text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Minimal supersymmetric field theories in four dimensions have many phenomenologically interesting features and can be obtained by Calabi-Yau compactification of heterotic string theory. Over the years this has been the standard way for their construction, because one obtains naturally chiral fermions and non-Abelian gauge groups. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to obtain phenomenological interesting $`N=1`$ models directly from M-theory, see . One reason is that the 7-manifold has to have $`G_2`$-holonomy and these spaces are not yet well understood. Only few non-compact examples, that rely on the construction done in , are explicitly known. Another reason are the difficulties to obtain a model with chiral fermions in four dimensions . In fact, chiral fermions, but also non-Abelian gauge groups, require that the 7-manifold is singular  and a supergravity approximation may become questionable.

There are mainly two classes of known metrics: one is topologically a $`^3`$ bundle over a quaternionic space and the other a $`^4`$ bundle over $`𝕊^3`$. They have been introduced in  and many generalizations, with more parameters or functions, have been discussed in the past year. It is impossible to give a complete list of refs., but relevant aspects for our consideration can be found in . In the first class one can further distinguish between different quaternionic spaces as e.g. the 4-sphere $`𝕊^4=\frac{SO(5)}{SO(4)}`$ but also the complex projective space $`^2=\frac{SU(3)}{U(2)}`$, which are the only compact homogeneous quaternionic 4-dimensional spaces . Apart from their non-compact analogs, there are also non-homogeneous quaternionic spaces, which we want to use for the construction of explicit metrics.

Quaternionic spaces have been discussed in the physical literature mainly as moduli spaces of $`N=2`$ supergravity in four and five dimensions , for a more recent discussion see also . The quantum moduli space is expected to be non-homogeneous, but unfortunately not many examples are explicitly known. In a long quest to incorporate brane world scenarios into gauged supergravity and to overcome numerous problems, see e.g. , a non-homogeneous quaternionic space has been explored recently in . This space interpolates between the two homogeneous spaces and it is obvious to consider this space also in the construction of metrics with $`G_2`$ holonomy and therewith ”to unify” the two spaces representing $`^3`$ bundles over $`𝕊^4`$ and $`^2`$. More important is however, that the Killing vectors of this non-homogeneous space have additional fixed points which become additional D6-branes after compactification along this Killing vector . To be more clear, a co-dimension four fixed point set of a given isometry extends in 6+1 dimensions representing a NUT (=point) on the quaternionic space can be identified as a 6-brane. There are also co-dimension two fixed points, but the interpretation of these bolts on the quaternionic space is unclear.

As it has been shown in  on any component of a non-compact homogeneous quaternionic spaces can be at most one fixed point and for compact we expect at most two. Hence, in order to find a configuration with three or more 6-branes one necessarily needs in this setup non-homogeneous quaternionic spaces. As we will see, depending on the choice of parameters, our space can have up to five NUT fixed points. The additional fixed points reflect the topological non-trivial nature of this manifold, because, due to the Lefschetz fixed point theorem, every NUT fixed point adds one unit to the Euler characteristic of the manifold, see also .

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we basically follow the literature and solve the Killing spinor equations followed by a discussion of the closed and co-closed 3-form. This consideration is very general without using any specific quaternionic space. In section 3 we will investigate examples corresponding to different quaternionic spaces. In section 3.1 we start with the homogenous cases and in section 3.2 we discuss the following basic features of the non-homogenous space: it has four Killing vectors; it exhibits a curvature singularity, which separates two asymptotic regions and finally it interpolates between the two homogeneous spaces. In section 4 we give a detailed analysis of the isometries and the fixed point set; many details for the non-compact case were already derived in . Due to their interpretation as D6-branes, we especially identify NUT fixed points. For compact quaternionic spaces there can be three or five and for non-compact we found three or four non-degenerate fixed points, depending on the isometry groups $`U(1)\times SU(2)`$ or $`U(1)\times SL(2,R)`$. Unfortunately, in the IIA description the string coupling constant is not bounded – every model contains at least one non-compact direction in which the dilaton diverges. We conclude with a discussion of two aspects that could be interesting for future investigations: (i) resolution of the curvature singularity e.g. by of membrane instantons (or general $`G`$-fluxes) and (ii) the construction of new Spin(7) manifold in complete analogy to the procedure of this paper.

## 2 Constructing metrics with $`G_2`$ holonomy

Before we can discuss explicit examples let us summarize some aspects of the procedure described in  which will also fix our notations. After discussing the ansatz for the metric, we will derive the Killing spinor and the closed and co-closed 3-form. Both conditions are sufficient to ensure supersymmetry for this background.

### 2.1 The metric ansatz

The construction of the 7-manifold relies on a 4-d quaternionic base space and before we discuss the metric ansatz we need some basic properties of these spaces; for a recent resume about quaternionic geometry we refer to  and the appendix of . Quaternionic spaces are generalizations of complex spaces that allow for three complex structures $`J^i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) defined by the algebra

$$J^iJ^j=𝕀\delta ^{ij}+ϵ^{ijk}J^k$$
(1)
and denoting the quaternionic vielbein by $`e^m`$, one obtains three 2-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^i=e^mJ_{mn}^ie^n.$$
(2)
The holonomy of a 4n-dimensional quaternionic spaces is contained in $`Sp(n)\times SU(2)`$. This statement is trivial for $`n=1`$ and is replaced by the requirement that the Weyl-tensor of 4-dimensional quaternionic space has to be anti-selfdual

$$W+{}_{}{}^{}W=0.$$

For a quaternionic space in any dimensions the triplet of 2-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i`$ is expressed in terms of the $`SU(2)`$-part of the quaternionic connection $`A^i`$ as

$$dA^i+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}A^jA^k=\kappa \mathrm{\Omega }^i$$
(3)
which ensures that the triplet of 2-forms is covariantly constant. Moreover, any quaternionic space is an Einstein space with the curvature $`\kappa `$ implying that its metric $`g_{mn}`$ solves the equation

$$R_{mn}=3\kappa g_{mn}.$$
(4)
The complex structures can be selfdual or anti-selfdual and in our notation we will take the latter one ($`J_{mn}^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{mnpq}J_{pq}^i`$) so that the triplet of 2-forms can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }^1=e^4e^7e^5e^6,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^2=e^4e^6+e^5e^7,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Omega }^3=e^4e^5+e^6e^7.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
Moreover, the $`SU(2)`$ connection is given as the anti-selfdual part of the spin connection $`\omega ^{mn}`$ of the quaternionic space

$$A^i=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^{mn}J_{mn}^i.$$
(6)
In the same way, the selfdual part gives the $`Sp(n)`$ connection.

Having the basic relations for the quaternionic base space, the metric of the 7-manifold is introduced by the ansatz

$$\widehat{ds}^2=e^{2f}\alpha ^i\alpha ^i+e^{2g}e^me^m$$
(7)
where $`e^m`$ ($`m=4\mathrm{}7`$) is the vielbein of the quaternionic space and $`\alpha ^i`$ ($`i=\mathrm{1..3}`$) is defined by

$$\alpha ^iu^i=du^i+ϵ^{ijk}A^ju^k$$
(8)
with $`u^i`$ as local coordinates (in addition to the quaternionic once). Using the relation (3), it is straightforward to verify that

$$\alpha ^id\alpha ^i+ϵ^{ijk}A^j\alpha ^k=\kappa ϵ^{ijk}\mathrm{\Omega }^ju^k.$$
(9)
The two unknown functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ in the metric ansatz are now fixed by the requirement of $`G_2`$ holonomy implying the existence of a Killing spinor or equivalently the existence of a closed and co-closed 3-form. We will check both conditions.

### 2.2 Solving the Killing spinor equations

Consider M-theory on the manifold $`M_4\times X_7`$ and assume that $`M_4`$ is the flat 4-d Minkowski space. If we moreover assume the absence of G-fluxes, a Killing spinor $`ϵ`$ is a solution of the equation ($`a,b=1\mathrm{}7`$)

$$(d+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab})ϵ=0$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{\omega }^{ab}`$ is the spin connection 1-form and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{[a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b]}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ as the 7-d gamma matrices. If this equation has exactly one solution, the resulting 4-dimensional field theory has $`N=1`$ supersymmetry and the manifold $`X_7`$ has $`G_2`$ holonomy. Recall, the unrestricted holonomy of a 7-manifold is $`SO(7)`$, but the existence of a (covariantly constant) Killing spinor implies that the holonomy of the manifold is restricted. A generic spinor transforms as representation $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ of $`SO(7)`$, while a Killing spinor implies the decomposition $`\mathrm{𝟖}\mathrm{𝟕}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$, which is exactly the decomposition under $`G_2SO(7)`$. The exceptional group $`G_2`$ appears as automorphism group of octonions: $`o=x^0𝕀+x^ai_a`$, where $`i_a`$ satisfy the algebra

$$i_ai_b=\delta _{ab}+\psi _{abc}i_c,$$

for more details see e.g. in . The $`G_2`$-invariant 3-index tensor $`\psi _{abc}`$ can be obtained from figure 1 and is given in the standard basis by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{1}{3!}\psi _{abc}e^ae^be^c& =& e^1e^2e^3+e^4e^3e^5+e^5e^1e^6+e^6e^2e^4+\hfill \\ & & e^4e^7e^1+e^5e^7e^2+e^6e^7e^3,\hfill \\ & =& e^1e^2e^3+e^i\mathrm{\Omega }^i\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
where we used the complex structures as introduced in (2) and (5).

If the Killing spinor equation (10) has more than one solution, the holonomy is smaller than $`G_2`$ resulting in a 4-d field theory with $`N>1`$ supersymmetry. The holonomy is equal to $`G_2`$ if the Killing spinor equation has exactly one solution, which is equivalent to the absence of covariantly constant 1-forms . The existence of such a 1-form would imply the existence of a covariantly constant Killing vector and hence to a factorization of the space. As we will discuss in the next section this is not the case for the examples that we consider and hence our models yield $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in 4 dimensions.

Following the arguments from  (see also ), one can define two orthogonal projectors $`_\pm `$ that decompose the spin connection into two parts: $`\widehat{\omega }^{ab}=\widehat{\omega }_+^{ab}+\widehat{\omega }_{}^{ab}`$ with

$$\begin{array}{c}\widehat{\omega }_+^{ab}=_{+cd}^{ab}\widehat{\omega }^{cd}\frac{2}{3}(\widehat{\omega }^{ab}+\frac{1}{4}\psi ^{abcd}\widehat{\omega }_{cd}),\hfill \\ \widehat{\omega }_{}^{ab}=_{cd}^{ab}\widehat{\omega }^{cd}\frac{1}{3}(\widehat{\omega }^{ab}\frac{1}{2}\psi ^{abcd}\widehat{\omega }_{cd})\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where $`\psi _{abcd}`$ is the $`G_2`$ invariant 4-index tensor which is dual to the 3-index tensor ($`\psi _{abcd}=\frac{1}{3!}ϵ_{abcdefg}\psi _{efg}`$). In order to solve (10) one imposes on the (constant) Killing spinor $`ϵ`$ and the spin connection $`\widehat{\omega }^{cd}`$ the projector equations

$$_{+cd}^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd}ϵ=0,_{cd}^{ab}\widehat{\omega }^{cd}=0$$
(13)
and finds as solution for the Killing spinor

$$ϵ^\alpha =c\delta ^{\alpha 8}$$
(14)
where $`\alpha =1\mathrm{}8`$ is the $`SO(7)`$ spinor index and $`c`$ is constant. The projector condition on the spin connection can be simplified by contracting with the 3-index tensor $`\psi _{abc}`$ and using the relation: $`\psi _{abc}\psi _{bcde}=4\psi _{abc}`$. One infers

$$\psi _{abc}\widehat{\omega }^{bc}=0$$
(15)
yielding first order differential equations for the unknown functions. We will assume in the following that in the metric ansatz (7) $`f=f(|u|)`$ and $`g=g(|u|)`$ and obtain for the spin connection

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{\omega }^{ij}& =& \frac{f^{}}{|u|}\alpha ^{[i}u^{j]}ϵ^{ijk}A^k,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\omega }^{mn}& =& \omega ^{mn}\kappa e^{2(fg)}ϵ^{ijk}u^kJ_{mn}^j\alpha ^i,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\omega }^{mi}& =& \frac{g^{}}{|u|}e^{gf}e^mu^i\kappa e^{fg}ϵ^{ijk}u^kJ_{mn}^je^n\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`(\mathrm{})^{}`$ denotes the derivative with respect to $`|u|`$. In the contraction with the 3-index tensor (11) we use the relation (6) and find

$$\begin{array}{c}0=\psi _{iab}\widehat{\omega }^{ab}=\psi _{ijk}\widehat{\omega }^{jk}+\psi _{imn}\widehat{\omega }^{mn}=\left[\frac{f^{}}{|u|}+\kappa e^{2(fg)}\right]ϵ^{ijk}\alpha ^ju^k,\hfill \\ 0=\psi _{mab}\widehat{\omega }^{ab}=\psi _{mni}\widehat{\omega }^{ni}=J_{mn}^i\widehat{\omega }^{ni}=\left[\frac{g^{}}{|u|}\kappa e^{2(fg)}\right]e^{gf}J_{mn}^ie^nu^i.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
These equations have the symmetry: $`ff+\lambda `$, $`gg+\lambda `$, giving a constant conformal rescaling of the metric (7) and a second symmetry: $`ff\lambda `$, $`ue^\lambda u`$ leaves the metric invariant. Using these symmetries, only one (discrete) integration constant $`c=\pm 1,0`$ appears in the solution that can be written as

$$e^{4f}=2\kappa |u|^2+c,e^{4g}=2\kappa |u|^2+c$$
(18)
with $`|u|^2=(u^1)^2+(u^2)^2+(u^3)^2`$. Notice if $`\kappa <0`$ (i.e. a non-compact quaternionic space), the parameter range of $`u`$ is bounded by $`2\kappa |u|^2+c>0`$, while for $`\kappa 0`$ $`u`$ is unbounded.

### 2.3 The closed and co-closed 3-form

The holonomy reduction from $`SO(7)`$ to $`G_2`$ is equivalent to the existence a 3-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is closed and co-closed. Again following the procedure done in  we write this 3-form as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{3!}\psi _{abc}\widehat{e}^a\widehat{e}^b\widehat{e}^c=e^{3f}\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3+e^{f+2g}\alpha ^i\mathrm{\Omega }^i$$
(19)
and we will show now that the functions (18) ensure that: $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=d{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, i.e. it is closed and co-closed. Since $`d(u^iu^i)=d|u|^2=2|u|d|u|=2u^i\alpha ^i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i=0`$ as well as using the relation (9) it follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{1}{3!}d(ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^i\alpha ^j\alpha ^k)& =& \frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}(\alpha ^i)\alpha ^j\alpha ^k=\kappa |u|d|u|\alpha ^i\mathrm{\Omega }^i,\hfill \\ \hfill d(\alpha ^i\mathrm{\Omega }^i)& =& (\alpha ^i)\mathrm{\Omega }^i\alpha ^i(\mathrm{\Omega }^i)=0,\hfill \\ \hfill (de^{3f})\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3& =& \left(e^{3f}\right)^{}d|u|\alpha ^1\alpha ^2\alpha ^3=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
Therefore, from $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ we derive the equation

$$\kappa |u|e^{3f}=(e^{f+2g})^{}.$$
(21)
Next, for the co-closure we have to check whether the dual 4-form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=e^{2(f+g)}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^i\alpha ^j\mathrm{\Omega }^k+e^{4g}e^4e^5e^6e^7$$
(22)
is also closed. Employing the relation $`\mathrm{\Omega }^i\mathrm{\Omega }^j=2\delta ^{ij}e^4e^5e^6e^7`$ and again (9) one obtains

$$\frac{1}{2}d(ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^i\alpha ^j\mathrm{\Omega }^k)=ϵ_{ijk}(\alpha ^i)\alpha ^j\mathrm{\Omega }^k=4\kappa u^i\alpha ^ie^4e^5e^6e^7$$
(23)
and thus (recall $`u^i\alpha ^i=|u|d|u|`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0=d\mathrm{\Psi }& =& \left(e^{2(f+g)}\right)^{}d|u|\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\alpha ^i\alpha ^j\mathrm{\Omega }^k+\hfill \\ & & \left[4\kappa |u|e^{2(f+g)}+\left(e^{4g}\right)^{}\right]d|u|e^4e^5e^6e^7.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
This gives the two differential equations

$$\left(e^{2(f+g)}\right)^{}=0,\left(e^{4g}\right)^{}=4\kappa |u|e^{2(f+g)}$$
(25)
and it is straightforward to verify that these two equations together with (21) are equivalent to the first order equations derived from (17) with the solution (18).

## 3 Explicit metric of the 7-manifold

In the previous section we have verified that the metric of the 7-manifold with $`G_2`$ holonomy is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\kappa |u|^2+c}}\left(du^i+ϵ^{ijk}A^ju^k\right)^2+\sqrt{2\kappa |u|^2+c}e^me^m,$$
(26)
where $`e^m`$ is the vielbein of the quaternionic space with the $`SU(2)`$ connection $`A^j`$ as introduced in (6). By choosing different quaternionic spaces we can now discuss explicit models.

### 3.1 Homogeneous quaternionic spaces

We will start with examples that played an important role in the recent literature. They base on homogeneous quaternionic spaces, which appear in two classes , namely

(i) the maximal symmetric spaces $`\frac{SO(5)}{SO(4)}`$ and $`\frac{SO(4,1)}{SO(4)}`$ with 10 isometries and

(ii) the complex projective spaces $`\frac{SU(3)}{SU(2)\times U(1)}`$ and $`\frac{SU(2,1)}{SU(2)\times U(1)}`$ each having 8 isometries.

The metric of the quaternionic space and the corresponding $`SU(2)`$ connection for the maximal symmetric case (i) can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}e^me^m=\frac{d\rho ^2}{1\kappa \rho ^2}+(1\kappa \rho ^2)d\psi ^2+\rho ^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2),\hfill \\ A^1=\sqrt{1\kappa \rho ^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,A^2=\sqrt{1\kappa \rho ^2}d\theta ,\hfill \\ A^3=\kappa \rho d\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
For $`\kappa =+1`$ this metric describes the coset $`\frac{SO(5)}{SO(4)}=𝕊^4`$, and for $`\kappa =1`$ the corresponding non-compact analog, $`\frac{SO(4,1)}{SO(4)}`$. These spaces with the maximal number of Killing vectors become trivial for $`\kappa =0`$ and have a vanishing Weyl tensor. The complex projective spaces (ii) have less isometries and the Weyl tensor is non-trivial. The corresponding expressions read (cp. )

$$\begin{array}{c}e^me^m=\frac{2d\rho ^2}{(1+\kappa \rho ^2)^2}+\frac{\rho ^2}{2(1+\kappa \rho ^2)^2}(d\psi \mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi )^2+\frac{\rho ^2}{2(1+\kappa \rho ^2)}\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2\right)\hfill \\ A^1=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\sqrt{1+\kappa \rho ^2}}d\phi ,A^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\kappa \rho ^2}}d\theta ,\hfill \\ A^3=\frac{\kappa \rho ^2}{2(1+\kappa \rho ^2)}d\psi \frac{(2+\kappa \rho ^2)\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2(1+\kappa \rho ^2)}d\phi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
As before, the space is compact for $`\kappa >0`$ and otherwise non-compact.

Both spaces are spherical symmetric related to the $`𝕊^2`$ parameterized by $`(\theta ,\phi )`$. But there is also a generalization to any 2-space with constant curvature $`ϵ`$ (as it will appear in the next example). If we take into account this additional parameter, the resulting $`G_2`$ metric (26) depends in total on three parameters: $`ϵ`$, $`c`$ and $`\kappa `$.

### 3.2 Quaternionic spaces with four isometries

More general, non-homogeneous quaternionic spaces may be classified by the number of isometries, but not many concrete examples are known; see however . One example with four isometries has been discussed in  and when regarded as a hyper multiplet moduli space yields upon gauging a supersymmetric Randall-Sundrum scenario. The metric and connection for this space is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}e^me^m=\frac{d\rho ^2}{V(\rho )}+V(\rho )\left[d\tau n\frac{ydxxdy}{1+\frac{ϵ}{4}(x^2+y^2)}\right]^2+(\rho ^2n^2)\frac{dx^2+dy^2}{\left[1+\frac{ϵ}{4}(x^2+y^2)\right]^2}\hfill \\ A^1=\sqrt{\frac{\rho +n}{\rho n}V}\frac{dy}{1+\frac{ϵ}{4}(x^2+y^2)},A^2=\sqrt{\frac{\rho +n}{\rho n}V}\frac{dx}{1+\frac{ϵ}{4}(x^2+y^2)},\hfill \\ A^3=\kappa (\rho n)d\tau \left[ϵ+2n\kappa (n\rho )\right]\frac{ydxxdy}{1+\frac{ϵ}{4}(x^2+y^2)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
with

$$V=\kappa \frac{(\rho n)}{\rho +n}(\rho \rho _+)(\rho \rho _{}),\rho _\pm =n\pm \sqrt{4n^2+\frac{ϵ}{\kappa }}.$$
(30)
As we mentioned in the last paragraph the parameter $`ϵ=0,\pm 1`$ determines the symmetry group: for $`ϵ=+1`$ it is a spherical symmetric solution with the isometry group $`U(1)\times SU(2)`$; for $`ϵ=1`$ the isometry group becomes $`U(1)\times SL(2,R)`$ and for $`ϵ=0`$ it is the solvable sub-algebra of $`SO(1,4)`$.

To understand this space better consider $`ϵ=1`$, where it becomes the metric of the Taub-NUT-(A)dS space , with $`n`$ as NUT parameter and the mass parameter had been fixed to ensure the quaternionic property (3) (or equivalently the anti-selfduality of the Weyl tensor). For vanishing cosmological constant ($`\kappa =0`$) one obtains the well known Taub-NUT metric, and hence, this space represents topologically an orbifold. In fact, this orbifold is related to the non-trivial periodicity of $`\tau `$, which ensures the absence of conical singularities:

$$\tau \tau +4\pi n.$$
(31)
By complete analogy to the Ricci-flat Taub–NUT case we can make the orbifold action explicit. For $`\kappa =1`$ (the other case goes in complete analogy, see also ) the coset $`𝕊^4=SO(5)/SO(4)`$ is defined by

$$(X_0)^2+(X_1)^2+(X_2)^2+(X_3)^2+(X_4)^2=1$$
(32)
with the metric

$$ds^2=(dX_0)^2+(dX_1)^2+(dX_2)^2+(dX_3)^2+(dX_4)^2$$
(33)
subject to the constraint (32). Before imposing the constraint, the $`SO(5)`$ symmetry group is manifest, but afterwards only a subclass of these isometries are realized linearly and the other symmetries are not manifest. Since we are interested here in the spherical symmetric case ($`ϵ=1`$) we introduce polar coordinates in $`X_{1,2,3,4}`$: $`(dX_1)^2+(dX_2)^2+(dX_3)^2+(dX_4)^2=d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ and the constraint becomes $`X_0^2+\rho ^2=1`$. Since $`X_0dX_0=\rho d\rho `$ we can eliminate $`X_0`$ and find for the metric

$$ds^2=\frac{d\rho ^2}{1\rho ^2}+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\frac{d\overline{r}^2+\overline{r}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3}{(1+\frac{\overline{r}^2}{4})^2}=\frac{dz_1d\overline{z}_1+dz_2d\overline{z}_2}{\left(1+\frac{|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2}{4}\right)^2}$$
(34)
with $`\rho =\frac{\overline{r}}{1+\overline{r}^2/4}`$. As for the Taub-NUT space the $`_n`$ orbifold acts on the two complex coordinates as

$$z_1e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}}z_1,z_2e^{\frac{2\pi i}{n}}z_2$$
(35)
which, after the change of coordinates

$$z_1=r\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)e^{i\frac{\phi +\psi }{2}},z_2=r\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\frac{\phi \psi }{2}},$$
(36)
is equivalent to (31). Hence, this $`_n`$ orbifold acts on the $`𝕊^3`$ sub-space as: $`𝕊^3𝕊^3/_n`$ in the usual way; for a discussion of orbifolds see also .

In addition to the reduced number of isometries, given by the subgroup that commutes with the orbifold action, there are more significant differences to the homogeneous cases that we discussed before. First, in the limit $`\kappa =0`$ it becomes the Taub-NUT space, which is hyper-Kaehler and since it is still non-trivial it may be of interest for $`G_2`$ manifolds as well. Second, the quaternionic space (29) has a curvature singularity at $`\rho =n`$ as indicated by the curvature invariant

$$R_{mnst}R^{mnst}=24\left[\kappa ^2+\frac{4n^2(ϵ+4\kappa n^2)^2}{(\rho +n)^6}\right].$$
(37)
This singularity exist for any value of $`u^i`$ and hence also the $`G_2`$ manifold (26) becomes singular, but it is shielded by the Killing horizon where $`V=0`$ representing a fixed point set of $`k=_\tau `$, see below. Note, the zeros of $`V`$ are regular points as it is obvious from the curvature invariant (37). But at these zeros $`V`$ changes its sign and therefore the metric is well-defined only on the coordinate patch where

$$V\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\rho ^2n^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}$$

which allows for two physical regions that are disconnected by the curvature singularity, see figure 2:

$$\rho \rho _{},\rho \mathrm{max}\{n,\rho _+\}.$$

Since the metric is invariant under $`\rho \rho `$ and $`nn`$ we can assume that $`n>0`$.

Before we discuss in the next section the Killing vectors and their fixed point set, let us note that the solution (29) interpolates between the two homogeneous quaternionic spaces that we introduced in eqs. (27) and (28). To see this, let us set $`ϵ=+1`$. Obviously, if $`n=0`$ we get $`V=1\kappa \rho ^2`$ and obtain the maximal symmetric spaces $`𝕊^4`$ or $`EAdS_4`$ in eq. (27). On the other hand, if we transform

$$\rho =\frac{\widehat{\rho }}{n}+n,\tau =2n\psi $$
(38)
and take the limit

$$n\mathrm{}\mathrm{keeping}\widehat{\rho }=fix$$

one finds the metric

$$ds^2=\frac{2d\widehat{\rho }^2}{\widehat{\rho }(14\kappa \widehat{\rho })}+2\widehat{\rho }(14\kappa \widehat{\rho })\left[d\psi \frac{1}{2}\frac{ydxxdy}{1+\frac{x^2+y^2}{4}}\right]^2+2\widehat{\rho }\frac{dx^2+dy^2}{(1+\frac{x^2+y^2}{4})^2}.$$
(39)
Finally, the transformation

$$\widehat{\rho }=\frac{r^2}{4(1+\kappa r^2)},x+\mathrm{i}y=2\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\theta }{2}e^{\mathrm{i}\phi }.$$

brings us to the complex projective space in eq. (28).

Since negative $`n`$ are equivalent to positive (after $`\rho \rho `$), the two homogenous spaces appear at the endpoints of the parameter space of $`n`$ and in both limits the curvature singularity disappears and the spaces become smooth. Let us also note, that in the limit of vanishing cosmological constant the space (29) is the standard Taub-NUT space, whereas the space (39) which appears in the large $`n`$ limit becomes for $`\kappa =0`$ the Eguchi-Hanson space.

## 4 Isometries and IIA description

Having the metric of the manifold $`X_7`$ we can consider M-theory on $`M_4\times X_7`$ and if $`X_7`$ has at least one isometry the dimensional reduction will give a IIA description. Especially interesting are Killing vector fields with a fixed point set $`L`$ of co-dimension four implying that $`L`$ extends in 6+1 dimensions, and hence, become D6-branes upon compactification . But before we come to the fixed point set let us discuss the Killing vectors.

### 4.1 Isometries

An isometry is related to the existence of a Killing vector field $`k`$ satisfying the equation $`D_{(m}k_{n)}=0`$. In a given coordinate patch one can introduce proper coordinates so that the Killing vector field becomes $`k=_\chi `$ and the ($`\chi `$-independent) metric reads

$$ds^2=e^{2\varphi (x)}\left[d\chi +\omega _m(x)dx^m\right]^2+\widehat{g}_{mn}(x)dx^mdx^n.$$
(40)
In these (local) coordinates the Killing vector field becomes $`k_M=e^{2\varphi }\{1,\omega _m\}`$ and due to the Killing property one find $`D_Mk_N=D_{[M}k_{N]}=_{[M}k_{N]}`$. Obviously any covariantly constant vector field is also a Killing vector with the consequence that $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega _m`$ are trivial (i.e. $`d\omega =0`$). This in turn implies that the space factorizes and the holonomy is reduced. Therefore, the holonomy in our case is equal to $`G_2`$ iff there are no covariantly constant (Killing) vector fields. The absence of such Killing vectors for 7-manifolds given as $`^3`$ bundles over $`𝕊^4`$ and $`^2`$ was shown shown in . Since our case represents an interpolation between these two spaces, where only a subclass of isometries survive, we are still dealing with a manifold where the holonomy is equal to $`G_2`$.

To be more concrete, the isometries of $`X_7`$ with the metric (26) are given by the isometries of the quaternionic space (29) and in addition $`SU(2)`$ transformations of the coordinates $`u^i`$. The quaternionic space has four Killing vectors  which can be written as

$$\begin{array}{c}k_1=ny_\tau (1+ϵ\frac{x^2y^2}{4})_xϵ\frac{xy}{2}_y,\hfill \\ k_2=nx_\tau ϵ\frac{xy}{2}_x(1ϵ\frac{x^2y^2}{4})_y,\hfill \\ k_3=2n_\tau +ϵy_xϵx_y,k_4=_\tau \hfill \end{array}$$
(41)
and fulfill the algebra

$$[k_i,k_4]=0,[k_i,k_j]=f_{ijl}k_l$$
(42)
with $`f_{123}=1`$, $`f_{231}=f_{312}=ϵ`$. For the spherical symmetric case $`ϵ=1`$ we get thus the symmetry $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$, where the $`U(1)`$ corresponds to the orbifold action (35) and the $`SU(2)`$ is the subgroup of $`SU(3)`$ or $`SU(2,1)`$ that commutes with the orbifold. For the hyperbolic case ($`ϵ=1`$) one obtains the non-compact analog, namely the algebra $`SL(2,R)\times U(1)`$. For $`ϵ=0`$ two Killing vectors become equivalent ($`k_3k_4`$) and we should take a different parameterization, namely

$$k_1=ny_\tau _x,k_2=nx_\tau _y,k_3=y_xx_y,k_4=_\tau .$$
(43)
They satisfy the algebra

$$[k_i,k_4]=0,[k_1,k_2]=2nk_4,[k_2,k_3]=k_1,[k_3,k_1]=k_2$$
(44)
which is not not anymore a direct product of the two Lie algebras.

From our discussion above it is clear that a covariantly constant Killing vector would commute with the other Killing vectors. But the only commuting Killing vector $`k_4=_\tau `$ is not covariantly constant, due to the non-trivial $`U(1)`$ fibration in (29). Therefore the space cannot be factorized and the holonomy is equal to $`G_2`$, which we infered already from the relation to the other known $`G_2`$ manifolds.

### 4.2 Fixed point set

For a given Killing vector $`k`$, the hypersurface $`L`$ defined by $`|k|^2=0`$ is the fixed point set and $`L`$ degenerates if the surface gravity vanishes, i.e. if $`|Dk|^2=0`$ at $`|k|^2=0`$; see e.g. . For $`ϵ0`$ the fixed points of all Killing vectors are non-degenerate implying a periodic identification along the Killing direction to ensure the absence of conical singularities. This fact is well known from non-extreme black holes where the event horizon is a non-degenerate fixed point set for a timelike Killing vector. In the case here, the compactness of the Killing direction ensures that the Kaluza-Klein gauge group becomes $`U(1)`$ and that the D6-branes, which are identified as the fixed point set $`L`$ , are at finite geodesic distance.

In order to identify the D6-branes we need a Killing vector that has a co-dimension four fixed point set $`L`$, or in other words, $`L`$ extends over three coordinates in $`X_7`$ which, in addition to $`M_4`$, become the world volume of the D6-branes. We should therefore not consider the Killing vectors related rotations of the $`u^i`$ coordinates. They have a fixed point set at $`|u|=0`$ which is a point in the 3-d $`u^i`$-space and hence a co-dimension three fixed point set. On the other hand, the fixed points of the quaternionic Killing vectors can be NUTs or bolts, depending on the rank of the 2-from $`dk`$; see . The NUTs are points on the quaternionic space and since the $`SU(2)`$ connection $`A^i`$ becomes trivial, these NUTs correspond to isotropic D6-branes. On the other hand, if $`L`$ is a bolt on the quaternionic space it has co-dimension two and since at least one $`SU(2)`$ connection remains non-trivial, there is no isotropic brane interpretation. After dimensional reduction we obtain a supergravity solution which is singular at the fixed point set $`L`$ and if $`L`$ is a NUT the singularity can be identified with the location of the D6-brane, but if $`L`$ is a bolt there is no clear interpretation. It may be related to some deformation of a given D6-brane, since, as we will see, the bolts are connected with the NUTs for specific Killing vectors.

A generic Killing vector of the quaternionic space, can be introduced as a linear combination of the four Killing vectors in (41)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill k& =& \alpha _1k_1+\alpha _2k_2+\alpha _3k_3+\alpha _4k_4\hfill \\ & =& \left[ny\alpha _1nx\alpha _2+2n\alpha _3+\alpha _4\right]_\tau \hfill \\ & & \left[(1+ϵ\frac{x^2y^2}{4})\alpha _1+ϵ\frac{xy}{2}\alpha _2+ϵy\alpha _3\right]_x\hfill \\ & & \left[ϵ\frac{xy}{2}\alpha _1+(1ϵ\frac{x^2y^2}{4})\alpha _2+ϵx\alpha _3\right]_y.\hfill \end{array}$$
(45)
We will now investigate the fixed point set of this Killing vector following the discussion in . Neglecting zeros of $`V(\rho )`$, zeros $`|k|^2`$ are given by zeros of all components $`k^m`$. Since the Killing vector depends only on $`x`$ and $`y`$ the equations $`k^m=0`$ are not solvable for a generic choice of $`\alpha _m`$. We can solve, however, $`k^x=k^y=0`$ and find as solution

$$x=x_\pm =\frac{2\alpha _2}{\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2}(\alpha _3\pm |\alpha |),y=y_\pm =\frac{2\alpha _1}{\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2}(\alpha _3\pm |\alpha |)$$
(46)
where $`|\alpha |^2=\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2+\alpha _3^2`$. If one inserts these values into $`k^\tau =0`$ one obtains a constraint on $`\alpha _4`$, but one would obtain bolts since $`\rho `$ and $`\tau `$ are arbitrary. In order to find a NUT we keep $`\alpha _4`$ arbitrary and set instead

$$V(\rho )=0\mathrm{or}:\rho =(n,\rho _\pm )$$
(47)
which ensures that $`g_{\tau \tau }k^\tau k^\tau =0`$ and represent points in the $`(\rho ,\tau )`$ space<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2Notice, $`V=0`$ is a conical singularity which is resolved by the proper periodicity in $`\tau `$.. The point $`\rho =n`$ is special, because without fixing $`x,y`$ we find $`|k|^20`$.

Therefore, we have on the quaternionic space the following NUT fixed points of the Killing vector $`k`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\kappa >0:(\rho ,x,y)=\{(n,x,y),(\rho _{},x_\pm ,y_\pm )(\rho _+,x_\pm ,y_\pm )_{\mathrm{if}ϵ>0}\}\hfill \\ \kappa <0:(\rho ,x,y)=\{(\mathrm{max}[n,\rho _+],x_\pm ,y_\pm ),(\rho _{},x_\pm ,y_\pm )\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)
with $`\rho _\pm =n\pm \sqrt{4n^2+\frac{ϵ}{\kappa }}`$.

The dimensional reduction along the Killing vector (45) will yield a bound state of D6-branes, located on the quaternionic space at these fixed points. The number depends on the choice of parameters, but can be at most five (for $`ϵ,\kappa >0`$) where two of them (at $`\rho =\rho _{}`$) are disconnected from the other three (at $`\rho =n`$ and $`\rho =\rho _+`$) by the curvature singularity at $`\rho =n`$. Recall, there are different (physical) regions for $`\rho `$ (see figure 2) and hence some fixed points may not have a physical sensible interpretation. The correct identification of the D6-branes is, however, a subtle point. E.g. because $`x_+x_{}+y_+y_{}=4`$ the two points ($`x_+,y_+`$) and ($`x_{},y_{}`$) are antipodal points in the ($`x,y`$)-space (i.e. for $`ϵ=1`$ on the $`𝕊^2`$) and one may be tempted to identify the two branes. But note, since the Killing vector is zero at both points and non-singular in between, the eigenvalue of $`dk`$ have to be different at both fixed points, which implies that the 6-brane charge or tension will be different. It would be interesting to see whether our model corresponds to one of the supersymmetric intersecting brane worlds or the relation to the non-supersymmetric ones; see e.g.  and refs. therein.

A subtle question concerns also the dilaton. In adapted coordinates one can write the 7-metric as in eq. (40), where $`x_{11}`$ correspond to $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$ is proportional to the dilaton. Unfortunately, $`e^{2\varphi }|k|^2`$, which becomes the string coupling constant, is not bounded for our solution. While for $`\kappa >0`$ the range of $`\rho `$ is bounded, see figure 2, but $`|u|`$ is unbounded, see eq. (18). On the other hand for a non-compact quaternionic space, with $`\kappa 0`$, is situation is opposite. Therefore, in any case there are asymptotic regions where $`|k|^2e^{2\varphi }`$ blows up and one should look for similar deformation as the ones discussed in  to obtain a finite string coupling constant.

## 5 Outlook: Membrane instantons and new spin(7) metric

We mentioned already a few aspects that deserve further investigations, but let us add another two.

A. Resolution of the curvature singularity by Membrane instantons

One genuine feature of our $`G_2`$ manifold is the appearance of a curvature singularity; otherwise the continues deformation of two topological different spaces (like $`𝕊^4`$ and $`^2`$) would be difficult to understand. Although for $`\kappa <0`$ the singularity is inside an unphysical coordinate range (with timelike coordinates), the validity of the supergravity solution is a subtle question. One may therefore look for possibilities to resolve the singularity. An interesting possibility could be to turn on appropriate fluxes along the lines discussed in . But non-trivial fluxes play an important role also in a somewhat different aspect. Namely the curvature singularity in eq. (37) disappears if $`ϵ+4\kappa n^2=0`$ (or $`\rho _{}=\rho _+`$) and since $`\kappa `$ is the constant curvature of the 4-d quaternionic space, this value can effectively be changed by turning on 4-form fluxes. In fact, this possibility has been discussed as “Neutralization of the cosmological constant” and corresponds to take into account membrane instanton effects . What will happen with the quaternionic space in the limit $`\rho _+=\rho _{}`$? Setting $`ϵ=1`$ and $`\kappa =1`$ so that $`n=1/2`$ we transform $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cosh}R`$ and the metric becomes

$$ds^2=dR^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2Rd\mathrm{\Omega }_3$$
(49)
which is one parameterization of Euclidean $`AdS_4`$ space. This metric covers only the region $`\rho >n`$, but for $`\rho <n`$ one obtains the same metric so that both physical regions are decoupled and the region with the curvature singularity disappeared and moreover all fixed points are joined at $`\rho =\pm n`$ which corresponds to the point $`R=0`$ where the metric becomes flat. But note, the 4-form flux will not only change the effective value of the curvature of the quaternionic space, it will also cause a back reaction on the 7-metric which requires a detailed analysis. Needless to say, that it would be also interesting to calculate the superpotential caused by these 4-form fluxes .

There is also another effect that may weaken or resolve the curvature singularity, namely to change effectively $`n`$ by a multi-center solution (as for Taub-NUT or the Eguchi-Hanson space). It is unclear whether these multi-center solution for quaternionic spaces exist, but one could try to construct them similar to the multi-center supergravity solutions of .

B. New Spin(7) metrics

We have considered here only generalizations of known 7-manifolds with $`G_2`$ holonomy, but analogous calculations will also yield more general 8-manifolds with Spin(7) holonomy. If one follows again the work by Bryant and Salamon, the corresponding metric of the 8-manifold becomes

$$ds^2=f^2\alpha \overline{\alpha }+g^2e^me^m$$
(50)
where $`e^me^m`$ is again the metric of a quaternionic space and $`\alpha =duuA`$, where we used the quaternionic notation $`u=u^0+iu^1+ju^2+ku^3`$ and $`A=iA^1+jA^2+kA^3`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ connection of the quaternionic space. The function $`f=f(|u|)`$ and $`g=g(|u|)`$ are again the same as in  and new fixed points are again encoded by the quaternionic space. Also, one may turn on fluxes and calculate the superpotential or replace the $`^4`$, spanned by the coordinates $`u^m`$, by a hyper Kaehler space and finds a IIA description of 6-branes wrapping the quaternionic space. Some related work in these directions has been done e.g. in .

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank R. Blumenhagen, G. Dall’Agata, S. Gukov and A. Klemm for helpful discussions. This work is supported by a Heisenberg grant of the DFG.


format: text

text:
# DESY 02-043 ISSN 0418-9833 April 2002 Heavy Quarkonium Spectrum at 𝒪(𝛼_𝑠⁵𝑚_𝑞) and Bottom/Top Quark Mass Determination.

## 1 Introduction

Quark masses enter the Lagrangian of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) as fundamental parameters. Thus, it is of primary interest to perform accurate determinations of the mass values combining experimental input with precision calculations from the theoretical side. In this letter we focus on the bottom and top quark masses. The bottom quark mass is of particular interest due to the current and future $`B`$ physics experiments. In the observables used to extract the Cabibbo-Kobajashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements and to gain deeper insight in the understanding of CP violation the bottom quark mass enters as a crucial input quantity. Thus a precise knowledge of the latter is essential for the interpretation of the experimental data. On the other hand, the top quark mass is one of the key parameters for precision tests of the standard model of the electroweak interactions at high energies and for the search of “new physics” at a future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider.

Whereas the masses of the up, down and strange quark require major non-perturbative input the higher quark masses can be computed with relatively high accuracy using perturbative methods. The study of nonrelativistic heavy-quark-antiquark systems is one of the most promising approaches in this respect. These systems allow for a model-independent perturbative treatment which relies entirely on first principles of QCD . Nonperturbative effects  are well under control for the top-antitop system and, at least for the ground state resonance, also for bottomonium. This makes heavy-quark-antiquark systems an ideal laboratory to determine the heavy-quark masses. Besides its phenomenological importance, the heavy-quarkonium system is very interesting from the theoretical point of view because it possesses a highly sophisticated multiscale dynamics and its study demands the full power of the effective-theory approach.

Among other characteristics of the heavy quarkonium system the ground state energy is of primary phenomenological interest. It can be directly used to extract the bottom quark mass from the lowest resonance of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ family and essentially determines the resonance energy in $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold production. The $`𝒪(\alpha _s^4m_q)`$ heavy quarkonium spectrum was obtained first in  and afterwards confirmed in . At $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5m_q)`$ the heavy quarkonium spectrum was derived in  for vanishing $`\beta `$-function and the large-$`\beta _0`$ result can be found in .

In the present letter we complete the result of  for the ground state energy by calculating the remaining terms proportional to $`\beta `$-function. We apply the result to the determination of the bottom quark mass from the mass of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ resonance and give an explicit formula relating the top quark mass to the resonance energy in $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold production both for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions. The main results are given by Eqs. (12), (23) and (26).

## 2 Perturbative heavy quarkonium ground state energy at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5m_q)`$

For the calculation of the ground state energy we follow the general approach of . It is based on the nonrelativistic effective theory concept  in its potential NRQCD (pNRQCD) incarnation  and is implemented with the threshold expansion . In pNRQCD the dynamics of the nonrelativistic potential heavy quark-antiquark pair is governed by the effective Schrödinger equation and by its multipole interaction to the ultrasoft gluons. The relativistic effects of the harder modes that have been “integrated out” are encoded in the higher-dimensional operators which appear in the effective Hamiltonian and correspond to an expansion in the heavy quark velocity $`v`$, and the Wilson coefficients which are series in the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$.

The analysis of the heavy quarkonium spectrum at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5m_q)`$, i.e. the third order corrections to the Coulomb approximation involves two basic ingredients: the effective Hamiltonian and the retardation effect associated with the emission and absorption of dynamical ultrasoft gluons. The general form of the Hamiltonian valid up to next-to-next-to-next-to-leading order111In such a framework one has two expansion parameters, $`\alpha _s`$ and $`v`$. The corrections are classified according to the total power of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`v`$, i.e. NkLO corrections contain terms of $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^lv^m\right)`$, with $`l+m=k`$. This has the consequence that, in general, different loop orders, which are counted in powers of $`\alpha _s`$, contribute to the NkLO result. Note, that for the corrections to the parameters of a heavy quarkonium bound state, where $`v\alpha _s`$, the standard ordering in powers of $`\alpha _s`$ is restored. (N3LO) is given in . A detailed discussion of the effects resulting from the chromoelectric dipole interaction of the heavy quark-antiquark pair to the ultrasoft gluons relevant for perturbative bound-state calculations at N3LO can be found in .

For vanishing angular momentum we can write the energy level of the principal quantum number $`n`$ as

$$E_n^{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{t}.}=E_n^C+\delta E_n^{(1)}+\delta E_n^{(2)}+\delta E_n^{(3)}+\mathrm{},$$
(1)
where the leading order Coulomb energy is given by

$`E_n^C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_F^2\alpha _s^2m_q}{4n^2}}.`$ (2)
$`\delta E_n^{(k)}`$ stands for corrections of order $`\alpha _s^k`$. The first and second order corrections can be found in  for arbitrary $`n`$. For the ground state one gets

$`\delta E_1^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\left[4\beta _0L_\mu +4\beta _0+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{2}}\right],`$
$`\delta E_1^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^2[12\beta _0^2L_\mu ^2+(16\beta _0^2+3a_1\beta _0+4\beta _1)L_\mu +(4+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}+8\zeta (3))\beta _0^2`$ (3)
$`+2a_1\beta _0+4\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{8}}+\pi ^2C_AC_F+({\displaystyle \frac{21\pi ^2}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}S(S+1))C_F^2],`$
where $`L_\mu =\mathrm{ln}(\mu /(C_F\alpha _sm_q))`$, $`\zeta (3)=1.202057\mathrm{}`$ is Riemann’s $`\zeta `$-function, $`C_F=4/3`$ and $`C_A=3`$ are the eigenvalues of the quadratic Casimir operators of the fundamental and adjoint representations of the colour gauge group, respectively. The modified minimal-subtraction ($`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$) scheme for the renormalization of $`\alpha _s`$ is implied. The coefficients $`a_i`$ parameterize the $`i`$-loop perturbative corrections to the Coulomb potential. The analytical results for the one-  and two-loop  coefficients are

$`a_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{31}{9}}C_A{\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}T_Fn_l,`$
$`a_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4343}{162}}+4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^4}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{22}{3}}\zeta (3)\right]C_A^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1798}{81}}+{\displaystyle \frac{56}{3}}\zeta (3)\right]C_AT_Fn_l`$ (4)
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{55}{3}}16\zeta (3)\right]C_FT_Fn_l+\left({\displaystyle \frac{20}{9}}T_Fn_l\right)^2,`$
where $`T_F=1/2`$ is the index of the fundamental representation and $`n_l`$ is the number of light-quark flavors. For convenience of the reader we also provide the first three coefficients of the QCD $`\beta `$-function

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{11}{3}}C_A{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}T_Fn_l\right),`$
$`\beta _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{34}{3}}C_A^2{\displaystyle \frac{20}{3}}C_AT_Fn_l4C_FT_Fn_l\right),`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}({\displaystyle \frac{2857}{54}}C_A^3{\displaystyle \frac{1415}{27}}C_A^2T_Fn_l{\displaystyle \frac{205}{9}}C_AC_FT_Fn_l+2C_F^2T_Fn_l+{\displaystyle \frac{158}{27}}C_AT_F^2n_l^2`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{44}{9}}C_FT_F^2n_l^2).`$
The $`𝒪\left(\alpha _s^3\right)`$ corrections to the energy levels arise from several sources:

* matrix elements of the N3LO operators of the effective Hamiltonian between Coulomb wave functions;
* higher iterations of the NLO and NNLO operators of the effective Hamiltonian in time-independent perturbation theory;
* matrix elements of the N3LO instantaneous operators generated by the emission and absorption of ultrasoft gluons; and
* the retarded ultrasoft contribution.

The contributions to $`E_n^{(3)}`$ for vanishing $`\beta `$-function were computed for general $`n`$ in . The corresponding correction to the ground state energy gets contributions from all four sources and reads

$`\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{\beta (\alpha _s)=0}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^3}{\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{a_1a_2+a_3}{32\pi ^2}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{C_AC_F}{2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{19}{16}}+{\displaystyle \frac{S(S+1)}{2}})C_F^2]a_1`$ (6)
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{36}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{L_{\alpha _s}}{6}}\right]C_A^3+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{49}{36}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(\mathrm{ln}2+L_{\alpha _s}\right)\right]C_A^2C_F`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{5}{72}}+{\displaystyle \frac{10}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2+{\displaystyle \frac{37}{6}}L_{\alpha _s}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{85}{54}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}L_{\alpha _s}\right)S(S+1)\right]C_AC_F^2`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{50}{9}}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\mathrm{ln}2+3L_{\alpha _s}{\displaystyle \frac{S(S+1)}{3}}\right]C_F^3`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{15}}+2\mathrm{ln}2+(1\mathrm{ln}2)S(S+1)\right]C_F^2T_F`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{49C_AC_FT_Fn_l}{36}}+[{\displaystyle \frac{11}{18}}{\displaystyle \frac{10}{27}}S(S+1)]C_F^2T_Fn_l+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C_F^3L_1^E\},`$
where $`S`$ is the spin quantum number and $`L_{\alpha _s}=\mathrm{ln}(C_F\alpha _s)`$. The terms proportional to $`a_1`$ correspond to the iterations of lower-order operators as mentioned in point (ii) of the above list. The last term in Eq. (6) corresponds to retarded ultrasoft contribution (cf. point (iv)). The corresponding QCD Bethe logarithms can be found in  with the numerical result $`L_1^E=81.5379`$. The logarithmic $`\mathrm{ln}(\alpha _s)`$ part of Eq. (6) is known from previous analyses . At present, only Padé estimates of the three-loop $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coefficient $`a_3`$ are available . For the bottom and top quark case they read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_3}{4^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}98\hfill & \text{if }n_l=4\text{ ,}\hfill \\ 60\hfill & \text{if }n_l=5\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
Note that at N3LO the Wilson coefficients in the effective Hamiltonian are infrared (IR) divergent. The corresponding divergence is canceled against the ultraviolet (UV) one of the ultrasoft contribution. In our analysis based on the threshold expansion dimensional regularization is used to handle the divergences. For convenience, the IR singular pole part of the Wilson coefficients is subtracted according to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ prescription, so that the coefficients, in particular $`a_3`$, are defined in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ subtraction scheme both for UV and IR divergences. For consistency, the UV pole of the ultrasoft contribution is subtracted in the same way .

The third order corrections to the ground state energy proportional to the $`\beta `$-function only get contributions from (i) and (ii). The computation of the contribution from (i) is rather straightforward. It includes the corrections due to the three-loop running of the Coulomb potential which we mark by $`C.r.`$, and the one-loop running of the $`1/m_q`$-suppressed and the Breit potential $`(B.r.)`$ of the following form

$`\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{C.r.}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^3\{16\beta _0^3L_\mu ^3+[48\beta _0^3+6a_1\beta _0^2+20\beta _1\beta _0]L_\mu ^2`$ (8)
$`+\left[12\pi ^2\beta _0^3+12a_1\beta _0^2+\left(40\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a_2\right)\beta _0+2a_1\beta _1+4\beta _2\right]L_\mu `$
$`+12\pi ^2\beta _0^3+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{2}}a_1\beta _0^2+(5\pi ^2\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a_2)\beta _0+2a_1\beta _1+4\beta _2\},`$
$`\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{B.r.}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\alpha _s^3}{\pi }}\{[4C_AC_F+(1{\displaystyle \frac{4S(S+1)}{3}})C_F^2]L_\mu `$ (9)
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4S(S+1)}{3}})C_F^2\}.`$
The contribution of the type (ii) can be computed using the general approach of  (see also ). It includes the corrections due to the iterations of the one- and two-loop running of the Coulomb potential which we mark by $`C.i.`$, and the iteration of the kinetic energy correction, the $`1/m_q`$ and the Breit potential with the one-loop running of the Coulomb potential $`(B.i.)`$. The corresponding analytical expressions read

$`\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{C.i.}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^3\{16\beta _0^3L_\mu ^3+[8\beta _0^3+6a_1\beta _0^2+8\beta _1\beta _0]L_\mu ^2`$ (10)
$`+\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{20\pi ^2}{3}}+64\zeta (3)\right)\beta _0^32a_1\beta _0^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{4}}\right)\beta _0+a_1\beta _1\right]L_\mu `$
$`+\left(88\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^4}{45}}+64\zeta (3)8\pi ^2\zeta (3)+96\zeta (5)\right)\beta _0^3`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{5\pi ^2}{6}}+8\zeta (3))a_1\beta _0^2+((8{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi ^2}{3}}+16\zeta (3))\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{8}})\beta _0\},`$
$`\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{B.i.}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0\alpha _s^3}{\pi }}\{[4C_AC_F+({\displaystyle \frac{19}{2}}4S(S+1))C_F^2]L_\mu `$ (11)
$`+(6{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}})C_AC_F+(9{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{3}}+({\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{9}})S(S+1))C_F^2\},`$
where $`\zeta (5)=1.036928\mathrm{}`$. As a cross-check to our analytical calculation we computed the non-trivial ingredients by solving the eigenvalue problem numerically in the limit $`\alpha _s0`$ with the help of the program schroedinger.nb .

By adding (8), (9), (10) and (11) we obtain the third order correction to the ground state energy proportional to the $`\beta `$-function

$`\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{\beta (\alpha _s)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_1^C\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }}\right)^3\{32\beta _0^3L_\mu ^3+[40\beta _0^3+12a_1\beta _0^2+28\beta _1\beta _0]L_\mu ^2`$ (12)
$`+[({\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}}+64\zeta (3))\beta _0^3+10a_1\beta _0^2+(40\beta _1+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{2}}+a_2`$
$`+8\pi ^2C_AC_F+({\displaystyle \frac{21\pi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^2}{3}}S(S+1))C_F^2)\beta _0+3a_1\beta _1+4\beta _2]L_\mu `$
$`+\left(8+4\pi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^4}{45}}+64\zeta (3)8\pi ^2\zeta (3)+96\zeta (5)\right)\beta _0^3+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2}{3}}+8\zeta (3)\right)a_1\beta _0^2`$
$`+((8+{\displaystyle \frac{7\pi ^2}{3}}+16\zeta (3))\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}a_2+(6\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^4}{3}})C_AC_F`$
$`+(8\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^4}{3}}+({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^4}{9}})S(S+1))C_F^2)\beta _0+2a_1\beta _1+4\beta _2\}.`$
The terms proportional to $`\beta _0^3`$ in Eqs. (12) can be found in .

The total result for the third order correction to the ground state energy is given by the sum of Eqs. (6) and (12)

$$\delta E_1^{(3)}=\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{\beta (\alpha _s)=0}+\delta E_1^{(3)}|_{\beta (\alpha _s)}.$$
(13)
Adopting the choice $`\mu _s=C_F\alpha _s(\mu _s)m_q`$ one obtains for the bottom and top system (for S=1) in numerical form

$`\delta E_1^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _s^3(\mu _s)E_1^C\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}70.590|_{n_l=4}\\ 56.732|_{n_l=5}\end{array}\right)+15.297\mathrm{ln}(\alpha _s(\mu _s))+0.001a_3+\left(\begin{array}{c}34.229|_{n_l=4}\\ 26.654|_{n_l=5}\end{array}\right)|_{\beta _0^3}\right],`$ (18)
where we have separated the contributions arising from $`a_3`$ and $`\beta _0^3`$. The only unknown ingredient in our result for $`\delta E_1^{(3)}`$ is the three-loop $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ coefficient $`a_3`$ of the corrections to the static potential entering Eq. (6). Up to now there are only estimates based on Padé approximation which we will use in our analysis. However, we will show that our final result only changes marginally even for a rather large deviations of $`a_3`$ from its Padé estimate.

## 3 Bottom and top quark mass determination

In this section we focus on the bottom and top quark mass determination. We fix the value of the strong coupling constant which enters our theoretical expression to $`\alpha _s^{(5)}(M_Z)=0.1185\pm 0.002`$ .

Bottom quark. The starting point for the determination of the bottom quark mass is its relation to the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ resonance

$`M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}=2m_b+E_1^{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{t}.}+\delta ^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{p}.}E_1,`$ (20)
with $`M_{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)}=9.46030(26)`$ GeV . Here $`\delta ^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{p}.}E_1`$ is the nonperturbative correction to the ground state energy. The dominant nonperturbative correction is associated with the gluon condensate contribution given by

$$\delta ^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{p}.}E_1=\frac{1872}{1275}\frac{m_q\alpha _sG_{\mu \nu }^aG^{a\mu \nu }}{(C_F\alpha _sm_q)^4}=60\pm 30\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(21)
For the numerical estimate we use $`\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu _s)=0.304`$ corresponding to the soft normalization scale $`\mu _s=C_F\alpha _s(\mu _s)m_b`$ characteristic to the Coulomb problem and $`m_b=4.83`$ GeV which is obtained from Eq. (20) neglecting the corrections to the Coulomb binding energy. This is consistent with neglecting the perturbative correction to Eq. (21). For the gluon condensate we adopt the value from  $`\alpha _sG^{a\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }^a=0.04(2)\text{GeV}^4`$. The effect of higher dimension condensates on the ground state energy is small . Note, however, that the contribution of the gluon condensate to the energy level of principal quantum number $`n`$ grows as $`n^6`$ and becomes unacceptably large already for $`n=2`$. Thus the excited levels are very sensitive to the nonperturbative long-wave vacuum fluctuations of the gluon field and cannot be used for reliable predictions.

Combining Eq. (20) with the result of the previous section for the perturbative ground state energy up to $`𝒪(m_q\alpha _s^5)`$ we obtain the bottom quark mass as a function the renormalization scale of the strong coupling constant normalization, $`\mu `$, which is plotted in Fig. 1(a). For the numerical evaluation we extract $`\alpha _s^{(4)}(m_b)`$ with $`m_b=4.83`$ GeV from its value at $`M_Z`$ using four-loop $`\beta `$-function accompanied with three-loop matching222We use the package RunDec  to perform the running and matching of $`\alpha _s`$. $`\alpha _s^{(4)}(m_b)`$ is used as starting point in order to evaluate $`\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu )`$ at NkLO with the help of the $`k`$-loop $`\beta `$ function. From Fig. 1(a) we see that the dependence on the renormalization scale becomes very strong below $`\mu 2`$ GeV which indicates that the perturbative corrections are not under control. However, even above this scale the perturbative series for the pole mass shows no sign of convergence. This means that one can assign a numerical value to the pole mass only in a specified order of perturbation theory.

On the contrary, it is widely believed that the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ at the scale $`\mu =\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ is a short-distance object which has much better perturbative properties. Thus, it seems to be reasonable to convert our result for the pole mass into $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$. The relation between $`m_b`$ and $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ is known up to three-loop approximation  and shows sizable perturbative corrections. For this reason we suggest the following procedure to take into account these corrections in a most accurate way. The idea is that from the one-parametric family of $`\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ we can choose a representative corresponding to some scale $`\mu ^{}`$ in such a way that

$$\overline{m}_b(\mu ^{})=m_b.$$
(22)
For a given fixed-order value of the pole mass Eq. (22) can be solved for $`\mu ^{}`$. In particular, for a pole mass to NkLO we use the $`k`$-loop relation between the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ and pole mass in Eq. (22). Afterwards $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ can be computed from $`\overline{m}_b(\mu ^{})`$ solving the RG equation. The advantage of this approach is obvious: we use the finite order relation between $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ and pole mass at the scale where they are perturbatively close while the large difference between $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ and $`m_b`$ is completely covered by the RG evolution which can be computed with very high accuracy as the corresponding anomalous dimension is known to four-loop approximation . The only restriction on the method could be connected to the value of $`\mu ^{}`$. It should be large enough to allow for a reliable use of the RG equation. As we will see this condition is satisfied in practice.

In Fig. 1(b) our result for $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ is plotted at NLO, NNLO and N3LO as a function of the normalization scale $`\mu `$ which is used to obtain the pole mass $`m_b`$ (cf. Fig. 1(a)). It is remarkable that close to $`\mu =2.7`$ GeV, which is consistent with the physically motivated soft scale $`\mu _s2`$ GeV, both the second and the third order corrections vanish. This fact is a rather strong indication of the convergence of the series for $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$. The numerical values for $`m_b`$, $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ at $`\mu =2.7`$ GeV as well as the values of $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\alpha _s^{(4)}(\mu ^{})`$ are listed in Tab. 1 for the different orders.

An alternative approach to extract $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ was suggested in  within the so-called upsilon-expansion. The basic idea is to correlate the approximation for the energy spectrum and the one of the quark mass relation by matching the leading powers of $`\beta _0`$. As a consequence the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$-order correction to the spectrum goes along with the $`(k+1)`$-loop mass relation. In this way the large corrections proportional to leading powers of $`\beta _0`$, which are associated to the IR renormalon contribution, are canceled in $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$. In order to perform the analysis at N3LO the four-loop relation between the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ and pole mass is necessary for which we adopt the large-$`\beta _0`$ approximation result . One can expect that it is close to the exact answer as the large-$`\beta _0`$ approximation also works well at three-loop order . Adopting this prescription we obtain $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ as shown in Fig. 1(c). Note that within the upsilon-expansion the “scale of best convergence” is absent. Though the NNLO correction vanishes at $`\mu 2.7`$ GeV as it does within our $`\mu ^{}`$ prescription the N3LO one at this point is sizable as can be seen from Tab. 1. This fact can be explained by the observation that the hypothesis of the renormalon contribution dominance in the perturbative series for the energy levels does not work at N3LO. To be precise, if one sets $`\mu =\mu _s`$ in Eq. (12) one finds that the renormalon induced term proportional to $`\beta _0^3`$ is indeed large, however, it covers less than a half of the total third order contribution to $`E_1`$ which can be seen from Eq. (LABEL:eq:dele3num). As a consequence, one would have to assign a larger uncertainty from the unknown higher order corrections to the N3LO value given in the last row of Tab. 1.

The uncertainty in the obtained value of $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ originates from several sources which are listed in Tab. 2. Beside the uncertainties in $`\alpha _s^{(5)}(M_Z)`$ and the gluon condensate one has to take into account the errors in the Padé estimates of the coefficient $`a_3`$, the charm quark mass effects and the higher order contributions. Let us consider the corresponding errors in more detail. In the above analysis we neglected the charm quark mass both in the correction to the spectrum and in $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-pole mass relation. As an estimate of the induced error we use the available results incorporating the charm quark mass effects in the spectrum  and the quark mass relation . The value of higher order contributions is difficult to estimate. The nice convergence of the series for $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ in the first three orders implies their small size. Commonly the uncertainties from the higher orders are related to the uncertainty induced by a variation of the normalization scale $`\mu `$. We estimate it by allowing a variation of $`\mu `$ by $`\pm 400`$ MeV, which corresponds to twice the difference between the scales at which the NNLO and N3LO corrections vanish, around our optimal value $`\mu =2.7`$ GeV. The uncertainty related to the error in the Padé estimate for $`a_3`$ can be written as $`(a_3^{(n_l=4)}/981)\times 10`$ MeV and will completely disappear once the exact computation becomes available. For the numerical estimate we allow for a $`\pm 100\%`$ deviation of $`a_3`$ from the Padé estimate.

Finally, our prediction for the bottom quark $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass reads

$$\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.346\pm 0.070\mathrm{GeV},$$
(23)
where the uncertainties are added up in quadrature.

Now we are in the position to compare our result to the estimates obtained with other methods. There are different approaches to determine the bottom quark mass from the $`b\overline{b}`$ pair production close to threshold which are quite complementary as they are based on different experimental and theoretical input. Three basic techniques can be distinguished:

* the direct analysis of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances spectrum;
* low-order moments sum rules;
* the nonrelativistic $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ sum rules.

Each approach has its own advantages and shortcomings. They are briefly characterized below and the results of the most recent theoretical analyses based on (i) – (iii) are listed in Tab. 3.

The direct analysis of the spectrum of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances  used in this letter suffers from large nonperturbative corrections. The exited levels are too sensitive to the nonperturbative dynamics and only the ground state can be used for reliable predictions. On the other hand currently the most accurate perturbative description has been achieved within this framework.

Study of the low-order moments of the spectral density within the sum rules approach relies on the global quark-hadron duality. Nonperturbative effects are negligible. The theoretical analysis consists in fully relativistic fixed-order calculations which have been performed up to NNLO . The method allows for a direct determination of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass. It is, however, sensitive to the behaviour of the spectral density above the threshold which is not well known experimentally.

The nonrelativistic $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ sum rules  are “between” the approaches (i) and (ii). They operate with the high (of the order $`1/\alpha _s^2`$) moments of the spectral density, which are saturated by the nonrelativistic near-threshold region. The experimental input is given by the parameters of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ resonances which are known with high accuracy. On the theoretical side the nonperturbative effects are well under control, however, the Coulomb effects should be properly taken into account. By now the analysis has been performed up to NNLO . The extension to N3LO is a challenging theoretical problem. In particular, it requires the calculation of third order corrections to the heavy quarkonium wave function at the origin. The first steps in this direction has been performed in .

As we see from the Tab. 3 the results of all approaches are in reasonable agreement.

Top quark. Let us now turn to the top quark case where the experimental data are not yet available. Our goal is to present a formula which can be directly used for the top quark mass determination from the characteristics of the cross section of $`t\overline{t}`$ production near threshold. One has to distinguish the production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation where the final state quark-antiquark pair is produced with $`S=1`$ and in (unpolarized) $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions where the dominant contribution is given by the $`S`$-wave zero spin final state.

The nonperturbative effects in the case of the top quark are negligible, however, the effect of the top quark width has to be taken into account properly  as the relatively large width smears out the Coulomb-like resonances below the threshold. The NNLO analysis of the cross section  shows that only the ground state pole results in the well-pronounced resonance. The higher poles and continuum, however, affect the position of the resonance peak and move it to higher energy. As a consequence, the resonance energy can be written in the form

$`E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ $`=`$ $`2m_t+E_1^{\mathrm{p}.\mathrm{t}.}+\delta ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}E_{\mathrm{res}}.`$ (24)
To compute the shift of the peak position due to the nonzero top quark width $`\delta ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}E_{\mathrm{res}}`$ we use the result of  for the $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma t\overline{t}`$ cross sections at NNLO. Numerically we get for both processes

$$\delta ^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}E_{\mathrm{res}}=100\pm 10\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(25)
This value is rather stable with respect to the variation of all input parameters of our analysis such as the top quark mass and width, the value of the strong coupling constant and its renormalization scale. In the following we adopt as our central input value $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t=1.43`$ GeV  and use for the soft renormalization scale $`\mu _s=C_F\alpha _s(\mu _s)m_t`$. For $`m_t=174.3`$ GeV  the latter gives $`\mu _s30`$ GeV.

To evaluate the perturbative contribution we use the result of the previous section up to N3LO. In Figs. 2(a) and (b) the perturbative ground state energy in NLO, NNLO and N3LO is plotted as a function of the renormalization scale of the strong coupling constant for $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$, respectively. One can see, that the N3LO result shows a much weaker dependence on $`\mu `$ than the NNLO one. Moreover at the scale $`\mu 15`$ GeV for $`S=1`$ and $`\mu 18`$ GeV for $`S=0`$, which are close to the physically motivated scale $`\mu _s`$, the N3LO correction vanishes and furthermore becomes independent of $`\mu `$, i.e. the N3LO curve shows a local minimum. This suggests the convergence of the series for the ground state energy in the pole mass scheme, which is inconsistent with the renormalon picture. Transforming the result to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ top quark mass leads to a worse convergence of the series for the resonance energy. However, the difference in the series behaviour due to the use of different mass parameters is less significant than in the case of the bottom quark as $`\alpha _s`$ for the top system is much smaller (see, e.g.). Note that the result shows very weak spin dependence.

Collecting all the contributions we obtain a universal relation between the resonance energy in $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold production in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation or $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions and the top quark pole mass

$$E_{\mathrm{res}}=(1.9833+0.007\frac{m_t174.3\text{GeV}}{174.3\text{GeV}}\pm 0.0009)\times m_t,$$
(26)
where the weak nonlinear dependence of Eq. (24) on $`m_t`$ is taken into account in the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (26). The central value is computed for $`m_t=174.3`$ GeV. The sources of the theoretical uncertainty in Eq. (26) are listed in Tab. 2 in terms of the resonance energy. For the estimates we assume a $`\pm 100\%`$ error in the Padé approximation of the coefficient $`a_3`$ and vary the normalization scale in the stability interval which is roughly given by $`0.4\mu _s<\mu <\mu _s`$. Due to the very nice behaviour of the perturbative expansion for the ground state energy we do not expect large higher order corrections to our result.

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter we have completed the result of  for the N3LO corrections to the ground state energy of perturbative heavy quarkonium by computing the contributions proportional to the $`\beta `$-function, Eq. (12). We have found that the N3LO corrections are dominated neither by logarithmically enhanced $`\alpha _s^3\mathrm{ln}(\alpha _s)`$ nor by the renormalon induced $`\beta _0^3\alpha _s^3`$ terms (cf. Eq. (LABEL:eq:dele3num)) and thus the full calculation of the correction is crucial for quantitative analysis.

The result has been applied to determine the bottom quark mass from the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ resonance. The perturbative series for the extracted bottom quark pole mass diverges and should be removed from the analysis in favour of the short-distance mass $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ to get a reliable prediction. Our result (23) for $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)`$ is in reasonable agreement with the NNLO estimates obtained in the framework of nonrelativistic $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ sum rules and the approach based on low moments, however, with a slightly higher central value.

The explicit formula (26) relating the top quark mass to the resonance energy in $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold production both in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation and $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions has been derived. In contrast to the bottom quark case the perturbative expansion for the ground state energy of a (hypothetical) top-antitop bound state converges very well in the pole mass scheme. As a consequence the top quark pole mass can be extracted from the future experimental data on $`t\overline{t}`$ threshold production with the theoretical uncertainty of $`\pm 80`$ MeV.

Acknowledgments

We thank B.A. Kniehl and V.A. Smirnov for carefully reading the manuscript and useful comments and A. Hoang for discussions about the upsilon-expansion. This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No. KN 365/1-1 and by the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung through Grant No. 05 HT1GUA/4.