Determination of αs(mZ) by the non-perturbative decoupling method

We present the details and first results of a new strategy for the determination of α s ( m Z ) (ALPHA Collaboration et al. in Phys. Lett. B 807:135571, 2020). By simultaneously decoupling 3 fictitious heavy quarks we establish a relation between the Λ -parameters of three-flavor QCD and pure gauge...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The European physical journal. C, Particles and fields Particles and fields, 2022-12, Vol.82 (12), p.1092, Article 1092
Hauptverfasser: Dalla Brida, Mattia, Höllwieser, Roman, Knechtli, Francesco, Korzec, Tomasz, Nada, Alessandro, Ramos, Alberto, Sint, Stefan, Sommer, Rainer
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:We present the details and first results of a new strategy for the determination of α s ( m Z ) (ALPHA Collaboration et al. in Phys. Lett. B 807:135571, 2020). By simultaneously decoupling 3 fictitious heavy quarks we establish a relation between the Λ -parameters of three-flavor QCD and pure gauge theory. Very precise recent results in the pure gauge theory (Dalla Brida and Ramos in Eur. Phys. J. C 79(8):720, 2019; Nada and Ramos in Eur Phys J C 81(1):1, 2021) can thus be leveraged to obtain the three-flavour Λ -parameter in units of a common decoupling scale. Connecting this scale to hadronic physics in 3-flavour QCD leads to our result in physical units, Λ MS ¯ ( 3 ) = 336 ( 12 ) MeV , which translates to α s ( m Z ) = 0.11823 ( 84 ) . This is compatible with both the FLAG average (Aoki et al. in FLAG review 2021. arXiv:2111.09849 [hep-lat]) and the previous ALPHA result (ALPHA Collaboration et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(10):102001, 2017), with a comparable, yet still statistics dominated, error. This constitutes a highly non-trivial check, as the decoupling strategy is conceptually very different from the 3-flavour QCD step-scaling method, and so are their systematic errors. These include the uncertainties of the combined decoupling and continuum limits, which we discuss in some detail. We also quantify the correlation between both results, due to some common elements, such as the scale determination in physical units and the definition of the energy scale where we apply decoupling.
ISSN:1434-6052
1434-6044
1434-6052
DOI:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10998-3