- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Three-loop matching of the vector current

Peter Marquard1,2, Jan H. Piclum3,4, Dirk Seidel5, and Matthias Steinhauser1

  • 1Institut für Theoretische Teilchenphysik, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), D-76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
  • 2Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron DESY, Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany
  • 3Institut für Theoretische Teilchenphysik und Kosmologie, RWTH Aachen, D-52056 Aachen, Germany
  • 4Physik-Department T31, Technische Universität München, D-85748 Garching, Germany
  • 5Theoretische Physik 1, Universität Siegen, D-57068 Siegen, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 89, 034027 – Published 25 February, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.034027

Abstract

We evaluate the three-loop corrections to the matching coefficient of the vector current between quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and nonrelativistic QCD. The result is presented in the MS¯ scheme where large perturbative corrections are observed. The implications on the threshold production of top-quark pairs are briefly discussed.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (46)

  1. W. E. Caswell and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Lett. 167B, 437 (1986).
  2. G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995); 55, 5853(E) (1997).
  3. N. Brambilla et al., arXiv:hep-ph/0412158.
  4. A. Pineda and A. Signer, Phys. Rev. D 73, 111501 (2006).
  5. A. Hoang, P. Ruiz-Femenia, and M. Stahlhofen, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2012) 188.
  6. A. H. Hoang et al., Eur. Phys. J. direct C 2, 1 (2000).
  7. M. Martinez and R. Miquel, Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 49 (2003).
  8. K. Seidel, F. Simon, M. Tesar, and S. Poss, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2530 (2013).
  9. T. Horiguchi, A. Ishikawa, T. Suehara, K. Fujii, Y. Sumino, Y. Kiyo, and H. Yamamoto, arXiv:1310.0563.
  10. J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012).
  11. M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, and A. A. Penin, Phys. Lett. B 653, 53 (2007).
  12. M. Beneke and Y. Kiyo, Phys. Lett. B 668, 143 (2008).
  13. A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 668, 293 (2008).
  14. A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 112002 (2010).
  15. C. Anzai, Y. Kiyo, and Y. Sumino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 112003 (2010).
  16. M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, A. Penin, and K. Schuller, in Proceedings of the International Linear Collider Workshop (LCWS07 and ILC07), edited by (DESY, Hamburg, 2008).
  17. M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, and K. Schuller, Proc. Sci., RADCOR (2007) 051.
  18. M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, and K. Schuller, arXiv:1312.4791.
  19. M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, and K. Schuller (to be published).
  20. M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo, P. Marquard, A. Penin, J. Piclum, D. Seidel, and M. Steinhauser, arXiv:1401.3005.
  21. P. Marquard, J. H. Piclum, D. Seidel, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B758, 144 (2006).
  22. P. Marquard, J. H. Piclum, D. Seidel, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 678, 269 (2009).
  23. D. J. Broadhurst, N. Gray, and K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C 52, 111 (1991).
  24. K. Melnikov and T. van Ritbergen, Nucl. Phys. B591, 515 (2000).
  25. P. Marquard, L. Mihaila, J. H. Piclum, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B773, 1 (2007).
  26. M. Beneke and V. A. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B522, 321 (1998).
  27. V. A. Smirnov, Springer Tracts Mod. Phys. 250, 1 (2012).
  28. P. Marquard and D. Seidel (unpublished).
  29. A. V. Smirnov and M. N. Tentyukov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 180, 735 (2009).
  30. A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Tentyukov, Comput. Phys. Commun. 182, 790 (2011).
  31. A. V. Smirnov, arXiv:1312.3186.
  32. M. Beneke, A. Signer, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2535 (1998).
  33. B. A. Kniehl, A. A. Penin, M. Steinhauser, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 212001 (2003); 91, 139903(E) (2003).

  34. Due to Furry’s theorem the two-loop singlet contribution is zero for the vector current.

  35. B. A. Kniehl, A. Onishchenko, J. H. Piclum, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 638, 209 (2006).
  36. G. Källen and A. Sabry, K. Dan. Vidensk. Selsk., Mat.-Fys. Medd. 29, 1 (1955).
  37. A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2531 (1998).
  38. E. Braaten and Y.-Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4236 (1998); 59, 079901(E) (1999).
  39. Y. Kiyo, M. Steinhauser, and N. Zerf, Phys. Rev. D 80, 075005 (2009).
  40. https://www.ttp.kit.edu/Progdata/ttp14/ttp14-002/.

  41. Note that in Ref. [21] the result has been expressed in terms of the coupling defined in the full theory whereas here we use the effective one denoted by αs(nl). This explains the difference in the logarithmic part of the coefficient cFHL.

  42. Note that in Ref. [22], where the fermionic contributions are given, only a factor 2 has been chosen which explains the slight increase of the uncertainty of cFHL in Eq. (8).

  43. Note that there is a misprint in Eq. (5) of Ref. [16]: the term E(1−dv/3)/m should read E(cv−dv/3)/m.

  44. M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B 434, 115 (1998).
  45. J. A. M. Vermaseren, Comput. Phys. Commun. 83, 45 (1994).
  46. D. Binosi and L. Theussl, Comput. Phys. Commun. 161, 76 (2004).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 89, 034027– Published 25 February, 2014
  • Received 17 January 2014

© 2014 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation