4.7 Article

Determination of αS using OPAL hadronic event shapes at √s=91-209 GeV and resummed NNLO calculations

Journal

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
Volume 71, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-011-1733-z

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DFG cluster of excellence 'Origin and Structure of the Universe'
  2. MEXT
  3. Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
  4. German Israeli Bi-national Science Foundation (GIF)
  5. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, Germany
  6. National Research Council of Canada
  7. Hungarian Foundation for Scientific Research
  8. OTKA [T-038240, T-042864]
  9. STFC [ST/H001093/1, ST/K00073X/1, PP/E000347/1, ST/H001093/2] Funding Source: UKRI
  10. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/H001093/2, ST/K00073X/1, PP/E000347/1, ST/H001093/1] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Hadronic event shape distributions from e(+)e(-) annihilation measured by the OPAL experiment at centre-of-mass energies between 91 GeV and 209 GeV are used to determine the strong coupling alpha(S). The results are based on QCD predictions complete to the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO), and on NNLO calculations matched to the re-summed next-to-leading-log-approximation terms (NNLO+NLLA). The combined NNLO result from all variables and centre-of-mass energies is alpha(S)(m(Z0)) = 0.1201 +/- 0.0008 (stat.) +/- 0.0013(exp.) +/- 0.0010(had.) +/- 0.0024(theo.) while the combined NNLO + NLLA result is alpha(S)(m(Z0)) = 0.1189 +/- 0.0008(stat.) +/- 0.0016(exp.) +/- 0.0010(had.) +/- 0.0036(theo.) The completeness of the NNLO and NNLO + NLLA results with respect to missing higher order contributions, studied by varying the renormalization scale, is improved compared to previous results based on NLO or NLO + NLLA predictions only. The observed energy dependence of alpha(S) agrees with the QCD prediction of asymptotic freedom and excludes the absence of running.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available