Paper detail

Extraction of ground-state decay constant from dispersive sum rules: QCD vs potential models

We compare the extraction of the ground-state decay constant from the two-point correlator in QCD and in potential models and show that the results obtained at each step of the extraction procedure follow a very similar pattern. We prove that allowing for a Borel-parameter-dependent effective continuum threshold yields two essential improvements compared to employing a Borel-parameter-independent quantity: (i) It reduces considerably the (unphysical) dependence of the extracted bound-state mass and the decay constant on the Borel parameter. (ii) In a potential model, where the actual value of the decay constant is known from the Schroedinger equation, a Borel-parameter-dependent threshold leads to an improvement of the accuracy of the extraction procedure. Our findings suggest that in QCD a Borel-parameter dependent threshold leads to a more reliable and accurate determination of bound-state characteristics by the method of sum rules.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.