currently , experiment suggests that there are more scalar mesons than can be accommodated in a single quark - model nonet .
many qcd motivated models predict the existence of non-@xmath8 mesons such as glueballs  @xcite , hybrids  @xcite , @xmath9  @xcite and @xmath10  @xcite states .
it is tempting to say that these ` spare ' experimental states are the unconventional mesons allowed by qcd but , with scalar glueball and multiquark states expected to have masses comparable to the conventional @xmath11 states , which _ are _ the extra states ? in the work that follows we hope to shed some light on this question by attempting to determine which of the 5 scalar - isoscalar mesons currently listed in the particle data group tables  @xcite is the lightest @xmath12 meson in this channel . to address this question we will use the qcd sum rule technique .
the answer has importance for chiral symmetry breaking in qcd , see for instance  @xcite .
qcd sum rules are integral expressions that relate the hadronic and partonic regimes , _
i.e. _ the low energy world of resonances with the high energy world of ( tractable ) qcd . since their conception over twenty years ago  @xcite , qcd sum rules have become an established technique both for calculating hadronic properties in channels , where the qcd expressions are under control , and , conversely , estimating qcd parameters ( such as the masses of the quarks ) in channels where there is good experimental information .
using qcd sum rules in the scalar channel is not a new idea .
they were first applied to the scalar mesons in  @xcite where laplace sum rules were used ( for a recent review of laplace sum rules see  @xcite ) . here the phenomenological side was represented using the , now standard , resonance + continuum ansatz , with resonances being represented as @xmath13-functions and the continuum being calculated entirely within perturbative qcd . as only the operator product expansion ( ope ) terms , discussed in sect .
[ sec : ope ] , were taken into account on the theory side , _ exact _ mass degeneracy between the lightest isoscalar and isovector was found , with .
the @xmath14 state was predicted to have a mass of around 1.35  gev .
these findings were supported by bramon and narison  @xcite , who used qcd sum rules to calculate the couplings of the @xmath4 and @xmath15 to two photons . again modelling the resonances with @xmath13-functions
the authors concluded that a @xmath11 interpretation of these two mesons could not be ruled out with the data then available .
the effects of going beyond the ope were studied in  @xcite , where instantons ( see sect .  [ sec : instantons ] ) were included on the theoretical side , but not in the qcd continuum on the phenomenological side .
once again the resonances were treated as @xmath13-functions and only the isospin-1 channel was considered .
it was concluded that the lightest @xmath11 state in this channel had a mass @xmath16  1  gev .    for the light scalar mesons
the zero - width approximation is not a good one and the first attempt to go beyond it in a sum rule investigation was by elias _
_  @xcite .
here resonances were represented by breit - wigner formulae , which , whilst better than a @xmath13-function , still do not adequately describe the complex structure in the scalar sector .
a  further abstraction was introduced by replacing these breit - wigner shapes with a riemann sum of rectangular pulses .
laplace sum rules were used , but in an integral form which requires the calculation of perturbative expressions at rather low energy scales .
again instantons were included , but not in the continuum . in the isovector channel , the @xmath15
was found to decouple from the sum rule and the mass of the lightest quarkonium isovector was consistent with the @xmath17 . in the isoscalar channel
the conclusions were not so clear cut , it was predicted that the lightest quarkonium here should have a width less than half of its mass , and although the @xmath4 could not be ruled out as the main contributor a lighter state was preferred .
similar conclusions were reached in  @xcite .
this study used both laplace and finite energy sum rules , again requiring perturbative expressions to be evaluated at low energies .
the authors noted , that for a consistent treatment of the borel sum rules , the instanton effects should also be included in the qcd continuum contribution .
the sum rules were dominated by an isoscalar with mass around 1  gev and an isovector with mass around 1.5  gev , thus suggesting the @xmath4 and @xmath17 as the lightest @xmath11 states in their respective channels . however , in the same work , a comparison to a more realistic resonance shape predicted resonance parameters for the lightest quarkonium of @xmath18  mev and @xmath19  mev .
these parameters are not consistent with the @xmath4 , but could describe a breit - wigner fit to the @xmath3 .    in  @xcite , maltman used pinched weight finite energy sum rules to calculate the decay constants of the @xmath15 and @xmath17 , which were then compared with the decay constant of the , presumably @xmath11 , @xmath20 .
instantons were included and all qcd integrals were carried out in the complex plane , which improves the convergence of perturbative expressions .
the isovector decay constants were found to be of comparable size , suggesting a similar structure for both .
the author concluded that this favoured a unitarised quark model  @xcite scenario , where two physical hadrons can arise from one ` seed ' state .    in the work that follows
we will apply qcd finite energy sum rules introduced in sect .  2 to the scalar - isoscalar channel .
on the theoretical side we will include in sects .
3 and 4 instanton effects as well as the ope terms up to dimension six and use the contour improvement prescription to increase the convergence of perturbative expressions . on the the phenomenological side in sect .  5
we will incorporate experimental data directly by relating the hadronic vacuum polarisation to the @xmath21 scattering amplitude via the pion s scalar form - factor .
the sum rules are evaluated in sect .  6 and we present our conclusions in sect .  7 .
the connection between quarks and hadrons is through the vacuum polarisation , @xmath22 .
this is defined by the correlation function of two currents , _
i.e. _ @xmath23 where @xmath24 and the currents are chosen so as to select the desired channel . in this work we are considering the scalar - isoscalar mesons and
so we choose the renormalisation group invariant current @xmath25 where @xmath26 and we use the symbol @xmath27 to denote an effective light - quark .
the second equality follows because we ignore the two - gluon intermediate state , whose contribution is @xmath28 and so can be safely neglected .
-plane showing the so called ` pacman ' contour which is used to derive the fesrs .
[ fig : pacman ] ]    ' '' ''    @xmath22 is analytic everywhere in the complex @xmath29plane except along the time - like axis , so for any weight function , @xmath30 , which is real for all real @xmath31 and analytic within the ` pacman ' contour shown in fig .
[ fig : pacman ] we can write @xmath32    on the left - hand side of  eq .
( [ eq : fesr ] ) we have an integral in the physical region , and here we choose to describe the integrand using hadronic physics ( either with experimental data or a phenomenological parameterisation ) . on the right - hand side we have an integral in the non - physical region ( complex @xmath31 ) , and here we use field theory ( _ i.e_. qcd ) to calculate the integrand . the assumption that  eq .
( [ eq : fesr ] ) holds for a range of values of @xmath1 is a statement of global quark - hadron duality , _
i.e. _ the integral of an hadronic expression is equal to the integral of an expression written in terms of partonic degrees of freedom .    early sum rule work used positive integer powers of @xmath31 as weight functions . in this work
we wish to investigate the lightest meson in the channel , and so we choose a decaying exponential , . on the phenomenological side ,
this weight function will suppress the region of the integral @xmath33 , and so by varying @xmath34 we can control which regions of the integrand contribute most significantly to the sum rule .
if we also include integer powers of @xmath31 in the weight function then we can build up a family of sum rules .    almost by definition , at energies
where resonances dominate the spectral density , the implications of qcd are not straightforwardly calculable . if qcd _ were _
tractable then the technology of qcd sum rules would be redundant .
this means that , for moderate values of @xmath1 , our straightforward qcd description of @xmath22 must fail , at the very least , in the region of the positive real axis ( see fig .
[ fig : pacman ] ) .
however , it is believed  @xcite that it is _ only _ in the region of the positive , real axis that the straightforward qcd description is particularly unreliable and that in the rest of the @xmath31-plane calculable qcd provides a good description of the correlator .
consequently we introduce a zero into the weight function at the point where the circle joins the real axis , _ i.e. _ @xmath1 .
thus our sum rules have the weight function and we denote them by the symbol @xmath35 . elsewhere in the literature
they are often referred to as pinched weight sum rules .
then the left hand side of eq .
( 3 ) becomes @xmath36 introducing this zero into the weight function has a number of advantages .
firstly , on the theoretical side we avoid the problem , just described , of the failure of qcd on the part of the circle near the positive real axis . secondly , on the phenomenological side
, we have introduced a second factor with a tendency to suppress the higher energy portion of the integral and consequently reduce the dependence on the exact value of @xmath1  @xcite .
the parameter @xmath1 is not entirely free : it must be large enough that the qcd expressions we are able to calculate are expected to be a good approximation to the full correlator , yet @xmath1 should be small enough that we have experimental information .
the art of sum - ruling is to find ( sensible ) values of @xmath1 for which over a wide range of the unphysical parameter @xmath34 .
when this occurs we say that the sum rules are _
although the current  eq .  ( [ eq : current ] ) is rg - invariant , the correlator it gives rise to is not . as well as making the calculation of the correlator within qcd more difficult , this would also lead to an unwanted scale dependence in our final results .
the second derivative of this correlator , @xmath37 , _ is _ rg - invariant . as @xmath37 is also analytic within the contour shown in fig .
[ fig : pacman ] , we could choose to write the sum rules completely in terms of this quantity , but @xmath38 is not directly related to any physical quantity and so we would lose our link to experiment .
instead we use partial integration to re - express the theoretical side of the sum rules in terms of @xmath37 . to do this
we write the integral on the theoretical side as @xmath39 we now integrate this expression by parts twice to give , @xmath40 and arrange the constants of integration which appear in @xmath41 and @xmath42 so that these functions disappear at @xmath43 .
then our sum rule is @xmath44_{had } \ , \dd s = -\frac{1}{2 \pi
i } \oint_{|s|=s_0 } \!\!\!\ !
v(s ) \ , \left[\pi^{\prime   \prime}(s)\right]_{qcd } \ , \dd s \ .
\label{eq : rgifesr}\ ] ]    = 6.0 mm
in order to calculate the vacuum polarisation within qcd we make use of the operator product expansion ( ope )  @xcite . this replaces the matrix element of the product of currents in  eq .
( [ eq : corr ] ) by a linear combination of local operators ordered in terms of increasing dimensionality , @xmath45 the first term in this expansion is the purely perturbative contribution , with higher dimension terms giving the contribution due to various condensates . we will consider terms up to dimension six , higher order terms are expected to be negligible .
expressions are available in the literature for the dimension zero term to four - loop order , the dimension four term to two loops and the dimension six term at leading order .
we quote these expressions with refernces to the original works for the full information .
all expressions are given in the @xmath46 scheme .
the dimension zero expression can be found in  @xcite and is given by @xmath47 \right .
\nonumber\\ & & \left .
{ } + a_s^2 \left [ \left ( \frac{5071}{144 } - \frac{35}{2}\zeta(3 ) \right ) - \frac{139}{6 } \l + \frac{17}{4 } \ll \right ] \right.\nonumber \\ & & \left . { } + a_s^3 \left [ \left ( -\frac{4781}{9 } + \frac{b_1}{6 } + \frac{475}{4}\zeta(3)\right ) + \left ( -\frac{2720}{9 } + \frac{475}{4}\zeta(3 ) \right ) \l \right .
\nonumber \\   & & \left .
\qquad \quad { } + \frac{695}{8}\ll - \frac{221}{24}\lll \right ] \right\ } \ ,   \label{eq : dim0}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath48 and @xmath49 is the riemann zeta function . as
@xmath50 is renormalisation group invariant , we are free to make any convenient choice of the renormalisation scale .
we use the ` contour improvement ' prescription , whereby the logs in  eq .
( [ eq : dim0 ] ) are ` re - summed ' by making the choice @xmath51 .
this improves the convergence of the perturbative series by removing the dependence on large powers of possibly large logs which would appear in the ( unknown ) higher order terms .
the contour improved perturbative contribution to our correlator is then , @xmath52    navely , the only gauge - invariant operator of dimension two that can be constructed within qcd is the so - called mass insertion term , @xmath53 . for the light
quarks that we are considering this term can safely be ignored .
some recent works have suggested that there may be mechanisms outside of the normal ope , which could lead to dimension two contributions to correlation functions .
these mechanisms include renormalons  @xcite and a tachyonic ( _ i.e. _ imaginary ) gluon mass  @xcite .
it has been argued that , if they do exist , the effects of dimension two operators would not be significant in most sum rule analyses and that even in calculations where they would be expected to be most noticeable , these effects are consistent with zero  @xcite .
hence , in this work , we choose to ignore them .
the contour - improved contribution at dimension four can be inferred from @xcite and is given by @xmath54 - \frac{i_g}{9 } \left[1 + \frac{121 a_s(q^2)}{18 } \right ] \right .
\nonumber \\ & & \qquad \qquad \left . { } + i_s \frac{4 a_s(q^2)}{9 } - \frac{3 m_s^4(q^2)}{28 \pi^2 } \right\ } \ ,   \label{eq : dim4inv}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath55 and @xmath56    the leading order dimension six contribution can be taken from  @xcite and we follow this reference in taking this term at the fixed scale of 1  gev .
the dimension six contribution is then @xmath57 \right ) \
, \label{eq : dim6}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath58 are the dirac matrices , and @xmath59 are the usual gell - mann matrices normalised such that . currently there is no reliable method to calculate the vacuum expectation values appearing in  eq .
( [ eq : dim6 ] ) , so we follow standard practice and relate these dimension six condensates to the ( rg variant ) dimension three light quark condensate @xmath60 .
for the mixed condensate , @xmath61 , this is done via the parameterisation @xmath62 and for the four - quark condensates , @xmath63 and @xmath64 , via the _ vacuum saturation hypothesis _  @xcite . to take into account the possible violation of the vacuum saturation hypothesis
we include a multiplicative factor @xmath65 .
thus our final expression for the dimension six contribution is @xmath66    in order to evaluate all these expressions we need to calculate the running coupling and quark masses at complex values .
this is done by solving the four - loop renormalisation group equations that define the qcd @xmath67 and @xmath68 functions ( our conventions for these functions are given in appendix  [ app : rg ] ) .    for the coupling , we choose to solve the implicit equation @xmath69 iteratively using newton s method . as input ,
we take the experimental value @xmath70 , as measured by the aleph collaboration  @xcite . for reference , had we used the standard expansion for @xmath71 , then at four - loops and with three active flavours , this central input value would correspond to @xmath72  mev . for higher values of @xmath73 , or correspondingly @xmath74 , the radiative corrections to  eq .
( [ eq : dim0q ] ) become more important and start to swamp the higher dimension terms , _
i.e _ it becomes more important to include higher loop corrections to the perturbative contribution than to include the condensates .
it has been argued  @xcite that the sum rule methodology could become invalid for @xmath75  mev .
this is especially problematic for attempts to determine condensate values via the sum rule technique . as this is not our aim and considering the success of previous sum rule studies with similar and higher values of @xmath73 ( and @xmath74 ) , we feel justified in applying sum rules to this problem .    the momentum dependence of the quark mass is given by @xmath76 \ .
\label{eq : mass}\ ] ]
the opes for the scalar - isoscalar and scalar - isovector channels are identical .
this was originally interpreted as an explanation for the almost exact mass degeneracy of the @xmath4 and the @xmath15  @xcite .
however , we know that the ope is not enough to describe the qcd vacuum completely .
other effects are important , particularly in the scalar and pseudoscalar channels  @xcite .
the complex nature of the qcd vacuum means that it is not currently possible to solve the equations of motion of the full theory directly .
we must make use of approximations , which in this work we choose to be the instanton liquid model  @xcite .
here the qcd vacuum is modelled as a four - dimensional ` liquid ' of instantons , which is assumed to be dilute enough to make the idea of individual instantons meaningful .
the liquid is characterised by the average instanton size @xmath77 and four - volume density @xmath78 ( or alternatively the average instanton separation , @xmath79 ) . the instanton liquid model is then thought to be a good approximation , if the ratio @xmath80 is small . within this model
the instanton contribution to the scalar - isoscalar light - quark correlator was found in  @xcite to be @xmath81 ^ 2 \ ,
\label{eq : inscorr}\ ] ] where @xmath82 is a modified bessel function of the second kind ( or macdonald function ) .
taking two derivatives we obtain @xmath83 \ .
\label{eq : inssecdir}\ ] ]    as stated earlier @xmath37 is an rg - invariant quantity .
the only quantity in  eq .
( [ eq : inssecdir ] ) that could have a renormalisation scale dependence is the quark mass .
this renormalisation scale dependence can not be cancelled out anywhere else , so we conclude that the quark mass appearing in  eq .
( [ eq : inssecdir ] ) must be the quark mass at some fixed scale , @xmath84 . _
a priori _ we do not know what this scale is .
it is reasonable to expect that it is related to the instanton scale given by @xmath85 or the hadronic scale of @xmath86 gev , but we have no physical reason for choosing @xmath85 rather than _
e.g. _ @xmath87 .
thus we take this scale as an input parameter in the calculation .
if this scale is found to be considerably different from the hadronic and instanton scales , then it would call into doubt our treatment of the instanton contribution .
at low energies the only hadronic process possible in the scalar - isoscalar channel is @xmath21 scattering .
as pions are made of non - strange quarks , it is reasonable to expect that , in the elastic region , the spectral density for the correlator is related to the absorptive part of the @xmath88 scattering amplitude , @xmath89 .
this link can be made via the scalar form - factor of the pion , @xmath90 , which is defined by @xmath91 inserting a complete set of hadronic states into the correlator  eq .
( [ eq : corr ] ) and keeping only the lowest state , _
i.e. _ two pions , gives the spectral density in the elastic region , @xmath92 where @xmath93 .
watson s final state interaction theorem  @xcite implies that the form factor and the scattering amplitude have the same phase .
thus , in the region where elastic unitarity holds , we can write @xmath94 where the coupling function , @xmath95 , is real for real @xmath96 . substituting  eq .
( [ eq : watson ] ) into  eq .
( [ eq : spec ] ) and making use of the elastic unitarity relationship , we obtain @xmath97    it is well known that @xmath21 scattering contains an adler zero  @xcite , and that this zero does not appear in the scalar pion form factor .
we now make the simplifying assumption that this is the only @xmath31-dependence appearing in @xmath95 , _ i.e. _ @xmath98 where @xmath99 is the position of the adler zero and @xmath100 is a constant . substituting eq .
( [ eq : adler ] ) into eq .
( [ eq : spec2 ] ) gives our first ansatz @xmath101 where @xmath102 is an unknown constant of proportionality .
although the @xmath103 threshold is at 560  mev , it is well known that multi - pion channels are not significant below around 1400  mev , when quasi two - body channels , _
@xmath104 , @xmath105 , become important  @xcite .
the first important inelastic channel is @xmath106 .
even after this has opened the @xmath21 final state will continue to pick out the non - strange contribution to the sum over states .
thus we might expect eq .
( [ eq : ansatz1 ] ) to give a reasonable approximation to the true spectral density even above 1  gev .
we call this coupling scheme i.    the multi - pion final states mentioned above will increase the @xmath107 spectral density , causing  eq .
( [ eq : ansatz1 ] ) to be an underestimate at higher energies .
phenomenologically , we might expect the true spectral density to be enhanced by the ratio of the total to elastic @xmath21 cross - sections , thus giving @xmath108 which we call coupling scheme ii . in the elastic region ,
the two coupling schemes are , of course , identical . above the @xmath10 threshold , whereas coupling scheme i ignores all inelastic channels and so will underestimate the spectral density , coupling scheme ii takes into account all inelastic channels , including those with hidden strangeness , and so may be an overestimate .
@xmath21 scattering amplitude as calculated from the data set described in the text ( line ) . superimposed
are experimental points from @xcite ( diamonds ) , @xcite ( boxes ) , @xcite ( triangles ) and @xcite ( circles ) .
[ fig : sketch ] ]    ' '' ''    as input we take the parameterisation of the @xmath109 scattering data carried out by bugg  _ et al _  @xcite . however , when continued down to threshold this fails to reproduce the scattering length predicted by chiral perturbation theory  ( @xmath110pt ) and so in the region below 450  mev we use the roy equation extrapolation of the classic ochs - wagner phase - shifts  @xcite , as carried out by pennington and used in the discussion of @xmath111  @xcite .
[ fig : sketch ] shows a sketch of the absorptive part of the isospin zero , @xmath112-wave amplitude for @xmath21 scattering as calculated from our data set . from this
we can clearly see that the @xmath3 and the @xmath113 appear as peaks , while the @xmath4 and the @xmath114 show up as sharp dips .
thus these latter two states , and in particular the @xmath4 , will largely decouple from the spectral density and if saturation of the sum rules is achieved with either of our two coupling schemes , it will not be due in any great part to the @xmath4 or @xmath114 . by varying both @xmath34 and @xmath1
it may be possible to determine which of the @xmath3 and the @xmath113 plays the dominant role in saturation , but for the evaluation of the wilson coefficients in the ope to be trustworthy , we would expect @xmath1 to be too high to exclude the @xmath113 . nevertheless , as the decaying exponential in the weight functions of our sum rules suppresses the integrand for @xmath33 , it is still possible to determine which resonance is most important for saturation .      a value for the normalisation factor @xmath102 ,
can be determined by making a comparison with the spectral density obtained using an omns representation  @xcite of the form factor .
this representation is given by @xmath115\ , \label{eq : omnes}\ ] ] where @xmath116 is the phase of @xmath117 scattering .
the form factor at zero momentum transfer , which normalises the omns function , can be determined from the feynman - hellman theorem  @xcite and is given by @xmath118 to leading order in @xmath110pt , the physical pion mass is given by the gell - mann - oakes - renner relation ,  @xcite , and thus we see that @xmath119 going to next - to - leading order in @xmath110pt would introduce a correction to  eq .
( [ eq : dzero ] ) of the order of 1% ( see for example  @xcite ) , which is safe to neglect .    to evaluate the integral in  eq .
( [ eq : omnes ] ) exactly requires knowledge of the scattering phase in the high energy region where it is unknown .
however , the integrand is dominated by the region around @xmath31 .
so if we restrict our comparison to the low energy region then the behaviour of the phase above some point @xmath120 , where @xmath121 , will not greatly affect the value of the integral .
we take @xmath120 to correspond to the last data point and approximate the phase above this point as a constant ,  @xmath122 .
thus , the spectral density , as calculated from the omns representation , is written @xmath123 \ .
\label{eq : specomnes}\ ] ] where the bar on the integral sign denotes the cauchy principal value .
]    ' '' ''    the value of the constant , @xmath102 , can then be determined by fitting  eq .
( [ eq : ansatz1 ] ) to  eq .
( [ eq : specomnes ] ) .
the position of the adler zero for isospin-0 , s - wave @xmath21 scattering is fixed to be close to @xmath124 , which is its position at lowest order in @xmath110pt and so we essentially only have one parameter , @xmath102 , to determine .
the fit , shown in fig .  [ fig : lowrho ] , was carried out up to a maximum energy of 400  mev . over this energy range
it does not matter which coupling scheme is used .
each gives the value .
however , this value is quite sensitive to the maximum energy of the fit and should not be trusted to an accuracy better than 20% .
in any sum rule calculation , we hope to find regions of the parameter space where the theoretical and phenomenological sides are equal .
we measure this _ saturation _ of the sum rules by introducing the double ratios @xmath125_{had}}{\left[t_{k+1 } / t_k \right]_{qcd } } \ .
\label{eq : drat}\ ] ] this ratio is independent of the overall normalising constants on either side , _ i.e _ @xmath102 and @xmath126 , and obviously is equal to one when the sum rules are saturated . as sum rule analyses are generally accurate to around 10 - 20% we set an agreement region of @xmath127 .
in practice we shall use only the lowest such double ratio for each type of sum rule , _
i.e _ @xmath128 , as the integer powers of @xmath31 in the higher sum rules increase the importance of the upper end of the integrand on the phenomenological side .
= 5.9 mm    .standard values of all parameters used to evaluate the sum rules .
[ tab : parameters ] [ cols="^,^,^",options="header " , ]     ' '' ''    we have performed a number of tests to determine how stable this estimate is to the variation of input parameters within the ranges found to give good saturation curves .
the parameters @xmath77 , @xmath129 and @xmath65 each yield an uncertainty in the quark mass of 0.1  mev , see fig .
[ fig : mass ] .
varying the remaining condensate values from zero to twice the value listed in table  [ tab : parameters ] produces no noticeable effect on the quark mass obtained .
the largest source of uncertainty in our calculation is the value of the phenomenological constant of proportionality , @xmath102 , defined in eqs .
( 27,28 ) .
this could only be determined to an accuracy of 20% , and so gives the dominant uncertainty in the final result of 0.5  mev .
our final estimate is then @xmath130 . in table
[ tab : masses ] we list some other recent determinations of this quantity . we see that our estimate is consistent , though lower , than earlier sum rule determinations . though not agreeing with the results of quenched lattice qcd ,
our value is reassuringly consistent with the early results of unquenched lattice calculations which are just beginning to appear in the literature .
the application of qcd sum rules to the isoscalar - scalar current requires a realistic representation of the contributing resonances .
none in this channel remotely approximates a @xmath131function , fig .  2 .
indeed , states like the @xmath132 ( or @xmath3 ) are far too broad to be sensibly described by simple breit - wigner forms
. moreover they overlap with other resonances like the @xmath4 and strongly coupled thresholds , like @xmath133 .
it is quite natural that the @xmath134 correlator is expressly related to the @xmath135 scattering amplitude and so the vacuum polarization can be described directly in terms of experimental information without the need for further ( breit - wigner - like ) approximations .
we have shown that such coupling schemes , defined in sect .
[ subsec : ansatz ] , are perfectly capable of saturating qcd finite energy sum rules . in @xmath21 scattering
the @xmath4 appears as a sharp dip .
consequently , in our coupling schemes this state makes relatively little contribution to the correlator , in total contrast to the conclusions of shakin and wang  @xcite .
that good saturation is possible strongly suggests then that the @xmath4 does indeed make only a small contribution to the scalar - isoscalar sum rules , which in turn implies that it does not contain a large @xmath136 component in its wave function .
this result is also at odds with the conclusion reached in  @xcite .
however , as explained above , when the same authors  @xcite considered a more realistic approximation for the resonance shape , the parameters found were more consistent with the @xmath3 than the @xmath4 . from the present analysis , beyond saying that it is not strongly @xmath136
, we can make no comment on the structure of the @xmath4 .
the saturation curves we obtain are remarkably flat and close to one from low values of @xmath34 , see figs .
as the exponential in the weight function tends to suppress the integrand in the region @xmath33 , saturation at these values of @xmath34 means it is the lower energy portion of the experimental data that is most important in saturating the sum rules .
furthermore , the @xmath113 ( with mass @xmath137 and width @xmath138 ) will not contribute until . that the sum rules are fulfilled from @xmath139
implies it is the @xmath3 that plays the most important role in saturating the @xmath136 scalar - isoscalar sum rules .    our results again
show that the operator product expansion is not enough to describe the physics of the scalar mesons completely .
we find saturation only when instantons are included .
one potentially worrying point of this analysis is the need to tune the average instanton size away from its accepted value of . to or 0.40  0.42  fm , which is about 25% larger .
the validity of the instanton liquid model relies on the mean separation of instantons being significantly larger than their average size .
if this is not true then neighbouring instantons will overlap significantly and it becomes meaningless to talk about individual instantons .
the assumed average instanton separation of 1  fm is only about 2.5 times the value of @xmath77 required by our sum rule , and so we are probably approaching this limit . reassuringly
though , lattice simulations of the topological features of the qcd vacuum seem to find average instanton sizes similar to the one we are forced to use ( for a summary of lattice determinations of instanton parameters see  @xcite ) .
the above results follow from ratios of the finite energy sum rules defined in eq .
( 33 ) and displayed in figs .  4 - 8 .
moreover , the absolute value of each is determined by the quark mass curves of sect .
[ subsec : mass ] .
these are also found to be flat and this constancy sets in already below @xmath140 , fig .
this is again evidence that our coupling schemes are capable of satisfying the sum rules and that the state most important for this is the @xmath3 .
the value we find for the average @xmath141 and @xmath142 quark mass is @xmath143 the most conservative way to interpret this result is merely as a consistency check .
a number of assumptions are made in this analysis , _
e.g. _ the validity of the coupling schemes , the truncation of the ope at dimension-6 and the perturbative contribution at @xmath144 , the form of the instanton contribution _ etc_. that our final result is of the correct size reassures us that none of our assumptions are too far off the mark .
going further and taking it foregranted that the isoscalar - scalar correlator is indeed directly related to @xmath135 scattering , then the sum rules provide an independent determination of the average light quark mass , as given in eq .
our result is quite compatible with sum rule determinations in the pseudoscalar sector and with the early unquenched lattice estimates that are starting to appear in the literature .
we can then be certain that the @xmath3 is the dominant contribution to the @xmath145 current .
m.r.p . is most grateful for the warm hospitality as well as support at the special research centre for the subatomic structure of matter at the university of adelaide during the course of this work .
the authors would like to thank kim maltman for most helpful discussions in adelaide and subsequent e - mail correspondence .
is also grateful to the theory group of the institut de physique nuclaire , universit paris - sud , orsay for its kind hospitality .
this work was supported in part under the eu - tmr programme , contract no .
ct98 - 0169 , eurodaphne .
the qcd @xmath67 and @xmath68-functions are defined by the the renormalisation group equations @xmath146 and @xmath147 where @xmath148 .    currently , the qcd @xmath67 and @xmath68-functions are known to four - loop order . for three active flavours ,
the coefficients of the @xmath67 function within the @xmath46 scheme are  @xcite @xmath149 the coefficients of the @xmath68-function , also within the @xmath46 scheme , are  @xcite @xmath150 @xmath151      99 h.  fritzsch and m.  gell - mann , proc . of _
xvi international conference on high energy physics _ ,
chicago , 1972 , ( ed .
j.  jackson , a.  roberts and r.  donaldson ) vol . 2 p. 135 ; + h.  fritzsch and p.  minkowski , nuovo cim .
a * 30 * ( 1975 ) 393 .
d.  horn and j.  mandula , phys .
d * 17 * ( 1978 ) 898 .
r.  l.  jaffe , phys .
rev .   * d15 * ( 1977 ) 267 ; + r.  l.  jaffe , phys .  rev .
* d15 * ( 1977 ) 281 . j.  weinstein and n.  isgur , phys .  rev .
* 48 * ( 1982 ) 659 .
d.  e.  groom _ et al .
_ , eur .
j.   * c15 * ( 2000 ) 1 .
r.  delbourgo and m.d .
scadron , phys .
* 48 * ( 1982 ) 379 .
m.  a.  shifman , a.  i.  vainshtein and v.  i.  zakharov , nucl .
b * 147 * ( 1979 ) 385 .
l.  j.  reinders , s.  yazaki and h.  r.  rubinstein , nucl .
b * 196 * ( 1982 ) 125 .
p.  colangelo and a.  khodjamirian , hep - ph/0010175 .
a.  bramon and s.  narison , mod .
lett .  a * 4 * ( 1989 ) 1113 .
e.  v.  shuryak , nucl .  phys .
b * 319 * ( 1989 ) 541 .
v.  elias , a.  h.  fariborz , f.  shi and t.  g.  steele , nucl .
a * 633 * ( 1998 ) 279 [ hep - ph/9801415 ] .
f.  shi , t.  g.  steele , v.  elias , k.  b.  sprague , y.  xue and a.  h.  fariborz , nucl .
a * 671 * ( 2000 ) 416 [ hep - ph/9909475 ] .
k.  maltman , phys .
b * 462 * ( 1999 ) 14 [ hep - ph/9906267 ] .
e.  van beveren , t.  a.  rijken , k.  metzger , c.  dullemond , g.  rupp and j.  e.  ribeiro , z.  phys .
* c30 * ( 1986 ) 615 ; + n.  a.  tornqvist , z.  phys .
c * 68 * ( 1995 ) 647 [ hep - ph/9504372 ] .
e.  c.  poggio , h.  r.  quinn and s.  weinberg , phys .
d * 13 * ( 1976 ) 1958 .
f.  le diberder and a.  pich , phys .  lett .
b * 289 * ( 1992 ) 165 . c.  a.  dominguez and k.  schilcher , phys .
b * 448 * ( 1999 ) 93 [ hep - ph/9811261 ] .
k.  g.  wilson , phys .
* 179 * ( 1969 ) 1499 .
k.  g.  chetyrkin , d.  pirjol and k.  schilcher , phys .
b * 404 * ( 1997 ) 337 [ hep - ph/9612394 ] .
m.  beneke , phys .
* 317 * ( 1999 ) 1 [ hep - ph/9807443 ] .
k.  g.  chetyrkin , s.  narison and v.  i.  zakharov , nucl .
b * 550 * ( 1999 ) 353 [ hep - ph/9811275 ] . c.  a.  dominguez and k.  schilcher , phys .
d * 61 * ( 2000 ) 114020 [ hep - ph/9903483 ] .
m.  jamin and m.  munz , z.  phys .
c * 66 * ( 1995 ) 633 [ hep - ph/9409335 ] .
l.  r.  surguladze and f.  v.  tkachov , nucl .
b * 331 * ( 1990 ) 35 .
k.  g.  chetyrkin , c.  a.  dominguez , d.  pirjol and k.  schilcher , phys .
d * 51 * ( 1995 ) 5090 [ hep - ph/9409371 ] .
r.  barate _
[ aleph collaboration ] , eur .
j.  c * 4 * ( 1998 ) 409 . c.  a.  dominguez , a.  ramlakan and k.  schilcher , hep - ph/0104262 .
v.  a.  novikov , m.  a.  shifman , a.  i.  vainshtein and v.  i.  zakharov , nucl .
b * 191 * ( 1981 ) 301 .
e.  m.  ilgenfritz and m.  muller - preussker , nucl .
b * 184 * ( 1981 ) 443 .
e.  v.  shuryak , nucl .
b * 203 * ( 1982 ) 93 .
e.  v.  shuryak , nucl .  phys .
b * 203 * ( 1982 ) 116 .
v.  elias , f.  shi and t.  g.  steele , j.  phys .
g * g24 * ( 1998 ) 267 .
k.  m.  watson , phys .
* 88 * ( 1952 ) 1163 .
s.  l.  adler , phys .
rev .   * 137 * ( 1965 ) b1022 .
d.  v.  bugg , i.  scott , b.  s.  zou , v.  v.  anisovich , a.  v.  sarantsev , t.  h.  burnett and s.  sutlief , phys .
b * 353 * ( 1995 ) 378 .
a.  abele _ et al .
_ [ crystal barrel collaboration ] , phys .  lett .
b * 380 * ( 1996 ) 453 .
d.  v.  bugg , b.  s.  zou and a.  v.  sarantsev , nucl
.  phys .
b * 471 * ( 1996 ) 59 .
b.  hyams _ et al .
_ , nucl .
b * 64 * ( 1973 ) 134 [ aip conf .
* 13 * ( 1973 ) 206 ] ; + w.  ochs , ph.d .
thesis , ludwig - maximilians - universitt , mnchen ( 1974 ) .
m.  r.  pennington , _
the da@xmath152ne physics handbook , _ eds . l.  maiani , g.  pancheri and n.  paver ( infn , frascati , 1992 ) vol .
379 - 418 ; + m.  r.  pennington , _ the second da@xmath152ne physics handbook , _ eds .
l.  maiani , g.  pancheri and n.  paver ( infn , frascati , 1995 ) vol .
531 - 558 .
p.  estabrooks and a.  d.  martin , phys .  lett .
b * 41 * ( 1972 ) 350 ; + p.  estabrooks and a.  d.  martin , nucl .
b * 79 * ( 1974 ) 301 .
r.  kamiski , l.  leniak and k.  rybicki , z.  phys .
c * 74 * ( 1997 ) 79 [ hep - ph/9606362 ] .
r.  omns , nuovo cim .   * 8 * ( 1958 ) 316 .
h.  hellmann , _ einfrung in die quantenchemie _ , deuticke ( 1937 ) + r.  p.  feynman , phys .
* 56 * , 340 ( 1939 ) .
m.  gell - mann , r.  j.  oakes and b.  renner , phys .
* 175 * ( 1968 ) 2195 .
g.  colangelo , j.  gasser and h.  leutwyler , hep - ph/0103088 .
a.  a.  ovchinnikov and a.  a.  pivovarov , sov .
j.  nucl .
phys .  * 48 * ( 1988 ) 721 .
j.  prades , nucl .
* 64 * ( 1998 ) 253 [ hep - ph/9708395 ] .
k.  maltman and j.  kambor , [ hep - ph/0107060 ] .
h.  g.  dosch and s.  narison , phys .
b * 417 * ( 1998 ) 173 [ hep - ph/9709215 ] .
d.  becirevic , p.  boucaud , j.  p.  leroy , v.  lubicz , g.  martinelli and f.  mescia , phys .
b * 444 * ( 1998 ) 401 [ hep - lat/9807046 ] .
s.  aoki _ et al .
_ [ jlqcd collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
lett .   * 82 * ( 1999 ) 4392 [ hep - lat/9901019 ] .
m.  gockeler _ et al .
_ , phys .
d * 62 * ( 2000 ) 054504 [ hep - lat/9908005 ] .
d.  becirevic , v.  gimenez , v.  lubicz and g.  martinelli , phys .
d * 61 * ( 2000 ) 114507 [ hep - lat/9909082 ] .
a.  ali khan _ et al . _
[ cp - pacs collaboration ] , phys .
* 85 * ( 2000 ) 4674 [ hep - lat/0004010 ] .
n.  eicker _ et al .
_ [ sesam collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
d * 59 * ( 1999 ) 014509 [ hep - lat/9806027 ] .
j.  w.  negele , nucl .
* 73 * ( 1999 ) 92 [ hep - lat/9810053 ] .
j.  a.  vermaseren , s.  a.  larin and t.  van ritbergen , phys .
b * 405 * ( 1997 ) 327 [ hep - ph/9703284 ] .
t.  van ritbergen , j.  a.  vermaseren and s.  a.  larin , phys .
b * 400 * ( 1997 ) 379 [ hep - ph/9701390 ] .
k.  g.  chetyrkin , phys .
b * 404 * ( 1997 ) 161 [ hep - ph/9703278 ] .