This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

QCD sum rule determination of the charm-quark mass

S. Bodenstein Centre for Theoretical & Mathematical Physics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa    J. Bordes Departamento de Física Teórica, Universitat de Valencia, and Instituto de Física Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universitat de Valencia-CSIC    C. A. Dominguez Centre for Theoretical & Mathematical Physics, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7700, South Africa Department of Physics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa    J. Peñarrocha Departamento de Física Teórica, Universitat de Valencia, and Instituto de Física Corpuscular, Centro Mixto Universitat de Valencia-CSIC    K. Schilcher Institut für Physik, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Staudingerweg 7, D-55099 Mainz, Germany
(August 3, 2025)
Abstract

QCD sum rules involving mixed inverse moment integration kernels are used in order to determine the running charm-quark mass in the MS¯\overline{MS} scheme. Both the high and the low energy expansion of the vector current correlator are involved in this determination. The optimal integration kernel turns out to be of the form p(s)=1(s0/s)2p(s)=1-(s_{0}/s)^{2}, where s0s_{0} is the onset of perturbative QCD. This kernel enhances the contribution of the well known narrow resonances, and reduces the impact of the data in the range s2025GeV2s\simeq 20-25\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}. This feature leads to a substantial reduction in the sensitivity of the results to changes in s0s_{0}, as well as to a much reduced impact of the experimental uncertainties in the higher resonance region. The value obtained for the charm-quark mass in the MS¯\overline{MS} scheme at a scale of 3GeV3\;\mbox{GeV} is m¯c(3GeV)=987±9MeV\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV})=987\;\pm 9\;\mbox{MeV}, where the error includes all sources of uncertainties added in quadrature.

pacs:
12.38.Lg, 11.55.Hx, 12.38.Bx, 14.65.Dw
preprint: UCT-TP-284/11

Progress on the theoretical QCD1 -QCD12 , as well as on the experimental information EXP1 -EXP4 on the vector current correlator has allowed for a considerable improvement on the accuracy of QCD sum rule determinations of the charm-quark mass K -hoang . The analysis of K is based on inverse (Hilbert) moment QCD sum rules, requiring QCD knowledge of the vector correlator in the low energy, as well as in the high energy region. In charm an alternative approach was used which involves only QCD information at short distances, together with (a) a simple integration kernel p(s)=1s/s0p(s)=1-s/s_{0} (local constraint), and (b) Legendre-type polynomial kernels (global constraint). In this paper we describe an improved analysis based on the use of direct as well as inverse moment kernels of the form p(s)=1(s0/s)np(s)=1-(s_{0}/s)^{n}, with n1n\geq 1. These kernels enhance considerably the impact of the well known narrow resonances, as compared with e.g. a simple kernel p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2} , or p(s)=1s/s0p(s)=1-s/s_{0}. They also provide a welcome stronger suppression of the contribution of data in the range s2025GeV2s\simeq 20-25\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}. In comparison with simple inverse moments without pinching, this means that results are less sensitive to assumptions about the onset of perturbative QCD (PQCD), as well as to the treatment of the higher resonance data. For instance, changes in s0s_{0} in the range s01523GeV2s_{0}\simeq 15-23\;\mbox{GeV}^{2} lead to a variation in m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) of only 4MeV4\;\mbox{MeV} (for n=2n=2) as opposed to a variation of 14MeV14\;\mbox{MeV} for p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2}, as used in K

We consider the vector current correlator

Πμν(q2)\displaystyle\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q^{2}) =\displaystyle= id4xeiqx0|T(Vμ(x)Vν(0))|0\displaystyle i\int d^{4}x\;e^{iqx}\langle 0|T(V_{\mu}(x)\;V_{\nu}(0))|0\rangle (1)
=\displaystyle= (qμqνq2gμν)Π(q2),\displaystyle(q_{\mu}\;q_{\nu}-q^{2}g_{\mu\nu})\;\Pi(q^{2})\;,

where Vμ(x)=c¯(x)γμc(x)V_{\mu}(x)=\bar{c}(x)\gamma_{\mu}c(x). From the residue theorem in the complex s-plane (q2Q2s-q^{2}\equiv Q^{2}\equiv s) it follows

0s0p(s)1πImΠ(s)𝑑s\displaystyle\int_{0}^{s_{0}}p(s)\,\frac{1}{\pi}Im\,\Pi(s)\,ds =\displaystyle= 12πiC(|s0|)p(s)Π(s)𝑑s\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{C(|s_{0}|)}p(s)\,\Pi(s)\,ds (2)
+\displaystyle+ Res[Π(s)p(s),s=0],\displaystyle\text{Res}[\Pi(s)\,p(s),s=0]\;,

where p(s)p(s) is an integration kernel, and

ImΠ(s)=112πRc(s),Im\;\Pi(s)=\frac{1}{12\pi}\;R_{c}(s)\;, (3)

with Rc(s)R_{c}(s) the standard R-ratio for charm production. The PQCD expansion of Π(s)\Pi(s) at short distances can be written as

Π(s)|PQCD=ec2n=0(αs(μ2)π)nΠ(n)(s),\Pi(s)|_{PQCD}=e_{c}^{2}\;\sum_{n=0}\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu^{2})}{\pi}\right)^{n}\;\Pi^{(n)}(s)\;, (4)

where ec=2/3e_{c}=2/3 is the charm-quark electric charge, and

Π(n)(s)=i=0(m¯c2s)iΠi(n),\Pi^{(n)}(s)=\sum_{i=0}\left(\frac{\bar{m}_{c}^{2}}{s}\right)^{i}\;\Pi^{(n)}_{i}\;, (5)

and m¯cm¯c(μ)\overline{m}_{c}\equiv\overline{m}_{c}(\mu) is the running charm-quark mass in the MS¯\overline{MS}-scheme. Up to order 𝒪\cal{O} [αs2(m¯c2/s)6][\alpha_{s}^{2}(\bar{m}_{c}^{2}/s)^{6}] the function Π(s)PQCD\Pi(s)_{PQCD} has been calculated in QCD1 , and exact results for Π0(3)\Pi_{0}^{(3)} and Π1(3)\Pi_{1}^{(3)} have been found in QCD2 . The function Π2(3)\Pi_{2}^{(3)} is known exactly up to a constant QCD3 . At five-loop order 𝒪\cal{O}(αs4)(\alpha_{s}^{4}) the full logarithmic terms for Π0(4)\Pi_{0}^{(4)} may be found in QCD5 , and for Π1(4)\Pi_{1}^{(4)} in QCD6 . Since there is incomplete knowledge at this loop-order we shall use the available information as a measure of the truncation error in PQCD. The low energy expansion of the vector correlator around s=0s=0 can be written as

ΠPQCD(s)=3ec216π2n0C¯nzn,\Pi_{PQCD}(s)=\frac{3\,e_{c}^{2}}{16\,\pi^{2}}\;\sum_{n\geq 0}\overline{C}_{n}\;z^{n}\;, (6)

where z=s/(4m¯c2)z=s/(4\overline{m}_{c}^{2}). The coefficients C¯n\overline{C}_{n} can be expanded in powers of αs(μ)\alpha_{s}(\mu)

C¯n\displaystyle\bar{C}_{n} =\displaystyle= C¯n(0)+αs(μ)π(C¯n(10)+C¯n(11)lm)\displaystyle\bar{C}_{n}^{(0)}+\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\pi}\left(\bar{C}_{n}^{(10)}+\bar{C}_{n}^{(11)}l_{m}\right) (7)
+\displaystyle+ (αs(μ)π)2(C¯n(20)+C¯n(21)lm+C¯n(22)lm2)\displaystyle\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\pi}\right)^{2}\left(\bar{C}_{n}^{(20)}+\bar{C}_{n}^{(21)}l_{m}+\bar{C}_{n}^{(22)}l_{m}^{2}\right)
+\displaystyle+ (αs(μ)π)3(C¯n(30)+C¯n(31)lm+C¯n(32)lm2\displaystyle\left(\frac{\alpha_{s}(\mu)}{\pi}\right)^{3}\left(\bar{C}_{n}^{(30)}+\bar{C}_{n}^{(31)}l_{m}+\bar{C}_{n}^{(32)}l_{m}^{2}\right.
+\displaystyle+ C¯n(33)lm3)+\displaystyle\left.\bar{C}_{n}^{(33)}l_{m}^{3}\right)+\ldots

where lmln(m¯c2(μ)/μ2)l_{m}\equiv\ln(\bar{m}_{c}^{2}(\mu)/\mu^{2}). Up to three loop level the coefficients up to n=30n=30 of C¯n\bar{C}_{n} are known QCD8 -QCD9 . At four-loop level we have C¯0\bar{C}_{0} and C¯1\bar{C}_{1} from QCD8 , QCD10 , C¯2\bar{C}_{2} from QCD9 , and C¯3\bar{C}_{3} from QCD11 . We will choose p(s)p(s) so that no coefficients C¯4\bar{C}_{4} and above contribute to the residue at s=0s=0, Res[Π(s)p(s),s=0]\text{Res}[\Pi(s)\,p(s),s=0].

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Experimental data for the total R(s)R(s) ratio together with the optimal integration kernel, Eq.(8), with n=2n=2 (dash curve), and p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2} (solid curve) normalized to coincide with the former at the position of the ψ(2S)\psi(2S) peak.

Apart from the quark mass, the fundamental QCD parameters are the running strong coupling αs(μ2)\alpha_{s}(\mu^{2}), and the gluon condensate. For the strong coupling we use the world average from BETH2 , which agrees with lattice QCD results LATT , αs(MZ2)=0.1184±0.0007\alpha_{s}(M_{Z}^{2})=0.1184\pm 0.0007. However, we will consider other values when comparing results for m¯c\overline{m}_{c} with other analyses. In the non-perturbative sector the leading power correction in the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) involves the gluon condensate, i.e. (αs/π)G2\left<(\alpha_{s}/\pi)G^{2}\right> whose value has been extracted COND from the ALEPH data on τ\tau-decays. While the gluon condensate is renormalization group invariant, its determination from QCD sum rules involves a difference between integrals of PQCD and integrated experimental data. This leads to an unavoidable dependence of the gluon condensate on the value of αs\alpha_{s} used in the PQCD expression of the correlator. Extrapolating the results of COND to include current values of αs\alpha_{s} BETH2 , PICH , leads to (αs/π)G2=(0.01±0.01)GeV4\left<(\alpha_{s}/\pi)G^{2}\right>=(0.01\pm 0.01)\;\text{GeV}^{4}. This large uncertainty in the value of the gluon condensate has only a very small impact on our results for m¯c\bar{m}_{c}.
Turning to the experimental data, we follow closely the analysis of K . For the first two narrow resonances we use the latest data from the Particle Data Group PDG , MJ/ψ=3.096916(11)GeVM_{J/\psi}=3.096916(11)\;\mbox{GeV}, ΓJ/ψe+e=5.55(14)keV\Gamma_{J/\psi\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}}=5.55(14)\;\mbox{keV}, Mψ(2s)=3.68609(4)GeVM_{\psi(2s)}=3.68609(4)\;\mbox{GeV}, Γψ(2s)e+e=2.35(4)keV\Gamma_{\psi(2s)\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}}=2.35(4)\;\mbox{keV}. These two narrow resonances are followed by the open charm region where the contribution from the light quark sector RudsR_{uds} needs to be subtracted from the total R-ratio RtotR_{tot}. We perform this subtraction as in MC2 . In the region 3.97GeVs4.26GeV3.97\;\mbox{GeV}\leq\sqrt{s}\leq 4.26\;\mbox{GeV} we only use CLEO data EXP4 as they are the most precise. In connection with the three data sets from BES EXP1 -EXP3 , we assume that the systematic uncertainties are not fully independent and add them linearly, rather than in quadrature. However, we treat these data as independent from the CLEO data set EXP4 , and thus add errors in quadrature. There is no data in the region s=2549GeV2s=25-49\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, and beyond there is CLEO data up to s110GeV2s\simeq 110\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}. The latter data is fully compatible with PQCD.
We discuss next the integration kernels p(s)p(s) in Eq.(2), which we choose as

p(s)=1(s0s)n,p(s)=1-\left(\frac{s_{0}}{s}\right)^{n}\;, (8)

with n1n\geq 1. As discussed in K , inverse moments p(s)=1/snp(s)=1/s^{n} should not involve too large values of nn. In fact, the convergence of PQCD deteriorates with increasing nn, the gluon condensate contribution increases sharply for n>2n>2, and the uncertainties in αs\alpha_{s} and the renormalization scale μ\mu have a greater impact on the total error of the charm-quark mass. On the other hand, direct kernels of the form p(s)=snp(s)=s^{n}, with n1n\geq 1, pose problems. Indeed, the high energy expansion of the vector correlator is incompletely known at 𝒪[αs3]\mathcal{O}[\alpha^{3}_{s}], so that the greater the value of nn the greater is the contribution of the higher order mass corrections at this order in PQCD. Already with n=1n=1 one would need a Pade approximation for the term 𝒪[αs3m¯c6]\mathcal{O}[\alpha^{3}_{s}\bar{m}_{c}^{6}]. Hence, in order to avoid any approximation up to this order in PQCD we restrict ourselves to direct moments with n=0n=0, and include inverse powers in an attempt to enhance the contribution of the well known narrow resonances, J/ψJ/\psi and ψ(2S)\psi(2S), and at the same time suppressing the broad resonance region. We found that Eq.(8) with n=2n=2 is the optimal kernel as explained next. In Fig.1 we show the experimental data for the ratio R(s)R(s) together with the kernel Eq.(8) with n=2n=2 and s0 23GeV2s_{0}\simeq\;23\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, and the simple kernel p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2} normalized such that both kernels coincide at the peak of the second narrow resonance ψ(2S)\psi(2S), i.e. s13.6GeV2s\simeq 13.6\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}. One can easily appreciate that in comparison with the latter, the former kernel leads to a welcome enhancement of the weight of the J/ψJ/\psi, as well as to a strong suppression of the broad resonance region, and particularly the region near the onset of the continuum. Quantitatively, the ratio of the area under the hadronic spectral function weighted with p(s)p(s), in the narrow resonance region, nr{\cal{I}}_{nr}, and in the broad resonance region and beyond, br{\cal{I}}_{br}, is nr/br=3.6{\cal{I}}_{nr}/{\cal{I}}_{br}=3.6 for p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2}, and nr/br=7.7{\cal{I}}_{nr}/{\cal{I}}_{br}=7.7 for Eq.(8) with n=2n=2. Other values of nn lead to slightly less enhancement. In addition, the kernel Eq.(8) with n=2n=2 leads to final results for m¯c\overline{m}_{c} which are fairly insensitive to the choice of s0s_{0}. For instance, in the range s0 15.023.0GeV2s_{0}\simeq\;15.0-23.0\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) changes by about 4.0MeV4.0\;\mbox{MeV}, while using the kernel p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2} it changes by 14.0MeV14.0\;\mbox{MeV}.

m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) (in MeV)
Kernel m¯c(0)\bar{m}_{c}^{(0)} m¯c(1)\bar{m}_{c}^{(1)} m¯c(2)\bar{m}_{c}^{(2)} m¯c(3)\bar{m}_{c}^{(3)}
s2s^{-2} 1129 1021 998 995
1(s0/s)21-(s_{0}/s)^{2} 1146 1019 991 987
Table 1: Results for the charm-quark mass at different orders in PQCD, and for two integration kernels. The results for p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2} are obtained using slightly different values of the QCD parameters, and a different integration procedure as in K .
Uncertainties (in MeV)
Kernel m¯c(3GeV)\bar{m}_{c}(3\,\mbox{GeV}) EXP Δαs\Delta\alpha_{s} Δμ\Delta\mu NP s0s_{0} Total
s2s^{-2} 995  9  3  1  1  14  17
1(s0/s)21-(s_{0}/s)^{2} 987  7  4  1  1  4  9
Table 2: The various uncertainties due to the data (EXP), the value of αs\alpha_{s} (Δαs\Delta\alpha_{s}), changes of ±35%\pm 35\% in the renormalization scale around μ=3GeV\mu=3\;\mbox{GeV} (Δμ\Delta\mu), the value of the gluon condensate (NP), and due to variations in s0s_{0} (s0s_{0}).
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Results for m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) as a function of s0s_{0} for the kernel p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2}. The variation of m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) in this range is up to 14MeV14\;\mbox{MeV}.
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Results for m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) as a function of s0s_{0} for the kernel Eq.(8) with n=2n=2. The variation of m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) in this range is up to 4MeV4\;\mbox{MeV}.

Proceeding to our determination we list in Table 1 the results for m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) at different orders in perturbation theory, and using two integration kernels. The results for the kernel p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2} differ from K as we use now a slightly different value of the strong coupling, of the gluon condensate, and of the ψ(2S)\psi(2S) parameters as given above, and we include the CLEO data EXP4 . The various errors associated to the final value of m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) are given in Table 2. Results from Fixed Order Perturbation Theory (FOPT) are essentially the same as using Contour Improved Perturbation Theory (CIPT) to integrate around the circle of radius s0s_{0} in the complex s-plane. In Fig.2 we show the results for m¯c(3GeV)\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV}) as a function of s0s_{0} for the kernel p(s)=1/s2p(s)=1/s^{2}, and in Fig. 3 for the kernel Eq.(8) with n=2n=2, the latter exhibiting improved stability.

The convergence pattern in αs\alpha_{s} of the PQCD integral as a function of m¯c\overline{m}_{c} can be studied by computing

(s0)=12πiC(|s0|)p(s)Π(s)𝑑s+Res[Π(s)p(s),s=0],{\cal{I}}(s_{0})=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{C(|s_{0}|)}p(s)\,\Pi(s)\,ds+\text{Res}[\Pi(s)\,p(s),s=0]\;, (9)

with these integrals being functions of both m¯c\overline{m}_{c} and αs\alpha_{s}. Using m¯c(3GeV)=987MeV\overline{m}_{c}(3\;\mbox{GeV})=987\;\mbox{MeV}, and Eq.(8) with n=2n=2 we find reasonable convergence, i.e. (0)=91.4GeV2{\cal{I}}^{(0)}=91.4\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, (1)=62.0GeV2{\cal{I}}^{(1)}=62.0\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, (2)=57.0GeV2{\cal{I}}^{(2)}=57.0\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, and (3)=56.3GeV2{\cal{I}}^{(3)}=56.3\;\mbox{GeV}^{2}, where the upper index in (j){\cal{I}}^{(j)} indicates the power of αs\alpha_{s}.

Our final result using the optimal kernel, Eq.(8), with n=2n=2 is

m¯c(3GeV)=987± 9MeV,\bar{m}_{c}(3\,\mbox{GeV})=987\,\pm\,9\;\mbox{MeV}\;, (10)

in good agreement within errors with the result from inverse moment QCD sum rules K , other recent determinations charm -hoang , MC2 , SIGNER , as well as lattice QCD LATT . Translated into a scale invariant mass, the above result gives m¯c(m¯c)=1278± 9MeV\bar{m}_{c}(\bar{m}_{c})=1278\,\pm\,9\;\mbox{MeV} for the value used here for the strong coupling.

This work was supported in part by the European FEDER and Spanish MICINN under grant MICINN/FPA 2008-02878, by the Generalitat Valenciana under grant GVPROMETEO 2010-056, by DFG (Germany), and by NRF (South Africa). One of us (KS) wishes to thank A. H. Hoang for helpful discussions.

References

  • (1) K. G. Chetyrkin, R. Harlander, J. H. Kühn, and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 503, 339 (1997).
  • (2) P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 189, 49 (2009).
  • (3) K. G. Chetyrkin, R. Harlander, J. H. Kühn, Nucl. Phys. B 586, 56 (2000).
  • (4) Y. Kiyo, A. Maier, P. Maierhöfer, and P. Marquard, Nucl. Phys. B 823, 269 (2009).
  • (5) P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 012002 (2008).
  • (6) P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, and J. H. Kühn, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 135, 243 (2004).
  • (7) K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kühn, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 371, 93 (1996); Nucl. Phys. B 482, 213 (1996); ibid. B 505, 40 (1997).
  • (8) R. Boughezal, M. Czakon, and T. Schutzmeier, Phys. Rev. D 74, 074006 (2006); Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 160, 164 (2006).
  • (9) A. Maier, P. Maieröfer, and P. Marquard, Nucl. Phys. B 797, 218 (2008); Phys. Lett. B 669, 88 (2008).
  • (10) K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kühn, and C. Sturm, Eur. Phys. J. C 48, 107 (2006).
  • (11) A. Maier, P. Maierhöfer, P. Marquard, and A. V. Smirnov, Nucl. Phys. B 824, 1 (2010).
  • (12) A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, and S. Mohammad Zebarjad, Nucl. Phys. B 813, 349 (2009).
  • (13) J. Z. Bai et al. (BES 2000), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 594 (2000).
  • (14) J. Z. Bai et al. (BES 2002), Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 101802 (2002).
  • (15) J. Z. Bai et al. (BES 2006), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 262001 (2006).
  • (16) D. Cronin-Hennessy et al. (CLEO 2009), Phys. Rev. D 80, 072001 (2009).
  • (17) J. H. Kühn, M. Steinhauser, and C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. B 778, 192 (2007); K. G. Chetyrkin et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 074010 (2009).
  • (18) S. Bodenstein, J. Bordes, C. A. Dominguez, J. Peñarrocha, and K. Schilcher, Phys. Rev. D 82, 114013 (2010).
  • (19) B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, S. Mohammad Zebarjad, arXiv: 1102.2264 (2011).
  • (20) S. Bethke, Eur. Phys. J. C 64, 689 (2009).
  • (21) C. T. H. Davies et al., HPQCD Collab., Phys. Rev. D 78, 114507 (2008); C. McNeile, PQCD Collab., Phys. Rev. D 82, 034512 (2010).
  • (22) C. A. Dominguez, and K. Schilcher, J. High Energy Phys. 0701, 093 (2007).
  • (23) A. Pich, arXiv:1101.2107.
  • (24) K. Nakamura et al., Particle Data Group, J. Phys. G 37, 075021 (2010).
  • (25) A. Hoang, and M. Jamin, Phys. Lett. B 594, 127 (2004).
  • (26) A. Signer, Phys. Lett. B 672, 333 (2009).