Paper detail

The Renormalization Scale Setting Problem in QCD [Ph.D. Thesis]

A key issue in making precise predictions in perturbative QCD is the uncertainty in setting the renormalization scale. If in principle, the entire perturbative series is void of this issue, in practice the perturbative corrections are known up to a certain order of accuracy and scale invariance is only approximated leading to the so-called scheme and scale ambiguities. According to the conventional scale setting (CSS) this problem cannot be avoided and the renormalization scale is set to the typical scale of a process $Q$, and errors are estimated by varying the scale over a range of two $[Q/2;2Q]$. This method is not void of ambiguities and leads to predictions affected by large theoretical errors. Other strategies for the optimization of the truncated expansion, such as the Principle of Minimal Sensitivity (PMS) and the Fastest Apparent Convergence (FAC) criterion, have the same difficulties of CSS and lead to incorrect and unphysical results. In general a scale-setting procedure is considered reliable if it preserves important self-consistency requirements such as all the renormalization group properties. Other requirements are suggested by known tested theories, by the convergence behavior of the series or by phenomenological results and scheme independence. All theoretical requirements for a reliable scale-setting procedure can be satisfied at once, leading to accurate results by using the Principle of Maximum Conformality (PMC). This method generalizes the Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie (BLM) method to all orders and to all observables and in the perspective of a theory unifying all interactions, such as the grand unified theory (GUT), the PMC offers the possibility to apply the same method in all sectors of a theory, starting from first principles, eliminating the renormalon growth, the scheme and scale ambiguities, and satisfying the QED Gell-Mann-Low scheme in the $N_c\to 0$ limit.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.