
At large enough s0, it is reasonable to approximate the RHS using the Operator Prod-
uct Expansion (OPE)2and extract αsusing experimental data for Im Π(z) as input on the
LHS. The presence of a cut in Π(z), however, ensures that the OPE is at best an asymptotic
expansion in 1/z.3The RHS must, then, in general, contain an additional, non-OPE ("dual-
ity violating", or DV) contribution to compensate for the lack of convergence on the circle
|z|=s0[6]. Explicitly,
−1
2iπI|z|=s0
dz
s0
ˆw z
s0!D(z)=−1
2iπI|z|=s0
dz
s0
ˆw z
s0!DOPE(z)−Z∞
s0
ds
s0
w s
s0!ImΠDV (s),
(2)
where the DV contribution, Im ΠDV (s), accounts for the oscillatory behavior seen at lower
sin the spectrum, before perturbative dominance sets in. This oscillatory behavior, which
cannot be accounted for by any power behavior in the OPE, led Ref. [7] to conclude that
the OPE should not be used "too close" to the cut. For a number of years this stricture
was implemented by "pinching", i.e., by choosing for ˆw(s/s0) polynomials having a higher
order zero at s=s0, thus suppressing contributions from near the cut. One, however, faces
two potential problems. First, it is not known a priori how much pinching is needed for a
determination of αsfree from DV contamination. Second, a polynomial with a higher-degree
zero is necessarily higher degree in s, and generates higher-dimension, D, OPE contributions
on the RHS of Eq. (2). This is potentially problematic, not only because the relevant higher-D
condensates are not known, but also because an asymptotic expansion like the OPE ceases to
be valid at high orders. This leads us to our first message:
It is not possible to simultaneously suppress the contribution from DVs and high-order
condensates. One should restrict oneself to low orders of the OPE, but in a consistent manner.
Using a high-degree polynomial with strong pinching, but truncating the OPE at low D,
when unsuppressed higher-Dcontributions are, in principle, present, is thus a dangerous prac-
tice and leads, not surprisingly to inconsistencies [8]. We comment further on this practice,
which we refer to as the "truncated OPE" (tOPE) approach [4, 9, 10], in Sec. 3.1.
The above discussion makes it clear it is not safe to ignore DV contributions without
further investigation. While no first-principles derivation of the form of Im ΠDV (s) exists,
some of its general properties are known. As for the asymptotic expansion in powers of the
coupling g2, where terms missed in the expansion are known to behave as e−const/g2,4so terms
missed in the OPE expansion of Im Π(s) are expected to behave as e−const·s×(oscillation).
This expectation was confirmed in Refs. [11, 12], where the combination of a Regge-like
spectrum (M2
n∼n) asymptotically and a stringy relation (Γn∼Mn/Nc) between resonance
masses and widths at large (but finite) number of colors, Nc, and large resonance excitation
number, n,5was shown to lead to the large-sexpectation
1
πImΠDV (s)=e−δ−γssin α+βs+Olog s! 1+O 1
Nc
,1
log s,1
s!! .(3)
We will use Eq. (3) in conjunction with Eq. (2), and comment on the impact of possible
subleading corrections in Sec. 3.2.
2In what follows, we consider the perturbative series as the contribution from the identity operator.
3A convergent expansion in inverse powers of zmust have a disc of convergence.
4Recall the case of renormalons and the perturbative series.
5These are properties of QCD in 2 dimensions in the large-Nclimit and also born out phenomenologically in the
real world [13–15]