High Energy Physics
Hadronic contribution to the running QED coupling at the Z-boson mass
scale
C. A. Dominguez*
L. A. Hernández**
* Centre for Theoretical & Mathematical
Physics and Department of Physics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700,
South Africa.
** Departamento de Física, Universidad Autónoma
Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, Av. San Rafael Atlixco 186, 09340, CdMx, Mexico.
Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala,
Tlaxcala, 90000, Mexico.
Abstract
An update is described of a model independent method to determine the hadronic
contribution to the QED running coupling at the Z-boson mass scale, ΔαHAD(MZ2). The major source of uncertainty is from the contribution of the
light quark vector current correlator at zero momentum. This uncertainty is
substantially reduced using recently improved lattice QCD results for this
correlator. The result is ΔαHAD(MZ2)=274.13(0.73) ×10-4.
Keywords: QED; Z-boson mass
1 Introduction
The electromagnetic running coupling at the scale of the Z-boson mass, α(MZ2), is currently not known precisely. The main reason being the uncertainty
from the hadronic sector, not fully determined in perturbative QCD (PQCD). This
running coupling can be written as
α(s)=α(0)1-ΔαL(s)-ΔαHAD(s) ,
(1)
where ΔαL is the leptonic contribution, known precisely from perturbation theory,
and ΔαHAD(s) is the hadronic counterpart. The interesting quantity is the QED
coupling at the scale of the Z-boson mass, MZ. Denoting α≡α(0) in the sequel, ΔαHAD(MZ2) can be written as
ΔαHAD(MZ2)=4 π αΠ(0)-Re [Π(MZ2)] ,
(2)
where Π(s) is the electromagnetic current correlator
Πμν(q2)=i∫d4x eiqx〈0| Tjμ EM(x),jν EM(0)|0〉=(qμqν-q2gμν)Π(q2) ,
(3)
with jμEM(x)=∑fQff-(x)γμf(x), and the sum is over all quark flavors f={u,d,s,c,b,t}, with charges Qf. Invoking analyticity and unitarity for Π(s), and using the optical theorem, i.e. R(s)=12π Im Π(s), where R(s) is the normalized e+e- cross-section, one can write Eq. (2) as a dispersion integral
[1]
ΔαHAD(MZ2)=α MZ23 πP∫∞4mπ2R(s)s(MZ2-s)ds,
(4)
where P denotes the principal part of the integral. This expression
only requires knowledge of R(s), which is
accessible experimentally in the resonance region, followed by perturbative QCD in
the continuum. However, given the current uncertainties in the
R(s) data, of diverse magnitudes depending on
the energy region, several approaches have been proposed to circumvent this
issue.
The standard approach to determining ΔαHAD(MZ2) is to evaluate Eq. (4) making use of e+e- annihilation data for R(s) in the resonance regions, and either use the PQCD prediction for R(s) above these regions (see e.g.
[2]), or make
use of all the available e+e- data and fill in the gaps using the PQCD prediction (see
e.g.
[3,4]). An alternative
approach was proposed in [5], based entirely on perturbative QCD in the
heavy-quark (charm and bottom) region, and Lattice QCD (LQCD) determinations of the
light-quark vector current correlator at zero-momentum. The latter was only known at
the time with a large uncertainty. Recent LQCD determinations of this parameter
[6] allow
for a considerable improvement in precision, as to be described here. We are
reporting an update, where we consider the most recent values of all inputs (quark
masses and Z-boson mass) [7], in the perturbative region we use the running
of αs up to five-loop order [8] and most importantly it is the first time
that the light-quark vector current correlator at zero-momentum is known and
therefore it is implemented within the method presented in this work.
2 Hadronic contribution
The current correlator for each flavor can be written as follows
Π(f)(s)=ΠPQCD(f)(s)+ΠNP(f)(s)+ΠQED(f)(s),
(5)
where on the lhs the first contribution corresponds to the
perturbative part, the second contribution is the non-perturbative one, determined
using the Operator Product Expansion (OPE), and the last contribution is the lowest
QED correction to the vacuum polarization. The dominant contribution to Π(f)(s) is the perturbative part.
The six different quark flavors can be organized in two sets, corresponding to the
light and the heavy quarks. For the light quarks (up, down and strange), and in the
massless limit, the high energy regime of ΠPQCD(f) is know up to order O(αs3), and to order O(αs4), up to a real constant. In the heavy quark sector, it is necessary to
express the current correlator using both the low- and the high-energy
expansion.
Turning to the heaviest quarks contribution to Eq. (2), the correlator can be written
in terms of the low- and the high-energy expansion. The former is given by
Πf(s)=3Qf216π2∑i=0∞C¯i(s4m¯f2)i,
(6)
where m¯f is the quark mass of flavour-f in the MS¯ scheme at a scale μ, and the high energy expression is
Π(s)=Qf2∑n=0∞(αs(μ2)π)nΠ(n)(s).
(7)
The coefficients C¯0,C¯1,C¯2 and C¯3 were determined up to O(αs3) in [9,10,11,12], and the terms Π(0),Π(1) and Π(2) are given in [10,13,14,15,16,17].
In order to obtain the bottom quark contribution to ΔαHAD(MZ2) we use Eq. (2), where Π(0) is computed using Eq. (6), and Π(MZ2) comes from Eq. (7). We obtain
ΔαHAD(b)(MZ2)=4παΠ(b)(0)-Π(b)(MZ2)=(12.88±0.04)×10-4,
(8)
where nf=5 and μ=10 GeV. It is important to mention that varying μ in a range from 10 GeV to 10Mz the result in Eq. (8) only changes by 0.03×10-4.
For the contribution of the top-quark it is only necessary to use the low expansion
to the correlator, Eq. (6), in Eq. (2), which gives
ΔαHAD(t)(MZ2)=4παΠ(t)(0)-Π(t)(MZ2)=-(0.73±0.05)×10-4,
(9)
where μ=m¯t and nf=6. We notice that the only uncertainty in this contribution is from the
top-quark mass.
The next contribution is from the charm quark. Its perturbative piece follows from
the Adler function approach, and it is chosen so as to minimize the uncertainty.
This method takes into account a high as well as a low energy contribution
ΔαHAD(c)(MZ2)=α3π∫s0MZ2D(c)(s)sds+4πα(Π(c)(0)-Π(c)(s0)).
(10)
Regarding s0 we choose it large enough for PQCD to be valid, but still with s0≪MZ2, i.e. s0=(9.3 GeV)2. In addition nf=4 and μ is taken in the range μ=(2-9.3) GeV. For the low-energy expansion, we use Eq. (6).
The results for these contributions are discussed in detail in [5], and are as follows
ΔαHAD(c)(MZ2)=4παΠ(c)(0)- [Π(c)(MZ2)]=(79.88±0.59)×10-4.
(11)
Turning to the light-quark sector contribution, we use an entirely theoretical method
involving the Adler function. The non-perturbative contribution is obtained from
LQCD results, and the perturbative contribution follows from the integration on a
semi-circular contour of radius |s0|, avoiding the origin. This gives for ΔHAD(uds)(MZ2)
ΔHAD(uds)(MZ2)=ΔαHAD(uds)(-s0)+ΔαHAD(uds)(s0)-ΔHAD(uds)(-s0)+ΔHAD(uds)(MZ2)-ΔHAD(uds)(s0)=4παΠLQCD(uds)(0)-ΠLQCDuds(-s0)+α3π∫-s0s0DPQCD(uds)(s)sds+α3π∫s0MZ2DPQCD(uds)(s)sds.
(12)
In Eq. (12), we use s0=-3.5GeV2 to find
α3π∫-s0s0DPQCD(uds)(s)sds=(2.97±0.14)×10-4 ,
(13)
α3π∫s0MZ2DPQCD(uds)(s)sds=(125.64±0.07)×10-4 ,
(14)
4παΠLQCD(uds)(0)-ΠLQCD(uds)(-s0)=(53.49±0.40)×10-4,
(15)
where we used the LQCD data depicted in Fig. 1,
the data is from up- and down-quark contributions to the vacuum polarization
function in the range 0<s≤0.5 GeV2, where blue filled diamonds correspond to Fourier
momenta, open black circles denote data points computed using twisted boundary
conditions, and red filled square indicates the value of Π(0) determined from the second time momenta with mπ=185 MeV. Finally, we obtain
ΔαHAD(uds)=(182.10±0.43)×10-4,
(16)
with this value differing substantially from the approximate value used previously in
[5], due
to the new LQCD result for Π(s) which is now known at the origin [6].
3 Result
Adding up all the contributions gives the final result
ΔαHAD(MZ2)=(274.13±0.73)×10-4,
(17)
for nf=6. This result is obtained entirely from theory, as a combination of LQCD
and PQCD. The main uncertainty of this approach in the past was from the value of
the vector correlator at the origin. The new value of this quantity allows now for a
precision result.
In order to make a fair comparison, the result of Ref. [5], using the same
technique, is ΔαHAD(uds)=181×10-4, with no uncertainty given, and using the LQCD information available at
that time.
In the literature there is a large number of determinations of ΔαHAD(MZ2) from a variety of methods, with results in the range [19-29]
ΔαHAD(MZ2)=(269-279)×10-4,
(18)
albeit with tiny individual uncertainties in each determination.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the National Research Foundation (South Africa)
and by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany).
References
1. N. Cabibbo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev.
124 (1961) 1577.
[ Links ]
2. M. Davier, A. Hoecker, B. Malaescu and Z. Zhang, Eur.
Phys. J. C
71 (2011) 1515.
[ Links ]
3. K. Hagiwara et al., J. Phys. G
38 (2011) 085003.
[ Links ]
4. S. Actis et al. Eur. Phys. J. C
66 (2010) 585.
[ Links ]
5. S. Bodenstein, C. A. Dominguez, K. Schilcher, and H. Spiesberger,
Phys. Rev. D
86 (2012) 093013.
[ Links ]
6. M. Della Morte et al., JHEP
10 (2017) 020.
[ Links ]
7. P.A. Zyla et al [Particle Data Group].,
PTEP
2020 (2020) 083C01.
[ Links ]
8. P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kühn, Five-Loop Running
of the QCD coupling constant, Phys. Rev. Lett.
118 (2017) 082002.
[ Links ]
9. K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kühn, and C. Sturm, Eur. Phys. J.
C
48 (2006) 107.
[ Links ]
10. R. Boughezal, M. Czakon and T. Schutzmeier, Phys. Rev.
D
74 (2006) 074006.
[ Links ]
11. A. Maier, P. Maierofer, and P. Marquard, Phys. Lett.
B
669 (2008) 88.
[ Links ]
12. A. Maier, P. Maierofer, P. Marquard, and V. Smirnov,
Nucl. Phys. B
824 (2010) 1.
[ Links ]
13. A. Maier, P. Maierofer, and P. Marquard, Nucl. Phys.
B
797 (2008) 218.
[ Links ]
14. G. Corcella and A. H. Hoang, Phys. Lett. B
554 (2003) 133.
[ Links ]
15. A. Maier and P. Marquard, Nucl. Phys. B
859 (2012) 1.
[ Links ]
16. P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn, Nucl.
Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)
189 (2009) 49.
[ Links ]
17. K. G. Chetyrkin, R. Harlander, J. H. Kühn, Nucl. Phys.
B 586 56 (2000); Erratum: ibid. B 634
(2002) 413.
[ Links ]
18. B. Geshkenbein and V. Morgunov, Phys. Lett. B
352 (1995) 456.
[ Links ]
19. M. L. Swartz, Phys. Rev. D
53 (1996) 5268.
[ Links ]
20. N. Krasnikov and R. Rodenberg, Nuovo Cim. A
111 (1998) 217.
[ Links ]
21. J. H. Kühn and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B
437 (1998) 425.
[ Links ]
22. S. Groote et al., Phys. Lett.
B
440 (1998) 375.
[ Links ]
23. A. D. Martin, J. Outhwaite and M. Ryskin, Phys. Lett.
B
492 (2000) 69.
[ Links ]
24. J. de Troconiz and F. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D
65 (2002) 093002.
[ Links ]
25. H. Burkhardt and B. Pietrzyk, Phys. Rev. D
84 (2011) 037502.
[ Links ]
26. J. Erler and R. Ferro-Hernández, JHEP
03 (2018) 196.
[ Links ]
27. A. Blondel et al.
https://doi.org/10.23731/CYRM-2020-003.
[ Links ]
28. M. Davier et al., Eur. Phys. J.
C
80 (2020) 241.
[ Links ]
29. A. Keshavarzi, D. Nomura and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev.
D
101 (2020) 014029.
[ Links ]