Arxiv:1807.05406V5 [Hep-Ph] 30 Nov 2020 Following Way N F = Nl +Nh

Eur. Phys. J. C manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor)

Multiloop contributions to the on-shell-MS heavy quark mass relation in QCD and the asymptotic structure of the corresponding series: the updated consideration

A. L. Kataev a,1, V. S. Molokoedov b,1,2 1Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 60th October Anniversary prospect 7a, Moscow, 117312, Russia 2Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Institusky per. 9, Dolgoprudny, Moscow region, 141700, Russia

Received: date / Accepted: date

Abstract The asymptotic structure of the QCD perturbative following form: relation between the on-shell and MS heavy quark masses is m = ZOSM , m = ZMSm , (1) studied. We estimate the five and six-loop contributions to 0,q m q 0,q m q this relation by three different techniques. First, the effective where m0,q, Mq and mq are the bare, pole and MS-scheme charges motivated approach in two variants is used. Second, running masses respectively. The renormalization mass con- OS MS the results following from the large-β0 approximation are stants Zm and Zm contain the traces of ultraviolet diver- analyzed. Finally, the consequences of applying the asymp- gences in the form of poles and are represented by the pertur- totic renormalon-based formula are investigated. We show bation theory (PT) series in powers of the coupling constant that all approaches lead to corrections which are qualita- of the strong interaction depending on the scale parameter µ tively consistent in order of magnitude. Their sign-alternating and defined in the corresponding subtraction scheme. 2 character in powers of the number of massless quarks is Due to the fact that the masses Mq and mq(µ ) are the demonstrated. We emphasize that there is no contradiction finite renormalized quantities, their ratio must also be finite. in the behavior of the fine structure of the renormalon-based It is convenient to introduce the following relation between estimates with other approaches if one use the detailed infor- the pole and running masses of heavy quarks, also called in mation about the normalization factor included in the renor- the literature as the on-shell-MS mass relation: malon asymptotic formula. The obtained five- and six-loop M ∞ q ˜ M 2 2 k 2 estimates indicate that in the case of the b-quark the asymp- 2 = 1 + ∑ tk (nl,nh, µ /Mq )as (n f , µ ) (2) mq(µ ) totic character of the studied relation manifests itself above k=1 the fourth order of PT, whereas for the t-quark it starts to with the strong coupling constant as = αs/π defined in the reveal itself after the seventh order. This allows to conclude MS-scheme in the Minkowski time-like region. The number that like the running masses, the pole masses of the b and es- of the active flavors n f running inside the fermion loops (the pecially t-quark in principle may be used in the phenomeno- values n f = 4,5,6 correspond to the cases of the charm, bot- logically-oriented studies. tom and top-quarks respectively) is related to the number of the light (massless) nl and heavy (massive) nh flavors by the arXiv:1807.05406v5 [hep-ph] 30 Nov 2020 following way n f = nl +nh. In this work we use the approx- 1 Introduction imation when only one heavy quark is massive i.e. nh = 1 and the rest nl = n f − 1 are massless. It is well known that the bare masses of quarks in QCD M The one-loop term t˜1 was calculated a long time ago can be expressed through their renormalized finite analogs M in [1]. The two-loop correction t˜2 was analytically com- defined in a particular scheme. In this work we will con- 3 puted in [2] and confirmed later in [3,4]. The O(as ) consider primarily two renormalization schemes, namely the tribution was evaluated independently by analytical [5] and MS- and the on-shell OS-scheme. The latter is used for defin- semi-analytical [6] methods. ing the pole masses of heavy quarks. The relevant renormal- M 2 2 In the relation (2) for coefficients t˜k (µ /Mq ) the tran- ization prescriptions for masses of these particles have the sition from the pole mass to the running one can be car- ae-mail: [email protected] ried out by solving the corresponding renormgroup (RG) be-mail: [email protected] equations. After this, it is possible to define the coefficients 2

M 2 2 2 2 tk (µ /mq(µ )). In the normalization point µ = mq we have which is governed by the dominant u = 1/2 infrared renor- M 2 2 2 M M tk ((µ = mq)/mq) = tk (1) ≡ tk and malon contributions to the Borel image of this relation (dis- covered in [13, 14]), leads to the factorial growth of the coef- M ∞ ficients tM at the large orders k. This fast increase is associ- q = 1 + tMak(m2). (3) k 2 ∑ k s q ated with the sensitivity of the pole mass to small momenta, mq(mq) k=1 due to which it suffers from the large perturbative correc- M tions [14, 15]. On the contrary, the running mass, defined In any order of PT the terms tk can be expanded in pow- within the MS-scheme, depends on the ultraviolet (UV) sub- ers of the number of nl and nh. Fixing nh = 1 we arrive to the following expansion: traction of divergences only and, therefore, does not contain the infrared (IR) renormalon contributions. In this regard, k−1 it is very important to know in the specific physical studies M M i tk = ∑ tk,inl. (4) when the asymptotic behavior will begin to manifest itself i=0 in the definite cases of the charm, bottom and top quarks. In particular, the four-loop coefficient tM is a third de- As follows from the results of [2–6] for the c-quark the 4 asymptotic behavior of the on-shell-MS relation reveals it- gree polynomial in nl: self in the rather low orders of PT, namely in the second or M M 3 M 2 M M third order (depending on the normalization point). There- t4 = t4,3nl +t4,2nl +t4,1nl +t4,0 . (5) fore, in the modern high-precision studies it is more prefer- M M able to use the concept of its running mass with the value The first two coefficients t4,3 and t4,2 in (5) were calculated analytically in [7]. Note that the exact numerical ex- extracted e.g. in [20–25]. pressions of the terms leading in powers of nl in (4) were ob- In the case of the b-quark the first traces of the asymp- 2 tained in [8] up to the ninth order of PT from consideration totic structure of the ratio Mb/mb(mb) is observed at the 4 of the contributions generated by a renormalon-type chain O(as ) level [9, 17]. However, for an unambiguous response of quark loops inserted into the gluon line which renormal- to the question about the number of order of PT starting from izes the propagator of the heavy massive quark. The last two which the asymptotic behavior will manifest itself it is nec- coefficients in (5) have not yet been computed in the ana- essary to know the value of the correction of the fifth order. lytical form. However, after the numerical evaluations per- But already from the available data, it follows that unlike the M running mass at the four-level the pole mass of the bottom formed in [9] for the overall term t4 at the fixed number M quark should be used with care. The values of m (m2) were nl = 3,4,5, the approximate values of the contributions t4,1, b b M obtained at the N3LO level as the final results of the QCD t4,0 have been obtained with the help of the least squares method (LSM) in [10]. It allows to solve the overdetermined analysis of the properties of ϒ system within the static po- systems of algebraic equations and also to fix the uncertain- tential studies (see e.g. [23, 25–28]), the QCD sum rules (see ties of its solutions. The similar expressions for these two e.g. [20, 21, 29]) and of the production cross-section of the + − terms were also found in [11] by means of a special fitting bb-quarks in the e e collisions [30]. Also worth mention- procedure. It was based on the application of the renormalon ing the recent results of the lattice QCD determinations [31]. calculus of [12–16] and more definitely on the renormalon These lattice results are stimulating a more careful study of asymptotic formula for coefficients of the relation between the existing uncertainties in the four-loop on-shell-MS mass the pole and running masses of heavy quarks originally de- relation for the b-quark. rived in [15, 16]. For the t-quark the situation is even more intriguing. M The definite results of the experimental analysis of Tevatron Later on the evaluation of the t4 -coefficient was done in [17] with higher precision than in [9] and for a much larger and LHC data are expressed through a Monte-Carlo t-quark number of flavors in the range 0 ≤ nl ≤ 20. The central val- mass, which may be related (though with process-dependent M M uncertainties) to its pole mass (for the detailed considera- ues of terms t4,0 and t4,1, being also extracted in [17] from M tion see e.g. [32–34]). The average PDG(20) value of this the fitting of the numerical results for t4 at the fixed number important quantity, obtained from the recent LHC measure- of nl, agree with the ones obtained with the help of the LSM and presented in the “Note added” of [10] and in [18]. ments and the updated Tevatron analysis, is Mt = 172.76 ± Despite the apparent smallness of the four-loop correc- 0.30 GeV [35]. For comparison, recently the LHC value of tions to the on-shell-MS heavy quark mass relation, its knowl- the pole mass of the t-quark with the thorough estimates of edge is important from both phenomenological and theoret- the various types of uncertainties was obtained in [36] and +0.7 ical points of view. Indeed, the asymptotic nature of the PT reads Mt = 171.1 ± 0.4(stat) ±0.9(syst)−0.3(theor) GeV. series1 for the relation between the pole and running masses, Note that in the process of getting the top-quark mass values the question about inaccuracies of different Monte-Carlo 1See a well-known Dyson’s pioneering work [19] on this topic. programs used for analyzing Tevatron and LHC data has be- 3 come more vivid. This problem is still under careful exami- tion, which was previously studied in [15, 16, 41, 49–51]. nations (see [37, 38] and the reviews of [33, 34]). The aris- Herewith, we consider two variants for fixation of the nor- ing inaccuracies should be compared with other theoretical malization factor included in this factorial formula (for de- errors, which enter into the determinations of both running tails see [41] and [50]). We demonstrate that using both and pole top-quark masses [24, 39, 40]. Moreover, the un- these ways one can obtain the sign-alternating structure of certainties, contributed by at least the first not yet computed the five- and six-loop coefficients in (3). This fact is in full high-order correction to the relation between the pole and agreement with the outcomes following from the applica- running masses, are also of interest [38, 41]. The study of tion of the ECH-motivated method and the large-β0 anal- these effects will be continued in this paper using several ap- ysis. Here we especially emphasize that in contrast to the proaches for estimating high-order QCD corrections to the results of our previous works on this topic [42–44] the sign- on-shell-MS mass relation. alternating structure of the renormalon-based estimates is Our main aim is to analyze the asymptotic structure of observed upon attraction of more detailed information on 2 6 the perturbative series for the ratio Mq/mq(mq) at the O(as ) the normalization factor of the renormalon asymptotic for- level. To get a feeling for what may be the values of the five- mula. and six-loop corrections to this ratio, we estimate them us- In Sec.7 we briefly summarize all the main our results ing three distinct techniques. After this, we restore the gen- presented in the previous sections and consider the numer- 5 6 eral nl-dependence of these estimates (the previous definite ical impact of the estimated O(as ) and O(as ) terms on the results on this topic are presented in brief in [42–44]) and behavior of the on-shell-MS relation for real heavy quarks. demonstrate its sign-alternating character in nl. We show that the application of all methods employed by us The outline of our studies is as follows. In Sec.2 we leads to the results which are consistent with each other in present the current known four-loop corrections to the on- order of magnitude (on average with a factor two). shell-MS mass relation for the particular case of the SU(3) For clarity in Appendix A of this paper we set out the color gauge group. Here we especially emphasize the ap- key points of the LSM, define the way of finding the LSM- 2 M M pearance of the contributions proportional to powers of π - solutions for the terms t4,0 and t4,1 and their uncertainties. terms to the analytical expressions for coefficients of the ra- Note here that as follows from the studies of [10, 18] these tio (3) starting to manifest itself from the two-loop level and solutions of the overdetermined system of algebraic equa- OS originating from calculation of Zm in the Minkowskian on- tions are stable under a change not only in the number of 4 shell subtraction scheme (the first emergence of a π -term nl-equations being considered, but also in the number of un- MS 4 in Zm occurs at the O(as ) level only). knowns involving in this system. In Sec.3 we use the Källen-Lehmann type dispersion re- In order to consider the possible differences in the struc- lation for the “effective” spectral function, defined in the Eu- ture of the perturbative series in QCD and QED in Appendix clidean domain for energies, to model the on-shell π2-terms B we compare the behavior of the PT series for the relation OS 2 contributing to Zm by the analytical continuation π -effects between the pole and running masses of the heavy quarks in arising upon the transition from the Euclidean to Minkow- QCD with the corresponding one for the charged leptons in skian region. QED at the four-loop level. In Sec.4 we apply the approach proposed in [45] and extended in [46] to estimate five- and six-loop corrections M M 2n t5 and t6 with partial incorporation of the π -contributions 2 The on-shell-MS heavy quark mass relation: available being mentioned above. This approximate procedure is based analytical perturbative QCD results on the effective-charges (ECH) method [47] and on the concept of scheme-invariants [48]. Consider first the relation (3) between the pole and running Sec.5 is devoted to the study of the consequences fol- 2 2 heavy quark masses normalized at the scale µ = mq. It is lowing from the results of [8], where the exact numerical known that the heavy quark pole mass Mq is defined in the values of the contributions leading in powers of nl to the on-shell scheme as a pole of the renormalized heavy quark M coefficients tk were computed from consideration of the di- propagator in the Minkowski region. In turn, the scale evo- agrams containing an insert of a chain of quark loops into lution of the MS-scheme heavy quark running mass is first the single gluon line, renormalized the massive quark propa- defined in the Euclidean domain since the calculations of the gator. Note that within the Naive-Nonabelianization (NNA) MS corresponding master integrals for Zm are also performed procedure utilized by us, this leads to the sign-alternating in the Euclidean region: nl-structure of the five- and six-loop PT corrections.  2  (a5) αs(Q ) Sec.6 is dedicated to the investigation of the O s and m (Q2) Z γ (x) 6 q  m  O(as )-estimates found with help of the asymptotic renorma- 2 = exp dx . (6) mq(µ )  β(x)  2 lon-based formula for coefficients of the on-shell-MS rela- αs(µ ) 4

This relation may be transformed to the Minkowski re- The numerical values of these coefficients are: gion by replacement Q2 → s. After this, it is possible to fix γ = 1 , γ = −0.138889n + 4.06944 , (10a) the Minkowskian scale µ2 = m2 and to define m (m2). The 0 1 l q q q 2 2 γ2 = −0.027006n − 2.33813nl + 17.2045 , (10b) dependence of the QCD expansion parameter as(µ ) and of l 2 3 2 the running quark mass mq(µ ) on the renormalization scale γ3 = +0.00579nl + 0.29354nl − 18.5378nl + 80.117 (10c) 2 4 3 2 µ is determined by the following RG equations: γ4 = −0.0000854nl + 0.107977nl + 7.80682nl (10d) ∞ 2 ∂as n+2 − 128.3970nl + 423.611 . µ = β(as) = − βna , (7) ∂ µ2 ∑ s n=0 Note that all renormalized quantities, which enter into ∞ 2 ∂ ln(mq) n+1 ratio (3), are self-consistently defined in the Minkowski re- µ 2 = γm(as) = − ∑ γnas , (8) ∂ µ n=0 gion of energies. In particular case of the SU(3) group the analytical contributions to the first four coefficients of Eq.(3), where β(a ) and γ (a ) are the QCD β-function and the s m s expanded in powers of n (see Eq.(4)), follow from the cal- anomalous mass dimension. In our further consideration we l culations of [1,2,5,7] and read use their MS-like scheme expressions. The one- and two- 4 loop coefficients β0 and β1 of the QCD β-function were M t1,0 = , (11a) computed analytically in [52, 53] and [54–56] respectively. 3 2 The symbolical expressions of the scheme-dependent three- M 71 π t2,1 = − − , (11b) and four-loop coefficients β2 and β3 are known from calcu- 144 18 2 2 lations performed in [57, 58] and [59, 60] correspondingly. M 307 ζ3 π π ln2 t2,0 = − + + , (11c) The coefficient β4 was obtained in analytical form in the 32 6 3 9 SU(3)-group [61] and confirmed in [62, 63] by computing M 2353 7 13 2 t3,2 = + ζ3 + π , (11d) this term in the general SU(Nc) gauge group. Note that in 23328 54 324 4 the process of these calculations the Euclidean contribution, M 231847 241 ln 2 8 1 4 t = − − ζ3 + + Li4 (11e) proportional to the ζ4 = π /90 Riemann function, is appear- 3,1 23328 72 81 27 2 ing for the first time. 61 991 11 2 For our purposes it is convenient to present these coef- + π4 + π2 − − ln2 + ln2 2 , 1944 648 81 81 ficients βn in terms of the number of massless flavors nl = M 8481925 58 1975 55 4 n f − 1. In the case of SU(3) color gauge group their numer- t = + ζ + ζ − ln 2 (11f) 3,0 93312 27 3 216 5 162 ical expressions have the following form: 220 1 695 4 2 652841 1439 − Li4 − π + π − ζ3 β0 = −0.166667nl + 2.58333 , (9a) 27 2 7776 38880 432 = −0.791667n + 5.58333 , (9b) β1 l 575 22 2 2 − ln2 − ln 2 , β2 = +0.094039nl − 4.18084nl + 18.0454 , (9c) 162 81 3 2 42979 317 71 89 β3 = +0.005857nl + 1.5999nl − 23.951nl + 88.684 , (9d) M 4 2 t4,3 = − − ζ3 − π − π , (11g) 4 3 2 1119744 2592 25920 3888 β4 = −0.0017993nl − 0.233054nl + 16.46765nl (9e) M 30575329 40979 241 11 4 − 148.1715n + 359.687 . t , = + ζ3 − ζ5 − ln 2 (11h) l 4 2 4478976 5184 216 486 5 The first scheme-independent coefficient γ0 of the QCD ln 2 44 1 8 1 + − Li − Li anomalous mass dimension function of Eq.(8) was presented 405 81 4 2 27 5 2 in [1]. Its two-, three- and four-loop expressions were ana- 32293 31 6979 5 + π4 + ln2 + π2 + ζ lytically computed in [1, 64], [65, 66], [67, 68] correspond- 466560 9720 3456 48 3 ingly. The coefficient γ of the fifth order was evaluated in 4 103 11 2 case of the SU(3) color gauge group in [69]. This analytical + ln2 − ln2 2 + ln3 2 , result had been confirmed later on in [70] upon more gen- 972 243 243 ∞ eral calculations performed in the SU(Nc)-group. It should k −n where Lin(x) = ∑ x k is the polylogarithmic function. be stressed that the Euclidean contributions ζ4 being pro- k=1 4 portional to π are arising in the QCD expression for γm be- As the result the two- and three-loop coefficients of the 2 ginning from the four-loop level (see [67, 68]), whereas the ratio Mq/mq(mq) have the following numerical form: 6 functions ζ6 proportional to π are starting to reveal them- M 2 t2 = −1.0414nl + 13.443 , (12a) selves at the five-loop level . M 2 t3 = +0.6527nl − 26.655nl + 190.60 . (12b) 2For the explanation of the “postponed” manifestation of the even con- n (a4) tributions ζ2n in the analytical expressions of the QCD RG-functions The numerical l-dependent expression for the O s M of Eqs.(7-8) see [71]. term t4 is known at present with high enough accuracy. We 5

2 combine here the results of the analytical (11g-11h)[7] and Mq/mq(mq), which are defined in the Minkowskian region semi-analytical computations [17] with the LSM-solutions and the “kinematic” π2-terms, arising in the PT coefficients M [18] for the constant t4,0 and linearly dependent on nl term of the Minkowskian RG controllable physical quantities in M t4,1 with their LSM-uncertainties. This leads to the following the MS-scheme and associated with the analytical continu- expression (see Appendix A): ation effects from the Euclidean to Minkowskian domain, we will follow the path treaded in [46] and used later on in tM = − 0.6781n3 + 43.396n2 (12c) 4 l l [81]. For this goal, we consider the Källen-Lehmann type − (745.72 ± 0.036)nl + (3567.61 ± 1.62) . dispersion representation4, which allows to simulate the ap- Note that for our purposes to study the asymptotic struc- pearance of these “kinematic” terms: ture of the on-shell-MS mass relation the uncertainties in- ∞ Z cluded in (12c) are not important and we can neglect them. 2 2 T(s) F(Q ) = Q ds 2 2 . (13) Unlike the coefficients of the QCD β-function and the (s + Q ) 0 anomalous mass dimension the results (12a-12c) clearly demonstrate the sign-alternating pattern in nl. It is interesting Here the model spectral function T(s) is determined in 5 to note that this computational fact is consistent with the the Minkowski region as: theoretical renormalon-inspired large β0-expansion [8, 12]. ∞ k We now return to the discussion concerning the analyt- T(s) = mq(s) 1 + ∑ tkas (s) . (14) ical structure of certain contributions to the formulas (11b- k=1 11h). It is worth emphasizing that the second, third and fourth In this perturbative expression mq(s) is the MS-scheme M M M 2 coefficients t2 , t3 , t4 contain the π -terms typical to the running mass of heavy quark, normalized at the scale µ2 = s Minkowskian on-shell subtraction scheme, while the addi- in the time-like region and tk are the dimensionless coef- 4 tional π -contributions are emergering in the results of three- ficients of this spectral function6. One of the basic ideas of loop calculations and beyond. We expect the appearance of 2 the work [46] consists in a fact that at s = mq the coefficients the π6-terms in the structure of analytical expressions for tk in Eq.(14) are assumed to be equal to the corresponding the yet unknown coefficients tM and tM 3. Comparing the M 4,0 4,1 on-shell scheme coefficients tk of the heavy quark mass re- analytical structure of the (a4) perturbative QCD correc- 2 O s lation (3), i.e. at this point T(mq) = Mq. 2 tions to the ratio Mq/mq(mq) and to the QCD anomalous Substituting the expression (14) into relation (13) one mass dimension γm(as), dictated by the pattern of the quark can arrive to the perturbative representation for the Euclidean MS 2 mass renormalization constant Zm , one can conclude that function F(Q ) only the π4-contributions, entering into the tM and tM , may 4,2 4,1 ∞ contain the admixture of the typical Euclidean ζ -terms, first 2 2 E n 2 4 F(Q ) = mq(Q ) 1 + ∑ fn as (Q ) (15) appearing in the four-loop contributions to γm(as), which are n=1 2 proportional to nl and nl [67, 68]. Other contributions to the E M M M 2 with coefficients fk related to tk by the following way coefficients t2 −t4 , proportional to powers of π , arise from computations of high-order corrections to the renormaliza- M E t = f − ∆k, (16) OS k k tion constant Zm defined in Eq.(1) in the Minkowskian on- shell subtraction scheme. In next section we try to build an where contributions ∆k are the “kinematic” terms, which re- analogy between these typical on-shell scheme π2-contribu- flect the analytic continuation effects. tions and the “kinematic” effects proportional to powers of Note that from the point of view of the first principles π2 in the perturbative QCD expressions for the Minkowskian of the theory of dispersion representations the model equa- physical quantities, initially evaluated in the MS-scheme in tion (13) is not completely substantiated. Indeed, within PT the Euclidean domain. The substantial role of these effects it should contain the subtraction constant, which is related has been demonstrated in the number of works on the sub- to the theoretical ambiguities in the low-energy region, dis- ject (see e.g. [73–80]). cussed in [80, 82] upon a study of the dispersion representations of the Green’s functions for the scalar quark and

2 4For instance, the similar dispersion relation links the Euclidean Adler 3 Is it possible to link the on-shell π -contributions and 2 + − 2 function D(Q ) for a process of e e annihilation into hadrons with “kinematic” π -effects? the R(s)-ratio, characterizing the total cross section of this process in the Minkowskian region of energies. To understand whether it is possible to draw the analogy be- 5The quantity T(s) may be expressed through combinations contain- tween contributions proportional to powers of π2 to the ratio ing an imaginary part of the self-energy insertions to the renormalized quark propagator considered in [1]. 3 6 This expectation is already supported by the recent QED analytical At an arbitrary normalization point the coefficients tk contain the RG M 2 results of t4,0 in [72]. logarithms of a type ln(µ /s). 6 gluon currents. In this regard, it would be more consistent where l = ln(µ2/s) and L = ln(µ2/Q2). Fixing further µ2 = 2 to consider the model subtracted dispersion relation written Q we find the explicit expressions for the terms ∆k. In the down for the function F(Q2) − F(0). However, below we recurrent form they read: will show that the perturbative estimates for coefficients of 2 the ratio Mq/mq(mq), obtained with help of the expression π2 ∆ = 0 , ∆ = γ (β + γ ) , (20a) (13), yield the quite reasonable predictions of the asymp- 1 2 6 0 0 0 totic behavior of this ratio and agree with applications of the 2 π E 1 1 renormalon-motivated calculus (with a factor of order 2). ∆3 = f (β0 + γ0) β0 + γ0 + β1γ0 (20b) 3 1 2 2 Keeping in mind the aforesaid discussions, Eqs.(13-14), M 2 remark on equality of coefficients tk and tk at s = mq and +γ1β0 + γ1γ0 , taking into account the inverse integral representation for the 2 function T(s)7 π 5 1 ∆ = ( f E − ∆ ) 3β 2 + β γ + γ2 (20c) 4 3 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 −s+iε 1 Z dz E 3 5 T(s) = F(z) , (17) + f1 β1γ0 + β1β0 + 2γ1β0 + γ1γ0 2πi z 2 2 −s−iε 1 1 2 3 + β2γ0 + γ1β1 + γ1 + γ2β0 + γ2γ0 one can obtain the following approximate representation for 2 2 2 the pole and MS-scheme masses of heavy quarks [46]: 7π4 1 1 + γ (β + γ ) β + γ β + γ , 60 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 2 −mq(mq)+iε ∞ 2 Z Z m (s)( + ∞ tMak(s)) π E 2 7 1 2 1 0 q 1 ∑k=1 k s ∆5 = ( f − ∆3) 6β + β0γ0 + γ (20d) Mq ≈ ds ds (18) 3 0 0 2πi (s + s0)2 3 2 2 2 0 −mq(mq)−iε 5 +( f E − ∆ ) 7β β + 3γ β + β γ + γ γ 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 Using now Eqs.(13-15) we can fix the explicit form of E 3 2 1 2 5 the “kinematic” contributions ∆ in (16) up to the sixth order + f β + γ + 3β2β0 + γ2β0 + 2β1γ1 k 1 2 1 2 1 2 of PT. Far enough from the regions of manifestation of the 3 1 3 heavy quark threshold effects the differential system of RG- + β2γ0 + γ2γ0 + β3γ0 + β2γ1 + γ2β1 + 2γ3β0 equations (7-8) in the time-like region can be rewritten in 2 2 2 4 the following integral form in the O(a6) approximation: 7π 25 35 s +γ γ + γ γ + f E β 4 + β 3γ + β 2γ2 1 2 0 3 15 1 0 12 0 0 24 0 0  as(s)  µ2 Z dx 5 3 1 4 3 13 2 13 2  + β0γ0 + γ0 + γ1β0 + γ0β1β0 + γ0 β0β1 ln = 2 3 4 5 6 7 , 12 24 12 12  s β0x + β1x + β2x + β3x + β4x + β5x  a (µ2) s 11 2 2 1 3 1 3 + γ0γ1β + γ β0γ1 + β1γ + γ1γ , as(s) 0 0 0 0  Z 2 3 4 5 6 4 6  mq(s) (γ0 + γ1x + γ2x + γ3x + γ4x + γ5x )dx ln = 2  2 2 3 4 5 6 π E 9 1  mq(µ ) β0x + β1x + β2x + β3x + β4x + β5x ∆ = ( f − ∆ ) 10β 2 + β γ + γ2 (20e)  2 6 4 4 0 0 0 0  as(µ ) 3 2 2 27 7 +( f E − ∆ ) β β + 4β γ + β γ + γ γ Substituting solutions of this system into function T(s) 3 3 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 in Eqs.(13-14) we get the following integrals which are equal 7 5 to: +( f E − ∆ ) 8β β + β γ + 3β γ + β γ + 4β 2 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 1 ∞ Z 2 3 4 5 6 2 2 {1;l;l ;l ;l ;l ;l } 2 π 1 7 7 Q ds = 1; L; L + ; (19) + γ2 + γ γ + f E β β + β β + 3β γ (s + Q2)2 3 2 1 0 2 1 2 0 3 2 1 2 0 3 0 4 5 3 1 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 7π 5 10 2 3 7 4 + β γ + 2β γ + β γ + γ γ + γ γ + γ + β γ L + π L; L + 2π L + ; L + π L + π L; 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 0 0 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 15 3 3 31 5 1 L6 + 5π2L4 + 7π4L2 + π6 , + β0γ4 + 2β1γ3 + β3γ1 + β4γ0 + γ0γ4 + γ1γ3 21 2 2 4 7π E 4 77 3 71 2 2 7 + − + ( f − ∆ ) 5β + β γ + β γ By analogy with the dispersion relation between the e e annihila- 15 2 2 0 12 0 0 24 0 0 R s D Q2 tion ( )-ratio and the Adler ( )-function, the integration contour on the plane of complex variable z lies in the region of analyticity of 7 1 77 5 + β γ3 + γ4 + f E β 3β + β γ3 the integrand (here function F(Q2) is the analog of the Adler function). 12 0 0 24 0 1 12 0 1 12 1 0 7

3 1 3 10 2 25 2 3 2 The outcomes of Table1 demonstrate the significant +4β0 γ1 + γ0 γ1 + β0β1γ0 + β0 β1γ0 + β0γ0 γ1 6 3 3 2 growth of terms ∆k with increasing of an order k of PT. This 13 1 5 1 3 + β 2γ γ + β γ3 + β 3γ + γ3γ + β 2γ2 effect is determined by two factors. The first of them is re- 3 0 0 1 4 2 0 2 0 2 6 0 2 2 0 1 M lated to the factorial rise of the coefficients tk included in 5 1 35 5 47 the definition of the contributions ∆ (20b-20e) (see Sec.6 of + β 2γ2 + γ2γ2 + β β 2γ + β β γ2 + β 2β γ k 8 1 0 4 0 1 24 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 12 0 1 1 this paper, where the renormalon-based asymptotic formula 3 5 5 37 for tM is discussed). The second one is partially associated + β 2β γ + β γ γ2 + β γ2γ + β γ2γ + β 2γ γ k 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 1 0 1 12 0 0 2 with the considerable factorial growth of the constant terms 25 31π6 1 appearing in r.h.s of Eq.(19) upon the integration of the RG- + β β γ γ + γ (β + γ ) β + γ × 6 0 1 0 1 126 0 0 0 0 2 0 logarithms with various degrees. Indeed, as was shown in 1 1 1 [83] the dimensionless analog of integral (19) with arbitrary × β + γ β + γ β + γ . 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 5 0 degree n has the closed form ∞ n ( 1−n The terms ∆ − ∆ agree with the ones, obtained previ- Z ln x 2(1 − 2 )ζnn! , n even , 1 4 dx = (22) ously in [46]. The expressions for ∆5 and ∆6 are new. One (x + 1)2 0 , n odd , 0 can see that the six-loop contribution ∆6 does not contain yet 2 2 unknown coefficients β5 and γ5. They are included only in where the variable x = s/Q and terms ζ2 = π /6, ζ4 = 2 4 6 terms depending linearly on ln(µ /s), which due to Eq.(19) π /90, ζ6 = π /945 may be explicitly restored in r.h.s of vanish automatically in the Euclidean renormalization point Eq.(19). Since 1 < ζ2p ≤ ζ2 < 2 for any p ∈ N, then at even µ2 = Q2. n the integral (22) is factorially growing. As a result, the Taking now into account the relation (16) and numeri- constant terms in r.h.s of Eq.(19), which enter in the con- M cal expressions for the coefficients of β(as), γm(as) and tk , tributions ∆k, are factorially increasing with order of PT as given in Eqs.(9a-10d), (12a-12c), we arrive to the following well. Moreover, matching Eqs.(20a-20e) with (22) we con- numerical nl-dependent results for the terms ∆k: clude that the contribution to the even-order term ∆2p leading in powers of π2 behaves itself by the following way for ∆ = −0.274156n + 5.89434, (21a) 2 l any p ∈ : 2 N ∆3 = +0.198002nl − 10.04477nl + 105.6221, (21b) 2p−1 3 2 γ0 ∆4 = −0.315898nl + 20.67673nl − 403.9489nl (21c) ∆ max π = 2(1 − 21−2p)ζ (2p − 1)!γ β + (23) 2p 2p 0 ∏ 0 j + 2272.002, j=1 4 3 2 2p−1 Γ (2p + γ0/β0) ∆5 = +0.427523nl − 37.745285nl + 1137.17794nl (21d) 1−2p = 2(1 − 2 )ζ2pγ0β0 . Γ (1 + γ0/β0) − 13767.2725nl + 56304.639, 5 4 3 Thus, we conclude that the overall Minkowskian “kine- ∆6 = −0.818446n + 85.37937n − 3345.0818n (21e) l l l 2 2 matic” π -effects are indeed not small. Moreover, the values + 61128.1667nl − 518511.694nl + 1633115.62, of ∆2, ∆3, ∆4 are comparable with the corresponding coeffi- M where in the expression for ∆6-contribution we have ne- cients tk (nl) (see Eqs.(B.13a-B.13c) in Appendix B). In this glected the relatively small mean square errors following regard and in view of our assumption that these fast grow- M 2 from computations of the coefficient t4 [17]. ing “kinematic” effects may model the π -contributions to 2 Worth emphasizing that despite the non-regular sign poly- the high-order coefficients of Mq/mq(mq)-ratio, typical to nomial structure of the coefficients of the QCD RG func- the on-shell renormalization scheme, we note that it is really tions β(as) and γm(as) (9a-10d), the analogous expressions worth to treat these special terms with care. for contributions ∆k respect the alternation of signs in powers of nl that is typical to the two, three and four-loop coef- M ficients tk . 4 The effective charges-inspired estimates Their numerical values for the specific number of massless flavors are presented in Table1: Let us first study the application of a variant of an RG- inspired approach for estimating high-order perturbative cor- nl ∆2 ∆3 ∆4 ∆5 ∆6 rections to a physical quantities being formulated and de- 3 5.072 77.270 1237.717 24252.930 544133.68 veloped in [45]. This approach is based on the effective- 4 4.798 68.611 966.817 17124.144 344053.30 charges (ECH) method [47]. In the work [46] it was first F(Q2)/m (Q2) 5 4.524 60.348 729.689 11446.766 201430.55 adapted to the quantity q defined in the Eu- clidean region. Since here we consider the case of nl massless flavors, running inside the fermion loop insertions of a Table 1 The numerical values of the ∆ -contributions. k self-energy operator renormalizing the massive heavy quark 8

E e f f propagator, then the coefficients fn in Eq.(15) do not de- their Minkowski counterparts T(s)/mq(s), as (s) and as(s) M M M pend on masses. In this approximation the perturbative ex- with coefficients φk = tk /t1 instead of φk. Then after ap- 2 2 pression for F(Q )/mq(Q ) is also independent on mass plying the main ansatz of the ECH-based procedure in the e f f , M parameter. Therefore one can use directly the methods de- time-like region, namely βk ≈ βk, we will get the es- M scribed in [45, 47]. The corresponding ECH coupling con- timates of tk -terms directly without additional evaluation stant ae f f (Q2) may be defined as: M, ECH direct s of the “kinematic” ∆k-corrections (tk stands for F(Q2) these estimates). Nevertheless, these terms will include the = 1 + f E ae f f (Q2) , (24) π2-contributions typical to the on-shell scheme. Indeed, in m (Q2) 1 s q the estimates tM, ECH direct of k-th order these 2 effects are ∞ k π e f f 2 2 k 2 contained in the known analytical Minkowskian coefficients as (Q ) = as(Q ) + ∑ φkas (Q ) , (25) k=2 of (k − 1)-th order and lower. This approach will be consid- E E ered in more details below. where φk = f / f . The coefficients of the ECH β-function k 1 The estimates tM, ECH , tM, ECH direct , tM, ECH , tM, ECH direct , for ae f f (Q2) are expressed through scheme-independent com- 3 3 4 4 s obtained by these ways, are compared to their exact expres- binations [48] of the higher order PT contributions φk (25) M, exact M, exact sions t3 and t4 (see Eqs.(12b-12c)) in Table2. and βk of the MS-scheme β-function. At the four-loop level these combinations have already been applied for determi- M, exact M, ECH M, ECH direct nation of the ECH β-function of the static potential in the nl t3 t3 t3 QCD [84]. Here we present the explicit expressions for six 3 116.494 124.097 95.757 coefficients of the corresponding ECH β-function, which is 4 94.418 97.728 76.257 governing the Q2-behavior of ae f f (Q2): s 5 73.637 73.615 58.528 e f f e f f β0 = β0 , β1 = β1 , (26a) 6 54.161 51.775 42.615 e f f 2 β2 = β2 − φ2β1 + (φ3 − φ2 )β0 , (26b) 7 35.991 32.235 28.583 e f f 2 3 8 19.126 15.034 16.535 β3 = β3 − 2φ2β2 + φ2 β1 + (2φ4 − 6φ2φ3 + 4φ2 )β0, (26c) β e f f = β − 3φ β + (4φ 2 − φ )β + (φ − 2φ φ )β (26d) M, exact M, ECH M, ECH direct 4 4 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 3 1 nl t4 t4 t4 2 2 4 + (3φ5 − 12φ2φ4 − 5φ3 + 28φ2 φ3 − 14φ2 )β0 , 3 1702.70 ± 1.62 1281.09 1438.76 e f f 2 β5 = β5 − 4φ2β4 + (8φ2 − 2φ3)β3 (26e) 4 1235.66 ± 1.63 986.13 1045.51 3 2 + (4φ2φ3 − 8φ2 )β2 + (2φ5 − 8φ2φ4 − 3φ3 5 839.14 ± 1.63 719.38 710.02 2 4 + 16φ2 φ3 − 6φ2 )β1 + (4φ6 − 20φ2φ5 − 16φ3φ4 6 509.07 ± 1.63 483.02 430.94 2 3 2 5 + 48φ2φ3 − 120φ2 φ3 + 56φ2 φ4 + 48φ2 )β0 . 7 241.37 ± 1.64 279.37 207.02 Our further analysis is based on the theoretical studies 8 31.99 ± 1.65 110.71 37.19 described in [45, 46, 81]. Their essence was as follows: if e f f E Table 2 The exact values and estimates of coefficients tM and tM. one put β2 ≈ β2, then from Eq.(26b) one can get that f3 ≈ 3 4 E 2 E E E M ( f2 ) / f1 + f2 β1/β0, where f2 = t2 +∆2. After this, using the additional contribution ∆3, responsible for the transition One can see from data of Table2 that both variants of the from the Euclidean to Minkowski region (20a), one can fix ECH-motivated method give quite good approximations for M, ECH the approximate value of tM-term (we denote it as t ). 2 8 3 3 the three- and four-loop coefficients of the ratio Mq/mq(mq) e f f Similarly, supposing β3 ≈ β3 one can estimate the value of (apart from the non-physical case of nl = 8 for the ECH ap- E M, ECH the four-loop contributions f4 and t4 afterwards. Esti- proach, where the estimation differs from the genuine value mates of this type were made in [46, 81] to fix the numerical by a factor over 3). Indeed, both these implementations pre- M value of the term t4 for the cases of the charm, bottom and dict not only the correct signs for the coefficients of the 3 4 top-quarks which was still unknown at that time. O(as ) and O(as ) orders but also yield the estimates whose e f f An admissibility of the approximation βk ≈ βk in the values are rather close to the expressions having been calcu- asymptotic regime is somewhat supported by the effect of lated exactly. partial cancellation of the renormalon contributions in the e f f 8 M, ECH M, ECH direct coefficients of β (26b-26e) and their absence in the QCD Note that the values of the corrections t3 and t3 , pre- k sented in Table2, are slightly different from the analogous ones, ob- β-function. tained by means of the same ECH-motivated method in [81]. The Note also that in principle one may apply the ECH-based discrepancy between them lies in a slip made in [81]. However, this M, ECH estimating procedure in the time-like region directly. In this fact did not affect the final results of the four-loop terms t4 and M, ECH direct case one should change the Euclidean functions in (24-25) to t4 . 9

Let us now probe the nl-dependence of the estimated M M M M exact coefﬁcient t with three unknowns t , t , t with help 120 3 3,0 3,1 3,2 ∼7% ECH of three physical data points 3 ≤ nl ≤ 5. Solving the corre- ECH direct sponding system of equations we gain the following expan- ∼18% sions: 100 tM M, ECH 2 3 t3 ≈ +1.128nl − 34.265nl + 216.74 , (27a) ∼18% 80 M, ECH direct 2 t3 ≈ +0.885nl − 25.69nl + 164.87 . (27b)

The approximate results (27a-27b) are in good agree- 60 ment with the genuine one (12b). Furthermore, they keep the sign-alternating structure in powers of nl as well. 3 4 5

Similarly, extracting the ﬂavor dependence of the esti- nl mates tM, ECH and tM, ECH direct from the systems of four 4 4 exact equations, formed by numerical values at nl = 3,4,5,6, we 1600 ECH arrive to the following decompositions: ∼16% ECH direct M, ECH 3 2 ∼9% t4 ≈ +0.36nl + 9.75nl − 376.62nl + 2313.43 , (28a) 1200 tM M, ECH direct 3 2 4 ∼20% t4 ≈ −0.224nl + 31.56nl − 605.9nl (28b)

+ 2978.44 . 800 15% The sign-alternating structure of the nl-expanded expression (28b), gotten in the Minkowskian region directly, is 400 consistent with result (12c) of the explicit diagram-by-diag- 3 4 5 6 ram calculations. However, the ECH approach, applied in nl the Euclidean region, leads to the different sign of the leading cubic term in (28a). To clarify this observation we note M M Fig. 1 The flavor dependence of the terms t3 and t4 . The exact re- 3 sults (blue line) and the approximate ones, obtained by both variants that its value almost coincides modulo with nl -contribution of the ECH-inspired method (with and without the explicit supplemen- to ∆4 in Eq.(21c). This means that the cubic coefficient in E M tation of the analytic continuation effects (dashed green and red lines f4 = t4 + ∆4 is close to zero. For a more detailed study of correspondingly)), are presented. this fact we present Figure1, where the obtained expansions (27a-27b), (28a-28b) are visually compared to the exact results (12b-12c). The acceptable agreement of the ECH-estimates of the M M It is seen from Figure1 that the relative uncertainties coefficients t3 and t4 with the results of explicit calcula- of the ECH-direct approach are stable to the changes of nl. tions at the fixed number of nl allows us to regard both vari- However, this is not true for the Euclidean ECH method ap- ants of the ECH-inspired method as satisfactory estimating M plied for estimation of the term t4 . Indeed, in this case the procedures. Therefore, we will apply these two realizations relative error varies in a wide range from 25% at nl = 3 to to evaluate the unknown contributions of the fifth and sixth 5% at nl = 6. Moreover, at nl = 8 we observe a mismatch orders of PT to the on-shell-MS heavy quark mass relation with the exact result by a factor over 3 (see Table2). There- as well. fore, we conclude that at the relative errors of about 25%, Our further studies of the ECH method, initially applied one should not trust the almost zero estimated value of the to the Euclidean physical quantities, will contain the follow- E cubic nl-dependent term in f4 coefficient. Thus, the errors ing steps: of this order are quite satisfactory while getting the estimates M E 1. At the first stage, using the explicit expressions for the of the term t4 (or f4 ) at the fixed number of massless quarks M M but they turn out to be unsatisfactory for the study of more known terms t1 − t4 (11a), (12a-12c) and adding to subtle effects of its flavor dependence. Therefore, we infer them π2-effects of the analytical continuation (21a-21c), 3 we find the Euclidean contributions f E − f E . that the mismatch of the sign of nl -term in Eq.(28a) to the 1 4 e f f true one is a rather accidental fact related to the instability of 2. Secondly, fixing β4 ≈ β4 (this is our main guess) we E the uncertainties being discussed above. In view of this we get from Eq.(26d) the approximate form of the f5 -term do not consider the positive sign of this cubic coefficient as a for specific values of nl. violation of the indication of the sign-alternating structure of 3. Then, accordingly to (16) we subtract from the obtained M E the nl-expanded ECH-based estimates of t4 -term following term f5 the contribution of analytic continuation ∆5 (21d) 5 M from (28b). and get O(as ) coefficient t5 . 10

4. Applying this procedure in the next order of PT, i.e as- n tM, ECH tM, ECH direct tM, FL tM, FL, M→m tM, r−n e f f l 5 5 5 5 5 suming β5 ≈ β5 in (26e) and using the numerical ex- E 9 3 28435 26871 29864 20432 33859 pression for f5 , obtained at the previous stage , we pri- E 4 17255 17499 21951 14924 22602 marily estimate the value of f6 -contribution and then, taking into account (16) and (21e), evaluate the value of 5 9122 10427 15725 10757 13942 M 2 t6 -correction to the ratio Mq/mq(mq). 6 3490 5320 10929 7693 7543 In stages 2 and 4, we get the following five- and six-loop 7 -127 1871 7323 5515 3108 E E coefficients f5 and f6 of the Euclidean quantity (15): 8 -2153 -196 4693 4027 321 E 2 1 ( f ) M, ECH M, ECH direct M, FL M, FL, M→m M, r−n E E E 2 nl t t t t t f5 ≈ 3 f2 β3 + f3 − 4 E β2 (29a) 6 6 6 6 6 3β0 f 1 3 476522 437146 679654 522713 825382 f E f E f E f E 5 ( f E )2 + 2 2 3 − f E β + 4 2 4 + 3 4 238025 255692 462561 353810 507235 f E 4 1 f E 3 f E 1 1 1 5 90739 133960 304866 233282 285136 28 f E 2 14 ( f E )4 − f E 2 + 2 , 6 8412 57920 193449 149601 138664 3 3 f E 3 ( f E )3 1 1 7 -29701 15798 117284 93225 50340 E 2 E 1 E E ( f2 ) f6 ≈ 4 f2 β4 + 2 f3 − 8 E β3 (29b) 8 -39432 -2184 67253 56410 4431 4β0 f1 E 3 E E E 4 E 2 ( f2 ) f2 f3 ( f2 ) ( f3 ) Table 3 The estimates of the coefficients tM and tM, obtained within + 8 − 4 β + 6 + 3 5 6 E 2 E 2 E 3 E two variants of the ECH-approach (ECH and ECH direct), the large ( f1 ) f1 ( f1 ) f1 β0-expansion (FL and FL, M → m) and the asymptotic IRR-based for- f E f E f E 2 + 8 2 4 − 16 f E 2 − 2 f E β mula (r-n) with the normalization factor Nm taken from the direct anal- E 3 E 5 1 ysis and consistent with the renormalon sum rule approach (for details f1 f1 see 6.1 and 6.2). The fourth and fifth columns correspond to various E E E E E 3 f2 f5 f3 f4 E f2 choices of the initial scales in the results of [8] used by us. + 5 E + 4 E + 30 f3 E f1 f1 f1 f E 2 ( f E )5 f E 2 − 12 f E 3 − 12 2 − 14 f E 2 . Moreover, the indication of the sharp growth of the uncer- 2 f E ( f E )4 4 f E 1 1 1 tainties in the non-physical sector of nl also follows directly Utilizing these expressions and Eqs.(21d-21e) for ∆5, ∆6 from the renormalon studies [50] (see discussions in Sec.6 that model the “kinematic” π2-terms, we estimate the ECH- below). Therefore, in this work we restrict ourselves by the M M values of the coefficients t5 , t6 at the fixed number of mass- consideration of the values of nl from the range 3 ≤ nl ≤ 8. less flavors given in Table3. There we also present the esti- This number of data points is definitely enough to investi- M mates of the same coefficients, obtained by us from the ap- gate the flavor dependence of the six-loop coefficient t6 . plication of the large-β0 expansion to the renormalon-chain Let us study the nl-dependence of the ECH coefficients contributions [8] to coefficients of the on-shell-MS mass re- whose numerical values at the fixed number of nl are given M lation (see 4- and 5-th columns of Table3) and with the in Table3. As follows from (4) the five-loop contribution t5 M M 4 help of the infrared renormalon (IRR) asymptotic formula is the fourth degree polynomial in nl, namely t5 = t5,4nl + [16, 41, 49], used recently in [25, 50, 85] (see 6-th column). M 3 M 2 M M t5,3nl +t5,2nl +t5,1nl +t5,0. It contains five unknown terms The details of these our analyzes will be discussed below. M M t5,4 − t5,0. Therefore, in order to get their numerical values The data from Table3 demonstrates that at the physical we will use five equations only which follow from the data values of n the obtained estimates agree with each other at 10 l of Table3 at 3 ≤ nl ≤ 7. Their matrix representation read: the level of factor two. However, the theoretical uncertainties increase drastically starting from the non-physical sector  M, ECH  1 3 9 27 81  t5,0 28435 M, ECH nl ≥ 6. Indeed, on the contrary to the results following from   1 4 16 64 256 t5,1  17255 the application of the NNA procedure to the outcomes of   M, ECH    1 5 25 125 625 t  =  9122  (30) [8] (see columns 4 and 5) and from the renormalon asymp-   5,2    1 6 36 216 1296tM, ECH   3490  totic formula [16, 41, 50] (see column 6), the ECH-based  5,3  1 7 49 343 2401 tM, ECH −127 estimates at nl = 7,8 take the negative values. The similar 5,4 sign-changing feature also reveals itself in the renormalon 10The square matrix in l.h.s. of (30) is the Vandermonde matrix. It pos- studies from nl ≥ 9 (see e.g. the analysis of [27] and [41]). sesses the interesting mathematical properties: the elements of its each row are the terms of a geometric progression and its determinant is 9In view of this the uncertainties in the definition of the six-loop cor- equal to ∆ = ∏ ((nl + j) − (nl + i)) = ∏ ( j − i). Here the rections to the mass conversion formula will certainly be greater than 0≤i< j≤k 0≤i< j≤k for the five-loop ones. number of massless quarks varies from nl to (nl + k), k ∈ N. 11

The numerical solution of (30) leads to the following terms leading in nl does not substantially affect the values expression: of other coefficients in (31c-31d)12. In the next sections we will compare these results with M, ECH 4 3 2 t5 ≈ 2.5nl −136nl +2912nl −26976nl +86620 (31a) the similar ones which follow from the large-β0 approximation [8] and from the asymptotic renormalon formula In the case of the coefficient of the sixth order of PT the [15, 16] subsequently improved in [41, 49, 50]. similar consideration at 3 ≤ nl ≤ 8 yields: M, ECH 5 4 3 5 The consequences of the leading renormalon chain t6 ≈ −4.9nl + 352nl − 9708nl (31b) 2 calculations + 131176nl − 855342nl + 2096737 . 3 Both expansions (31a-31b) have the sign-alternating struc- Before the analytical computations [5,7] of the leading O(as ) and (a4) n -contributions to the coefficients tM, tM (see ture in powers of nl, which is supported by results of the O s l 3 4 (11d) and (11g)), these terms were evaluated numerically large-β0 analysis [8]. Thus, the ECH-motivated method, applied initially in the Euclidean domain and supplemented in [8]. These results follow from calculations of the lead- 2 ing renormalon-type contributions, generated by a chain of by the analytical continuation π -effects, leads to the nl- M M the fermion loop (FL) insertions into the gluon line, renor- dependent structure of the terms t5 and t6 , which is similar to the ones observed for the exactly calculated corrections malizing massive heavy quark propagator. The outcomes of 3 4 M M Ref.[8] contain not only the leading O(as ) and O(as ) terms t2 −t4 given in (12a-12c). Let us consider what will happen with the expressions but the analogous ones up to the ninth order as well. Ap- M M plying the NNA procedure one can estimate the numeri- (31a-31b) if one fix in them t5,4 ≈ 0.9 and t6,5 ≈ −1.5, following from the exact numerical computations of Ref.[8]. cal values of the total multiloop contributions to the ratio 2 These results were obtained there from the consideration Mq/mq(mq) within the large-β0 expansion and get their fla- of the subset of the specific renormalon-chain diagrams for vor dependencies. Since the terms leading in nl do not de- 2 the heavy quark propagator. Since in this case one less n - pend on µ , we will consider the five and six-loop estimates l 2 2 2 2 dependent term should be defined, we exclude from the anal- in two scale normalizations, namely µ = mq and µ = Mq with its subsequent transition to the running mass. ysis the data points nl = 7(8) upon the estimation of the flavor dependencies of the coefficients tM, ECH correspond- Using the results of work [8] and assuming the normal- 5(6) 2 2 ingly. This leads to the insignificant changes in all coeffi- ization at µ = mq, we get the following expansions: cients of the expressions (31a-31b) with keeping their sign- M, FL 4 3 2 t5 ≈ 0.9nl − 59nl + 1469nl − 16156nl + 66641, (32a) alternating character11. tM, FL ≈ −1.5n5 + 125n4 − 4127n3 + 68088n2 (32b) Using numbers shown in the third column of Table3, we 6 l l l l 5 − 561727nl + 1853698 . also obtain the approximate nl-dependence of the O(as ) and 6 O(as ) coefficients of the on-shell-MS heavy quark mass re- Next, presuming that the initial normalization point is lation within the ECH-motivated approach, applied directly fixed on the pole mass and then it is shifted to the running in the Minkowskian region: one, we find the following analogs of (32a-32b): M, ECH direct 4 3 2 tM, FL, M→m ≈ 0.9n4 − 56n3 + 1256n2 (32c) t5 ≈ 1.2nl − 77nl + 1959nl − 20445nl (31c) 5 l l l + 72557 , − 12383nl + 47721 , M, ECH direct 5 4 3 tM, FL, M→m ≈ −1.5n5 + 120n4 − 3779n3 (32d) t6 ≈ −2.2nl + 148nl − 4561nl (31d) 6 l l l 2 2 + 71653nl − 538498nl + 1519440 . + 58846nl − 460910nl + 1468466 . These expressions demonstrate that the FL-method sup- Despite the definite numerical discrepancy in the values plemented by the NNA procedure gives the strict alterna- of the five- and six-loop coefficients tM, ECH and tM, ECH direct , k k tion of signs in the polynomial flavor decomposition of the especially in the nonphysical sector of n (see Table3), both l terms tM and tM. This feature is the direct consequence of realizations of the ECH method predict not only the sign- 5 6 the application of the large β -expansion. Indeed, in this ap- alternating structure of these corrections in powers of n but 0 l proximation the k-th term tM is proportional to β k−1(n )- also lead to the values of the separate n -dependent terms k 0 l l factor, where the first coefficient of the QCD β-function is close in magnitude. Note also that the fixation of the known 12In this case we should compare them with the expres- 11The result of this analysis gives tM, ECH ≈ 0.9n4 − 107n3 + M, ECH direct 4 3 2 5, fixed n4 l l sions t 4 ≈ 0.9nl − 72nl + 1927nl − 20354nl + 72461; l 5, fixed nl 2723n2 − 26429n + 86041; tM, ECH ≈ −1.5n5 + 267n4 − 8873n3 + M, ECH direct 5 4 3 2 l l 6, fixed n5 l l l t 5 ≈ −1.5nl + 132nl − 4398nl + 70870nl − 536662nl + l 6, fixed nl 2 127178nl − 845982nl + 2088184. 1517760. 12 defined in (9a). Therefore, this approach will always lead to 1 4 3 2 2 3 s2 = 8 (β1 − 2β1 β0 − 2β1 β2β0 + 4β1β2β0 (34b) the sign-alternating nl-structure of the estimated corrections 32β0 in all orders of PT. Moreover, this statement does not depend 2 2 4 + β2 β0 − 2β3β0 ), on the normalization point. Thus, the FL-approach supports 1 6 5 2 4 4 4 the results of the ECH-method presented by us above. s3 = 12 (β1 − 6β1 β0 + 8β1 β0 − 3β1 β2β0 (34c) 384β0 Note that the specific n -dependent terms in (32c-32d) l + 18β 3β β 3 − 24β 2β β 5 − 6β 2β β 4 − 12β β 2β 4 are smaller than the corresponding ones in (32a-32b). Here- 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 0 2 2 2 6 3 3 2 6 with, the latter are closer to those found with help of the + 3β1 β2 β0 + 16β1β3β0 − β2 β0 + 8β2 β0 5 7 ECH-motivated method in (31a-31b), (31c-31d). The nu- + 6β2β3β0 − 8β4β0 ). merical values of the corresponding FL-estimates at the fixed One should also mention that another (recurrent) way of number of nl are presented in the fourth and fifth column of Table3. obtaining the formula (33) was considered in [85]. It was based on the fact that the leading renormalon contribution to the relation between the pole and running masses of heavy 6 Renormalon-based estimating procedure quarks is independent on the MS-scheme mass mq (for details see [15] and [50, 87]). On the one hand, this fact allows Let us now move on to the consideration of another ap- 2 to use the approximate relation dMq/dmq(mq) ≈ 1. On the proach for estimation of the high-order corrections to the other hand, the RG-based form of this derivative can be ob- relation between the pole and MS running masses of heavy tained from Eq.(3) with taking into account the running of quarks based on the renormalon analysis. It is known that the coupling constant. Matching the unit to this RG-based 2 2 the ratio Mq/mq(mq) contains the linear infrared renormalon expression one can obtain the recurrence relation which re- (IRR) contributions, which lead to the rather strong facto- sults in to the factorial formula (33). rial increase of the coefficients in this asymptotic PT series The ways to fix values of the normalization factor N in M m [13, 14, 16]. This fast growth of tk -terms is governed by the a specific finite order of PT are different in various works. leading u = 1/2 IRR pole in the Borel image of the ratio be- For instance, in [27, 41] they were extracted from juxta- M ing discussed. The study of the behavior of tk -coefficients position the results of the diagram-by-diagram calculations in the renormalon language results in the following asymp- M of the coefficients tk with the ones being rewritten in the totic formula derived in [15, 16, 41, 86]: asymptotic form (33). In the works [27, 49, 50, 88, 89] the approximate analytical expressions for Nm were obtained M, r−n k→∞ k−1 Γ (k + b) s1 t −−−→ πNm(2β ) 1 + (33) out of the analysis of the behavior of the Borel image of k 0 Γ (1 + b) k + b − 1 the ratio (3). In this paper we will utilize both these ways for s2 + fixing of N -factor. (k + b − 1)(k + b − 2) m The extraction of its accurate values for a certain number s3 1 + + O , of nl is extremely important for the investigation of the sub- (k + b − 1)(k + b − 2)(k + b − 3) k4 M tle effects of the nl-structure of the coefficients tk . As we 2 will show further the change in the accuracy of the used val- where Γ (x) is the Euler Gamma-function, b = β1/(2β ) and 0 ues of Nm from two accounted decimal digits to three ones the values of the sub-leading coefficients s , evaluated in k affects considerably this flavor structure. This understanding [16, 41, 49, 50], are presented below. In the finite order of is supported by the existence of the renormalon sum rule ex- PT the factor Nm depends on nl and k. Note that our nor- 13 pressions for the normalization factor Nm [49, 89] . malizations and notations for the coefficients of the QCD β-function (9a-9e) differ from those used in [14, 15, 41, 49] upon studying the formula (33). Indeed, in these works the 6.1 The direct analysis analytical expression for the first coefficient of the RG β- function of the SU(3) QCD is defined as β = 11/4 − n /6, 0 l In the first approach, which we will call the direct one, the while we are using β0 = 11/4 − (nl + 1)/6 (see (9a)). To 4 numerical O(a ) values of Nm were found in [41] from com- coordinate these notations and use directly the asymptotic s parison the results of the explicit four-loop computations formula (33) we need to perform a shift n → (n − 1) in l l [17] with the numerical expressions that follow from the Eqs.(9a-9e). In this section we will work in these designa- large k renormalon-based expectations (33). The results of tions. this analysis are presented in the second row of Table4 and The corresponding expressions for the coefficients sk read: are labeled as direct. Note that they are consistent with the

1 13 s = (β 2 − β β ), (34a) We are grateful to V. Mateu and A. Pineda for pointing us these re- 1 4 1 0 2 sults lying beyond the β -approximation. 4β0 0 13 ones obtained in [27]. In the third line of this Table the nu- However, these results disagree with the sign-non-alter- merical values of Nm, defined within the renormalon sum nating ones, obtained in our previous works on this topic rule approach [50] (see discussions below), are given. [42, 43] (see also [44]), where the correct signs of the known terms leading in nl were not even reproduced. The reason for this is the accounting of two decimal digits only in the nl 3 4 5 6 7 8 direct definition of Nm-values. Although this approximation Nm (direct) 0.537 0.506 0.462 0.394 0.279 0.056 is permissible (within the renormalon sum rule error bands 0.526 0.492 0.446 0.381 0.271 0.053 shown in Table4), it leads to the violation of the changeabil- 5 6 Nm (sum rule) ± ± ± ± ± ± ity of signs in the flavor structures of the O(as ) and O(as ) 0.012 0.016 0.024 0.038 0.063 0.097 renormalon estimates. Thus, the knowledge of the accurate values of Nm is very important for the study of the fine nl- M Table 4 The values of Nm, obtained in the direct and renormalon sum structure of the coefficients tk . Note that at the fixed number rule approaches in the four-loop approximation at 3 ≤ nl ≤ 8. of massless flavors the renormalon-based estimates obtained in [42–44] are in good agreement with the ones, presented in this our work. The comparison of the direct four-loop values of Nm, presented in Table4, with the three-loop ones, extracted in 3 a similar way in [41] using the O(as ) results of calculations 6.2 The renormalon sum rule approach [5,6], demonstrates that at least at the fixed physical number of flavors the values of Nm-factor are rather stable to Consider now the values of Nm, given in the third line of the transition from one order of PT to another. Indeed, at Table4 and fixed in work [50] by the renormalon sum rule: nl = 3,4,5 the relative difference between them does not ∞ 2β0 Sk exceed 15%, but increases substantially for the non-physical Nm = Γ (1 + b) , (36) π ∑ Γ (1 + b + k) flavors. This observation yields us grounds to expect that at k=0 least at 3 ≤ nl ≤ 5 the application of the renormalon-based where the expressions for the terms Sk contain the high- asymptotic formula (33) with Nm, taken in the four-loop ap- order coefficients of the QCD β-function and the corrections proximation, will lead to the quite acceptable estimates for tM of the ratio (3). This formula of [50] was obtained from M M k terms t5 and t6 . However, to investigate the nl-structure of the consideration of the Borel image of the relation between these terms in our further analysis we will also consider the the pole quark mass and its MSR-mass: non-physical sector with 6 ≤ nl ≤ 8. The corresponding val- ∞ ues of Nm-factor are also presented in Table4. The numerical M − mMSR(R) = R tMSR(n )ak(n ,R). (37) M M q q ∑ k l s l estimates of the coefficients t5 and t6 , obtained by the ap- k=1 plication of the asymptotic formula (33), are provided in the M, r−n The concept of the low-scale MSR-scheme quark mass sixth column of Table3, where they are labeled as t 5 mMSR(R) is related to the MS-mass but may be evolved to and tM, r−n. q 6 the renormalization scale R below mass of the heavy quark Using the values of these terms from Table3 we arrive being considered (for details see [50, 87]). The MSR-mass to the following expressions coincides with the MS running mass at R = mq(mq). An im- M, r−n 4 3 2 t5 ≈ 1.6nl − 85nl + 2164nl (35a) portant feature of (37) is that unlike the relation between the − 23534nl + 87157 , pole and running quark masses this expression contains the M, r−n linear term in R. This linear dependence allows to get the t ≈ −9.9n5 + 372n4 − 8052n3 + 115164n2 (35b) 6 l l l l Borel transformation function of (37) in analytical form and − 883651nl + 2629567 , the analytical expression (36) for normalization factor Nm in which keep the sign-alternating nl-structure of the five- and particular [50]. Moreover, as was mentioned in this cited pa- six-loop estimates we have already established upon appli- per, this feature permits to speed up the convergence rate of cation both variants of the ECH-motivated method and from the series (36) compared to the analogous one, obtained in the large-β0 analysis. The expansions (35a-35b) are in satis- [49, 90] as a residue of the Borel transformation function of 2 factory agreement with those given in (31a-31b), (31c-31d), the ratio Mq/mq(mq) in the leading IRR pole u = 1/2. Note (32a-32b) and (32c-32d)14. that the study of the effects of other IR and UV renormalons was considered recently for e.g. in [51]. 14The incorporation in the numerical analysis the known terms tM and 5,4 N M M, r−n 4 3 The corresponding uncertainties of m-factor presented t6,5 leads to the following decompositions: t 4 ≈ 0.9nl − 72nl + 5, fixed nl in Table4 were extracted in [50] from the scale variation of 2 M, r−n 5 4 3 2078nl − 23286nl + 86896; t 5 ≈ −1.5nl + 160nl − 5977nl + R, which model an effect of the missing higher orders of PT 6, fixed nl 2 105216nl − 860334nl + 2608231. to the ratio (3). These uncertainties increase with the growth 14 of nl. Indeed, at nl = 3 the relative error of Nm makes up 2.3% and at nl = 7 it is about 23.2%. At nl = 8 the absolute ECH 30 000 error rises sharply and already exceeds the central value of ECH direct FL Nm. This is one more argument why we do not include in our FL, M⟶m 20 000 analysis the non-physical sector with nl ≥ 8 upon defining r-n M M the flavor dependencies of the terms t (t ). tM 5 6 5 It is apparent from the data of Table4 that within the er- 10 000 ror bands the values of Nm, obtained in the renormalon sum rule approach, are consistent with those found by the direct way. Therefore, the expansions (35a-35b) may be valid for 0 this method as well15. 3 4 5 6 7 At the fixed number nl = 3,4,5 the numerical estimates M, r−n M, r−n nl t5 and t6 , given in Table3, are in good agreement with the ones obtained in [50]. Moreover, in the case of the ECH b-quark our five-loop estimates are consistent with those ob- 8×105 ECH direct tained in [25] from the global fits of the energy of the QQ¯ FL bound states. FL, M⟶m r-n

tM 5 6 4×10 7 Discussion

In this section we briefly summarize all main results ob- 0 tained above and consequences following from them. Ac- cordingly to the outcomes presented in the previous sec- 3 4 5 6 7 8 tions, there are indications that the flavor structure of the nl five- and six-loop coefficients in the relation between the M pole and running masses of heavy quarks has the sign-alterna- Fig. 2 These plots illustrate the flavor dependencies of the terms t5 and tM, obtained within both realizations of the ECH-inspired proce- ting character in powers of nl, analogous to the one observed 6 dure (with and without the explicit supplementation of analytic con- for the two-, three- and four-loop coefficients having been tinuation effects (the dashed green and red lines correspondingly)), the calculated exactly. It should be noted in passing that this be- FL-method, based on the application of the NNA procedure (the solid havior agrees with the results of the large-β0 expansion. magenta curve for the direct normalization on the running mass and Comparing the magnitudes of the estimated leading terms the cyan line for the initial normalization on the pole mass and the subsequent transition to the running one) and the asymptotic renormalon in nl, obtained by us in two variants of the ECH-method and formula (the dotdashed dark blue line). with help of the IRR-based formula, we conclude that the results (31c-31d) in more extent corresponds to the known coefficients tM and tM (see also the related expressions pre- 5,4 6,5 of the following average PDG(20) numbers [35] for the run- sented in footnote 12). ning masses of c and b-quarks, namely m (m2) = 1.27 ± For more clarity, we accompany the estimated flavor de- c c 0.02 GeV, m (m2) = 4.18+0.03 GeV. pendencies (31a-31b), (31c-31d), (32a-32b), (32c-32d), (35a- b b −0.02 M M In accordance with the results of [91] obtained from the 35b) of the coefficients t5 and t6 with the corresponding plots, presented in Figure2. LHC tt experimental data and given in [39], for t-quark we 2 Figure2 shows that the estimates, obtained in this work assume mt (mt ) = 164.3 ± 0.6 GeV that does not contra- with help of all different methods considered by us, are qual- dict the values of the running t-quark mass presented in itatively consistent with each other (on average with a factor PDG(20). two) and lead to the rather similar flavor structures of the As the initial normalization point we take the average M M coefficients t5 and t6 . value of the strong coupling constant normalized on the mass Let us now consider an impact of the (a5) and (a6) 2 O s O s of Z-boson αs(MZ) = 0.1179 at MZ = 91.1876 GeV from QCD estimations gotten within all studied approaches on PDG(20). Thence from the inverse logarithmic representa- the behavior of the PT series for real heavy quarks in more 2 tion of αs(MZ) we obtain the following value of the scale detail. For numerical studies we will use the central values parameter for the b-quark Λ (nl =4) = 207 MeV, obtained in MS 15One should note that within the uncertainties demonstrated in Table4 the four-loop (N3LO) approximation. The numerical results there exists only the narrow error band for which the solutions of the for Λ (nl =3) and Λ (nl =5) are defined using the correspond- corresponding systems of equations at 3 ≤ nl ≤ 7(8) will be sign-non- MS MS 3 alternating in nl . ing N LO matching transformation conditions, derived in 15

16 5 6 [92, 93] (the corresponding NNLO conditions were ob- the O(as ) and O(as ) orders. Indeed, the five-loop contained in [94, 95] and are naturally taken into account by tribution is almost 2 times larger than the four-loop ex- us), where the matching scales are fixed by the values of pression and the six-loop correction is more than 2 times the MS-scheme masses presented above. Using the corre- greater than the five-loop one being estimated and is 3 sponding inverse logarithmic N LO approximation for αs, even larger than the first term of this PT series. This ef- we find: fect is strongly related to both the influence of the mod- 2 (n =3) erately large value of the coupling constant α (m ) and Λ l = 289 MeV, α (m2) = 0.3929, (38a) s c MS s c 2 to the renormalon contributions to the ratio Mc/mc(mc). Λ (nl =4) = 207 MeV, α (m2) = 0.2246, (38b) In this regard, in the modern high-precisely phenomeno- MS s b logically-oriented studies it is more appropriate to use Λ (nl =5) = 88 MeV, α (m2) = 0.1083. (38c) MS s t the concept of the running c-quark mass that does not Note, that these numerical expressions are in agreement suffer from the factorial renormalon behavior. with those demonstrated in [35]. – The estimates made for the b-quark signals that the asymp- Taking into account the values given above, the exact totic nature of Eq.(39b) is starting to reveal itself from 4 results (11a), (12a-12c) and data from Table3, we arrive to the O(as )-contribution (except for the FL, M → m re- 5 4 the following expressions: sults where the O(as ) contribution is less than the O(as ) M one). Note also that in the case of the application of the c ≈ 1.270 + 0.212 + 0.205 + 0.289 + 0.529 (39a) 1 GeV ECH-approach we observe the peculiar stabilization feature of the four-, five- and six-loop corrections to the on- + 1.105 + 2.316; 1.044 + 2.124; 1.160 + 3.303; shell-MS mass: within the accuracy considered by us in | {z } | {z } | {z } ECH ECH direct FL (39b) they coincide. However, due to the existing theoretical uncertainties discussed in Sec.4 we do not con- 0.794 + 2.540; 1.316 + 4.011 , | {z } | {z } sider this observation as a physical one. FL, M→m r−n 5 – The relation (39c) demonstrates a decrease of the O(as ) M 6 b ≈ 4.180 + 0.398 + 0.198 + 0.144 + 0.135 (39b) and O(as )-corrections in all estimated approaches being 1 GeV investigated by us. Therefore, the asymptotic behavior 2 + 0.135 + 0.135; 0.137 + 0.143; 0.171 + 0.258; of the PT series for the ratio Mt /mt (mt ) is not yet mani- | {z } | {z } | {z } festing itself at the six-loop level. ECH ECH direct FL One should emphasize that in fact the coefficients tM de- 0.117 + 0.197; 0.176 + 0.283 , k | {z } | {z } pends substantially on a choice of the scale parameter µ (see FL, M→m r−n Eqs.(2-3) and [14, 16, 41, 49] as well). For instance, shift- Mt m ≈ 164.300 + 7.552 + 1.608 + 0.496 + 0.195 (39c) ing it from µ = c to µ = 3 GeV one can delay the order 1 GeV of manifestation of the renormalon factorial growth in corrections to the ratio M /m (µ2) (see e.g. [17, 20–22, 24]) + 0.073 + 0.025; 0.083 + 0.037; 0.126 + 0.084; c c | {z } | {z } | {z } and move it to the fourth order of PT (as in the case of the ECH ECH direct FL b-quark). 0.086 + 0.064; 0.112 + 0.079 . Note also that the effects of the massive lighter quarks in | {z } | {z } M FL, M→m r−n the coefficients tk are no less essential than the RG-controllable ones responsible for the shift of the renormalization The terms in braces are the numerical contributions of scale. They are rather important in both theoretical and phe- the fifth and sixth orders gotten within the various estimate nomenological studies related to the determination of the approaches considered by us in this work. Despite the fact charm, bottom and top-quark masses (see e.g. [22, 25, 27, that these values are approximate, they reflect the specific 28, 89]). These massive effects were exactly calculated in behavior of the high-order PT corrections to the relation be- [2, 98] (see also the recent work [99]). However, in this pa- tween the pole and MS-scheme running masses of heavy per we do not study the extra theoretical uncertainties re- quarks, viz lated to the incorporation in analysis of the effects of mas- – For the case of the c-quark the numerical PT QCD cor- sive lighter quarks. rections in (39a) (which are starting to increase from the Using the known results of [8] one may analyze the asymp- 3 O(as ) level) are keeping on their asymptotic growth at totic structure of the relation between the pole and running t-quark masses in more details. Combining the six-loop FL- 16 The inclusion in the numerical analysis of the five-loop threshold expression from (39c) with the results of [8] normalized at effects investigated in [92, 96, 97] and of the five-loop contribution to 2 2 the QCD β-function [61, 62] does not affect essentially the numerical µ = mq and utilizing the NNA approximation, one can ar- values of the pole masses of heavy quarks. rive to the following numerical representation for the top- 16 quark pole mass: the cases of the charm and bottom quarks where the asymptotic behavior manifests itself in the third and fourth orders MFL t ≈ 164.300 + 7.552 + 1.608 + 0.496 + 0.195 (40) of PT correspondingly, the asymptotic nature of the analo- 1 GeV gous PT series for the top quark seems to reveal itself above + 0.126 + 0.084 + 0.066 + 0.062 + 0.065... the seventh order. Therefore, the concept of the top-quark This approximate expression indicates that in the case pole mass may be used safely in the modern phenomeno- of the top quark the first traces of the asymptotic nature logically and theoretically oriented studies. of the corresponding perturbative QCD series is observed above the seventh order of PT. Indeed, the contributions of Acknowledgements We would like to thank V.M.Braun, K.G. Chetyr- the seventh, eighth and ninth orders are comparable to each kin, L. Dudko, A.G. Grozin, M. Mangano, V. Mateu, D.G.C. Mck- eon, S.V. Mikhailov, S. Moch, P. Nason, A.F. Pikelner and A. Pineda other. Further, using the higher-order t-quark estimates for for useful comments and fruitful discussions at different stages of the M the coefficients tk , obtained in [50] with help of the IRR- studies described in this manuscript. One of us (ALK) is grateful to col- based formula (33), we conclude that in this case the numer- leagues from CERN-TH for inviting him to present a seminar (15.11.19) 2 based on the definite results of this work and for valuable remarks, ical contributions to the relation between Mt and mt (m ) are t which were also taken into account. The work of VSM was supported close to the FL-ones presented in (40). Therefore, the state- by the Foundation for the Advancement of Theoretical Physics and ment about the manifestation of the asymptotic behavior of Mathematics “BASIS”, grant No. 19-1-5-114-1. 2 the PT series for the ratio Mt /mt (mt ) after the seventh order seems to us quite reliable. Appendix A: Application of the least squares method 8 Conclusion Let us discuss in more details the features of application of the least squares method. Following the studies done in In this work we have estimated the values of the O(a5) and s [18] we use the results of semi-analytical calculations of the O(a6)-contributions to the relation between the pole and s term tM at the fixed number of massless quarks [17] and ob- running masses of heavy quarks. For this aim we have uti- 4 tain the following overdetermined system of linear equations lized three different approaches, namely the effective charges with two unknown parameters tM and tM normalized at the motivated method in its two variants (with and without the 4,0 4,1 point 2 = m2 and defined in (5): π2-effects of the analytic continuation from the Euclidean µ q to Minkowskian region), the Naive-Nonabelianization pro-     cedure applied to the results of calculations of the leading 1 3 1330.44 ± 1.74 renormalon-type terms and the technique based on the appli- 1 4   584.72 ± 1.77      1 5   −160.99 ± 1.80  cation of the renormalon asymptotic formula with the nor-     1 6   −906.72 ± 1.84  malization factor fixed in two ways. The “kinematic” analyt-      1 7  −1652.44 ± 1.87 ical continuation effects, which were modeled with help of   tM     4,0 − . ± .  the Källen-Lehmann type dispersion relation, have been as- 1 8    2398 16 1 91 2n      sociated by us with the π -terms typical to the Minkowskian 1 9   = −3143.88 ± 1.94 (A.1)      on-shell scheme. 1 10 M  −3889.61 ± 1.98  t4,1   As a result of these estimates we have obtained that at 1 11 −4635.32 ± 2.01     the fixed number of massless quarks the approximate val- 1 12 −5381.04 ± 2.05     ues of the coefficients tM and tM evaluated by all three ap- 1 13 −6126.77 ± 2.08 5 6     proaches are qualitatively consistent with each other (on av- 1 14 −6872.49 ± 2.12 erage with a factor two). Further, using these results we have 1 15 −7618.21 ± 2.16 studied the flavor dependencies of these terms and established their sign-alternating character in nl (as in the case Herewith, we restrict ourselves by the consideration of of the already exactly calculated two, three and four-loop nl from the range 3 ≤ nl ≤ 15, where the lower bound is ones). Herewith, we especially emphasize that upon study- fixed by us keeping in mind that we analyze the behavior of M M ing of the nl-structure of the coefficients t5 and t6 estimated perturbative series for the relation between the pole and run- with help of the renormalon asymptotic formula the detailed ning masses of heavy quarks, while the upper bound is fol- information on the normalization factor Nm in the expression lowing from the Banks-Zaks ansatz nl < 31/2 [100], which (33) plays the essential role. insures that in the considered region of nl the QCD asymp- Further we have considered the asymptotic structure of totic freedom property is not violated. the relation between the pole Mq and MS-scheme running To apply the LSM for solving the system (A.1) one should 2 masses mq(mq) of the real heavy quarks. In comparison with first introduce the Φ-function, which is equal to the sum of 17 the squares of the deviations of all equations in this system: reproducing of the input data. These uncertainties can be directly calculated from the following formulas: N v = (tM +tM n − y )2 , (A.2) u N Φ ∑ 4,0 4,1 ls ls u n2 u M M ∑ ls s=1 uΦ(t4,0,t4,1) s=1 σtM = u · , (A.7) 4,0 u N − 2 N N 2 t N n2 − n where index s runs through all values which are equal to the ∑ ls ∑ ls s=1 s=1 number N of equations of (A.1) (in our case N = 13), y are ls v the numbers presented on the r.h.s. of this system with their u M M uΦ(t4,0,t4,1) N uncertainties y . σtM = u · , (A.8) ∆ ls 4,1 u N − 2 N N 2 t N n2 − n The LSM solutions of the overdetermined system (A.1) ∑ ls ∑ ls M M s=1 s=1 correspond to the values of the terms t4,0 and t4,1, for which M M M M the function Φ(t4,0,t4,1) has a minimum, defined by the fol- where Φ(t4,0,t4,1) is the minimum of the function Φ that can lowing requirements: be obtained from the condition (A.3) or Eq.(A.4). However, these errors are much smaller (more than 100 and 30 times ∂Φ ∂Φ respectively) than the ones, given in (A.5-A.6): = 0 , = 0 . (A.3) ∂tM ∂tM 4,0 4,1 σ M ∆ M , σ M ∆ M . (A.9) t4,0 t4,0 t4,1 t4,1

The requirements (A.3) lead to the following system of Therefore, they do not have any noticeable effect on the final M M uncertainties of the coefficients tM and tM and we do not two equations with two unknowns t4,0 and t4,1: 4,0 4,1 include them in the numerical analysis. The relations (A.9) can be explained by the fact that the  N N N  tM 1 +tM n = y , following sample correlation coefficient  4,0 ∑ 4,1 ∑ ls ∑ ls  s=1 s=1 s=1 (A.4) N N N N N N N n y − n y  M M 2 ∑ ls ls ∑ ls ∑ ls t nl +t n = nl yl . s=1 s=1 s=1  4,0 ∑ s 4,1 ∑ ls ∑ s s r = s s , (A.10) s=1 s=1 s=1 N N 2 N N 2 2 2 N ∑ nl − ∑ nls N ∑ yl − ∑ yls s=1 s s=1 s=1 s s=1 The LSM uncertainties of the solutions tM and tM of 4,0 4,1 r = − r = − . the system (A.4), related to the inaccurate knowledge of the is very close to 1, namely 0 999999999998958. In the geometric language this means that the input data terms yl , are fixed by the law of accumulation of errors: s points fit perfectly the straight line. Juxtaposing the solutions of the system (A.4) with for- v u N M !2 N M M u ∂t4,0 ∂t4,0 ∂t4,0 mulas (A.5-A.6) we get the numerical values for the con- M ∆t = t ∆yls + 2 ∆yli ∆yl j (A.5) 4,0 ∑ y ∑ ∑ y y stant and linearly dependent on nl contributions to the four- s=1 ∂ ls i=1 j

Appendix B: The differences in the structure of the where the uncertainties of the four-loop terms are the mean- asymptotic series in the cases of QCD and QED: the square errors following from (B.12). four-loop analysis The expressions (B.13a-B.13c) demonstrate the asymptotic character of the corresponding perturbative QCD se- Here we compare the behavior of the PT series for the re- ries. Indeed, all relations contain significantly growing and lation between the pole and running masses of the heavy strictly sign-constant coefficients. quarks in QCD with the corresponding one for the charged Turn now to the study of the PT series for the relation be- leptons in QED at the four-loop level. This is of the defi- tween the pole M and running masses m (µ2) of the charged nite interest because the infrared renormalons leading to the l l leptons (e, µ,τ) in QED. In the case of the electron and fast growth of the coefficients of the aforesaid PT series in muon their pole masses are the directly measurable param- QCD are absent in QED. However, another mechanism, not eters. In spite of the fact that the heavy τ-lepton is decaying related to renormalons, for investigation of the large order rather fast, one can also introduce as its main characteris- behavior of the perturbative series in the various quantum tic the pole mass as well. It may be extracted, for instance, field models (including QED) has been studied in a num- from the corresponding experimental data for the thresh- ber of works (see e.g. [101–104] and reviews [105, 106]). old behavior of the τ+τ− total cross-section production in This approach, based on the technique of the expansion of e+e− collisions (see e.g. [107]). However, like in the case of the functional integral representation for the different Green quarks, it is also possible to define the MS-scheme running functions at a non-trivial saddle points, also indicates the masses of the charged leptons which may be also used in the factorial growth of the higher order coefficients of the re- analysis of the experimental data [108]. Let us consider the lated PT series. Note that the results of the specific QED structure of the ratio M /m (m2) in more details. studies of [102, 103] have pointed out the sign-alternating l l l behavior of these coefficients in the large orders k. In this Using the U(1)-limit of the results of the diagram calcu- M regard, in order to consider the possible differences in the lations [1,2,4–7] and [17] of the coefficients tk performed structure of the perturbative series in QCD and QED we within the SU(Nc) theory with their decomposition into the will focus our attention on the comparing of the behavior of Casimir operators (or the recent four-loop results of the ex- the PT series for the relation between the pole and running plicit numerical computations [72]), it is possible to get the masses of the heavy quarks in QCD with the corresponding on-shell-MS mass relation for the charged leptons in QED one for the charged leptons in QED at the four-loop level in in the O(a4) approximation: details. 2 2 2 Using Eqs.(11a) and (12a-12c) (see [17, 18]) one can get Ml ≈ ml (ml )(1 + a + (−1.56205Nl + 0.1659)a (B.14) the following numerical perturbative expression for the pole 2 3 + (1.95808Nl − 0.4726Nl − 2.131)a and running masses of the heavy quarks: 3 2 + (−4.06885Nl + 2.1637Nl + (−2.415 ± 0.178)Nl M ≈ m (m2)(1 + 1.3333a + (−1.0414n (B.12) q q q s l + 7.49 ± 1.03; 7.4727 )a4), 2 2 3 + 13.443)as + (0.6527nl − 26.655nl + 190.60)as 3 2 + (−0.6781n + 43.396n + (−745.720 ± 0.036)nl l l 2 4 where a = α(ml )/π is the QED coupling constant defined + 3567.61 ± 1.62)as ) , in the MS-scheme and Nl is the number of the massless 2 charged leptons. The first four-loop Nl-independent (the Nl- where as = αs(mq)/π. Note that the presented uncertainties of the four-loop terms are very small and do not affect the dependent one as well) term in the curly braces corresponds 2 to the abelian U(1)-limit of the results of the semi-analytical asymptotic behavior of the ratio Mq/mq(mq). Therefore, in principle, they can be omitted in studies of this Appendix. calculations [17] carried out for the case of the SU(Nc) the- For the specific cases of the charm, bottom and top quarks ory with nl massless quarks. The second one follows from (n = 3,4,5 respectively) the expression (B.12) leads to the the recent high-precision (about 1100 digits) four-loop com- l OS following relations: putations of the on-shell mass renormalization constant Zm performed in QED in [72] (see also [109] where the wave 2 2 3 OS Mc ≈ mc(mc)(1 + 1.333 as + 10.318 as + 116.49 as (B.13a) function renormalization constant Z2 was also found) for 4 the case of Nl = 0. It is worth emphasizing that the results + (1702.70 ± 1.62) as ), of [72] are in very good agreement with the ones following M ≈ m (m2)(1 + 1.3333 a + 9.277 a2 + 94.41 a3 (B.13b) b b b s s s from [17]. + (1235.66 ± 1.63) a4), s Taking into account Eq.(B.14) and keeping in mind that 2 2 3 Mt ≈ mt (mt )(1 + 1.3333 as + 8.236 as + 73.63 as (B.13c) for the cases of the electron, muon and τ-lepton one should 4 + (839.14 ± 1.63) as ), set Nl = 0,1,2 respectively, we arrive to the following ex- 19 pressions: 6. K. G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 2 2 3 573 (2000) 617 Me ≈ me(me)(1 + a + 0.1659a − 2.131a (B.15a) 7. R. Lee, P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov + 7.49 ± 1.03; 7.473 a4), and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 1303 (2013) 162 8. P. Ball, M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 2 2 3 Mµ ≈ mµ (mµ )(1 + a − 1.3961a − 0.646a (B.15b) 452, 563 (1995) 4 9. P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov and + 3.17 ± 1.05; 3.153 ± 0.178 a ), M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, (2015) no. 14, 2 2 3 142002 Mτ ≈ mτ (mτ )(1 + a − 2.9582a + 4.756a (B.15c) 10. A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus + − 21.24 ± 1.09; − 21.253 ± 0.356 a4), 131 (2016) no.8, 271 11. Y. Kiyo, G. Mishima and Y. Sumino, JHEP 1511 where the uncertainties of the four-loop terms are the mean- (2015) 084 square errors following from (B.14). 12. M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B 348, (1995) Unlike Eqs.(B.13a-B.13c) the expressions (B.15a-B.15c) 513 demonstrate the absence of any regular sign-constant or sign- 13. I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and alternating structure of the related PT series (besides the A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2234 case of the τ-lepton). The same feature is observed when the 14. M. Beneke and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 426, (1994) running MS-scheme QED parameters (the masses of charged 301 leptons and coupling constant) are normalized at the scale 15. M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B 344, (1995) 341 2 2 µ = Ml (in this case the sign-alternating structure of the re- 16. M. Beneke, Phys. Rept. 317, (1999) 1 2 lation between Mτ and mτ (Mτ ) is not manifested itself any- 17. P. Marquard, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, M. Stein- more). Therefore, the point of view appearing from time-to- hauser and D. Wellmann, Phys. Rev. D 94, (2016) no. time in the literature that the asymptotic perturbative series 7, 074025 in the QED should have sign-alternating structure, which is 18. A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, Theor. Math. based in part on the theoretical studies presented in [102, Phys. 200 (2019) no.3, 1374 103], seems to be not a general rule. Note that the sign- 19. F. J. Dyson, Phys. Rev. 85 (1952), 631-632 alternating behavior is realized nowadays only in the per- 20. K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, A. Maier, P. Maierhofer, turbative expression for the anomalous magnetic moment of P. Marquard, M. Steinhauser and C. Sturm, Phys. Rev. electron, which is known at present with high precision up D 80 (2009), 074010 to the five-loop term (for the most recent results of its nu- 21. K. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn, A. Maier, P. Maierhofer, merical evaluation see [110] and [111]). P. Marquard, M. Steinhauser and C. Sturm, Theor. One should mention that the issue of the non-regular be- Math. Phys. 170, 217-228 (2012) havior of the corrections to the relation between the pole 22. B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, V. Mateu and S. M. Zebar- and running masses of the charged leptons in QED was first jad, JHEP 09 (2013), 103 raised in [112] upon the three-loop analysis of the numeri- 23. Y.Kiyo, G. Mishima and Y.Sumino, Phys. Lett. B 752, cal expressions for this relation being analytically evaluated (2016) 122 Erratum: [Phys. Lett. B 772, (2017) 878] later on in [113]. It may be of interest to understand better 24. S. Alekhin, J. Blumlein, S. Moch and R. Placakyte, the discussed non-regular structure of the asymptotic QED Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) no.1, 014011 series in the future. 25. V. Mateu and P. G. Ortega, JHEP 1801 (2018) 122 26. A. A. Penin and N. Zerf, JHEP 1404 (2014) 120 27. C. Ayala, G. Cvetic and A. Pineda, JHEP 1409 (2014) References 045 28. C. Ayala, G. Cvetic and A. Pineda, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1. R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B 183 (1981) 384. 762, (2016) no. 1, 012063 2. N. Gray, D. J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe and K. Schilcher, 29. B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang and V. Mateu, JHEP 08 Z. Phys. C 48 (1990), 673-680 (2015), 155 3. L. V. Avdeev and M. Y. Kalmykov, Nucl. Phys. B 502 30. M. Beneke, A. Maier, J. Piclum and T. Rauh, Nucl. (1997) 419 Phys. B 891, (2015) 42 4. J. Fleischer, F. Jegerlehner, O. V. Tarasov and 31. A. Bazavov et al. [Fermilab Lattice and MILC and O. L. Veretin, Nucl. Phys. B 539 (1999) 671. Erratum: TUMQCD Collaborations], Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) [Nucl. Phys. B 571 (2000) 511] no.5, 054517 5. K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 99 20

32. M. Butenschoen, B. Dehnadi, A. H. Hoang, V. Ma- 61. P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kühn, Phys. teu, M. Preisser and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 Rev. Lett. 118, (2017) no. 8, 082002 (2016) no.23, 232001 62. F. Herzog, B. Ruijl, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren and 33. G. Corcella, Front. in Phys. 7 (2019) 54 A. Vogt, JHEP 1702 (2017) 090 34. A. H. Hoang, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 70 (2020) 63. T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard and Y. Schroder, 35. P. A. Zyla et al. [Particle Data Group], PTEP 2020, JHEP 1710 (2017) 166 (2020) no.8, 083C01 64. O. Nachtmann and W. Wetzel, Nucl. Phys. B 187, 36. G. Aad et al. [ATLAS Collaboration], (1981) 333. arXiv:1905.02302 [hep-ex]. 65. O. V. Tarasov, JINR-P2-82-900, Communication of 37. A. Baskakov, E. Boos and L. Dudko, EPJ Web Conf. the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 1982 158 (2017) 04007. (in Russian). Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. 17 (2020) no.2, 38. P. Nason, in “From My Vast Repertoire...,” Guido 109-115 Altarelli’s Legacy, eds. S. Forte, A. Levy and 66. S. A. Larin, in Proc. of the Int. School “Particles and G. Ridolfi, World Scientific (2019) p. 123-151 Cosmology”, Baksan Neutrino Observatory of INR, arXiv:1712.02796 [hep-ph]. 1993, p. 216-226; eds. E.N. Alekseev, V.A. Matveev, 39. S. Alekhin, S. Moch and S. Thier, Phys. Lett. B 763 Kh.S. Nirov and V.A. Rubakov (World Scientific, Sin- (2016) 341 gapore, 1994). 40. S. Catani, S. Devoto, M. Grazzini, S. Kallweit and 67. J. A. M. Vermaseren, S. A. Larin and T. van Ritbergen, J. Mazzitelli, JHEP 08, no.08, 027 (2020) Phys. Lett. B 405, (1997) 327 41. M. Beneke, P. Marquard, P. Nason and M. Steinhauser, 68. K. G. Chetyrkin, Phys. Lett. B 404, (1997) 161 Phys. Lett. B 775, (2017) 63 69. P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin and J. H. Kühn, JHEP 42. A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, JETP Lett. 108 1410, (2014) 076 (2018) no.12, 777 70. T. Luthe, A. Maier, P. Marquard and Y. Schröder, 43. A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, EPJ Web Conf. JHEP 1701 (2017) 081 191, (2018) 04005 71. P. A. Baikov and K. G. Chetyrkin, JHEP 1806 (2018) 44. V. S. Molokoedov, PhD thesis (in Russian), http:// 141 inr.ru/rus/referat/molokoed/dis.pdf 72. S. Laporta, Phys. Lett. B 802, 135264 (2020) 45. A. L. Kataev and V. V. Starshenko, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 73. A. V. Radyushkin, JINR-E2-82-155, Communication 10 (1995) 235 of the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 46. K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin, Phys. Lett. 1982; JINR Rapid Commun. 78 (1996) 96 B 402, (1997) 359 74. S. G. Gorishniy, A. L. Kataev and S. A. Larin, Sov. J. 47. G. Grunberg, Phys. Rev. D 29 (1984) 2315. Nucl. Phys. 40 (1984) 329 [Yad. Fiz. 40 (1984) 517]. 48. P. M. Stevenson, Phys. Rev. D 23, (1981) 2916. 75. A. A. Pivovarov, Nuovo Cim. A 105, 813 (1992). 49. A. Pineda, JHEP 0106, (2001) 022 76. F. Le Diberder and A. Pich, Phys. Lett. B 286 (1992) 50. A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, C. Lepenik, V. Mateu, 147. M. Preisser, I. Scimemi and I. W. Stewart, JHEP 1804, 77. G. Altarelli, P. Nason and G. Ridolfi, Z. Phys. C 68 (2018) 003 (1995) 257 51. C. Ayala, X. Lobregat and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D 78. A. P. Bakulev, S. V. Mikhailov and N. G. Stefanis, 101, no.3, 034002 (2020) JHEP 1006 (2010) 085 52. D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, (1973) 79. A. V. Nesterenko, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no.12, 844 1343. 80. D. J. Broadhurst, A. L. Kataev and C. J. Maxwell, 53. H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, (1973) 1346. Nucl. Phys. B 592 (2001), 247-293 54. D. R. T. Jones, Nucl. Phys. B 75, (1974) 531. 81. A. L. Kataev and V. T. Kim, Phys. Part. Nucl. 41, 55. W. E. Caswell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, (1974) 244. (2010) 946 56. E. Egorian and O. V. Tarasov, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 41, 82. A. A. Pivovarov, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 66 (2003), 724- (1979) 26 [Theor. Math. Phys. 41, (1979) 863]. 736 57. O. V. Tarasov, A. A. Vladimirov and A. Y. Zharkov, 83. J. D. Bjorken, SLAC-PUB-5103. Phys. Lett. 93B, (1980) 429. 84. A. L. Kataev and V. S. Molokoedov, Phys. Rev. D 92, 58. S. A. Larin and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Phys. Lett. B (2015) no. 5, 054008 303, (1993) 334 85. J. Komijani, JHEP 1708, (2017) 062 59. T. van Ritbergen, J. A. M. Vermaseren and S. A. Larin, 86. M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B 434, (1998) 115 Phys. Lett. B 400, (1997) 379 87. A. H. Hoang, A. Jain, I. Scimemi and I. W. Stewart, 60. M. Czakon, Nucl. Phys. B 710, (2005) 485 Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), 151602 21

88. F. Campanario, A. G. Grozin and T. Mannel, Nucl. 100. T. Banks and A. Zaks, Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 189. Phys. B 663 (2003) 280 Erratum: [Nucl. Phys. B 670 101. L. N. Lipatov, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, (1977) 216-223 (2003) 331] 102. C. Itzykson, G. Parisi and J.-B. Zuber, Phys. Rev. D 16 89. A. H. Hoang, C. Lepenik and M. Preisser, JHEP 1709 (1977) 996. (2017) 099 103. E. B. Bogomolny and V. A. Fateev, Phys. Lett. B 76, 90. A. Pineda, [arXiv:1704.05095 [hep-ph]]. 210-212 (1978) 91. R. D. Ball et al. [NNPDF Collaboration], JHEP 1504, 104. E. B. Bogomolny and Y. A. Kubyshin, Sov. J. Nucl. (2015) 040 Phys. 34, 853-858 (1981) 92. B. A. Kniehl, A. V. Kotikov, A. I. Onishchenko and 105. J. Zinn-Justin, Phys. Rept. 70, (1981) 109 O. L. Veretin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 (2006) 042001 106. D. I. Kazakov and D. V. Shirkov, Fortsch. Phys. 28, 93. K. G. Chetyrkin, B. A. Kniehl and M. Steinhauser, 465-499 (1980) Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, (1997) 2184 107. V. V. Anashin et al., JETP Lett. 85 (2007) 347. 94. W. Bernreuther and W. Wetzel, Nucl. Phys. B 197, 108. Z. z. Xing, H. Zhang and S. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 77 228-236 (1982) [erratum: Nucl. Phys. B 513, 758-758 (2008) 113016 (1998)] 109. S. Laporta, PoS LL 2018 (2018) 073. 95. S. A. Larin, T. van Ritbergen and J. A. M. Vermaseren, 110. T. Aoyama, T. Kinoshita and M. Nio, Phys. Rev. D 97 Nucl. Phys. B 438, 278-306 (1995) (2018) no.3, 036001 96. K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. 111. S. Volkov, Phys. Rev. D 100, no. 9, 096004 (2019) B 744 (2006) 121 112. A. L. Kataev, Talk at XIV Lomonosov Conference 97. Y. Schroder and M. Steinhauser, JHEP 0601 (2006) on Elementary Particle Physics, MSU, Moscow, 19- 051 25 August, 2009 (unpublished) http://nuclphys. 98. S. Bekavac, A. Grozin, D. Seidel and M. Steinhauser, sinp.msu.ru/conf/lpp14/210809/Kataev.pdf JHEP 10 (2007), 006 113. P. A. Baikov, K. G. Chetyrkin, J. H. Kuhn and 99. M. Fael, K. Schönwald and M. Steinhauser, C. Sturm, Nucl. Phys. B 867 (2013) 182 [arXiv:2008.01102 [hep-ph]].