Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Thrust Distribution in Electron-Positron Annihilation at Full Next-to-Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Logarithmic Accuracy Including Next-to-Next-to-Leading-Order Terms in QCD

Ugo Giuseppe Aglietti

Giancarlo Ferrera

Wan-Li Ju

Jiahao Miao

Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 251904 – Published 25 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/dv7n-qvyp

Abstract

We consider the thrust (T) distribution in electron-positron (e+e−) annihilation into hadrons and we perform the all-order resummation of the large logarithms of 1−T up to full next-to-next-to-next-to-leading logarithmic (N3LL) accuracy in QCD, also including the impact of next-order logarithmic corrections (N4LL). We consistently combine resummation with the known fixed-order results up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO). All perturbative terms up to O(αS3) are included in our calculation, which, thanks to a unitarity constraint, exactly reproduces, after integration over T, the next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order (N3LO) result for the total cross section of e+e− into hadrons. We perform resummation in the Laplace-conjugated space, which ensures the factorization of the kinematic momentum conservation constraint, and compare our results with those obtained using the resummation formalism in the physical (T) space. We find that the differences in the spectra obtained with the two different formalisms are sizable. Nonperturbative corrections are included using an analytic hadronization model, depending on two free parameters. Finally, we present a comparison of our spectra with experimental data at the Z-boson mass (mZ) energy, which enables us to extract the value of the QCD coupling αS(mZ2)=0.1181±0.0018, fully consistent with the world average. We explicitly show that resumming Sudakov logarithms in Laplace-conjugated space and evaluating the inverse Laplace transform exactly is crucial in order to obtain an accurate determination of the QCD coupling.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (77)

  1. E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1587 (1977).
  2. A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 132002 (2007).
  3. S. Weinzierl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 162001 (2008).
  4. A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2009) 106.
  5. S. Weinzierl, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2009) 041.
  6. A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, and G. Heinrich, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185, 3331 (2014).
  7. V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, and Z. Trócsányi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 152004 (2016).
  8. V. Del Duca, C. Duhr, A. Kardos, G. Somogyi, Z. Szőr, Z. Trócsányi, and Z. Tulipánt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 074019 (2016).
  9. S. Catani, G. Turnock, B. R. Webber, and L. Trentadue, Phys. Lett. B 263, 491 (1991).
  10. S. Catani, L. Trentadue, G. Turnock, and B. R. Webber, Nucl. Phys. B407, 3 (1993).
  11. M. D. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. D 77, 014026 (2008).
  12. T. Becher and M. D. Schwartz, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2008) 034.
  13. G. Dissertori, A. Gehrmann-De Ridder, T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, G. Heinrich, G. Luisoni, and H. Stenzel, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2009) 036.
  14. A. Hornig, C. Lee, and G. Ovanesyan, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2009) 122.
  15. R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 83, 074021 (2011).
  16. P. F. Monni, T. Gehrmann, and G. Luisoni, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2011) 010.
  17. R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 86, 094002 (2012).
  18. L. G. Almeida, S. D. Ellis, C. Lee, G. Sterman, I. Sung, and J. R. Walsh, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2014) 174.
  19. A. Banfi, H. McAslan, P. F. Monni, and G. Zanderighi, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2015) 102.
  20. J. Baron, S. Marzani, and V. Theeuwes, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2018) 105; 05 (2019) 56.
  21. S. Q. Wang, S. J. Brodsky, X. G. Wu, and L. Di Giustino, Phys. Rev. D 99, 114020 (2019).
  22. S. Marzani, D. Reichelt, S. Schumann, G. Soyez, and V. Theeuwes, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2019) 179.
  23. M. A. Benitez, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu, I. W. Stewart, and G. Vita, arXiv:2412.15164.
  24. S. G. Gorishnii, A. L. Kataev, and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 259, 144 (1991).
  25. L. R. Surguladze and M. A. Samuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 560 (1991); 66, 2416(E) (1991).
  26. B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 339, 148 (1994).
  27. Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 352, 451 (1995).
  28. P. Nason and M. H. Seymour, Nucl. Phys. B454, 291 (1995).
  29. Y. L. Dokshitzer and B. R. Webber, Phys. Lett. B 404, 321 (1997).
  30. E. Gardi and G. Grunberg, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (1999) 016.
  31. E. Gardi, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2000) 030.
  32. E. Gardi and J. Rathsman, Nucl. Phys. B609, 123 (2001).
  33. C. Lee and G. F. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 75, 014022 (2007).
  34. S. Navas et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 110, 030001 (2024).
  35. T. Gehrmann, G. Luisoni, and P. F. Monni, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2265 (2013).
  36. P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2023) 058.
  37. P. Nason and G. Zanderighi, arXiv:2501.18173.
  38. S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, P. Nason, and L. Trentadue, Nucl. Phys. B478, 273 (1996).
  39. U. Aglietti and G. Ricciardi, Phys. Rev. D 66, 074003 (2002).
  40. R. A. Davison and B. R. Webber, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 13 (2009).
  41. S. Catani and B. R. Webber, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (1997) 005.
  42. U. Aglietti, Nucl. Phys. B610, 293 (2001).
  43. U. Aglietti, G. Ricciardi, and G. Ferrera, Phys. Rev. D 74, 034004 (2006).
  44. A. Bhattacharya, M. D. Schwartz, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 074011 (2022).
  45. S. Höche, D. Reichelt, and F. Siegert, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2018) 118.
  46. G. P. Korchemsky and G. F. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B555, 335 (1999).
  47. K. Abe et al. (SLD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 51, 962 (1995).
  48. D. Wicke, Energieabhängigkeit von Ereignisformobservablen und der starken Kopplung, WUB-DIS-1999-05.
  49. P. Abreu et al. (DELPHI Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 14, 557 (2000).
  50. A. Heister et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 35, 457 (2004).
  51. G. Abbiendi et al. (OPAL Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 40, 287 (2005).
  52. P. Achard et al. (L3 Collaboration), Phys. Rep. 399, 71 (2004).
  53. W. L. Ju and M. Schönherr, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2021) 088.
  54. O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov, and A. Y. Zharkov, Phys. Lett. 93B, 429 (1980).
  55. S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B 303, 334 (1993).
  56. T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and S. A. Larin, Phys. Lett. B 400, 379 (1997).
  57. M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. B710, 485 (2005).
  58. F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2017) 090.
  59. R. Brüser, Z. L. Liu, and M. Stahlhofen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 072003 (2018).
  60. R. Kelley, M. D. Schwartz, R. M. Schabinger, and H. X. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 84, 045022 (2011).
  61. W. Chen, F. Feng, Y. Jia, and X. Liu, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2022) 094.
  62. D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, and C. Y. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2022) 081.
  63. D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, and C. Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 014004 (2022).
  64. I. Moult, H. X. Zhu, and Y. J. Zhu, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2022) 280.
  65. C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger, and G. Vita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 162001 (2022).
  66. C. Duhr, B. Mistlberger, and G. Vita, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2022) 155.
  67. D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, A. Pikelner, and C. Y. Wang, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2025) 084.
  68. D. Baranowski, M. Delto, K. Melnikov, A. Pikelner, and C. Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 191902 (2025).
  69. S. Moch, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. B688, 101 (2004).
  70. J. M. Henn, G. P. Korchemsky, and B. Mistlberger, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2020) 018.
  71. A. von Manteuffel, E. Panzer, and R. M. Schabinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 162001 (2020).
  72. F. Herzog, S. Moch, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and A. Vogt, Phys. Lett. B 790, 436 (2019).
  73. P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 212002 (2009).
  74. R. N. Lee, A. V. Smirnov, and V. A. Smirnov, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2010) 020.
  75. T. Gehrmann, E. W. N. Glover, T. Huber, N. Ikizlerli, and C. Studerus, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2010) 094.
  76. R. N. Lee, A. von Manteuffel, R. M. Schabinger, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 212002 (2022).
  77. The numerical impact of the, usually neglected, singlet diagrams induced by axial-vector currents and their implementation, can be found in [53].

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation