

1822: %

1823: \begin{eqnarray}

1824: &&{\partial r_2 \over \partial \tau}= {1 \over 4}b_0  \qquad \qquad \qquad

1825: {\partial r_2 \over \partial b_2} = 0 \qquad\nonumber \\

1826: &&{\partial r_3 \over \partial\tau}={1 \over 2}b_0 r_2 

1827: + {1\over 16}b_1\qquad

1828: {\partial r_3 \over \partial b_2} = - {1 \over 16}{1 \over b_0} \qquad

1829: \label{OPTRG2}

1830: \end{eqnarray}

1831: % (4.2.4)

1832: Integrating the above equations, we obtain

1833: %

1834: \begin{eqnarray}

1835: && r_2={1\over 4}b_0 \tau + \rho_2  \qquad \qquad\nonumber \\

1836: && r_3={ 1 \over 16} b_0^2 \tau^2 + {1 \over 2}b_0 \rho_2

1837: \tau + { 1 \over 16} b_1 \tau - { 1 \over 16}{ b_2 \over

1838: b_0} + \rho_3^\prime \qquad \qquad\nonumber \\

1839: &&\quad  = \left ( r_2 + {1 \over 8}{b_1 \over b_0} \right)^2 - 

1840: {1 \over 16 }{b_2 \over b_0} + \rho_3 

1841: \label{OPTcoeff} \,,

1842: \end{eqnarray}

1843: %(4.2.5)

1844: where $\rho_2$ and $\rho_3$ are integration constants and so quantities 

1845: independent of $\tau,~b_2,\dots$ and RS independent. They can be 

1846: calculated e.g. equating $b_2,~ r_2,~ r_3$ to their expressions 

1847: $b_2^{\rm \overline {MS}},~r_2^{\rm \overline {MS}},~r_3^{\rm \overline

1848: {MS}}$ in the $\rm \overline {MS}$ scheme as

1849: given by equations (\ref{R_coefs}) and (\ref{D_coefs}) after setting 

1850: $\mu^2 = s$ . We have

1851: %

1852: \be

1853: \rho_2 =  r_2^{\rm \overline {MS}} - {1\over 4} b_0 

1854: \ln {s \over \tilde \Lambda^2}\,\,,\quad

1855: \rho_3 = r_3^{\rm \overline {MS}} - 

1856: \left ( r_2^{\rm \overline {MS}}+{1 \over 8}{b_1 \over

1857:   b_0} \right )^2 + {1 \over 16}{ b_2^{\rm \overline {MS}}\over b_0}\,.

1858: \label{OPTRGinv}

1859: \ee

1860: % (4.2.6)

1861: Note that $\rho_3$ turns out to be independent of $s\,$, and $r_2$

1862: has the form

1863: %

1864: \begin{equation}

1865: r_2 = -{1\over 4}b_0 \ln {s \over \tilde \Lambda^2}+ {1\over 4}

1866: b_0 \tau + r_2^{\rm \overline {MS}}\,,

1867: \label{OPTr2}

1868: \end{equation}

1869: % (4.2.7)

1870: while $r_3$ depends on $s$ and $\tau$ only through $r_2$.

1871: Let us now replace  $\beta(a)$ in (\ref{RGScoupl}) with its 3-loop

1872: expression $\beta^{(3)}(a) = -\pi\,a^2(\frac{b_0}{4}+\frac{b_1}{16}a 

1873: + \frac{b_2}{64}a^2 )$.          

1874: We have

1875: %

1876: \be

1877: \tau = {4\over b_0 a} + {b_1 \over b_0^2}\ln \left({b_1 a \over b_0}\right) -

1878: {b_1 \over 2b_0^2} \ln \left({16b_0+4b_1 a + b_2 a^2\over b_0}\right) + 

1879: {2b_2 b_0 - b_1^2 \over 2b_0^2}\,f(a,b_2)

1880: \label{running3loop}

1881: \ee

1882: % (4.2.8)

1883: with

1884: %

1885: \begin{equation}

1886: f(a,b_2)={1 \over \sqrt{D}} \ln {4b_0 + {1 \over 2} a

1887:   (b_1+\sqrt D) \over 4b_0 + {1 \over 2}a (b_1-\sqrt D)}

1888: \label{function}

1889: \end{equation}

1890: %(4.2.8')

1891: and $D=b_1^2-4b_2 b_0\,$. 

1892: Let us make the same replacement in (\ref{OPTRG}) and stop 

1893: (\ref{OPTR}) at the $a^3$ term. By requiring that eq.(\ref{OPTRG})

1894: is now exactly satisfied, we obtain the following equations

1895: %

1896: \begin{eqnarray}

1897: && 3 b_0 r_3 + {1 \over 2} b_1 r_2 + {1 \over 16} b_2 

1898: +(3b_1 r_3 + {1 \over 2}b_2 r_2){a\over4} + 3 b_2 r_3 {a^2\over16} = 0 \qquad

1899:  \nonumber \\

1900: &&\left[1 +\left({b_1\over4 b_0} +2r_2 \right)\, a \right] I(a,b_2) - a = 0  \,,

1901: \label{optimization}

1902: \end{eqnarray}

1903: % (4.2.9)

1904: with

1905: %

1906: \begin{equation}

1907: I(a,b_2)={4b_0 \over D}\left[

1908: {(4b_1^2 - 8b_2b_0)a+b_2b_1 a^2 \over 16b_0 + 4b_1 a

1909:   + b_2 a^2} -

1910:  2b_2b_0 \, f(a,b_2) \right]\,.

1911: \label{I}

1912: \end{equation}

1913: %(4.2.9')

1914: Eq. (\ref{running3loop}) gives $a$ as a function of $\tau$ (or $\mu$) 

1915: and then (\ref{I}) and (\ref{optimization}) become equations in 

1916: $\tau$ and $b_2$ that determine the optimal choice $\overline \tau(s)$ 

1917: and $\overline b_2(s)$ of such quantities for every $s$.

1918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1919: \begin{figure}[t]

1920: \begin{center}

1921: \begin{tabular}{c c c}

1922: \includegraphics[width=17pc]{brodsky.eps}  & 

1923: \hskip -1.2 cm\includegraphics[width=19pc,height=6.8cm]{MSbis.eps} \\

1924:   \footnotesize{(a)} & \footnotesize{(b)} \\

1925: \end{tabular}

1926: \caption{\footnotesize (a) Effective charge $\alpha_{\tau}$ compared with 

1927: solution to RG equation up to four-loop.

1928: (b) The optimized third-order results for the coupling 

1929: $\bar{a}=\alpha_s/\pi$ and the QCD correction $\bar{{\cal R}}^{(3)}$ 

1930: to the ratio $R_{e^+e^-}$. Also shown is the second-order result 

1931: $\bar{{\cal R}}^{(2)}$. Quark thresholds are indicated by vertical lines.

1932: \vspace{-0.5truecm}} 

1933: \label{alphas}

1934: \end{center}

1935: \end{figure}

1936: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1937: In this way we obtain an optimized running coupling 

1938: $\overline a(s)= {\alpha_{\rm OPT}(s) \over \pi}$ which together with the optimized 

1939: values $\overline r_2(s),~ \overline r_3(s)$, can be used in

1940: (\ref{OPTRG}) to evaluate the quantity $R_{e^+e^-}(s)$. The

1941: resulting $\alpha_{\rm OPT}(s)$ can be evaluated numerically and is

1942: reported in fig.\ref{alphas}(b) taken from \cite{stevenson} as a function of 

1943: $q = \sqrt s$ for 

1944: $\Lambda_{\rm  \overline {MS}}\,$= 230 MeV  ($\tilde \Lambda_{\rm

1945:  \overline {MS}}\,$= 264 MeV). 

1946: Note that $\alpha_{\rm  OPT}(q^2)$ stays finite as $q$ decreases 

1947: and attains a maximum for $q\sim$200 MeV, after which it remains 

1948: practically constant. Such a maximum value can be shown to be given 

1949: by the equation \cite{stevenson}

1950: %

1951: \begin{equation}

1952: {\alpha_{\rm  OPT}^* \over \pi}= 

1953: {-b_1 + \sqrt{b_1^2-336 b_0^2\rho_3}\over 24 b_0 \rho_3}

1954: \,. \label{alphamax}

1955: \end{equation}

1956: %(4.2.10)

1957: Taking $n_f = 2$, as appropriate to the range of energy, we have 

1958: from (\ref{OPTRGinv}) $\rho_3 = - 10.911$ and 

1959:  so ${\alpha_{\rm OPT}^* \over \pi}=0.263$.  

1960: Note that the behavior of $\alpha_{\rm OPT}(q^2)$ for $0<q<1$ GeV 

1961: is perfectly consistent with what follows eq.(\ref{dks1}).

1962: In fig.\ref{alphas}(b) are also reported the second and third order results 

1963: for the quantity ${\cal R}$ defined by $R_{e^+e^-} = 3 \sum_f

1964: Q_f^2(1+{\cal R})$ and expressing the QCD correction to

1965: $R_{e^+e^-}\,$. 

1966: The results compare favorably with the 

1967: experimental data appropriately smeared to wash the irregularity due 

1968: to the resonances.

1969: %444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

1970: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

1971: \section{The dispersive approach}

1972: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

1973: As mentioned in the introduction we can dispose of the Landau

1974: singularities simply exploiting the general analyticity properties

1975: expected for $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)$ and applying perturbation theory

1976: directly to the spectral function \cite{Shirkov:1997wi,Ginzburg:1966}. 

1977: This idea generalizes to QCD a

1978: method originally introduced in QED \cite{Redmond:1958pe}.\\

1979: Defining the spectral density

1980: \be

1981: \rho(\sigma)=\mathrm{Im}\,\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-\sigma-i0)=\frac{1}{2i}

1982: \left[\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-\sigma-i0)-

1983: \alpha_{\rm{s}}(-\sigma+i0)\right]\,, \lb{dens}

1984: \ee

1985: where $\sigma>0$ and $\alpha_{\rm{s}}(-\sigma)$ is the perturbative 

1986: RG solution at a given loop level, the analytically improved running 

1987: coupling is thus given by \cite{Shirkov:1997wi}

1988: \be

1989: \alpha_{\rm{an}}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{\infty}d\sigma\,

1990: \frac{\rho(\sigma)}{\sigma+Q^2} \lb{alphaSH}

1991: \ee

1992: whose argument $Q^2=-q^2>0$ now runs over the whole space-like axis 

1993: (we observe here and in the foregoing the identification $\mu^2=Q^2$), 

1994: that is $\alpha_{\rm{an}}(Q^2)$ is free of any space-like unphysical

1995: singularities by construction; moreover, due to the asymptotically 

1996: free nature of the perturbative input the spectral integral

1997: (\ref{alphaSH}) needs no subtractions.\\

1998: Note that different strategies to incorporate analyticity into the

1999: RG formalism, or even to implement the above device, exist as well, 

2000: and they will be briefly reminded in sec. 4.4.

2001: 

2002: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

2003: \subsection{One-loop analytic coupling}

2004: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

2005: At one-loop level this trick works quite straightforwardly;

2006: starting from the leading-logs expression (\ref{1loopEC2})

2007: the related spectral density (see also eq.(\ref{int8}))

2008: \be

2009: \rho^{(1)}(\sigma)=\frac{\pi\,\beta_0^{-1}}{\ln^2(\sigma/\Lambda^2)+\pi^2}

2010: \lb{dens1} 

2011: \ee

2012: turns out to be explicitly integrable, and eq.(\ref{alphaSH}) 

2013: yields \cite{Shirkov:1997wi} 

2014: \be

2015: \alpha_{\rm{an}}^{(1)}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left[\frac{1}{\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)}

2016: +\frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda^2-Q^2}\right]\,. \lb{alphaSH1} 

2017: \ee 

2018: 

2019: The analytically generated 

2020: non-per\-tur\-ba\-ti\-ve contribution in (\ref{alphaSH1}) subtracts 

2021: the pole in a minimal way, yielding a ghost-free behavior 

2022: which avoids any adjustable parameter. 

2023: Obviously eq.(\ref{intr5}) for the scaling constant does not work 

2024: anymore and, at one-loop, it has now to be changed to 

2025: \be

2026: \Lambda^2=\mu_0^2\exp\left[-\phi\left(\beta_0\,\alpha_{\rm{s}}(\mu_0^2)

2027: \right)\right]\,,

2028: \lb{lambdaSH1} 

2029: \ee 

2030: where the function $\phi$ is related to the formal inverse of 

2031: (\ref{alphaSH1}) that is, with  

2032: $x=\beta_0\alpha_{\rm{an}}^{(1)}$ and $Q^2/\Lambda^2=\exp\phi(x)$, 

2033: it satisfies 

2034: \be

2035: \frac{1}{\phi(x)}+\frac{1}{1-\exp\phi(x)}=x\,. 

2036: \lb{phiSH} 

2037: \ee

2038: Among the main features of the analytically improved space-like 

2039: coupling, it should be firstly stressed its agreement 

2040: with asymptotic freedom constraint, being the pure perturbative 

2041: contribution ruling in the deep UV region over the ''non-perturbative''  

2042: one. Indeed the latter for $Q^2>\Lambda^2$ can be rewritten  

2043: as the sum of the series 

2044: \be

2045: \Delta_{\rm p}^{(1)}(Q^2)=-\frac{1}{\beta_0}\sum_1^{\infty}

2046: \left(\frac{\Lambda^2}{Q^2}\right)^n\,, 

2047: \lb{npt1} 

2048: \ee 

2049: yielding power correction terms to the one-loop

2050: perturbative coupling (\ref{1loopEC2}) (see sec 4.5). 

2051: On the other hand, in the extreme opposite domain eq.(\ref{alphaSH1}) 

2052: exhibits the infrared freezing value 

2053: $\alpha_{\rm{an}}^{(1)}(0)=1/\beta_0\simeq1.396$ 

2054: choosing consistently $n_f=3$ at low scales; 

2055: this value turns out to be independent of $\Lambda$ and  

2056: universal with respect to higher-loop corrections, i.e. the 

2057: analytic coupling (\ref{alphaSH}) has a remarkably stable 

2058: IR behavior.\\

2059: The beta-function for the one-loop coupling (\ref{alphaSH1})  

2060: reads \cite{Shirkov:1997wi}

2061: \be

2062: \beta^{(1)}_{\rm{an}}(x)=-\frac{1}{\phi^2(x)}+\frac{\exp\phi(x)}

2063: {\left[\exp\phi(x)-1\right]^2}

2064: \lb{anbeta}

2065: \ee

2066: with $\phi$ satisfying eq.(\ref{phiSH}). Despite the implicit form 

2067: of (\ref{anbeta}), its symmetry property 

2068: $\beta_{\rm{an}}^{(1)}(x)=\beta_{\rm{an}}^{(1)}(1-x)$ reveals

2069: the existence of a IR fixed point at $x=1$, corresponding to 

2070: $\alpha_{\rm{an}}(0)=1/\beta_0\,$ (see also \cite{Magradze:1999um}).\\

2071: Finally, we just mention here that the relation between the

2072: $\beta$-function structure and the analytical properties of the

2073: running coupling has been investigated in ref.\cite{Krasnikov:1995is}

2074: within a pure perturbative approach; some resummation tricks for

2075: the asymptotic $\beta$-function have been there outlined, which can

2076: cure the Landau ghost problem, and rely upon freedom in choosing

2077: the RS in higher orders. Another viewpoint is given in 

2078: \cite{Grunberg98}, where the hypothesis of pure perturbative freezing 

2079: has been explored by analyzing the $n_f$-dependence of the 

2080: $\beta$-coefficients (see also eq.(\ref{sud2}) and the following).

2081: 

2082: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

2083: \subsection{Two-loop and higher orders}

2084: \vspace{-0.3truecm} 

2085: Actually, as discussed in sec. 2.2, the two and 

2086: higher-loop RG equation for invariant coupling has no simple 

2087: exact solution, so that 

2088: rough UV approximations are commonly used 

2089: (eq.(\ref{4loopEC})), leading to a 

2090: cumbersome IR nonanalytical structure. 

2091: Nevertheless, to go further inside analytization and its features  

2092: we follow ref.\cite{Solovtsov:1999in} and choose the two-loop 

2093: iterative solution as given by eq.(\ref{2loopECit}). 

2094: By applying now the analytization recipe the main difficulty

2095: arises from the integration of the related spectral density

2096: \cite{Shirkov:1997wi}

2097: \bea

2098: \rho_{\rm{it}}^{(2)}(\sigma)=\mathrm{Im}\,\alpha_{\rm{it}}^{(2)}(-\sigma)=

2099: \frac{1}{\beta_0}\frac{I(t)}{I^2(t)+R^2(t)}

2100: \qquad t=\ln(\sigma/\Lambda^2)\qquad\qquad\qquad\lb{spect2}\\

2101: I(t)=\pi+B_1\arccos\frac{B_1+t}{\sqrt{(B_1+t)^2+\pi^2}}\,,\,\,\,

2102: R(t)=t+B_1\ln\frac{\sqrt{(B_1+t)^2+\pi^2}}{B_1}\nn

2103: \eea

2104: which does not lead to an explicit final formula, though the relative 

2105: dispersion integral (\ref{alphaSH}) can be handled by numerical tools. 

2106: However, recalling the singularity structure of (\ref{2loopECit}) 

2107: (sec. 2.4), entirely subtracted by analytization, 

2108: the two-loop analytic coupling can be recovered 

2109: by merely adding to (\ref{2loopECit}) two compensating terms,  

2110: cancelling respectively the pole and the cut \cite{Solovtsov:1999in}

2111: \bea

2112: &&\alpha_{\rm{an.it}}^{(2)}(z)=\alpha_{\rm{it}}^{(2)}(z)+\Delta_{\rm p}^{(2)}

2113: +\Delta_{\rm c}^{(2)}

2114: \lb{SH2}\\

2115: &&\Delta^{(2)}_{\rm p}(z)= \frac{1}{2\beta_0}\frac{1}{1-z}\nn\\

2116: &&\Delta^{(2)}_{\rm c}(z)=

2117: \frac{1}{\beta_0}\int_0^{\exp{(-B_1)}}\frac{d\xi}{\xi-z}\,

2118: \frac{B_1}{\left[\ln\xi+B_1\ln\left(-1-B_1^{-1}\ln\xi\right)\right]^2+

2119: \pi^2 B_1^2}\nn\,

2120: \eea

2121: with the dimensionless variable $\xi=\sigma/\Lambda^2$. Despite 

2122: the little handiness of (\ref{SH2}), one can still readily verify 

2123: its limit $\alpha_{\rm{an.it}}^{(2)}(0)=1/\beta_0$; for more 

2124: general arguments concerning universality of the IR freezing value 

2125: through all orders see for instance 

2126: \cite{Solovtsov:1999in, Milton:1997mi} and \cite{Alekseev:2002zn}.

2127: Moreover, the non-perturbative UV tail of analytized coupling can be 

2128: estimated by expanding the two compensating terms in (\ref{SH2}) 

2129: into inverse powers of $z=Q^2/\Lambda^2$ for large $z$ 

2130: \cite{Alekseev:2000}

2131: \bea

2132: &&\Delta^{(2)}_{\rm p}(z)+\Delta^{(2)}_{\rm c}(z)=\frac{1}{\beta_0}

2133: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{c_n}{z^n}\lb{alek2}\\

2134: &&\nn\\

2135: && c_n=-\frac{1}{2}-\int_0^\infty

2136: d\xi\,\frac{\exp{\left[-nB_1(1+\xi)\right]}}

2137: {\left(1+\xi-\ln\xi\right)^2 +\pi^2}\nn\,. 

2138: \eea

2139: Thus for $z>1$ non-perturbative contributions can be recasted analogously 

2140: to (\ref{npt1}) as a convergent power series with all negative coefficients, 

2141: approaching $-1/2\,$ 

2142: (e.g. $c_1=0.535\,$, see refs. \cite{Alekseev:2000} 

2143: and \cite{Alekseev:2002jb}).\\

2144: As yet pointed out, to get the most accurate result at two-loop 

2145: in the IR domain, one needs to start with the exact RG solution 

2146: (\ref{RG2loop-ex}).  

2147: To this aim first of all one has to extrapolate eq.(\ref{RG2loop-ex}) in

2148: such a way to define a real analytic function regular for $-e^{-1}\le\zeta\le0\,$;

2149: the two branches $W_1(\zeta)$ and $W_{-1}(\zeta)$ merge continuously on

2150: $(-e^{-1},0)\,$, so that the correct recipe is to use eq.(\ref{RG2loop-ex}) 

2151: for $\rm{Im}(\zeta)\ge0$ and the same equation with $W_{-1}(\zeta)$ replaced by

2152: $W_1(\zeta)$ for $\rm{Im}(\zeta)<0\,$. 

2153: The discontinuity of the two loop exact solution across the time-like cut defines 

2154: the spectral density \cite{Magradze:2000hz} (see also 

2155: \cite{Magradze:1999um}) 

2156: \bea

2157: &&\rho_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(\sigma)=-\frac{1}{\beta_0B_1}\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{1}

2158: {1+W_1(\zeta(t))}\right]\qquad t=\ln(\sigma/\Lambda^2)\lb{exspc2}\\

2159: &&\nn\\

2160: &&\quad\zeta(t)=\frac{1}{eB_1}\exp\left[-\frac{t}{B_1}+

2161: i\pi\left(\frac{1}{B_1}-1\right)\right]\,.\nn

2162: \eea 

2163: Dispersion integral (\ref{alphaSH}) with 

2164: $t=\ln(\sigma/\Lambda^2)$ now leads to the 

2165: exact two-loop analytic coupling

2166: \be

2167: \alpha^{(2)}_{\rm{an}}(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dt\,

2168: \frac{e^t}{e^t+z}\,\bar{\rho}_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(t)\,

2169: \lb{exan2}

2170: \ee

2171: where $\bar{\rho}_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(t)=\rho_{\rm{ex}}^{(2)}(\sigma)\,$.

2172: Numerical estimates of (\ref{exan2}) as well as for the analytic

2173: iterative coupling (\ref{SH2}) have been performed at low scales 

2174: with $n_f=3$ in \cite{Magradze:1999um} (see Tab.1), both normalized  

2175: at the $\tau$ mass $M_{\tau}=1.777\,$GeV, 

2176: $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}(M_{\tau}^2)=0.36$; comparison reveals the 

2177: relative error for the analytized solution (\ref{SH2}) to be around 

2178: $1.8\%$ in the IR region.\\ 

2179: In spite of its accuracy eq.(\ref{exan2}) cannot be easily

2180: handled, even though it is a source of numerical information to

2181: which simpler expressions have to be compared. Actually, for

2182: practical aims, many useful two-loop approximate formulas have

2183: been suggested; among them we recall here the ``one-loop-like''

2184: model \cite{Solovtsov:1999in} 

2185: \be

2186: \bar{\alpha}_{\rm{an}}^{(2)}(l)=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left[\frac{1}{l}-

2187: \frac{1}{\exp{l}-1}\right]\,,

2188: \quad l=\ln\left(\frac{Q^2}{\Lambda^2}\right)+B_1\ln\sqrt{\ln^2\left(

2189: \frac{Q^2}{\Lambda^2}\right)+4\pi^2} 

2190: \lb{SH2ap}

2191: \ee 

2192: suitable for analysis of rather low energy phenomena, 

2193: since it approximates the exact two-loop analytic coupling with $1\%$ 

2194: precision for $Q\geq 1\,$GeV, and correctly reproduces both the universal 

2195: freezing value and the UV two-loop asymptotic behavior. However, its 

2196: accuracy breaks down when taking into account flavor thresholds. To this 

2197: end it has been suggested \cite{Bakulev:2004cu} to use 

2198: eq.(\ref{SH2ap}) provided that the scaling constant and the 

2199: coefficient $B_1$ are replaced by adjustable parameters (respectively 

2200: $\Lambda_{21}$ and $c_{21}^{fit}$ listed in tab. III of ref.\cite{Bakulev:2004cu} 

2201: for different initial $\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}$), as a result of an interpolation 

2202: procedure; this yields an accuracy within $1\%$ in the whole space-like 

2203: region. A ``one-loop-like'' model employing the scaling constant as a 

2204: fitting parameter, suitable from $2$ to $100\,$ GeV, has been recently 

2205: developed in \cite{Shirkov:2005sg}.\\

2206: Increasing difficulties arise when dealing with even higher-loop 

2207: level and it becomes prohibitive to achieve useful explicit formulas. 

2208: Starting e.g. with the standard three or four-loop asymptotic solution 

2209: (\ref{4loopEC}), one has to face with the leading singularity in $z=1$ 

2210: of the form (\ref{IR3loop}), beside the IR log-of-log generated cut; 

2211: terms accounting for these divergences acquire the 

2212: form of cumbersome finite limits integral as in (\ref{SH2}). 

2213: Nonetheless, the effects of non-perturbative contributions have been 

2214: widely investigated up to four-loop \cite{Alekseev:2002jb,Alekseev:2002zn}, 

2215: both in IR (where they play the most prominent role) and UV region, by 

2216: using asymptotic solution (\ref{4loopEC}) as a perturbative input. 

2217: While confirming at once IR stability due to the universal freezing value 

2218: of the analytized coupling, its UV tail has been reduced \cite{Alekseev:2002zn} 

2219: in the form of power type corrections analogous to (\ref{alek2}). Within this 

2220: approximation the $n_f$-dependent coefficients $c_n$ are all 

2221: negative up to four-loop, and their absolute values monotonously increase 

2222: with $n$.  

2223: In the large $Q^2$ limit, however,   

2224: there is no need to sum a high number of terms,

2225: and truncation of e.g. the three-loop non-perturbative series to first 

2226: term yields the approximate expression 

2227: \cite{Alekseev:2002zn}

2228: \vspace{-0.1truecm} 

2229: \bea

2230: &&\bar{\alpha}^{(3)}_{\rm{an}}(z)=\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(3)}(z)+\frac{1}{\beta_0} c_1

2231: \frac{\Lambda^2}{Q^2}\lb{alek3}\\

2232: &&\qquad c_1=-1+B_1(1-\gamma_{\rm E})-\frac{B_1^2}{2}\left[B_2-\frac{\pi^2}{6}+

2233: (1-\gamma_{\rm E})^2\right]\nn

2234: \eea

2235: \vspace{-0.02truecm}

2236: for the analytic coupling, with $1\%$ accuracy yet at $Q^2\simeq5\Lambda^2\,$. Here 

2237: $\gamma_{\rm E}$ is the Euler constant, 

2238: $B_2=\beta_0\beta_2/\beta_1^2$ 

2239: and $\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(3)}(z)$ is the perturbative counterpart as given 

2240: by (\ref{4loopEC}); if $n_f=6$ we roughly have $c_1\simeq-0.52\,$.\\

2241: By normalizing the three-loop analytized coupling at 

2242: $\alpha_{\mathrm{s}}(M_Z^2)\simeq0.118$ (with perturbative input from 

2243: eq.(\ref{4loopEC}) and numerical evaluation of dispersion integral 

2244: (\ref{alphaSH})), one can extract the three-loop scaling constant 

2245: $\Lambda^{(n_f=5)}\simeq210\,$MeV \cite{Alekseev:2002zn}, which

2246: lies within the errors of the pure perturbative estimate (see

2247: sec. 2.3), being the non-perturbative tail negligible around the

2248: normalization point. Obviously the main discrepancies emerge in the 

2249: low energy region, where non-perturbative contributions slow down the

2250: rise of the curve. By using continuous matching up to three-loop, at

2251: the $\overline{\rm{MS}}$ quark masses $m_b=4.3\,$GeV and $m_c=1.3\,$GeV,

2252: for the three-loop analytized case one finds roughly \cite{Alekseev:2002zn}

2253: \be

2254: \Lambda^{(n_f=5)}\simeq210\,{\rm MeV}\,\,\to\,\,\Lambda^{(n_f=4)}\simeq299\,{\rm MeV}

2255: \,\,\to\,\,\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}\simeq382\,{\rm MeV}\,,

2256: \lb{L_an}

2257: \ee

2258: to be compared with the relative perturbative estimates\footnote{

2259: The shifts of $\Lambda$s in (\ref{L_pt}) w.r.t. sec. 2.3 are mainly

2260: due to the different normalization value, and partly to continuous 

2261: matching used here; indeed there is little sensitivity to the 

2262: implementation to trivial matching given by eq.(\ref{L3match}).}

2263: \be

2264: \Lambda^{(n_f=5)}\simeq210\,{\rm MeV}\,\,\to\,\,\Lambda^{(n_f=4)}\simeq290\,{\rm MeV}

2265: \,\,\to\,\,\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}\simeq329\,{\rm MeV}\,.

2266: \lb{L_pt}

2267: \ee

2268: These discrepancies at low scales can be translated into the values

2269: of analytic and perturbative coupling at the $\tau$ mass 

2270: $M_{\tau}=1.777\,$GeV, given respectively by 

2271: $\alpha_{\rm an}^{(3)}(M_{\tau}^2)\simeq0.294$ and

2272: $\alpha_{\rm{s}}^{(3)}(M_{\tau}^2)\simeq0.318\,$. 

2273: Note that normalization at $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\tau})=0.35$ is 

2274: sometimes adopted, and this leads to considerably higher values for 

2275: the scaling constant. 

2276: Last, it should be stressed the nearly indistinguishability of the

2277: two to four-loop analytic curves (fig.\ref{alphas2}(a)), confirming 

2278: higher order 

2279: stability on the whole spacelike axis \cite{Shirkov:1997wi, Alekseev:2002zn}. 

2280: Thus we argue the two-loop correction to be a well 

2281: satisfactory improvement of the one-loop result, so that it is 

2282: reasonable to resort to approximate formulas as given e.g. by 

2283: (\ref{SH2ap}). However, in recent works \cite{Kurashev:2003pt, Magradze:2005ab} 

2284: the multi-loop approximation (\ref{alpha^k}) as a power series in the two-loop 

2285: exact coupling (\ref{RG2loop-ex}) has been exploited as an input in the dispersion

2286: integral (\ref{alphaSH}), to yield high-accuracy three and four-loop 

2287: analytic coupling of the form \cite{Kurashev:2003pt}

2288: \be

2289: \alpha_{\rm{an}}^{(k)}(Q^2)=\sum_{n\ge1} p_n^{(k)}

2290: \left[\alpha_{\rm{an}}^{(2)}(Q^2)\right]^n

2291: \lb{alpha^k_an}

2292: \ee

2293: with $\alpha_{\rm{an}}^{(2)}$ given by (\ref{exan2}) and coefficients 

2294: the same as in (\ref{alpha^k}). Numerical values at low scales can be 

2295: found in \cite{Kurashev:2003pt}, to which we refer for more details.

2296: 

2297: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

2298: \subsection{The time-like coupling in the analytic approach}

2299: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

2300: Coming back to the issue of defining a reasonable expansion parameter

2301: in the time-like domain ($q^2=s>0$), we start by noting that such a 

2302: definition naturally arises in a self-consistent way within the 

2303: framework of the analytic approach \cite{Milton:1997us, Solovtsov:1997at}. 

2304: Further, it can be regarded as the final step in the procedure RKP 

2305: for $\pi^2$-resummation outlined in sec. 2.5.\\

2306: As yet noted, eq.(\ref{dispAdl}) and its formal inverse (\ref{invsAdl}) 

2307: can be generalized to the proper tool for relating s- and t-channel

2308: observables, that is for crossing the two distinct regions. On this 

2309: ground, it has then been suggested \cite{Jones:1995rd, Milton:1997us} 

2310: to use the same integral transformations in order to connect the 

2311: time-like and space-like couplings, employing as a suitable regularization  

2312: the analytically improved coupling (\ref{alphaSH}), free of 

2313: unphysical singularities at any loop level. Then \cite{Milton:1997us}

2314: \bea

2315: &&\tilde{\alpha}(s)=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{s-i\varepsilon}^{s+i\varepsilon}

2316: \frac{dq^2}{q^2}\,\alpha_{\rm an}(-q^2)\lb{int-r}\\

2317: &&\alpha_{\rm an}(-q^2)=-q^2\int_0^{\infty}ds\,\frac{\tilde{\alpha}(s)}{(s-q^2)^2}

2318: \lb{int-d}

2319: \eea

2320: with $q^2$ as usual in $\mathbb{C}-\{q^2=s>0\}\,$. Specifically, 

2321: eq.(\ref{int-r}) can be assumed as a definition of the time-like 

2322: coupling. Once the space-like singularities have been washed out 

2323: the ambiguity about the path for (\ref{int-r}) disappears, and we 

2324: find a one-to-one relation between the t- and s-channel couplings.

2325: Note also that $\tilde \alpha(s)$ can be equally defined by the 

2326: differential equation \cite{dokshitzer2}

2327: %

2328: \be

2329: s {d \over ds} \tilde \alpha(s)\,

2330: =\,-{1 \over \pi}\rho(s) \qquad {\rm with}\qquad  \tilde 

2331: \alpha(\infty) = 0 \,,

2332: \lb{dks6}

2333: \ee

2334: %

2335: as can be immediately checked, e.g. by differentiating eq.(\ref{int-d}). 

2336: Then, eq.(\ref{dks6}) immediately yields  

2337: \be

2338: \tilde{\alpha}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi}\,\int_s^{\infty}\frac{d\sigma}{\sigma}\,

2339: \rho(\sigma)\lb{a_s}

2340: \ee

2341: and $\rho(\sigma)$ as given by (\ref{dens}). Moreover, eq.(\ref{dks6}) 

2342: emphasizes the straightforward relation between the ``time-like 

2343: $\beta$-function'' and the spectral density, thus reviving an old 

2344: hypothesis due to Schwinger \cite{Schwinger:1975th}.\\ 

2345: With the use of (\ref{dks6}), eq.(\ref{int-d}) can be also formally 

2346: inverted as \cite{dokshitzer2}

2347: %

2348: \bea

2349: &&\tilde \alpha(s)= { \sin (\pi {\cal P}) \over {\pi\cal P}}\,\alpha_{\rm an}(s) = 

2350: \, \alpha_{\rm an}(s) - {1\over 3!} \left(\pi {\cal P}\right)^2 \alpha_{\rm an}(s) + \dots 

2351: \lb{dks9}\\

2352: &&\qquad=\alpha_{\rm{an}}(s)\left[1-\frac{\pi^2\beta_0^2}{3}\alpha^2_{\rm{an}}(s)-

2353: \frac{5\pi^2\beta_0\beta_1}{6}\alpha_{\rm an}^3(s)+\dots\,\right]\nn

2354: \eea

2355: %

2356: where ${\cal P}=s(d/ d s)$. Of course at one-loop 

2357: (\ref{dks9}) coincides with (\ref{UValpha_RKP2}), and 

2358: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2359: \begin{figure}[t]

2360: %\begin{center}

2361: \begin{tabular}{c c c}

2362: \includegraphics[width=7.8cm,height=7.7cm]{an1-4.eps}  & 

2363: \hskip -0.5 cm\includegraphics[width=6.0cm,height=5.9cm]{tmlk1.eps} \\

2364:   \footnotesize{(a)} & \footnotesize{(b)} \\

2365: \end{tabular}

2366: \caption{\footnotesize (a) Analytic coupling from \cite{Alekseev:2002zn} 

2367: up to four-loop with the above normalizing conditions and threshold matching, 

2368: compared to pure perturbative input (\ref{4loopEC}).

2369: (b) From\cite{Milton:1997us}: comparison of one-loop timelike and spacelike

2370: couplings (\ref{alpha_RKP}) and (\ref{alphaSH1}).} 

2371: \label{alphas2}

2372: %\end{center}

2373: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

2374: \end{figure}

2375: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2376: from eqs.(\ref{a_s}) and (\ref{dens1}) one finds   

2377: again eq.(\ref{alpha_RKP}); however this now leads through  

2378: (\ref{int-d}) to the starting space-like coupling (\ref{alphaSH1}), 

2379: being the required analytic properties preserved within this framework

2380: (they are both plotted in fig.\ref{alphas2}(b)).

2381: Furthermore, at two-loop level inserting into eq.(\ref{a_s}) the spectral 

2382: density (\ref{exspc2}) computed on the two-loop exact RG solution 

2383: (\ref{RG2loop-ex}), unlike the space-like case, integral can be taken 

2384: analytically \cite{Kurashev:2003pt}

2385: \bea

2386: &&\tilde{\alpha}^{(2)}(s)=-\frac{\beta_0}{\beta_1}+\frac{1}{\pi\beta_0}

2387: \rm{Im}\left[1+W_1\left(\zeta(s)\right)\right]\lb{a_s2}\\

2388: &&\nn\\

2389: &&\zeta(s)=\frac{1}{eB_1}\exp\left[-\frac{1}{B_1}\ln\left(\frac{s}{\Lambda^2}\right)

2390: +i\pi\left(\frac{1}{B_1}-1\right)\right]\nn\,.

2391: \eea

2392: The main feature \cite{Milton:1997us} of (\ref{a_s}) and 

2393: (\ref{alphaSH}) is the common freezing value at the origin 

2394: $\tilde{\alpha}(0)=\alpha_{\rm{an}}(0)=1/\beta_0$, independent of the 

2395: loop level and of any adjustable parameter. Moreover, they exhibit 

2396: similar leading UV behavior, constrained by asymptotic freedom, as can 

2397: be seen by (\ref{dks9}) (and recalling that asymptotically (\ref{alphaSH}) 

2398: reduces to the pure perturbative coupling $\alpha_{\rm s}$).\\ 

2399: Nevertheless this approximate ``mirror symmetry'' is broken in the 

2400: intermediate region, the discrepancy being about $9\%$ at one-loop, 

2401: and slightly less at two and three-loop 

2402: (see ref.\cite{Milton:1997us} for numerical comparisons).\\

2403: We finally just note that ref.\cite{Milton:1998wi} exploits an argument 

2404: against a possible exact symmetry ruling the ``t-s dual'' couplings, 

2405: (\ref{alphaSH}) and (\ref{a_s}), on the ground of causality principle.

2406: 

2407: \vspace{-0.4truecm}

2408: \subsection{Related models}

2409: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

2410: Since the last ten years there have been a number of  

2411: different attempts to avoid Landau singularities invoking as 

2412: well analyticity of the coupling in the space-like momentum region. 

2413: Within the dispersive approach, it is remarkable the existence of 

2414: models suggesting IR enhancement of the QCD coupling, whose most 

2415: attractive feature is supposed to be a straightforward relation

2416: with quark confining potential within the framework of one-gluon 

2417: exchange (see sec. 3.1).\\ 

2418: To this class belongs for instance the 

2419: ``synthetic coupling'' model recently developed in 

2420: \cite{Alekseev:2004vx,Alekseev:2005vh}, which amounts to modify by 

2421: hand the analytically improved coupling (\ref{alphaSH}) by additional 

2422: non-perturbative pole-type terms; at one-loop it reads \cite{Alekseev:2005vh}

2423: \be

2424: \alpha_{\rm{syn}}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left[\frac{1}{\ln(Q^2/\Lambda^2)}

2425: +\frac{\Lambda^2}{\Lambda^2-Q^2}+\frac{c\Lambda^2}{Q^2}+

2426: \frac{(1-c)\Lambda^2}{Q^2+m_g^2}\right]\,.

2427: \lb{a_syn}

2428: \ee

2429: where $m_g=\Lambda/\sqrt{c-1}\,$. 

2430: Infrared enhancement, due to the pole term at $Q^2=0\,$ (cf.

2431: eq.(\ref{richardson3})), is governed by one dimensionless 

2432: parameter $c\in(1,\infty)$, which is meant to relate the 

2433: scaling constant $\Lambda$ to the string tension $\sigma$ 

2434: of potential models, through the same eq.(\ref{richardson4}) 

2435: but with $\Lambda$ replaced by $\sqrt c\Lambda$. The pole term at 

2436: $Q^2=-m_g^2<0$ corresponds to a non vanishing dynamical 

2437: gluon mass, while leaving the 

2438: analytical structure of eq.(\ref{alphaSH1}) along the 

2439: space-like axis unchanged. The value of the $m_g$ parameter 

2440: has been estimated \cite{Alekseev:2005vh} as $400-600\rm{MeV}\,$

2441: (see sec. 3.1). Eq.(\ref{a_syn}) can be derived, analogously to 

2442: (\ref{alphaSH1}), from a dispersion relation with a 

2443: spectral density of the form (\ref{dens1}) plus 

2444: two $\delta$-terms properly accounting for the poles. Along 

2445: with the singular behavior as $1/Q^2$ at $Q^2\to0\,$, 

2446: reproducing the linear confining part of the potential 

2447: (\ref{richardson1}), construction of (\ref{a_syn}) is mainly 

2448: motivated by the UV asymptotic \cite{Alekseev:2005vh} of its 

2449: non-perturbative contribution of the form $1/(Q^2)^3\,$,   

2450: decreasing faster than (\ref{npt1}) as $Q^2\to\infty\,$.\\

2451: Quite analogous result has been achieved in 

2452: \cite{Nesterenko:2001xa, Nesterenko:2003xb}, 

2453: merging analyticity and IR slavery at zero momentum in the 

2454: one-loop formula 

2455: \be

2456: \alpha_{\rm{N}}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\frac{z-1}{z\ln z}

2457: \lb{a_N}

2458: \ee

2459: where $z=Q^2/\Lambda^2\,$. The trick undertaken here 

2460: is to impose analyticity ab initio on the whole perturbative 

2461: expansion of the QCD $\beta$-function, and then to solve 

2462: the ensuing `` analytized RG equation'' for the running 

2463: coupling. This could be done in principle at any loop-level, 

2464: formally \cite{Nesterenko:2001xa} 

2465: \be

2466: \mu^2\frac{d\ln\alpha_{\rm{N}}(\mu^2)}{d\mu^2}=-\left\{\sum_{j=0}^{l-1}\beta_j 

2467: \alpha^{j+1}(\mu^2)\right\}_{\rm{an}}\,,

2468: \lb{RG_N}

2469: \ee

2470: where  

2471: the r.h.s. of 

2472: (\ref{RG_N}) is achieved through the usual dispersion integral 

2473: (\ref{alphaSH}), starting from its spectral density now given by 

2474: the discontinuity of the expression of the l-loop $\beta$-function

2475: as a whole across the 

2476: time-like cut. Note that in the one-loop case the r.h.s. of 

2477: (\ref{RG_N}) is merely proportional to the one-loop analytic 

2478: coupling (\ref{alphaSH1}), so that further integration leads to the 

2479: singularity at zero momentum. 

2480: This ``new analytic invariant charge'' possesses the universal 

2481: (i.e. loop-independent) asymptotic $\simeq\Lambda^2/Q^2$ as 

2482: $Q^2\to0\,$, which again results in confining quark-antiquark 

2483: potential \cite{Nesterenko:2003xb}. Besides, this variant of 

2484: the dispersive approach, while disclosing in some measure the 

2485: ambiguities suffered by the method, shares appealing features 

2486: with the IR finite analytic coupling (\ref{alphaSH}); namely, 

2487: it displays no unphysical singularities and no adjustable 

2488: parameters, and exhibits good higher-loop and RS stability (see 

2489: e.g. \cite{Nesterenko:2003xb} for technical details).

2490: Analogous IR behavior of the QCD coupling has been 

2491: found in \cite{Schrempp:2001ir} on the ground of different 

2492: reasoning (see also \cite{Nesterenko:2001xa, Nesterenko:2003xb} 

2493: and refs. therein for similar proposal and results). It 

2494: is worth noting that in the most recent developments 

2495: \cite{Nesterenko:2004ry} of the model in hand, eqs.(\ref{RG_N})

2496: and (\ref{a_N}), inclusion of the lightest hadron 

2497: masses ($\pi$ meson) is accomplished consistently with the 

2498: dispersive approach, and relations with chiral symmetry breaking 

2499: phenomena are also investigated \cite{Aguilar:2005sb}. It has 

2500: been shown there how nonzero pion mass substantially affects low 

2501: energy behavior of the invariant charge (\ref{a_N}), by slowing 

2502: down the IR enhancement of the massless case to an IR finite value, 

2503: depending in turn on the pion mass. As a result, this massive

2504: running coupling displays a plateau-like freezing 

2505: on the IR time-like axis, specifically for $\sqrt{s}$ in the interval 

2506: between $0$ and the two-pion threshold (see also 

2507: \cite{Nesterenko:2005nj}), in qualitative agreement with results 

2508: of OPT \cite{stevenson} (sec. 3.3).\\

2509: Finally we remind another attempt \cite{Webber:1998um} to modify 

2510: eq.(\ref{alphaSH1}) in order to estimate non-perturbative power 

2511: corrections (see sec 4.5). This is dictated by the need to cancel 

2512: somehow the unwanted behavior (\ref{npt1}),  

2513: and further to slow down the too large value of 

2514: (\ref{alphaSH1}) at the origin (see sec. 5). This has been 

2515: done by requiring no power corrections faster than $1/Q^{2p}\,$,  

2516: and a number of adjustable parameters to remodel 

2517: the IR behavior of the one-loop analytic coupling (\ref{alphaSH1}).  

2518: Thus an useful generalization reads

2519: \be

2520: %\vspace{-0.7truecm}

2521: \alpha_{\rm W}(z)=\frac{1}{\beta_0}\left[\frac{1}{\ln z}+\frac{z+b}{(1-z)(1+b)}

2522: \left(\frac{1+c}{z+c}\right)^p\right]\,.

2523: \lb{a_W}

2524: \ee

2525: Setting $b=1/4$ and $c=p=4\,$ and $n_f=3\,$, $\Lambda=250\,$MeV 

2526: eq.(\ref{a_W}) has a maximum at $0.4\,$GeV and then freezes to a 

2527: considerably lower value than (\ref{alphaSH1}), fitting data on 

2528: power corrections (see \cite{Webber:1998um} and refs. therein). 

2529: 

2530: %55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

2531: \vspace{-0.2truecm}

2532: \subsection{Power suppressed non-perturbative corrections}

2533: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

2534: As mentioned in the introduction, intrinsically non-perturbative

2535: effects would manifest themselves in power-type corrections 

2536: $A_\nu/ Q^\nu$ or 

2537: $(A_\nu/Q^\nu)\ln(Q^2/Q^2_{\rm I})$, to the 

2538: expression of various observables.

2539: We want to discuss the subject in the context of

2540: ref. \cite{dokshitzer2}, in which it was originally proposed, by

2541: making use of the coupling $\alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2)$

2542: we have introduced by eq. (\ref{dks3}).\\

2543: Note that, as consequence of its definition,  $\alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2)$

2544: must have only physical singularities in the $Q^2$ complex plane  and the

2545: entire dispersive formalism discussed in this section can be applied to

2546: it. Actually such formalism sprang from a common source

2547: \cite{Dokshitzer:1993pf} and developed along parallel lines from

2548: references \cite{Shirkov:1997wi} and \cite{dokshitzer2}. 

2549: According to eq. (\ref{alphaSH}) we can write

2550: %

2551: \bea

2552: &&\alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2) = {1 \over \pi} \int_0^\infty dm^2 {\rho (m^2)

2553: \over m^2+Q^2}\nn\\ 

2554: &&\,\qquad\qquad=\alpha_{\rm SGD}(0) - {Q^2 \over \pi} \int_0^\infty dm^2 

2555: {\rho (m^2)\over m^2(m^2+Q^2)}\,.

2556: \lb{dks20}

2557: \eea

2558: % 

2559: Then, the factor corresponding to a dressed gluon line in a Feynman

2560: integral can be written

2561: %

2562: \be

2563: {-i\,  \alpha_{\rm SGD}(-k^2) \over k^2+i0} = 

2564: {-i \, \alpha_{\rm SGD}(0) \over k^2+i0}

2565: - {1 \over \pi} \int_0^\infty \frac{dm^2}{m^2} \rho (m^2)

2566:  {-i \over k^2-m^2+i0}\,.

2567: \lb{dks21}

2568: \ee

2569: %

2570: Let us now consider some hard process initiated by a quark and an 

2571: inclusive infrared and collinear safe observable $V(Q^2,x)$ related 

2572: to it. Let us assume, to be 

2573: specific, the observable has a zero order expression $V_0 (Q^2,x)$ 

2574: in terms of parton model and consider the first order QCD correction 

2575: $V_1 (Q^2,x)$ in which dressed gluon lines are inserted in the original

2576: skeleton graph. Let us denote by ${\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)$ the Feynman

2577: integral (or the sum of Feynman integrals) that gives such correction

2578: but in which formally a mass $m$ is given to the gluon and it is set

2579: $\epsilon={m^2 \over Q^2}$. Due to (\ref{dks21}) the insertion gives

2580: %

2581: \bea

2582: && V_1 (Q^2,x)= \alpha_{\rm SGD}(0){\cal F}_1(0,\,x)

2583: - {1 \over \pi} \int_0^\infty \frac{dm^2}{m^2}\rho (m^2){\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)=\lb{dks10} \\ 

2584: && \quad =\int_0^\infty {dm^2 \over m^2}  

2585: \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}(m^2) \dot {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)\,,

2586: \quad {\rm with}\quad \dot {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)  = -\epsilon 

2587: {\partial \over \partial \epsilon} {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)

2588: \,,

2589: \nn

2590: \eea

2591: %

2592: where we have introduced the time-like coupling

2593: \footnote{Note that in the original papers the quantity 

2594: $\tilde\alpha_{\rm SGD}(m^2)$ was denoted as $\alpha_{\rm eff}(m^2)\,$.} 

2595: $\tilde\alpha_{\rm

2596:  SGD}(m^2)\,$, related to $\alpha_{\rm SGD}(m^2)$ by the equation

2597: $m^2(d\tilde\alpha_{\rm SGD}(m^2)/dm^2)=-\rho(m^2)/\pi$ (cf. 

2598: eq.(\ref{dks6})).\\

2599: Eq. (\ref{dks10}) gives a kind of weighted average of ${\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)$ and

2600: shows that the effect of the running coupling can be simulated giving an

2601: appropriate effective mass $m_g\,$, and justifies the phenomenological

2602: application based on such idea that we mentioned in sec. 3.1.

2603: Let us now write $\alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2)$  and

2604: correspondingly $\tilde\alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2)$ as the sum of a

2605: perturbative and a non perturbative part

2606: %

2607: \be

2608: \alpha_{\rm SGD}(Q^2) = \alpha_{\rm  SGD}^{\rm PT}(Q^2) +

2609: \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(Q^2) \,.

2610: \lb{dks11a}

2611: \ee

2612: %

2613: Since, however, perturbative theory appears to work very well down

2614: to $Q\,\sim$ 1 or 2 GeV and in some particular case even better,

2615: $\alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(Q^2)$ must vanish sufficiently

2616: fast as $Q$ increases, let us say at least as $1/Q^6\,$.

2617: Consequently, looking at eq.(\ref{int-d}) we must assume that 

2618: at least the two first integer moments of 

2619: $\tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}(m^2)$ vanish,

2620: %

2621: \be

2622: \int_0^\infty {dm^2 \over m^2} m^2 \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(m^2)=0\,,

2623: \, \,  \int_0^{\infty} {dm^2 \over m^2} m^4 \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(m^2)=0\,.

2624: \lb{dks10a}

2625: \ee

2626: %

2627: Let us now restrict  to collinear and infrared safe observables. Then 

2628: $\dot {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)$ must vanish conveniently for $\epsilon

2629: \to 0$ or $\infty$. Let us assume for $\epsilon \to 0$ 

2630: %

2631: \bea

2632: &&\dot {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)\to \qquad \qquad \\ 

2633: &&\,\to \,{C_F \over 2 \pi} \epsilon^p

2634: \left[ (f_0 + f_1 \ln \epsilon + f_2 \ln^2 \epsilon) + \epsilon (g_0

2635:   + g_1 \ln \epsilon + g_2 \ln^2 \epsilon) + \dots \right]\,,\nn

2636: \lb{dks11}

2637: \eea

2638: %

2639: where $p$ can be integer or half integer and $ f_q,\, g_q 

2640: , \dots$ depend on the particular process. For the various jet shape

2641: variables in $e^+e^-$ annihilation (thrust, jet mass, $C$ parameter)   

2642: e.g., $\dot {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)\to {C_F \over 2 \pi}f_V \sqrt

2643: \epsilon $ with $f_V= 4,~2,~6\pi$ respectively.\\

2644: As a consequence we have for $Q\to \infty$

2645: %

2646: \be

2647: \int_0^\infty {dm^2 \over m^2}  

2648: \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(m^2) \dot {\cal F}_1(\epsilon,\,x)\, \to 

2649: f_0 {A_{2p} \over Q^{2p}} + f_1 \left({A_{2p}^\prime \over Q^{2p}} 

2650: - {A_{2p} \over Q^{2p}}\ln Q^2\right) + \dots \nn 

2651: \lb{dks12}

2652: \ee

2653: %

2654: or

2655: % 

2656: \be

2657: V(Q^2,x) = V_{\rm PT}(Q^2,x) + {1 \over Q^{2p}}[C_1 A_{2p} +

2658: C_2 A_{2p}^\prime+ C_3 A_{2p}^{\prime\prime}]

2659: \lb{dks13}

2660: \ee

2661: %

2662: where we have introduced the moments

2663: %

2664: \bea

2665:  && A_{2p}= {C_F \over 2 \pi}\int_0^\infty 

2666:   {dm^2 \over m^2} m^{2p}\,  \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(m^2)\,, \nn \\

2667: && A_{2p}^\prime = {C_F \over 2 \pi}\int_0^\infty {dm^2 \over m^2} 

2668:    m^{2p} \ln m^2 \, \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(m^2)\,,\\

2669: &&  A_{2p}^{\prime\prime} ={C_F \over 2 \pi}\int_0^\infty 

2670: {dm^2 \over m^2} m^{2p}\ln^2 m^2 \, \tilde \alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(m^2)\,.

2671: \nn

2672: \lb{dks14}

2673: \eea

2674: %

2675: The coefficients $C_k$ are dimensionless, are in practice at most

2676: linear in $\ln Q^2$ and are calculable but process dependent, $A_{2p},~ 

2677: A_{2p}^\prime, ~\dots$ are theoretical unknown but should be

2678: universal. They  could be determined in 

2679: principle by studying the dependence on the hard scale $Q$ of  

2680: appropriate observables, $V(Q^2,x)$.\\

2681: Terms in $1/Q$ should emerge for what we have seen in various

2682: $e^+e^-$ jet shape variables; correction of the type

2683: $1/Q^2$ in the DIS structure function (see \cite{Dasgupta:2003iq}). The results can

2684: be equivalently expressed in terms of the moments of 

2685: $\alpha_{\rm SGD}^{\rm NP}(Q^2)$ rather then of $\tilde \alpha_{\rm

2686:   SDG}^{\rm NP}(m^2)$. The experimental situation is not completely clear but

2687: the data seem to be consistent with

2688: %

2689: \be

2690: {\cal A}_1 = {C_F \over 2 \pi}\int_0^\infty {dQ^2 \over Q^2}

2691: Q\,\alpha_{\rm SDG}^{\rm NP}(Q^2)={2 \over \pi} A_1 \approx 0.2-0.25 \,{\rm

2692:   GeV}

2693: \ee

2694: %

2695: and

2696: %

2697: \be

2698: {\cal A}_2 = {C_F \over 2 \pi}\int_0^\infty {dQ^2 \over Q^2}

2699: Q^2 \alpha_{\rm SDG}^{\rm NP}(Q^2)=- A_2^\prime \approx 0.2\, {\rm

2700:   GeV}^2\,.

2701: \ee

2702: %

2703: Note that in principle the quantity $V_{\rm PT}(Q^2,x)$ is well

2704: defined, since  $ \alpha_{\rm SDG}$ has no unphysical

2705: singularities, due to its definition (\ref{dks3}). To be consistent up

2706: two-loop one should use equations for $ \alpha_{\rm SDG}^{\rm NP}$ of 

2707: the type considered in sec. 4.1 or 4.2 with the appropriate value of

2708: $\Lambda_{\rm SGD}$. However, often an infrared cutoff $Q_{\rm I}$ has been

2709: introduced in the application and ${\cal A}_1$ related to the quantity

2710: $\langle {\alpha_{\rm s} \over \pi} \rangle$ considered

2711: in sec. 3.1.\\

2712: Relations involving OPE 

2713: and the non trivial IR structure of the theory have been considered in the 2D 

2714: Gross-Neveu model in \cite{Langfeld:1995si}.\\

2715: To conclude this section we should mention that the same physical

2716: problem we have briefly discussed from the point of view of the running

2717: coupling is the object of another very alive line of research that 

2718: operates in the framework of the Borel summability and the renormalon 

2719: singularities. Since there are obviously connections between the two

2720: perspectives, we must invite the interested reader to consult some of 

2721: the existing excellent general reviews, e.g. \cite{Beneke:2000kc},  

2722: and among the most recent works we remind ref.\cite{Cvetic:2002qf}.  

2723: 

2724: %666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

2725: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

2726: \subsection{Analytic Pertubation Theory}

2727: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

2728: As explained at lenght, analytization displays 

2729: a suitable method to get rid of unphysical singularities which

2730: affect the standard expansion parameter in t- and s-channel. 

2731: Thus the issue of how perturbation theory should be

2732: accordingly modified naturally rises, and it has been 

2733: investigated from phenomenological and theoretical point of

2734: view (e.g. \cite{Shirkov:1998sb}). We briefly recall here a

2735: consistent way to incorporate the ghost-free model for the IR 

2736: finite couplings eqs.(\ref{alphaSH}) and (\ref{a_s}) 

2737: within perturbation theory, known as Analytic Perturbation Theory 

2738: (APT), and developed in 

2739: \cite{Milton:1998cq}-\cite{Shirkov:2001sm}. 

2740: The main requirement here is the subtraction of unphysical singularities 

2741: in the RG improved series for physical observables as a whole, by 

2742: computing their discontinuity across the time-like cut, as it has 

2743: been done for the space-like coupling itself eqs.(\ref{dens}) and 

2744: (\ref{alphaSH}). Specifically \cite{Shirkov:2000qv}, given a 

2745: space-like observable perturbatively known 

2746: \be 

2747: D_{\mathrm{PT}}(Q^2)=1+\sum_{k\ge1}d_k \alpha_{\rm s}^k(Q^2)\,,

2748: \lb{D_PT} 

2749: \ee 

2750: one can define the $k$-th spectral density 

2751: \be

2752: \rho_k(\sigma)=\mathrm{Im}\,\left[\alpha_{\rm s}^k(-\sigma)\right]\,. 

2753: \lb{ro_k}

2754: \ee 

2755: Then eq.(\ref{D_PT}) is to be substituted by the ghost-free

2756: expansion

2757: \be

2758: D_{\mathrm{APT}}(Q^2)=1+\sum_{k\ge1}d_k\mathcal{A}_k(Q^2)

2759: \lb{D_APT} 

2760: \ee 

2761: where, leaving the loop level understood, 

2762: \be 

2763: \mathcal A_{k}(Q^2)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_0^{\infty}\frac{d\sigma}

2764: {\sigma+Q^2}\,\rho_k(\sigma)\,. 

2765: \lb{A_k} 

2766: \ee 

2767: Then a standard power expansion is converted into a 

2768: non power one. Clearly, there is now no unique expansion parameter, 

2769: but an entire set of ghost-free expansion functions (\ref{A_k}) 

2770: at any loop level, each defined by the analytization of subsequent 

2771: powers of the perturbative coupling. Obviously from (\ref{A_k}) 

2772: with $k=1$ the analytic coupling (\ref{alphaSH}) is recovered at 

2773: each loop level. This recipe, working for space-like observables, 

2774: is manifestly quite analogous to the RKP non-power expansion 

2775: (\ref{R_rkp}) of a time-like observable; this in turn, within this 

2776: framework, can be rexpressed via the $k$-th spectral density 

2777: (\ref{ro_k}) \cite{Shirkov:2000qv} 

2778: \be

2779: R_{\mathrm{APT}}(s)=1+\sum_{k\ge1}d_k\mathfrak{A}_{k}(s) 

2780: \lb{R_APT}

2781: \ee 

2782: and  

2783: \be 

2784: \mathfrak{A}_{k}(s)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_s^{\infty}\frac{d\sigma}

2785: {\sigma}\,\rho_k(\sigma) 

2786: \lb{U_k} 

2787: \ee 

2788: which yields for $k=1$ the analytic time-like coupling itself 

2789: (\ref{a_s}). The key point here \cite{Shirkov:2000qv} is 

2790: that, due to the forced analyticity of the coupling and its 

2791: analytized powers (\ref{A_k}), the two sets (\ref{A_k}) and 

2792: (\ref{U_k}) are put into one-to-one relation 

2793: by the linear integral transformations (\ref{dispAdl}) and 

2794: (\ref{invsAdl}), in this context usually renamed $\mathbf{R}$ and 

2795: $\mathbf{D}$ respectively, that is 

2796: \be 

2797: \mathcal A_k(Q^2)=\mathbf{D}[\mathfrak{A}_k(s)]\,,\qquad\mathfrak{A}_k(s)=

2798: \mathbf{R}[\mathcal A_k(Q^2)]\,.

2799: \lb{A-U}

2800: \ee 

2801: This yields a closed theoretical scheme for representing 

2802: observables of any real argument, both space-like and time-like 

2803: (for a quite recent review see \cite{Shirkov:2001sm} to which 

2804: we also refer for technical details).

2805: \begin{figure}

2806: \begin{center}

2807: \includegraphics[width=28pc]{shirkov.eps} 

2808: \end{center}

2809: \caption{\footnotesize (a) Space-like and time-like global

2810: analytic couplings in a few GeV domain with $n_f=3$ and $\Lambda=350\,$MeV; 

2811: (b) ``Distorted mirror symmetry" for global expansion

2812: functions, corresponding to exact two-loop solutions.} \label{fAA} %%} }

2813: \end{figure}

2814: The main features of these functional sets are illustrated in

2815: fig.\ref{fAA} taken from \cite{Shirkov:2001sm}. As yet noted the first 

2816: function in both sets coincides

2817: with the relative analytic coupling, respectively (\ref{alphaSH})

2818: and (\ref{a_s}), while $\mathcal A_{k\ge2}$ and 

2819: $\mathfrak{A}_{k\ge2}$ start with an IR zero and oscillate in the 

2820: IR domain around $k-1$ zeros; furthermore they all obey the UV 

2821: asymptotic $1/\ln^k z$ resembling the corresponding powers

2822: $\alpha_{\rm s}^k(z)\,$ \cite{Shirkov:2001sm}. The differential 

2823: recursion relations \cite{Shirkov:2005sg}

2824: \be

2825: \frac{1}{k}\frac{d\mathcal{A}_k^{(n)}(Q^2)}{d\ln Q^2}=

2826: -\sum_{j=1}^{n}\beta_{j-1}\mathcal{A}_{k+j}^{(n)}(Q^2)\,,\qquad

2827: \frac{1}{k}\frac{d\mathfrak{A}_k^{(n)}(s)}{d\ln s}=

2828: -\sum_{j=1}^{n}\beta_{j-1}\mathfrak{A}_{k+j}^{(n)}(s)

2829: \lb{rec_AU}

2830: \ee

2831: that hold in all orders \cite{Kurashev:2003pt}, allow to relate 

2832: different analytized powers within each set, tough 

2833: explicit expressions are reliable in a simple form only in 

2834: the one-loop case (e.g.\cite{Shirkov:2005sg}). 

2835: Meanwhile, $\mathcal A_k$ and $\mathfrak{A}_k$ for $k=1,2,3$ 

2836: have been tabulated in \cite{Magradze:2000hz} up to three-loop, 

2837: starting from the exact two-loop solution (\ref{RG2loop-ex}), 

2838: and the Pade' approximant technique in the three-loop case; 

2839: further improved approximations as eq.(\ref{alpha^k}) 

2840: have been exploited at low scales in \cite{Kurashev:2003pt} 

2841: (see also \cite{Magradze:2005ab}). These numerical values are 

2842: reproduced quite well in the range $(2,100)\,$GeV by ``one-loop'' 

2843: inspired approximate formulas, derived for practical aims in 

2844: \cite{Shirkov:2005sg}, and depending on an effective scaling 

2845: constant $\Lambda_{\mathrm{eff}}^{n_f}$ as a fitting parameter 

2846: (see Tab.1 in ref.\cite{Shirkov:2005sg}). Computation of the 

2847: functional sets has been recently extended to include analytic 

2848: images of any real power of the coupling (Fractional Analytic 

2849: Perturbation Theory) on the grounds of properties of the 

2850: transcendental Lerch function\cite{Bakulev:2005fp}.\\

2851: The APT algorithm can also include thresholds effects

2852: \cite{Shirkov:2000qv} in a real description, by modifying 

2853: the $k$-th spectral density (\ref{ro_k}) discontinuously at the 

2854: heavy quark thresholds $m_f$

2855: \be

2856: \rho_k(\sigma)=\rho_k(\sigma,3)+\sum_{n_f\ge4}\theta(\sigma-m^2_f)

2857: \left[\rho_k(\sigma,n_f)-\rho_k(\sigma,n_f-1)\right]\,, 

2858: \lb{ro_kf}

2859: \ee 

2860: descending from the trivial matching condition (cf. sec. 4.2).  

2861: The global functions resulting from densities (\ref{ro_kf}), 

2862: $\mathcal A_{k}$ and $\mathfrak{A}_{k}\,$, can be obtained from the 

2863: local ones with $n_f$ fixed, by adding specific shift constants 

2864: $c_k(n_f)\,$, not negligible in the $n_f=3,4$ region (see 

2865: \cite{Shirkov:2000qv} for numerical evaluations; for instance, in 

2866: both t- and s-channel it has been estimated $c_1(3)\simeq0.02\,$).\\  

2867: The main tests of APT being obviously at low

2868: and intermediate scales, a number of applications to 

2869: specific processes, both in the space-like and time-like (low and 

2870: high energy) domain, have been quite recently performed. 

2871: For instance, Bjorken and Gross-Llywellin-Smith sum rules 

2872: \cite{Milton:1998cq}, $\tau$-lepton \cite{Milton:2000fi} (see also 

2873: \cite{Geshkenbein:2001mn}) and Ypsilon decay \cite{Shirkov:2005sg}, 

2874: $e^+e^-$-annihilation into hadrons 

2875: \cite{Solovtsov:1997at, Solovtsov:1999in, Shirkov:2001sm} and 

2876: hadronic form factors \cite{Stefanis:2000vd, Bakulev:2004cu}. 

2877: As a result (see tab.1 in ref.\cite{Shirkov:2005kj}), the main 

2878: advantages of the APT approach are 

2879: better convergence properties of the ghost-free non-power 

2880: expansion than the usual power one, since the three-loop term 

2881: is always strongly suppressed (even less than data errors). 

2882: This feature yields a reduced scheme and loop-dependence. 

2883: Finally, transition from Euclidean 

2884: (space-like momentum) to distance picture has been also 

2885: developed in \cite{Shirkov:2002td} to which we refer for 

2886: details, involving a suitable modified sine-Fourier 

2887: transformation, consistently with the APT logic.\\

2888: 

2889: %777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

2890: \vspace{-0.7truecm}

2891: \section{Lattice Theory}

2892: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

2893: In all development above one starts from manipulation on the

2894: perturbative expansion and 

2895: try to remedy to its lack of 

2896: convergence, but one  can never attain to really non

2897: perturbative effects related to the singularity of the theory in 

2898: $\alpha_{\rm s}=0$.\\

2899: Up to now, the only general technique to handle (even if with many

2900: limitations)  non perturbative problems is Lattice Theory.\\

2901: We want here to mention essential

2902: ideas and summarize the present status of art for what concerns the

2903: running coupling.\\

2904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2905: We refer to the   standard formulation   as due to Wilson \cite{Wilson74}, a

2906: classical textbook is e.g. \cite{creutz}.\\

2907: On the Euclidean lattice  the  spacing $a$  plays the role of the

2908: UV cutoff of the continuum formulations. In momenta space the fields

2909: are then defined on the Brillouen zone but, for practical purposes, the

2910: lattice is finite, thus an IR cutoff appears too and the momenta

2911: become finite. 

2912: The quantum theory is obtained via path integral quantization and

2913: the result is similar to a statistical mechanics formulation in $D=4$, at an

2914: inverse temperature $\beta$ which turns out to be $2N/g_0^2$, for the

2915: $\rm{SU(N)}$

2916: gauge theory and where $g_0$ is the bare coupling constant.

2917:  The lattice is a gauge invariant regulator but for finite lattice the functional integral is perfectly convergent, and

2918: no gauge-fixing procedure is in principle necessary to evaluate gauge

2919: invariant quantities. Very used are

2920: improved actions, namely actions with extra terms of physical

2921: dimensions higher than four, with coefficients suitable chosen in

2922: order to have a better approach to the continuum limit (see

2923: \cite{nieder} for a review). 

2924: A complication of the lattice formulation is the well

2925: known doubling problem of the fermions, in order to have in the

2926: continuum limit  the correct number of fermions one has to use an

2927: action which breaks the chiral symmetry for finite $a$.

2928: The chiral symmetry can be restored by considering a critical

2929: value for the hopping parameter for any lattice spacing. 

2930: Recipes for the  fermionic action which differ from the Wilsonian 

2931: one are widely used, each one with its own problems.

2932: To get answers from the lattice usually one does not compute the

2933: functional integral but perform Monte-Carlo simulations.

2934: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2935: The computation of the running coupling constant on the lattice starts

2936: from its non perturbative definition in the low energy region; there

2937: are a lot of definitions which have been actually used, and in this

2938: region they can have a very different behavior with the energy scale, but

2939: extrapolated in some way  at high energy they must behave similarly, and it

2940: has to be possible to correlate one to another using perturbation

2941: theory. That this happens is a consistency check of the theory on all

2942: the energy scales. In particular at high energy it is possible to

2943: commute to the  $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ scheme in dimensional

2944: regularization, defined only in perturbation theory.

2945: An exhaustive review on the various possible approaches is in

2946: \cite{Weisz-rev}.\\ 

2947: From a physical point of view the  framework of the computation is fixed    

2948: by setting the scale. In the pure gauge theory one needs, from the

2949: experiments, the knowledge of a physical quantity of mass dimension $M_H$,

2950: and on the lattice, starting from a reasonable $g_0$, or equivalently

2951: $\beta$, one has to be able to compute the number $aM_H$, and this determines

2952: the spacing $a$ in physical units. The window of energies on the

2953: lattice, in which $M_H$ has to fall is then $[1/L,1/a]$. $L/a$ is the

2954: number of sites for side of the lattice and so is fixed by the

2955: computer power, typical values are $16-64$.\\ 

2956: The asymptotic freedom can

2957: be formulated also in terms of bare coupling constant which vanishes for

2958: $a\rightarrow 0$, for instance we have the two loop formula

2959: \begin{equation}

2960: \frac{1}{\alpha_0}=\beta_0 \rm ln(a^{-2} \Lambda _L^{-2}) + (\beta_1/\beta_0)

2961: \rm ln(\rm ln(a^{-2} \Lambda _L^{-2})

2962: \label{Go_run}

2963: \end{equation}

2964: (the ratios $\Lambda _L/\Lambda$, where $\Lambda $ refers to a suitable

2965: continuum scheme, $e.g.$ $ {\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$, have been

2966: evaluated in  lattice perturbation theory long time ago

2967: \cite{HH80}, \cite{DG81}).

2968: Being interested in the continuum limit one would like to have $a$ and

2969: $g_0$

2970: as small as possible but one needs to take into account the limitations

2971: of the window energy. The dependence on  the chosen observable should

2972: be not important as far as we are ``close'' to the continuum limit

2973: (scaling region), used quantities are the string tension, the mass

2974: splitting in heavy quarkonium or the hadronic radius $r_0$ \cite{sommer94}. 

2975: In the nineties there have been several determinations of the running

2976: coupling constant in the pure gauge theory or in quenched QCD 

2977: (\cite {bali-scill-93}-\cite{pene98}).\\

2978: Among the papers, \cite{alles-97} and \cite{pene98} are closer in the

2979: formalism to the other parts of this review, indeed the definition of the

2980: renormalized coupling constant  uses a condition on the trigluon

2981: vertex,  therefore  very similar to that employed in  usual

2982: perturbative procedures. In principle such a definition of the

2983: coupling can however be used in the full infrared region, the only limitations

2984: being due to the lattice size effects.

2985: The disadvantages of such an approach are that

2986: $A_{\mu}$ on the lattice  is a

2987: rather unnatural quantity, 

2988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2989: defined in conventional way through the fundamental link gauge variables;

2990: moreover, to compute the Green functions, the gauge fixing is needed.

2991: For the implementation of the gauge fixing on the lattice a good review

2992: is  \cite{giusti2001}.

2993: It is worth to mention that even the lattice formulation

2994: of the Landau condition suffers for the problem of the Gribov

2995: ambiguity. Actually one could pick out a unique element in each gauge orbit by

2996: finding

2997: the absolute minimum of a suitable functional with respect to gauge 

2998: trasformations but, from a numerical

2999: point of view, to distinguish the absolute minimum for instance from

3000: the local ones is a very difficult task. Beyond \cite{giusti2001} a

3001: clear analysis of the numerical situation is in

3002: \cite{cucchieri-gribov}, relations with other approaches are in the

3003: review \cite{alkofer-rev}, devoted to the infrared behavior of the QCD

3004: Green functions.

3005: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3006: On the lattice, by Monte Carlo

3007: average, after performing the Fourier transform and in the Landau gauge,

3008:  one computes the unrenormalized Green functions

3009: \begin{equation}

3010: G^{(n)}_{U\; \mu_1...\; \mu_n}(p_1,..\; ,p_n)= \langle A_{\mu_1}(p_1)..\;  ,A_{\mu_n}(p_n)\rangle\,.

3011: \label{greenfunct} 

3012: \end{equation} 

3013: In \cite{alles-97} and \cite{pene98} the scale is set by a

3014: previous determination of the string tension \cite{bali-scill-93},

3015: then $\beta=6$ and correspondingly $a^{-1}=1.9\pm0.1\;\rm GeV$ in a

3016: hypercubic lattice are taken in \cite{alles-97}, more lattices are used

3017: in \cite{pene98}.\\

3018: Assuming that finite-volume effects and discretization errors are 

3019: under control, for suitable small momenta one can adopt the formalism of the

3020: continuum QCD and then to write for the gluonic propagator

3021: \begin{equation}

3022: G_{U\;\mu\nu}(p)=G_{U}(p^2)(\delta_{\mu\nu}-\frac{p_{\mu} p_{\nu}}{p^2})

3023: \label{propag}

3024: \end{equation} 

3025: and for the three point function (after factorization of the color

3026: tensor $f^{a\;b\;c}$)

3027: \begin{equation}

3028: G_{U\;\mu\nu\rho}^{(3)}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=

3029: \Gamma_{U\;\alpha\beta\gamma}^{(3)}(p_1,p_2,p_3)G_{U\;\alpha\mu}(p_1)G_{U\;\beta\nu}(p_2)G_{U\;\gamma\rho}(p_3)\,.

3030: \label{G3}

3031: \end{equation}

3032: Where $p_1+p_2+p_3=0$.

3033: On the lattice of course one measures the Green functions, so

3034: differently from the usual perturbative approach the renormalization

3035: conditions are expressed on the Green functions and not on the 1-P-I

3036: functions.

3037: Thus

3038: \begin{equation}

3039: G_R(p)|_{p^2=\mu^2}=Z^{-1}_g(a\mu)G_U(pa)|_{p^2=\mu^2}=\frac{1}{\mu^2}

3040: \label{G2rencond}

3041: \end{equation}

3042: is the condition which fixes the wave-function renormalization

3043: constant in non perturbative way.

3044: For the vertex the most obvious approach would be to impose a

3045: condition on the most symmetric point ($\rm MOM$ scheme), but from a

3046: numerical point of view it turns out that  an asymmetrical

3047: condition in which one of the momenta vanish works better ($\rm

3048: M\widetilde{O}M$

3049:  in continuum QCD \cite{HH80} ).

3050: Defining the vertex renormalization constant according to

3051: \begin{equation}

3052: \frac{\sum_{\mu=1}^{4} G_{U\;\mu\nu\mu}^{(3)}(pa,0,pa)}

3053: {G_U(pa)^2 G_U(0)}=6iZ_V^{-1}(pa)g_0 p_{\nu}\,,

3054: \label{vertexfunct}

3055: \end{equation}

3056: the vertex renormalization condition reads

3057: \begin{equation}

3058: g(\mu)=Z_{g}^{3/2}(a\mu)Z_{V}^{-1}(a\mu)g_0\,.

3059: \label{vertexRC}

3060: \end{equation}

3061: In a massless theory the Green functions at exceptional momenta are

3062: potentially divergent, but in this case all is finite \cite{chet00},\cite{ball-chiu}. 

3063: Note that the tensorial structure of the previous formulae is not

3064: obvious because on the lattice $\rm{O(4)}$ symmetry no longer holds; a

3065: test of  consistency of their numerical computation performed by the

3066: authors is to check the previous structures for some values of $pa$ .

3067: As a matter of fact the parametrization of the formulae (\ref{propag})

3068: and (\ref{G3}) cannot be the most suitable in order to extract the

3069: coupling,

3070: lattice perturbation theory would suggest using  

3071: $\hat p_{\mu}= \frac{2}{a}\sin(\frac{p_{\mu}a}{2})  $ instead of

3072: $p_{\mu}$, indeed the authors from \cite{pene98} claim that only in

3073: this case

3074: they are able to

3075: find evidence of the running of the coupling.

3076: In order to prove the running of the coupling one  fits the data

3077: of the simulation with the curve which express $\Lambda$ through

3078: $g(\mu)$, see Fig.\ref{alpha_pene};  using the two loop formula (but in \cite{pene98} they  control the three loop effect)

3079: \begin{equation}

3080: \Lambda_{\rm {M\widetilde{O}M}}=\mu \exp(-\frac{1}{2\beta_0 \alpha(\mu)})(\beta_0

3081:   \alpha(\mu))^{-\frac{\beta_1}{2\beta_0^2}}

3082: \label{Lambda2loop}

3083: \end{equation}

3084: in both the papers one finds an evidence of plateau close to

3085: $\rm 2\, GeV$, see Fig.\ref{alpha_pene}(b), beyond $\Lambda(g)$ decreases due to cutoff effect.

3086: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3087: \begin{figure}[t]

3088: \begin{center}

3089: \begin{tabular}{c c c}

3090: \includegraphics[width=14.5pc]{alphapene.eps}  & 

3091: \hskip 0.5 cm\includegraphics[width=14.5pc]{pene1lambda.eps} \\

3092:   a &    b \\

3093: \end{tabular}

3094: \caption{\footnotesize (a)The QCD coupling constant $\alpha_{\rm M\widetilde{O}M}$ from

3095:   \cite{pene98}, $\mu$ is in $\rm GeV$. The full line is the three-loop running. 

3096:  (b)$\Lambda$ from \cite{pene98}.

3097: \vspace{-0.5truecm}} 

3098: \label{alpha_pene}

3099: \end{center}

3100: \end{figure}

3101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3102: The effects of finite size are controlled by performing the computation

3103: using more lattices with the same lattice spacing.\\

3104: Having computed $\Lambda_{{\rm  M\widetilde{O}M}}$  one can get $\Lambda_

3105: {\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$. To this end one has to do a one-loop

3106: \cite{Gonsalves79} calculation which expresses perturbatively the relation between

3107: $g_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}(\mu)$ and $g_{\rm {M\widetilde{O}M}}(\mu)$.

3108: Indeed a discrete renormalization group transformation which connects the

3109: Green functions computed on the lattice and those computed in

3110: ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ scheme must exist. Being this scheme on the

3111: lattice specified by conditions on the Green functions, the transformation is easily determined

3112: by the one loop ${\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ continuum calculation of the trigluon vertex and of the

3113: propagator  at the ${\rm {M\widetilde{O}M}}$ point and in

3114: Landau gauge. 

3115: More difficult computations in lattice perturbative theory are not

3116: needed

3117: in this approach.\\  

3118: In \cite{alles-97} 

3119: it is obtained $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=0.34\pm0.05\;\rm GeV$;

3120: the authors of \cite{pene98}, with a writing which distinguishes the possible errors

3121: coming from the lattice spacing, instead get 

3122: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=(0.303\pm0.05\,

3123: GeV)\frac{a^{-1}}{1.97\;\rm GeV}$.\\

3124: The same renormalization scheme has been applied to measure the

3125: coupling using the gluon-quark vertex in quenched simulations in  \cite{skull}.\\ 

3126: In order to avoid the major source of

3127: systematic errors,  in spite of the computer cost, simulations with

3128: dynamical quarks have been addressed.

3129: The task has been undertaken using NRQCD \cite {NRQCD} in the past; also

3130: the authors of \cite{pene98} published a  computation with

3131: $\rm{n_f=2}$ dynamical quarks \cite{pene2001} in the MOM scheme

3132: previously described. 

3133: Interestingly the matching with the perturbative behavior of the

3134: coupling, and then the extraction of $\Lambda$, was made taking into

3135: account an effect of $\rm{OPE}$ condensate arising from the gluonic propagator;

3136: therefore the data computed on the lattice for the coupling where

3137: compared not with $\alpha_{s,pert}(\frac{\mu}{\Lambda})$ but with

3138: $\alpha_{s,pert}(\frac{\mu}{\Lambda})(1+\frac{c}{\mu^2})$, where $c$ has

3139: to be adjusted in a combined fit. The form of this correction, similar

3140: to those introduced in eq.(\ref{a_syn}), is based

3141: on previous lattice computations and already utilized in order to improve

3142: the determination of $\alpha_s$ in quenched simulation \cite{peneOPE}.\\

3143: They also perform the extrapolation of the coupling to $\rm{n_f}=3$

3144: and then the renormalization group evolution to the value of $M_Z$ of

3145: the energy through the thresholds, Fig.\ref{alpha-plot}(a) quotes their result.\\

3146: A recent review \cite{Hashimoto} analyzes the results from lattice

3147: calculations up to 2004 with emphasis to the theoretical issues in

3148: dynamical quark simulations. In particular a comparison among 

3149: determinations of the various coupling constant is presented, besides

3150: the already cited papers, Fig.\ref{alpha-plot}(a) includes some

3151: newer 

3152: \cite{HPQCD2003/4},

3153: \cite{QCDSF-UKQCD} and

3154: some older result \cite{aoki}. 

3155: The most recent result in Fig.\ref{alpha-plot}(a), obtained by the

3156: $\rm{HPQCD}$ collaboration (2004), is 

3157: $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1175(15)$ in good agreement with the $\rm{PDG}$ 2004

3158: average $0.1182(20)$ \cite{pdg}. It has be noted that the results 

3159: obtained using Wilson fermions

3160: \cite{QCDSF-UKQCD}, \cite{Gockeler:2004} are

3161: significantly lower than those obtained using staggered fermions \cite{HPQCD2003/4}.\\

3162: An original approach to the lattice computations has been developed by

3163: the $\rm{ALPHA}$ collaboration which  recently performed a determination

3164: of the strong coupling constant with two dynamical flavors

3165: \cite{alpha2005}. Exposition of  the method is in \cite{luscher97-98}, 

3166: a detailed discussion of the mass renormalization

3167: in \cite{alphamass}.\\

3168: One  of the computational problems  in the usual

3169: approaches is that the window energy  must be wide to contain both the matching

3170: to the hadronic scale and the asymptotic behavior of the coupling.

3171: In the approach of the  $\rm{ALPHA}$ collaboration one can determine a recurrence

3172: relation between quantities referring to double energy each step, and

3173: thus one constructs a ladder from the hadronic to the perturbative regime.\\

3174: The technical tool is an intermediate renormalization scheme in which

3175: the renormalized coupling constant is defined by derivative 

3176:  with respect to parameters characterizing the boundary

3177: conditions of

3178: the Schroedinger functional, namely the amplitude for a transition from a

3179: given field configuration at a given time,  $t=0$, to another one at $t=T$. Moreover the

3180: boundary conditions yield a natural infrared cut-off so it is possible

3181: to perform simulations at vanishing quark mass \cite{alphamass} 

3182: (using Wilson fermions the mass

3183: renormalization is additive, and imposed using the $\rm{PCAC}$

3184: relation). 

3185: The renormalization of the coupling is  defined on the

3186: massless theory thus  a non perturbative mass independent

3187: scheme is obtained. 

3188: In other computations the light quark masses are actually rather large,

3189: and chiral extrapolations are needed in order to compute the coupling to be

3190: compared to the  $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ one.\\

3191: Taking $T=L$, being $a$ and $L$ the

3192: only dimensional quantities, the following relation between bare and

3193: renormalized couplings holds 

3194: $\overline{\mathrm{g}}_L=\overline{\mathrm{g}}(a/L,g_0)$ .  

3195: Here $1/L$

3196: plays the role of the finite scale of energy. 

3197: The same procedure can be

3198: applied by doubling the size, $L\rightarrow 2L$, and after

3199: elimination of $g_0$ one finds a relation between

3200: the two renormalized coupling constants. At the end, by

3201: extrapolating  the limit $a/L \rightarrow0$, they define the ''step

3202: scaling function'' which connects the two couplings:

3203: \begin{equation}

3204: \sigma(u_{L/2})=u_L\,.

3205: \label{sigma}

3206: \end{equation}

3207: In (\ref{sigma}) $u={\overline{\mathrm{g}}}^2$ and the two couplings

3208: refer to lattices of size $L/2$ and $L$  at fixed Physics, namely

3209: bare parameters. The previous equation is actually a discrete

3210: renormalization group transformation, indeed a relation between

3211: the $\beta$  and the $\sigma$ functions is determined. 

3212: Of course the step scaling function is constructed by a 

3213: numerical procedure; 

3214: consistency with  perturbation theory requires $\sigma(u)\sim u$

3215: as $u\rightarrow0$, for larger $u$,  $\sigma(u)$  is computed

3216: by a suitable interpolation starting from the set of points determined

3217: on the lattice (a discussion of the systematic error arising from this

3218: interpolation, which it is claimed to be negligible in a suitable

3219: range of coupling, is in \cite{capitani}).\\

3220: Starting with a given

3221: coupling and a given size ($u_{max},L_{max})$ using the step

3222: scaling function one computes 

3223: $u_i={\overline{\mathrm{g}}}^2(2^{-i}L_{max})$ 

3224: and for sufficient high energy, with the identification $\mu=

3225: 2^{i}/L_{max}$, one matches the pertubative regime

3226: evaluating $\Lambda$ (the ratio between this $\Lambda$ and

3227: $\Lambda_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}$ is known). \\

3228: The starting point of the iteration is a priori unknown, it is

3229: determined

3230: by matching some hadronic quantity, as a practical approach it was 

3231: computed $r_0$ in the chiral limit; 

3232: assuming $r_0=0.5\,\rm fm$ it turns out

3233: $\Lambda^{\rm{n_f}=2}_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=245(16)(16)\;\rm MeV$.

3234: For the low energy behavior of this coupling see \cite{alphainfrared}.\\

3235: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3236: \begin{figure}[t]

3237: \begin{center}

3238: \begin{tabular}{c c c}

3239: \includegraphics[width=14.5pc]{alpha_s.eps}  & 

3240: \hskip 0.5 cm\includegraphics[width=16.0pc,height=4.6cm]{alv.eps} \\

3241:   a &    b \\

3242: \end{tabular}

3243: \caption{\footnotesize (a) Strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(M_Z)$.

3244:      Lattice data are from 

3245:      Aoki et al.\protect\cite{aoki},

3246:      Davies et al.\protect\cite{NRQCD},

3247:      SESAM\protect\cite{NRQCD},

3248:      Boucaud et al.\protect\cite{pene2001},

3249:      QCDSF-UKQCD\protect\cite{QCDSF-UKQCD} and its

3250:      update\protect\cite{Gockeler:2004},

3251:      HPQCD-UKQCD-MILC-Fermilab\protect\cite{HPQCD2003/4} and its

3252:      update\protect\cite{HPQCD2003/4}.

3253:  (b)Values for $\alpha_V$ versus $d/a$ from each short-distance

3254:   quantity from \cite{lastalpha}, with (top) and without (bottom) light-quark vacuum

3255:   polarization. The dashed lines show the predictions of the

3256:   perturbative running which best fit the distributions.

3257: \vspace{-0.5truecm}} 

3258: \label{alpha-plot}

3259: \end{center}

3260: \end{figure}

3261: The most recent determination of the running coupling constant has been obtained

3262: by a $\rm {HPQCD-UKQCD}$ collaboration \cite{lastalpha}. Using a new

3263: discretization of the light quark action the authors perform the first

3264: computation with  three dynamical quarks. After having fixed the

3265: lattice parameters ($m_u=m_d$, $ m_s$, $m_c$, $m_b$ and $ a$) matching

3266: five experimental quantities the determination of the coupling is

3267: obtained by an optimization of lattice perturbation theory, in which

3268: the coupling must fit 28 short-distance quantities calculated on the

3269: lattice. The final estimate is $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.1170(12)$, which

3270: slightly corrects the already reported result of \cite{HPQCD2003/4}.\\

3271: The figure \ref{alpha-plot}(b), from the cited paper, shows the remarkable 

3272: effect of the vacuum polarization of

3273: the three light quarks on the coupling $\alpha_V$ introduced in

3274: eq.(\ref{richardson1})(the momentum is represented in units of the

3275: inverse lattice spacing).\\ 

3276: Among the many lattice results, we would like now to pay a little

3277: attention to those concerning  the behavior of the coupling in the

3278: very low energy region.\\ 

3279: The $\rm MOM$ definition of the coupling is likely the best suited to

3280: this aim, indeed the already cited authors using this approach

3281: addressed this task in \cite{pene-instantons}. In order to reach low

3282: momenta also  lattices with a rather large lattice spacing, and then 

3283: low $\beta$, have  been used. The results for the pure gauge theory are

3284: shown in Fig.\ref{alpha_sym}.   

3285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3286: \begin{figure}[t] 

3287: \begin{center} 

3288: \includegraphics[width=32pc]{collage.eps} 

3289: \caption{\footnotesize  

3290: (b) Symmetric MOM coupling constant for different lattice settings 

3291: and fits to perturbative expression plus power corrections in the high 

3292: momenta region and to the expression of eq.(\ref{alphainst}) 

3293: for small momenta. (a) Region of small momenta is zoomed.

3294: \vspace{-0.7truecm}} 

3295: \label{alpha_sym} 

3296: \end{center} 

3297: \end{figure} 

3298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3299: The number of data in fig.\ref{alpha_sym}(b) is sufficient to check the theoretical model of the vacuum as

3300: instanton liquid. According to this model the coupling must have a

3301: $p^4$ dependence for small energy, the data in Fig.\ref{alpha_sym}(a)

3302: are indeed fitted by this power low, the proportionality coefficient

3303: yields the instanton density $n$:

3304: \begin{equation}

3305: \alpha_{\rm MOM}(p)=\frac{1}{18\pi}n^{-1}p^4\,.

3306: \label{alphainst}

3307: \end{equation}

3308: Such a behavior  is  not a universal feature, from a glance at

3309: the figures 8 and 9 in the second paper of \cite{skull}, in which the

3310: coupling is defined in $\rm MOM$ scheme but using the quark-gluon vertex,

3311:  one realizes that there the coupling is still vanishing for small

3312:  momenta

3313: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3314: but, in spite of the rather little number of data, it does not seem

3315: with the $p^4$ low. 

3316: On the contrary the coupling $\alpha_{\rm V}(Q)$

3317: introduced in eq.(\ref{richardson1}) should instead diverge for

3318: $Q\rightarrow0$.\\

3319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3320: In the last years infrared features of QCD has

3321: been addressed using the Dyson-Schwinger equations. This approach,

3322: which starts from suitable truncations of the DSE, seems in particular

3323: effective in the study of the low energy behavior of the propagators

3324: (see \cite{alkofer-rev} for a review). In this way infrared exponents for the

3325: gluon-gluon and ghost-ghost two point functions have been determined.

3326: In the Landau gauge using the ghost and the gluon propagators one can

3327: give a definition of the invariant coupling (which then resembles the familiar

3328: definition of QED) and  it turns out 

3329: that 

3330: it  has a finite infrared limit \cite{DSE}. 

3331: It is found 

3332: evidence for this fixed point at least in the context of

3333: pure $\rm{SU(2)}$ lattice gauge theory \cite{Bloch},

3334:  however  this conclusion does not seem 

3335:  supported in other  recent lattice $\rm{SU(3)}$

3336:  simulations \cite{furui}-\cite{sternbeck}.  The two results are compared and

3337:  discussed 

3338:  in \cite{fischer}, very recent results also in \cite{fischer2}. 

3339: As yet noted, such a lack of universality of the running coupling constant in

3340: the low energy regime is somewhat expected, however on such different

3341: behaviors,

3342: which are a little disturbing, some comment is in order.

3343: In \cite{Shirkov-IR2002} a  comparison of various approaches is  made 

3344: with reference to

3345: singular RG trasformations.

3346: The RG

3347: transformations are associated to a change of variable $g\rightarrow

3348: g'=f(g)$, which in general depends on the dimensional

3349: parameters too; in the  perturbative framework  $f(g)$

3350: is usually supposed to be an analytic function in the origin $g=0$. 

3351: Now  considering the $\rm MOM$ schemes, it is well known that in

3352: perturbation theory  

3353: the definitions of the coupling are vertex

3354: dependent \cite{Gonsalves79} but, at least in the massless case, this

3355: dependence turns out to be weak, namely the function $f$ is close to

3356: the identity. It is conceivable that in the infrared region,

3357: all more reason taking into account the different dependence of the

3358: coupling  on the quark light masses, the

3359: function $f$ can have non trivial consequences.\\ 

3360: Some proposals that we

3361: have examined which tries to extend the perturbative series in the

3362: low energy region can be seen as a not trivial RG transformation, at

3363: the beginning defined in full perturbative region, but such that the perturbative

3364: series in the new variable does not suffer from some pathology of the

3365: first one. Thus formula (\ref{alphaSH1}), which avoids the Landau pole,

3366: can be viewed, as already noticed, as the result of the non-analytic

3367:  transformation $\alpha_s\rightarrow \alpha'_s =\alpha_s +

3368: \frac{1}{\beta_0}(1-\exp(\frac{1}{\beta_0 \alpha_s}))^{-1}$.\\

3369: Every devisable transformation should share with the previous one the

3370: two nice properties to enjoy the asymptotic freedom, $\alpha_s\approx0^+

3371: \rightarrow\alpha'_s\approx0^+$, and to be free of ghost singularity, 

3372: $\alpha_s=\infty\rightarrow\alpha'_s= finite$. A priori there are not

3373: other compelling requirements, and one can imagine a situation in which,

3374: with respect to a given problem, a definition, and then a consequent

3375: perturbative expansion, has better properties than another.

3376: The considerations in \cite{Shirkov-IR2002} show that with other

3377: transformations one can induce various infrared behaviors in the new

3378: coupling. 

3379: The

3380: conclusion is that 

3381: ``there is not direct physical sense in attempts to

3382: establish some ``correct IR behavior'' of the perturbative QCD invariant 

3383: coupling''.

3384: %8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888

3385: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

3386: \section{Comparison with the data and conclusive remarks}

3387: \vspace{-0.3truecm}

3388: For completeness in this concluding section we want to  

3389: comment briefly on the experimental situation as continuously kept updated by

3390: \cite{pdg} and other specialized reviews (see e.g. \cite{bethke}).

3391: Tab.1 in the contribution of S.Bethke in this issue summarizes the 

3392: determination of $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)$ at various energies between 

3393: 1.58 and 206 GeV extracted by various types of 

3394: experiments: deep inelastic scattering 

3395: (DIS), $e^+e^-$ annihilation (hadron cross section, structure function,

3396: jets and jet shapes), hadron-hadron collision, Z, $\Upsilon$ and

3397: $\tau$ decay, heavy quark bound states.\\

3398: In fig. \ref{asq}(a) from \cite{bethke} such results are compared with 

3399: the 4-loop

3400: perturbative expression of $\alpha_{\rm \overline{MS}}(Q^2)$ as given

3401: by (\ref{4loopEC}) together with threshold matching. 

3402: As it can be seen the agreement is very good inside the

3403: errors and this constitutes a very significant test for QCD. Note,

3404: however, that assuming all expressions equally normalized at $M_Z=91.2\,$GeV

3405: the difference between the 3-loop and the 4-loop expressions is of

3406: order 1/10000 in the interval from 10 to 200 GeV, it becomes of the 

3407: order 1/1000 between 2-loop and 4-loop and of few per cent between 

3408: 1-loop and 4-loop.

3409: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3410: \begin{figure}[t]

3411: \begin{center}

3412: \begin{tabular}{c c}

3413: \hskip -0.4cm\includegraphics[width=6.3cm,height=7.2cm]{asq-2006.eps}  & 

3414: \hskip -0.2cm\includegraphics[width=7.2cm,height=7.2cm]{cFn.ps} 

3415: \put(-175,180){ {\footnotesize $\alpha_{\rm s}(Q^2)$} }

3416: \put(-55,20){ {\footnotesize $Q\,\,$[GeV]} } \\

3417:  \footnotesize (a) &  \footnotesize (b) \\

3418: \end{tabular}

3419: \caption{\footnotesize (a) From \cite{bethke}: summary of measurements 

3420: of $\alpha_s(Q^2)\,$.

3421: (b) From \cite{ip}: comparison between the 1-loop analytic coupling 

3422: (\ref{alphaSH1}) with $\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}=206\,$MeV, and the values of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ 

3423: fitting experimental data on quarkonium spectrum within Salpeter formalism (circles,

3424: pentagrams and squares refer to light-light states, diamonds and crosses to heavy-heavy,

3425: plus signes and asterisks to light-heavy states).

3426: \vspace{-0.7truecm}} 

3427: \label{asq}

3428: \end{center}

3429: \end{figure}

3430: We have in this way the proof that at three loops the theory is

3431: practically at convergence in comparison with the precision of the 

3432: experimental data and that two loops (naturally after the appropriate

3433: rescaling of $\Lambda$) is already a very good approximation in the

3434: considered range 

3435: \footnote{Obviously the difference explodes near the singularity.}.

3436: The choice of a particular RS or another is essentially 

3437: immaterial. However, under a scale of few $\Lambda ^{(n_f=3)}$ (let us say

3438: 2 GeV), the $\overline{\rm MS}$ becomes useless, due to the Landau 

3439: singularities, and we have to refer to any alternative scheme free of

3440: unphysical singularities and to follow it very consistently. A

3441: comparison with the data becomes RS dependent and would have no

3442: meaning out of the well defined framework.\\

3443: Note that the analytic scheme discussed in sec. 4 seems particularly

3444: convenient at this aim. It shares the simplicity and the universality

3445: of the  $\overline{\rm {MS}}$ scheme at a large extent. It provides a

3446: coupling which is regular in the entire interval $0<Q^2<\infty$ and

3447: has a finite limit ${1 \over \beta_0}$ for $Q\to 0$ independent of the

3448: number of loops used. As a consequence of this fact its expression

3449: converges much faster as the number of loops increases. The difference

3450: between the 2-loop and the 3-loop expression is again of order 1/1000

3451: but this time more or less in the entire range from 0 to

3452: $+\infty$. Even the difference between the 1-loop and the 3-loop is of

3453: order of 1/100 and may be a fraction of this in limited ranges. \\

3454: For construction $\alpha_{\rm an}(Q^2)$ coincides asymptotically with 

3455: $\alpha_{\rm \overline{MS}}(Q^2)$ for large $Q$ and $\alpha_{\rm an}

3456: ^{(2)}(Q^2)$ fits the data of Tab.1 from \cite{bethke} nearly as well 

3457: as $\alpha_{\rm \overline{MS}}^{(3)}(Q^2)$. Note however that, as seen 

3458: in sec. 4.2, we have more precisely 

3459: %

3460: \be

3461: \alpha_{\rm an}^{(p)}(Q^2) \to \alpha_{\rm \overline{MS}}^{(p)}(Q^2)

3462:   + {c_1^{(p)} \over Q^2}\,.

3463: \lb{concl1}

3464: \ee

3465: %

3466: The coefficients $c_1^{(p)}$ seem to decrease as the number $p$ of the

3467: loops increases. However for the value of $p$ we actually use the

3468: power term in (\ref{concl1}) can be non negligible at some

3469: intermediate scale and may be disturbing in particular with reference

3470: to the problematic discussed in sec 4.5. As we have seen they may be

3471: eliminated for every given $p$ by choosing an appropriate non

3472: perturbative term $\alpha_{\rm an}^{\rm NP}(Q^2)$ to be added to  

3473: the ``perturbative'' $\alpha_{\rm an}^{\rm PT}(Q^2)$. As we have seen

3474: phenomenologically modified expressions for $\alpha_{\rm an}(Q^2)$

3475: have also been proposed to eliminate such term.\\

3476: Information on the QCD interaction under few GeV can be obtained from

3477: power corrections to various observable at some intermediate energy,

3478: as we have seen. Other information can come from relativistic

3479: calculation of the spectrum of light-light, light-heavy and from the

3480: highly excited heavy-heavy quarkonium states.\\

3481: In \cite{Baldicchi:2004wj}, e.g., a reasonable reproduction of the entire calculable

3482: spectrum and in particular of $\pi-\rho$, the $K-K^*$ and

3483: $\eta_c - J/\psi$ was obtained. Such analysis was performed in the

3484: framework of a Salpeter formalism constructed using as input only a 

3485: generalization of the ansatz (\ref{ansatz}) and a 1-loop analytic coupling

3486: with $n_f=3$  and $\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}=180$ MeV. Note that such  

3487: $\alpha_{\rm an}^{(1)}(Q^2)$ differs from $\alpha_{\rm an}^{(2)}(Q^2)$ 

3488: with $\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}=375\,$MeV by less than 0.5 \%.\\

3489: Actually the developments reported in sec 4.5 were made in the

3490: framework of the SGD scheme and this scheme may be the most natural

3491: even for bound states problems. In fact the inclusion of certain second

3492: order corrections would simply amount to a rescaling of

3493: $\Lambda$. However the SGD and the analytic scheme are strictly

3494: related and have even a common root in a sense \cite{Dokshitzer:1993pf}. They are

3495: both based on dispersive techniques and can be made to coincide up to

3496: two loops.\\

3497: In any way according to a more recent preliminary analysis, made in the

3498: context of the mentioned relativistic determination of the quarkonium

3499: spectrum \cite{ip}, it seems that the curve $\alpha_{\rm an}^{(1)}(Q^2)$ 

3500: (with $\Lambda^{(n_f=3)}=206$MeV) is in very good agreement with the data 

3501: up to $200\,$MeV corresponding e.g. to the $c\bar{c}$(1D) state (see 

3502: fig.{\ref{asq}}(b)). On the contrary for higher excited states, 

3503: corresponding to 

3504: $100<Q<200$MeV, the values of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ that reproduce the  

3505: data seem to be somewhat lower than $\alpha_{\rm an}^{(1)}(Q^2)$ and

3506: this could confirm the need of a non perturbative contribution to be added

3507: to $\alpha_{\rm an}(Q^2)$ as given in sec. 4.5 \cite{ip}. 

3508: However, the experimental situation is so uncomplete and confused in this range

3509: and the applicability of the theoretical method so questionable that no real

3510: significant conclusion can be drawn.\\ 

3511: In conclusion, the use in QCD of a RS, in which the

3512: running coupling constant is free from Landau singularities, seems to

3513: offer a framework in which all existing phenomenology can be discussed 

3514: and non perturbative corrections usefully parametrized. It is even a

3515: framework in which a comparison with Lattice Theory results is easier

3516: and more natural.

3517: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

3518: \section{Acknowledgments and apologies}

3519: \vspace{-0.4truecm}

3520: We grateful acknowledge very fruitful discussions we have had on the subject

3521: with our colleagues D.V. Shirkov, G. Marchesini, S.Forte, M. Baldicchi, 

3522: N. Brambilla, A. Vairo.\\

3523: On the contrary we regret for all very interesting papers to

3524: which we were not able to give sufficient attention for lack of space 

3525: or that we have possibly completely overlooked. They are certainly

3526: many and again we apologize for that.    

3527: 

3528: %BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

3529: \vspace{-0.5truecm}

3530: \begin{thebibliography}{100}

3531: 

3532: %intro

3533: 

3534: \bibitem{monograph} 

3535:   N.~N.~Bogoliubov and D.~V.~Shirkov, 

3536:   \emph{Introduction to the Theory of Quantized Field}, 

3537:   Wiley-Intersc., N.Y. (1980);

3538:   S.~Weinberg,

3539:   \emph{The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol.II, Modern Applications},

3540:   Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1996).

3541: \bibitem{Shirkov:1999hj}

3542:   D.~V.~Shirkov and V.~F.~Kovalev,

3543:   %``The Bogoliubov renormalization group and solution symmetry in  mathematical

3544:   %physics,''

3545:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 352} (2001) 219;

3546:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0001210].

3547:   S.~Weinberg,

3548:   %``New Approach To The Renormalization Group,''

3549:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 8} (1973) 3497.

3550: \bibitem{Brodsky:1982gc}

3551:   S.~J.~Brodsky, G.~P.~Lepage and P.~B.~Mackenzie,

3552:   %``On The Elimination Of Scale Ambiguities In Perturbative Quantum

3553:   %Chromodynamics,''

3554:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 28} (1983) 228;

3555:   S.~J.~Brodsky, C.~R.~Ji, A.~Pang and D.~G.~Robertson,

3556:   %``Optimal renormalization scale and scheme for exclusive processes,''

3557:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 245;

3558:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9705221].

3559:   G.~Grunberg,

3560:   %``Method of effective charges and BLM criterion,''

3561:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 2228.

3562: \bibitem{Grunberg:1980ja}

3563:   G.~Grunberg,

3564:   %``Renormalization Scheme Independent QCD And QED: The Method Of Effective

3565:   %Charges,''

3566:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29} (1984) 2315;  

3567:   %``Renormalization Group Improved Perturbative QCD,''

3568:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 95} (1980) 70

3569:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 110} (1982) 501];

3570:   %``On Some Ambiguities In The Method Of Effective Charges,''

3571:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40} (1989) 680.

3572: \bibitem{Gribov:1977wm}

3573:   V.~N.~Gribov,

3574:   % ``Quantization Of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,''

3575:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 139} (1978) 1; 

3576:   L.~Baulieu and M.~Schaden,

3577:   %``Gauge Group TQFT and Improved Perturbative Yang-Mills Theory,''

3578:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 13} (1998) 985 and references therein.

3579:   %[arXiv:hep-th/9601039].

3580: \bibitem{bethke}

3581:   S.~Bethke,

3582:   (in this issue) arXiv:hep-ex/0606035; 

3583:   %``alpha(s) at Zinnowitz 2004,''

3584:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 135} (2004) 345; 

3585:   %[arXiv:hep-ex/0407021];

3586:   %``alpha(s) 2002,''

3587:   {\bf 121} (2003) 74;

3588:   %[arXiv:hep-ex/0211012];

3589:   %``Determination of the QCD coupling alpha(s),''

3590:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 26} (2000) R27.

3591:   %[arXiv:hep-ex/0004021].

3592: 

3593: %\beta

3594: 

3595: \bibitem{Caswell:1974cj}

3596:   W.~E.~Caswell and F.~Wilczek,

3597:   %``On The Gauge Dependence Of Renormalization Group Parameters,''

3598:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 49} (1974) 291.

3599: \bibitem{Gross:1973id}

3600:   D.~J.~Gross and F.~Wilczek,

3601:   %``Ultraviolet Behavior Of Non-Abelian Gauge Theories,''

3602:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 30} (1973) 1343.

3603: \bibitem{Caswell:1974gg}

3604:   W.~E.~Caswell,

3605:   %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Nonabelian Gauge Theories To Two Loop Order,''

3606:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 33} (1974) 244;

3607:   D.~R.~T.~Jones,

3608:   %``Two Loop Diagrams In Yang-Mills Theory,''

3609:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 75} (1974) 531.

3610: \bibitem{Tarasov:1980au}

3611:   O.~V.~Tarasov, A.~A.~Vladimirov and A.~Y.~Zharkov,

3612:   %``The Gell-Mann-Low Function Of QCD In The Three Loop Approximation,''

3613:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 93} (1980) 429.

3614: \bibitem{Larin:1993tp}

3615:   S.~A.~Larin and J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren,

3616:   %``The Three loop QCD Beta function and anomalous dimensions,''

3617:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 303} (1993) 334.

3618:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9302208].

3619: \bibitem{vanRitbergen:1997va}

3620:   T.~van Ritbergen, J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren and S.~A.~Larin,

3621:   %``The four-loop beta function in quantum chromodynamics,''

3622:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 400} (1997) 379.

3623:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9701390].

3624: \bibitem{Czakon:2004bu}

3625:   M.~Czakon,

3626:   %``The four-loop QCD beta-function and anomalous dimensions,''

3627:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 710} (2005) 485; 

3628:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0411261].

3629:   T.~R.~Morris and O.~J.~Rosten,

3630:   %``Manifestly gauge invariant QCD,''

3631:   arXiv:hep-th/0606189.

3632: 

3633: %\alpha

3634: 

3635: \bibitem{Bardeen:1978yd}

3636:   W.~A.~Bardeen, A.~J.~Buras, D.~W.~Duke and T.~Muta,

3637:   %``Deep Inelastic Scattering Beyond The Leading Order In Asymptotically Free

3638:   %Gauge Theories,''

3639:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18} (1978) 3998.

3640: \bibitem{Collins} 

3641:   J.~C.~Collins, 

3642:   \emph{Renormalization}, Cambridge University Press (1984).

3643: \bibitem{Corless:1996}

3644:   R.~M.~Corless, G.~H.~Gonnet, D.~E.~G.~Hare, D.~J.~Jeffrey, and D.~E.~Knuth,

3645:   %``On the Lambert W Function''

3646:   Advances in Computation Mathematics,\ V {\bf 5} (1996) 329.

3647: \bibitem{Grunberg98}

3648:   E.~Gardi, G.~Grunberg and M.~Karliner,

3649:   %``Can the {QCD} running coupling have a causal analyticity structure?,''

3650:   JHEP {\bf 9807} (1998) 007.

3651:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9806462].

3652: \bibitem{pdg}

3653:   S.~Eidelman {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

3654:   %``Review of particle physics,''

3655:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 592} (2004) 1.

3656: \bibitem{Kourashev:1999ye}

3657:   D.~S.~Kourashev,

3658:   %``The QCD observables expansion over the scheme-independent two-loop

3659:   %coupling constant powers, the scheme dependence reduction,''

3660:   arXiv:hep-ph/9912410.

3661: \bibitem{Gonsalves79}

3662:   W.~Celmaster and R.~J.~Gonsalves,

3663:   %``The Renormalization Prescription Dependence Of The QCD Coupling Constant,''

3664:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 20} (1979) 1420.

3665:   %A.~P.~Bakulev, S.~V.~Mikhailov and N.~G.~Stefanis,

3666:   %``Unbiased analysis of CLEO data at NLO and pion distribution amplitude,''

3667:   %Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 074012.

3668: 

3669: %thresholds

3670: 

3671: \bibitem{Bernreuther:1997jn}

3672:   W.~Bernreuther, A.~Brandenburg and P.~Uwer,

3673:   %``Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to three-jet cross sections with

3674:   %massive quarks,''

3675:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79} (1997) 189; 

3676:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9703305];

3677:   K.~G.~Chetyrkin and J.~H.~Kuhn,

3678:   %``Quadratic mass corrections of order O(alpha(s)**3 m(q)**2/s) to the  decay

3679:   %rate of Z and W bosons,''

3680:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 406} (1997) 102.

3681:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9609202].

3682: \bibitem{Vermaseren:1997fq}

3683:   J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren, S.~A.~Larin and T.~van Ritbergen,

3684:   %``The 4-loop quark mass anomalous dimension and the invariant quark  mass,''

3685:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 405} (1997) 327; 

3686:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9703284];

3687:   K.~G.~Chetyrkin and A.~Retey,

3688:   %``Renormalization and running of quark mass and field in the  regularization

3689:   %invariant and MS-bar schemes at three and four loops,''

3690:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 583} (2000) 3.

3691:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910332].

3692: \bibitem{Melnikov:2000qh}

3693:   K.~Melnikov and T.~v.~Ritbergen,

3694:   %``The three-loop relation between the MS-bar and the pole quark masses,''

3695:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 482} (2000) 99.

3696:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912391].

3697: \bibitem{Appelquist:1974tg}

3698:   T.~Appelquist and J.~Carazzone,

3699:   %``Infrared Singularities And Massive Fields,''

3700:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11} (1975) 2856.

3701: \bibitem{Bernreuther:1983zp}

3702:   W.~Bernreuther,

3703:   %``Decoupling Of Heavy Quarks In Quantum Chromodynamics,''

3704:   Annals Phys.\  {\bf 151} (1983) 127;

3705:   W.~Bernreuther and W.~Wetzel,

3706:   %``Decoupling Of Heavy Quarks In The Minimal Subtraction Scheme,''

3707:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 197} (1982) 228

3708:   [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 513} (1998) 758]; 

3709:   W.~J.~Marciano,

3710:   %``Flavor Thresholds And Lambda In The Modified Minimal Subtraction

3711:   %Prescription,''

3712:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29} (1984) 580.

3713: \bibitem{Larin:1994va}

3714:   S.~A.~Larin, T.~van Ritbergen and J.~A.~M.~Vermaseren,

3715:   %``The Large quark mass expansion of Gamma (Z0 $\to$ hadrons) and Gamma (tau-

3716:   %$\to$ tau-neutrino + hadrons) in the order alpha-s**3,''

3717:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 438} (1995) 278.

3718:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9411260].

3719: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1997sg}

3720:   K.~G.~Chetyrkin, B.~A.~Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser,

3721:   %``Strong coupling constant with flavour thresholds at four loops in the

3722:   %MS-bar scheme,''

3723:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79} (1997) 2184.

3724:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9706430].

3725: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1997un}

3726:   K.~G.~Chetyrkin, B.~A.~Kniehl and M.~Steinhauser,

3727:   %``Decoupling relations to O(alpha(s)**3) and their connection to  low-energy

3728:   %theorems,''

3729:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 510} (1998) 61;

3730:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9708255].

3731:   G.~Rodrigo, A.~Pich and A.~Santamaria,

3732:   %``alpha(s)(m(Z)) from tau decays with matching conditions at three loops,''

3733:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 424} (1998) 367;

3734:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9707474].

3735:   G.~Rodrigo and A.~Santamaria,

3736:   %``QCD matching conditions at thresholds,''

3737:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 313} (1993) 441.

3738:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9305305].

3739: \bibitem{Shirkov:1990vw}

3740:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

3741:   %``Perturbative Analysis Of General Renorm Group Solutions In A Massive

3742:   %Case,''

3743:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 371} (1992) 467;

3744:   D.~V.~Shirkov and S.~V.~Mikhailov,

3745:   %``Mass dependent alpha-s evolution and the light gluino existence,''

3746:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63} (1994) 463.

3747:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9401270].

3748: 

3749: % timelike momentum

3750: 

3751: \bibitem{Moorhouse:1976qq}

3752:   R.~G.~Moorhouse, M.~R.~Pennington and G.~G.~Ross,

3753:   %``What Can Asymptotic Freedom Say About E+ E- $\to$ Hadrons?,''

3754:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 124} (1977) 285.

3755: \bibitem{Yndurain} 

3756:   F.~J.~Yndurain, 

3757:   \emph{The Theory of Quark and Gluon Interactions} 

3758:   (Springer-Verlag, 1999). 

3759: %\bibitem{Novikov:1977dq}

3760: %  V.~A.~Novikov, L.~B.~Okun, M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein, M.~B.~Voloshin and V.~I.~Zakharov,

3761:   %``Charmonium And Gluons: Basic Experimental Facts And Theoretical

3762:   %Introduction,''

3763: %  Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 41} (1978) 1.

3764: \bibitem{Adler:1974gd}

3765:   S.~L.~Adler,

3766:   %``Some Simple Vacuum Polarization Phenomenology: E+ E- $\to$ Hadrons; The Mu

3767:   %- Mesic Atom X-Ray Discrepancy And (G-2) Of The Muon,''

3768:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10} (1974) 3714.

3769: \bibitem{Chetyrkin:1979bj}

3770:   K.~G.~Chetyrkin, A.~L.~Kataev and F.~V.~Tkachov,

3771:   %``Higher Order Corrections To Sigma-T (E+ E- $\to$ Hadrons) In Quantum

3772:   %Chromodynamics,''

3773:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 85} (1979) 277; 

3774:   W.~Celmaster, R.~J.~Gonsalves,

3775:   %``An Analytic Calculation Of Higher Order Quantum Chromodynamic Corrections

3776:   %In E+ E- Annihilation,''

3777:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 44} (1980) 560; 

3778:   M.~Dine, J.~R.~Sapirstein,

3779:   %``Higher Order QCD Corrections In E+ E- Annihilation,''

3780:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 43} (1979) 668.

3781: \bibitem{Gorishnii:1990vf}

3782:   S.~G.~Gorishnii, A.~L.~Kataev and S.~A.~Larin,

3783:   %``The O (Alpha-S**3) Corrections To Sigma-Tot (E+ E- $\to$ Hadrons) And Gamma

3784:   %(Tau- $\to$ Tau-Neutrino + Hadrons) In QCD,''

3785:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259} (1991) 144; 

3786:   L.~R.~Surguladze and M.~A.~Samuel,

3787:   %``Total Hadronic Cross-Section In E+ E- Annihilation At The Four Loop Level

3788:   %Of Perturbative QCD,''

3789:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 66} (1991) 560

3790:   [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 66} (1991) 2416].

3791: \bibitem{Kataev:1995vh}

3792:   A.~L.~Kataev and V.~V.~Starshenko,

3793:   %``Estimates of the higher order QCD corrections to R(s), R(tau) and deep

3794:   %inelastic scattering sum rules,''

3795:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 10} (1995) 235.

3796:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9502348].

3797: \bibitem{Bjorken:1989xw}

3798:   J.~D.~Bjorken,

3799:   %``Two Topics In Quantum Chromodynamics,''

3800:   SLAC-PUB-5103

3801:   %\href{http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?r=slac-pub-5103}{SPIRES entry}

3802:   {\it {Invited lectures given at 1989 Cargese Summer Inst. in Particle Physics, Cargese, 

3803:   France, Jul 18 - Aug 4, 1989}}.

3804: \bibitem{Pennington:1981cw}

3805:   M.~R.~Pennington and G.~G.~Ross,

3806:   %``Perturbative QCD For Timelike Processes: What Is The Best Expansion

3807:   %Parameter?,''

3808:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 102} (1981) 167.

3809: \bibitem{Pennington:1983rz}

3810:   M.~R.~Pennington, R.~G.~Roberts and G.~G.~Ross,

3811:   %``How To Continue The Predictions Of Perturbative QCD From The Space - Like

3812:   %Region Where They Are Derived To The Time - Like Regime Where Experiments Are

3813:   %Performed,''

3814:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 242} (1984) 69. 

3815: \bibitem{Parisi:1980jy}

3816:   G.~Parisi and R.~Petronzio,

3817:   %``On Low-Energy Tests Of QCD,''

3818:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 94} (1980) 51. 

3819: \bibitem{Radyushkin:1982kg}

3820:   A.~V.~Radyushkin,

3821:   %``Optimized Lambda - Parametrization For The QCD Running Coupling Constant In

3822:   %Space - Like And Time - Like Regions,''

3823:   JINR Rapid Commun.\  {\bf 78} (1996) 96

3824:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9907228].

3825: \bibitem{Krasnikov:1982fx}

3826:   N.~V.~Krasnikov and A.~A.~Pivovarov,

3827:   %``The Influence Of The Analytical Continuation Effects On The Value Of The

3828:   %QCD Scale Parameter Lambda Extracted From The Data On Charmonium And Upsilon

3829:   %Hadron Decays,''

3830:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 116} (1982) 168.

3831: \bibitem{Jones:1995rd}

3832:   H.~F.~Jones and I.~L.~Solovtsov,

3833:   %``QCD running coupling constant in the timelike region,''

3834:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 349} (1995) 519.

3835:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9501344].

3836: 

3837: % infrared behavior, phenomelogical approach

3838: 

3839: \bibitem{richardson}

3840:   J. L, Richarson,

3841:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 82} (1979) 272.

3842: \bibitem{buchmuller}

3843:   W.~Buchm\"uller, G.~Grunberg and S.-H.~H.~Tye,

3844:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 45} (1980) 103; 

3845:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 45} (1980) 587.

3846: \bibitem{fischler}

3847:   W. Fischler, Nucl.\ Phys. \ B {\bf 129} (1977) 157; 

3848:   A. Billoire, Phys.\ Lett. \ B {\bf 92} (1980) 343;  

3849:   M. Peter, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. \ {\bf 78} (1997) 602; 

3850:   Y.~Schroder, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 447} (1999) 321

3851: \bibitem{appelquist}

3852:   T. Appelquist, M. Dine  and I. J. Muzinich, Phys.\ Rev.\ 

3853:   D {\bf 17} (1978), 2074; Phys. Lett. B {\bf 69} (1977) 231;

3854:   N.~Brambilla, A.~Pineda, J.~Soto and A.~Vairo,

3855:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 091502;

3856:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 566} (2000) 275.

3857: \bibitem{eichten}

3858:   E.~Eichten and F.~Feinberg,

3859:   Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 23} (1989) 2724.

3860: \bibitem{bcp}

3861:   N.~Brambilla, P.~Consoli and G.~M.~Prosperi,

3862:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 5878; 

3863:   A. Barchielli, N. Brambilla, G. M. Prosperi, 

3864:   Nuovo\ Cimento\ A {\bf 103} (1990) 59; 

3865:   A. Barchielli, E. Montaldi, G. M. Prosperi, 

3866:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 296} (1988) 625. 

3867: \bibitem{simonov}

3868:   Yu.~A.~Simonov,

3869:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 324} (1989) 67.

3870: \bibitem{dosh}

3871:   H.~G.~Dosh and Yu.~A.~Simonov,

3872:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 205} (1988) 339.

3873: \bibitem{baker}

3874:   M. Baker, J. S. Ball, N, Brambilla, G. M. Prosperi, F. Zachariasen,

3875:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 2829; 

3876:   M. Baker, J. S. Ball, F. Zachariasen,

3877:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 1968.  

3878: \bibitem{nikolaev92}

3879:   N. N. Nikolaev and B. G. Zakharov, Z.\ Phys.

3880:   C {\bf 49} (1991) 607;

3881:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 53} (1992) 331;

3882:   V.~Barone, M.~Genovese, N.~N.~Nikolaev, E.~Predazzi and B.~G.~Zakharov,

3883:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 58} (1993) 541;

3884:   G.~M.~Prosperi and M.~Baldicchi,

3885:   Fizika B {\bf 8} (1999) 251.

3886: \bibitem{Higashijima:1983gx}

3887:   K.~Higashijima,

3888:   %``Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking,''

3889:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 29} (1984) 1228.

3890: \bibitem{isgur} 

3891:   S. Godfrey and N. Isgur,

3892:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 32} (1985) 189;

3893:   T. Barnes, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 11} (1981) 135;

3894:   T. Barnes, F. E. Close and S. Monaghan, 

3895:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 198} (1983) 380.

3896: \bibitem{Zhang}

3897:   T. Zhang and R. Koniuk,

3898:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B  {\bf 261} (1991) 311;

3899:   T. Zhang, 

3900:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 42} (1990) 3764.

3901: \bibitem{Halzen:1992vd}

3902:   F.~Halzen, G.~I.~Krein and A.~A.~Natale,

3903:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 295.

3904: \bibitem{Ball:1995ni}

3905:   P.~Ball, M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,

3906:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 452} (1995) 563;

3907:   M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun, V. I. Zakharov,

3908:   Phys.\ Rev\ Lett.\ {\bf 73} (1994) 3058;

3909:   M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,

3910:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 454} (1995) 253;

3911:   B. R. Webber,

3912:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 339} (1994) 148.

3913: \bibitem{Cornwall:1981zr}

3914:   J.~M.~Cornwall,

3915:   %``Dynamical Mass Generation In Continuum QCD,''

3916:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 26} (1982) 1453;

3917:   J.~M.~Cornwall and J.~Papavassiliou,

3918:   %``Gauge Invariant Three Gluon Vertex In QCD,''

3919:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 40} (1989) 3474;

3920:   J.~Papavassiliou and J.~M.~Cornwall,

3921:   %``Coupled fermion gap and vertex equations for chiral symmetry breakdown in

3922:   %QCD,''

3923:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 1285.

3924: \bibitem{Field:2001iu}

3925:   J.~H.~Field,

3926:   %``A phenomenological analysis of gluon mass effects in inclusive  radiative

3927:   %decays of the J/psi and Upsilon,''

3928:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 013013;

3929:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0101158].

3930:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

3931:   %``Unitary mechanism of infrared freezing in QCD with massive gluons,''

3932:   Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  {\bf 62} (1999) 1928

3933:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 62} (1999) 2082];

3934:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9903431].

3935:   A.~M.~Badalian and D.~S.~Kuzmenko,

3936:   %``Freezing of QCD coupling alpha(s) affects the short distance static

3937:   %potential,''

3938:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 016004.

3939:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0104097].

3940: 

3941: %EC

3942: 

3943: \bibitem{Beneke:1994qe}

3944:   M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,

3945:   %``Naive nonAbelianization and resummation of fermion bubble chains,''

3946:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 348} (1995) 513;

3947:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9411229];

3948:   P.~Ball, M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,

3949:   %``Resummation of (beta0 alpha-s)**n corrections in QCD: Techniques and

3950:   %applications to the tau hadronic width and the heavy quark pole mass,''

3951:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 452} (1995) 563.

3952:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9502300].

3953: \bibitem{Brodsky:1994eh}

3954:   S.~J.~Brodsky and H.~J.~Lu,

3955:   %``Commensurate scale relations in quantum chromodynamics,''

3956:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 3652.

3957:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9405218].

3958: \bibitem{cmw}

3959:   S.~Catani, G.~Marchesini and B.~R.~Webber,

3960:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 349} (1991) 635.

3961: \bibitem{dokshitzer1}

3962:   Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer, V.~A.~Khoze and S.~L.~Troyan,

3963:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 89.

3964: \bibitem{dokshitzer2}

3965:   Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer, G.~Marchesini and B.~R.~Webber,

3966:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 469} (1996) 93.

3967: \bibitem{brodsky03}

3968:   S.~J.~Brodsky, S.~Menke, C.~Merino and J.~Ratsham,

3969:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 055008 and references therein.

3970: \bibitem{ALEPH}

3971:   (ALEPH Collaboration), R. Barate et al.

3972:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C 4} (1998) 409;

3973:   (OPAL Collaboration), K. Ackerstaff et al.

3974:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J. {\bf C 7} (1999) 571.

3975:   E.~Braaten, S.~Narison and A.~Pich,

3976:   %``QCD analysis of the tau hadronic width,''

3977:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 373} (1992) 581.

3978: \bibitem{Marciano:1988vm}

3979:   W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,

3980:   %``Electroweak Radiative Corrections To Tau Decay,''

3981:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 61} (1988) 1815.

3982: \bibitem{pich}

3983:   F.~Le Diberder and A.~Pich,

3984:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 289} (1992) 165.

3985: %\cite{Grunberg:2006jx}

3986: \bibitem{Grunberg:2006jx}

3987:   G.~Grunberg,

3988:   %``Evidence for infrared finite coupling in Sudakov resummation,''

3989:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73} (2006) 091901; arXiv:hep-ph/0601140; see also

3990:   E.~Gardi and R.~G.~Roberts,

3991:   %``The interplay between Sudakov resummation, renormalons and higher twist in

3992:   %deep inelastic scattering,''

3993:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 653} (2003) 227.

3994:  % [arXiv:hep-ph/0210429].

3995: \bibitem{sudakov}

3996:   V.~V.~Sudakov, 

3997:   Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 3} (1956) 65;

3998:   S.~Catani, L.~Trentadue,

3999:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 327 } (1989) 323;

4000:   G.~Sterman,

4001:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 281} (1987) 310;

4002:   S.~Forte and G.~Ridolfi,

4003:   %``Renormalization group approach to soft gluon resummation,''

4004:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650} (2003) 229.

4005:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209154].

4006: \bibitem{Watson:1996fg}

4007:   N.~J.~Watson,

4008:   %``The gauge-independent QCD effective charge,''

4009:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 494} (1997) 388;

4010:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9606381].

4011:  %``The pinch technique beyond one loop: The gauge-independent two-loop  quark

4012:   %self-energy,''

4013:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 552} (1999) 461;

4014:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9812202].

4015:   J.~Papavassiliou,

4016:   %``The pinch technique at two-loops: The case of massless Yang-Mills

4017:   %theories,''

4018:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 045006;

4019:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912338].

4020:   D.~Binosi and J.~Papavassiliou,

4021:   %``The QCD effective charge to all orders,''

4022:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 121} (2003) 281.

4023:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209016].

4024:  

4025: %infrared optimized perturbation theory

4026: 

4027: \bibitem{stevenson}

4028:  A. C. Mattingly and P. M. Stevenson,

4029:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 437.

4030: \bibitem{OPT}

4031:  P. M. Stevenson, 

4032:  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23} (1981) 2916.

4033: \bibitem{optult}

4034:   P. M. Stevenson, 

4035:   Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 231} (1984) 65.

4036: \bibitem{KSS}

4037:   J. Kubo, S. Sakakibara, and P. M. Stevenson, 

4038:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 29} (1984) 1682.

4039: \bibitem{chyla2}

4040:   J. Ch\'yla, A. Kataev, and S. Larin,  

4041:   Phys. Lett. B {\bf 267} (1991) 269.

4042: \bibitem{us}

4043:   A. C. Mattingly and P. M. Stevenson, 

4044:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69} (1992) 1320.

4045: \bibitem{higgs}

4046:   A. L. Kataev, S. A. Larin, and  L. R. Surguladze, 

4047:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43} (1991) 1633.

4048: 

4049: %dispersive approach

4050: 

4051: \bibitem{Shirkov:1997wi}

4052:   D.~V.~Shirkov and I.~L.~Solovtsov,

4053:   %``Analytic model for the QCD running coupling with universal  alpha(s)-bar(0)

4054:   %value,''

4055:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79} (1997) 1209;

4056:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9704333].

4057:   %D.~V.~Shirkov,

4058:   %``On the analytic *causal* model for the QCD running coupling,''

4059:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 64} (1998) 106.

4060:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9708480].

4061: \bibitem{Ginzburg:1966}

4062:   I.~F.~Ginzburg and D.~V.~Shirkov,

4063:   Sov.\ Phys.\ JEPT\  {\bf 22} (1966) 234.

4064: \bibitem{Redmond:1958pe}

4065:   P.~J.~Redmond,

4066:   %``Elimination of Ghost in Propagators,''

4067:   Phys.\ Rev.\  {\bf 112} (1958) 1404;

4068:   P.~J.~Redmond and J.~L.~Uretsky,

4069:   %``Conjecture Concerning The Properties Of Nonrenormalizable Field Theories,''

4070:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 1} (1958) 147;

4071:   N.~N.~Bogoliubov, A.~A.~Logunov and D.~V.~Shirkov,

4072:   %``The method of dispersion relations and perturbation theory,''

4073:   Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 37} (1960) 574.

4074:  \bibitem{Solovtsov:1999in}

4075:   I.~L.~Solovtsov and D.~V.~Shirkov,

4076:   %``The analytic approach in quantum chromodynamics,''

4077:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 120} (1999) 1220

4078:   [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 120} (1999) 482].

4079:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9909305].

4080: \bibitem{Milton:1997mi}

4081:   K.~A.~Milton, I.~L.~Solovtsov and O.~P.~Solovtsova,

4082:   %``Analytic perturbation theory and inclusive tau decay,''

4083:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 415} (1997) 104.

4084:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9706409].

4085: \bibitem{Krasnikov:1995is}

4086:   N.~V.~Krasnikov and A.~A.~Pivovarov,

4087:   %``Running coupling at small momenta, renormalization schemes and

4088:   %renormalons,''

4089:   Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  {\bf 64} (2001) 1500

4090:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 64} (2001) 1576].

4091:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9510207].

4092: \bibitem{Alekseev:2000}

4093:   A.~I.~Alekseev,

4094:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 114005.

4095:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9906304].

4096: \bibitem{Alekseev:2002jb}

4097:   A.~I.~Alekseev,

4098:   %``Effective method for calculating the analytic QCD coupling constant,''

4099:   Phys.\ Atom.\ Nucl.\  {\bf 65} (2002) 1678

4100:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 65} (2002) 1722]; 

4101:  % A.~I.~Alekseev,

4102:   %``Nonperturbative contributions in an analytic running coupling of QCD,''

4103:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 27} (2001) L117.

4104:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0105338].

4105: \bibitem{Alekseev:2002zn}

4106:   A.~I.~Alekseev,

4107:   %``Strong coupling constant to four loops in the analytic approach to QCD,''

4108:   Few Body Syst.\  {\bf 32} (2003) 193.

4109:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211339]

4110:  % B.~A.~Magradze,

4111:   %``The gluon propagator in analytic perturbation theory,''

4112: \bibitem{Magradze:1999um}

4113:   B.~A.~Magradze,

4114:   %``Analytic approach to perturbative QCD,''

4115:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 15} (2000) 2715;

4116:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9911456].

4117:   arXiv:hep-ph/9808247.

4118: \bibitem{Shirkov:2005sg}

4119:   D.~V.~Shirkov and A.~V.~Zayakin,

4120:   %``Analytic perturbation theory for practitioners and Upsilon decay,''

4121:   arXiv:hep-ph/0512325.

4122: \bibitem{Magradze:2000hz}

4123:   B.~A.~Magradze,

4124:   %``QCD coupling up to third order in standard and analytic perturbation

4125:   %theories,''

4126:   arXiv:hep-ph/0010070.

4127: \bibitem{Kurashev:2003pt}

4128:   D.~S.~Kurashev and B.~A.~Magradze,

4129:   %``Explicit expressions for timelike and spacelike observables of quantum

4130:   %chromodynamics in analytic perturbation theory,''

4131:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 135} (2003) 531

4132:   [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 135} (2003) 95]; 

4133:   B.~A.~Magradze,

4134:   %``Practical techniques of analytic perturbation theory of QCD,''

4135:   arXiv:hep-ph/0305020.

4136: \bibitem{Milton:1997us}

4137:   K.~A.~Milton and O.~P.~Solovtsova,

4138:   %``Analytic perturbation theory: A new approach to the analytic  continuation

4139:   %of the strong coupling constant alpha(s) into the timelike  region,''

4140:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 5402; 

4141:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9710316].

4142:   K.~A.~Milton and I.~L.~Solovtsov,

4143:   %``Analytic perturbation theory in QCD and Schwinger's connection between  

4144:   %the beta function and the spectral density,''

4145:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 5295. 

4146:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9611438].

4147: \bibitem{Solovtsov:1997at}

4148:   I.~L.~Solovtsov and D.~V.~Shirkov,

4149:   %``Analytic approach to perturbative QCD and renormalization scheme

4150:   %dependence,''

4151:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 442} (1998) 344.

4152:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9711251].

4153: \bibitem{Schwinger:1975th}

4154:   J.~S.~Schwinger,

4155:   %``Photon Propagation Function: A Comparison Of Asymptotic Functions,''

4156:   Proc.\ Nat.\ Acad.\ Sci.\  {\bf 71}, 5047 (1974);

4157:   K.~A.~Milton,

4158:   %``Spectral Forms For The Photon Propagation Function And The Gell-Mann - Low

4159:   %Function,''

4160:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10} (1974) 4247.

4161: \bibitem{Milton:1998wi}

4162:   K.~A.~Milton and I.~L.~Solovtsov,

4163:   %``Can the {QCD} effective charge be symmetrical in the Euclidean and the

4164:   %Minkowskian regions?,''

4165:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 107701.

4166:   %[arXiv:hep-th/9812171].

4167: 

4168: %related models

4169:  

4170: \bibitem{Alekseev:2004vx}

4171:   A.~I.~Alekseev and B.~A.~Arbuzov,

4172:   %``An invariant charge model for all q**2 > 0 in QCD and gluon condensate,''

4173:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 20} (2005) 103; 

4174:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0411339].

4175:   %A.~I.~Alekseev and B.~A.~Arbuzov,

4176:   %``Analyticity and minimality of nonperturbative contributions in

4177:   %perturbative region for alpha(s)-bar,''

4178:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 13} (1998) 1747.

4179:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9704228].

4180: \bibitem{Alekseev:2005vh}

4181:   A.~I.~Alekseev,

4182:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 145} (2005) 1559

4183:   [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 145} (2005) 221]; 

4184:   %A.~I.~Alekseev,

4185:   %``Synthetic running coupling of QCD,''

4186:   arXiv:hep-ph/0503242.

4187: \bibitem{Nesterenko:2001xa}

4188:   A.~V.~Nesterenko and I.~L.~Solovtsov,

4189:   %``New analytic running coupling in QCD: Higher loop levels,''

4190:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 16} (2001) 2517; 

4191:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0111067].

4192:   A.~V.~Nesterenko,

4193:   %``Quark antiquark potential in the analytic approach to QCD,''

4194:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 094028.

4195:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9912351].

4196: \bibitem{Nesterenko:2003xb}

4197:   A.~V.~Nesterenko,

4198:   %``Analytic invariant charge in QCD,''

4199:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 18} (2003) 5475; 

4200:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0308288].

4201:   %A.~V.~Nesterenko,

4202:   %``Analytic invariant charge and the lattice static quark antiquark

4203:   %potential,''

4204:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 19} (2004) 3471.

4205:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0305091].

4206: \bibitem{Schrempp:2001ir}

4207:   F.~Schrempp,

4208:   %``Tracking QCD-instantons,''

4209:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28} (2002) 915.

4210:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109032].

4211: \bibitem{Nesterenko:2004ry}

4212:   A.~V.~Nesterenko and J.~Papavassiliou,

4213:   %``The QCD analytic running coupling and chiral symmetry breaking,''

4214:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 152} (2005) 47;

4215:   % [arXiv:hep-ph/0410072];

4216:   %``The massive analytic invariant charge in QCD,''

4217:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 016009.

4218:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0410406].

4219: \bibitem{Aguilar:2005sb}

4220:   A.~C.~Aguilar, A.~V.~Nesterenko and J.~Papavassiliou,

4221:   %``Infrared enhanced analytic coupling and chiral symmetry breaking in  QCD,''

4222:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 31} (2005) 997.

4223:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0504195].

4224: \bibitem{Nesterenko:2005nj}

4225:   A.~V.~Nesterenko and J.~Papavassiliou,

4226:   %``Impact of the pion mass on nonpower expansion for QCD observables,''

4227:   arXiv:hep-ph/0507320;

4228:   %``Infrared behavior of the Adler function from a novel dispersion relation,''

4229:   J. Phys. G {\bf 32} (2006) 1025.

4230: \bibitem{Webber:1998um}

4231:   B.~R.~Webber,

4232:   %``{QCD} power corrections from a simple model for the running coupling,''

4233:   JHEP {\bf 9810} (1998) 012.

4234:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9805484].

4235: 

4236: 

4237: %powercorr

4238: 

4239: \bibitem{Dokshitzer:1993pf}

4240:   Y.~L.~Dokshitzer and D.~V.~Shirkov,

4241:   %``On Exact account of heavy quark thresholds in hard processes,''

4242:   Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67} (1995) 449.

4243: \bibitem{Dasgupta:2003iq}

4244:   Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer, B.~R.~Webber,

4245:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 404} (1997) 321;

4246:   S.~Catani, B.~R.~Webber,

4247:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 427} (1998) 377;

4248:   Yu.~L.~Dokshitzer, A.~Lucenti, G.~Marchesini, G.~P.~Salam

4249:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 511} (1998) 396;

4250:   JHEP {\bf 05} (1998) 003;

4251:   M.~Dasgupta and G.~P.~Salam,

4252:   %``Event shapes in e+ e- annihilation and deep inelastic scattering,''

4253:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 30} (2004) R143;

4254:   %``Resummed event-shape variables in DIS,''

4255:   JHEP {\bf 0208} (2002) 032;

4256:   M.~Dasgupta,

4257:   %``Power corrections in QCD,''

4258:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 28} (2002) 907;  

4259:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109220].

4260:   S.~S.~Agaev,

4261:   %``Power corrections to the pi0 gamma transition form factor and pion

4262:   %distribution amplitudes,''

4263:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 094010; 

4264:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0403161].

4265:   S.~Kluth,

4266:   %``Power Corrections In Electron Positron Annihilation: Experimental Review,''

4267:   arXiv:hep-ex/0606046;

4268:   T.~Kluge,

4269:   %``Review of power corrections in DIS,''

4270:   arXiv:hep-ex/0606053.

4271: \bibitem{Langfeld:1995si}

4272:   K.~Langfeld, L.~von Smekal and H.~Reinhardt,

4273:   %``Landau pole screening in the Gross-Neveu model: 1/N versus operator product

4274:   %expansion,''

4275:    Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 362} (1995) 128.

4276: \bibitem{Beneke:2000kc}

4277:   M.~Beneke and V.~M.~Braun,

4278:   %``Renormalons and power corrections,''

4279:   arXiv:hep-ph/0010208;

4280:   M.~Beneke,

4281:   %``Renormalons,''

4282:   Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 317} (1999) 1

4283:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9807443]. 

4284: \bibitem{Cvetic:2002qf}

4285:   G.~Cvetic,

4286:   %``Borel integration prescription suggested in pQCD by infrared 

4287:   %renormalons,''

4288:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 074022;

4289:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211226].

4290:   A.~L.~Kataev,

4291:   %``Infrared renormalons and the relations between the Gross-Llewellyn 

4292:   %Smith and the Bjorken polarized and unpolarized sum rules,''

4293:   JETP Lett.\  {\bf 81} (2005) 608

4294:   [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 81} (2005) 744].

4295:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0505108].

4296: 

4297: %APT

4298: 

4299: \bibitem{Shirkov:1998sb}

4300:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

4301:   %``Renormalization group, causality, and nonpower perturbation expansion  

4302:   %in QFT,''

4303:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 119} (1999) 438

4304:   [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 119} (1999) 55]

4305:   %[arXiv:hep-th/9810246].

4306: \bibitem{Milton:1998cq}

4307:   K.~A.~Milton, I.~L.~Solovtsov and O.~P.~Solovtsova,

4308:   %``The Bjorken sum rule in the analytic approach to perturbative {QCD},''

4309:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439} (1998) 421;

4310:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9809510]; 

4311:   %``The Gross-Llewellyn Smith sum rule in the analytic approach to

4312:   %perturbative {QCD},''

4313:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 016001.

4314:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9809513].

4315: \bibitem{Milton:2000fi}

4316:   K.~A.~Milton, I.~L.~Solovtsov, O.~P.~Solovtsova and V.~I.~Yasnov,

4317:   %``Renormalization scheme and higher loop stability in hadronic tau decay

4318:   %within analytic perturbation theory,''

4319:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14} (2000) 495;

4320:   % [arXiv:hep-ph/0003030]

4321:   K.~A.~Milton, I.~L.~Solovtsov and O.~P.~Solovtsova,

4322:   %``The Adler function for light quarks in analytic perturbation theory,''

4323:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 016005;

4324:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0102254]

4325:   O.~P.~Solovtsova,

4326:   %``Perturbation theory and the analytic approach in the context of the

4327:   %inclusive tau lepton decay,''

4328:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 134} (2003) 365

4329:   [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 134} (2003) 416].

4330: \bibitem{Shirkov:2000qv}

4331:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

4332:   %``Analytic perturbation theory for QCD observables,''

4333:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 127} (2001) 409; 

4334:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012283].

4335:   %D.~V.~Shirkov,

4336:   %``Toward the correlated analysis of perturbative QCD observables,''

4337:   arXiv:hep-ph/0003242.

4338: \bibitem{Shirkov:2001sm}

4339:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

4340:   %``Analytic perturbation theory in analyzing some QCD observables,''

4341:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 22} (2001) 331.

4342:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107282].

4343: \bibitem{Geshkenbein:2001mn}

4344:   B.~V.~Geshkenbein, B.~L.~Ioffe and K.~N.~Zyablyuk,

4345:   %``The check of QCD based on the tau decay data analysis in the complex  q**2

4346:   %plane,''

4347:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 093009.

4348:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0104048].\bibitem{Geshkenbein:2001mn}

4349: \bibitem{Stefanis:2000vd}

4350:   N.~G.~Stefanis, W.~Schroers and H.~C.~Kim,

4351:   %``Analytic coupling and Sudakov effects in exclusive processes: Pion and

4352:   %gamma* gamma $\to$ pi0 form factors,''

4353:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 18} (2000) 137;

4354:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0005218]

4355:   A.~I.~Karanikas and N.~G.~Stefanis,

4356:   %``Analyticity and power corrections in hard-scattering hadronic  

4357:    %functions,''

4358:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504} (2001) 225;

4359:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0101031].

4360:   N.~G.~Stefanis,

4361:   %``Pion form factor analysis using NLO analytic perturbation theory,''

4362:   Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 152} (2006) 245.

4363: \bibitem{Bakulev:2004cu}

4364:   A.~P.~Bakulev, K.~Passek-Kumericki, W.~Schroers and N.~G.~Stefanis,

4365:   %``Pion form factor in QCD: From nonlocal condensates to NLO analytic

4366:   %perturbation theory,''

4367:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 033014

4368:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 079906].

4369:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0405062].

4370: \bibitem{Shirkov:2005kj}

4371:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

4372:   %``QCD effective couplings in Minkowskian and Euclidean domains,''

4373:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 806} (2006) 97

4374:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0510247].

4375: \bibitem{Magradze:2005ab}

4376:   B.~A.~Magradze,

4377:   %``A novel series solution to the renormalization group equation in QCD,''

4378:   arXiv:hep-ph/0512374.

4379: \bibitem{Bakulev:2005fp}

4380:   A.~P.~Bakulev, A.~I.~Karanikas and N.~G.~Stefanis,

4381:   %``Analyticity properties of three-point functions in QCD beyond leading

4382:   %order,''

4383:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 074015; 

4384:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0504275].

4385:   A.~P.~Bakulev, S.~V.~Mikhailov and N.~G.~Stefanis,

4386:   %``QCD analytic perturbation theory: From integer powers to any power of the

4387:   %running coupling,''

4388:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 074014

4389:   [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 119908];

4390:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0506311].

4391:   N.~G.~Stefanis, A.~P.~Bakulev, K.~I.~Karanikas, S.~V.~Mikhailov, 

4392:   %``Fractional analytic perturbation theory in QCD and exclusive reactions,''

4393:   arXiv:hep-ph/0601270.

4394: \bibitem{Shirkov:2002td}

4395:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

4396:   %``On the Fourier transformation of renormalization invariant coupling,''

4397:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\  {\bf 136} (2003) 893

4398:   [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 136} (2003) 3];

4399:   %[arXiv:hep-th/0210013].

4400:   D.~V.~Shirkov,

4401:   %``Nonpower expansions for QCD observables at low energies,''

4402:   arXiv:hep-ph/0408272.

4403: 

4404: %lattice

4405: 

4406: \bibitem{Wilson74} 

4407:   K.Wilson, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10} (1974) 2445 and in \emph {New

4408:   Phenomena in Subnuclear Physics}, edited by A.Zichichi (Plenum, New

4409:   York,1977).

4410: \bibitem{creutz} 

4411:   M.Creutz, \emph {Quarks, Gluons and Lattice}, Cambridge

4412:   University Press, 1983.

4413: \bibitem{nieder}

4414:   F.Niedermayer, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 53} (1997) 56. 

4415:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9608097].

4416: \bibitem{Weisz-rev}

4417:   P.Weisz, Nucl.\ Phys.\  B (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 47} (1996) 71.  

4418:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9511017].

4419: \bibitem{HH80}

4420:   A.Hasenfratz and P.Hasenfratz, \ Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 93}  (1980) 165. 

4421: \bibitem{DG81}

4422:   R.Dashen and D.J.Gross, Phys.\  Rev.\  D {\bf23} (1981) 2340.

4423: \bibitem{sommer94}

4424:   R.Sommer, Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf411} (1994) 839. 

4425:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9310022]

4426: \bibitem{bali-scill-93}

4427:   G.S.Bali and K.Schilling, Phys.\  Rev.\  D {\bf47} (1993) 661. 

4428:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9208028].

4429: \bibitem{Kadra-92}

4430:   A.X.El-Khadra  et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 69} (1992) 729.

4431: \bibitem{Luscher94}

4432:   M.L\"uscher et al., Nucl.\  Phys.\  B {\bf 413} (1994) 481. 

4433:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9309005].

4434: \bibitem{Booth}

4435:   S.P.Booth et al., Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 294} (1992) 385. 

4436:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9209008].

4437: \bibitem{lepagemackenzie}

4438:   G.P.Lepage and P.Mackenzie, Phys.\ Rev.\  D {\bf 48} (1993) 2250.

4439: \bibitem{Divitiis}

4440:   G. de Divitiis et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\   B {\bf 433} (1995) 390;

4441:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9407028];

4442:   Nucl.\ Phys.\  B {\bf 437} (1995) 447. 

4443:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9411017].

4444: \bibitem{alles-97}

4445:   B.Alles et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 502} (1997) 325. 

4446:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9605033].

4447: \bibitem{pene98}

4448:   Ph. Boucaud et al.,JHEP\  {\bf 10} (1998) 017;  

4449:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9810322].\\

4450:   JHEP {\bf 12} (1998) 004.  

4451:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9810437].

4452: \bibitem{giusti2001}

4453:   L.Giusti et al., Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 16} (2001) 3487. 

4454:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0104012]

4455: \bibitem{cucchieri-gribov}

4456:   A.Cucchieri, Nucl.Phys. B {\bf 508} (1997) 353.

4457: \bibitem{alkofer-rev}

4458:   R.Alkofer and L.von Smekal, Phys. Rep.{\bf 353} (2001) 281.

4459: \bibitem{chet00} 

4460:   K.G.Chetyrkin and A.R\'etey, [arXiv:hep-ph/0007088].

4461: \bibitem{ball-chiu} 

4462:   J.S.Ball and T.W.Chiu, Phys.\  Rev.\  D {\bf 22} (1980) 165.

4463: \bibitem{skull}

4464:   J.I.Skullerud, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 63} (1998) 242; 

4465:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9710044];\\

4466:   J.I.Skullerud and A.Kizilers\" u, 

4467:   JHEP \ {\bf 09} (2002) 013. 

4468:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205318].

4469: \bibitem{NRQCD}

4470:   A.X El-Khadra, proceedings of the XXXIst

4471:   Rencontre de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified

4472:   Theories, Les Arcs 1800, France, March 16-23, 1996 [arXiv:hep-ph/9608220];

4473:   C.T.H Davies et al., Phys.\  Rev.\  D {\bf 56} (1997) 2755; 

4474:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9703010];\\

4475:   A.Spitz et al. (SESAM coll.), Phys.\  Rev.\  D {\bf 60} (1999) 074502.  

4476:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9906009].

4477: \bibitem{pene2001}

4478:   Ph. Boucaud et al.,  JHEP \ {\bf 01} (2002) 046. 

4479:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107278].

4480: \bibitem{peneOPE}

4481:   Ph. Boucaud et al., Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 49}3 (2000) 315;

4482:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0008043]; \\

4483:   Ph. Boucaud et al.,  JHEP \ {\bf 04} (2000) 006. 

4484:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0003020]. 

4485: \bibitem{Hashimoto} 

4486:   S.Hashimoto, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\  A {\bf 20} (2005) 5133. 

4487:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0411126].

4488: \bibitem{HPQCD2003/4}

4489:   C.T.H.Davies et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 92} (2004) 022001; 

4490:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0304004] ;\\

4491:   Q.Mason et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\  B (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 140} (2005) 713.

4492: \bibitem{QCDSF-UKQCD} 

4493:   S.Booth et al.\ [QCDSF-UKQCD collab.],

4494:   Phys.\ Lett.\  B {\bf 519} (2001) 229. 

4495:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0103023]

4496: \bibitem {Gockeler:2004}

4497:   M.Gockeler et al. [QCDSF collab.],

4498:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 140} (2005) 228. 

4499:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0409166]

4500: \bibitem{aoki}

4501:   S.Aoki et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 74} (1995) 22. 

4502:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9407015].

4503: \bibitem{alpha2005}

4504:   M.Della Morte et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 713} (2005) 378. 

4505:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0411025].

4506: \bibitem{luscher97-98}

4507:   M.L\"uscher, Talk given at the International

4508:   Symposium on Lepton-Photon Interactions, Hamburg, July

4509:   1997; %[arXiv:hep-ph/9711205]

4510:   M.L\"uscher, Advanced Lattice QCD, Lectures given at

4511:   Les Huches Summer School in Theoretical Physics, Les Huches, France, 1997.

4512:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9802029].  

4513: \bibitem{alphamass}

4514:   M.Della Morte et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 729} (2005) 117. 

4515:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0507035].

4516: \bibitem{capitani}

4517:   S.Capitani et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 544} (1999) 669. 

4518:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/9810063].

4519: \bibitem{lastalpha}

4520:   Q.Mason et al., Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 052002. 

4521:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0503005].

4522: \bibitem{pene-instantons}

4523:   Ph.Boucaud et al., JHEP\ {\bf 04} (2003) 005. 

4524:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0212192].

4525: \bibitem{alphainfrared}

4526:   %The Schroedinger functional coupling in quenched QCD at low energies.

4527:   J.Heitger et al., Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.Suppl.) {\bf 106} (2002) 859. 

4528:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0110201].

4529: \bibitem{DSE}

4530:   C.S.Fischer and L.Alkofer, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 536} (2002) 177; 

4531:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0202202];

4532:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 094020; 

4533:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0301094] .

4534:   C.S.Fischer, L.Alkofer and H.Reinhardt, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 094008;

4535:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0202195]; 

4536:   C.~S.~Fischer,

4537:   %``Infrared properties of QCD from Dyson-Schwinger equations,''

4538:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 32} (2006) R253.

4539:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0605173].

4540: \bibitem{Bloch}

4541:   J.C.R.Bloch, A.Cucchieri, K.Langfeld and T.Mendes,

4542:   Nucl.Phys.B {\bf 687} (2004) 76. 

4543: \bibitem{furui}

4544:   S.Furui and H.Nakajima, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf69} (2004) 074505. 

4545:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0305010]

4546: \bibitem{sternbeck}

4547:   %Studying the infrared region in Landau gauge QCD

4548:   A.Sternbeck et al., PoS (LAT2005) 333 [arXiv:hep-lat/0509090];

4549:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf72} (2005) 014507.

4550:   %[arXiv:hep-lat/0506007].

4551: \bibitem{fischer}

4552:   %Infrared exponenets of Y.M.theory

4553:   C.S.Fischer, PoS (LAT2005) 330 [arXiv:hep-lat/0509031].

4554: \bibitem{fischer2}

4555:   C.S.Fischer, B.Gr\"uter and R.Alkofer, Ann. of Phys. {\bf 321} (2006) 1918;

4556:   O.~Oliveira and P.~J.~Silva,

4557:   %``Infrared Gluon and Ghost Propagators from Lattice QCD. Results from large

4558:   %asymmetric lattices,''

4559:   arXiv:hep-lat/0609027.

4560: \bibitem{Shirkov-IR2002}

4561:   D.V.Shirkov,

4562:   %On the QCD coupling behaviour in the infrared region

4563:   Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf132} (2002) 1309 [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fis.\ {\bf 132} (2002) 484]. 

4564:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208082].

4565: 

4566: %conclusion

4567: 

4568: \bibitem{Baldicchi:2004wj}

4569:   M.~Baldicchi and G.~M.~Prosperi,

4570:   AIP Conf.\ Proc.\  {\bf 756} (2005) 152;

4571:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002), 074008.

4572: \bibitem{ip}

4573:   M.~Baldicchi, G.~M.~Prosperi, D.~V.~Shirkov and C.~Simolo, in preparation.

4574: 

4575: \end{thebibliography}

4576: 

4577: 

4578: \end{document}

4579: