Abstract: Lattice QCD has reached a mature status. State of the art lattice computations include u, d, s (and even the c) sea quark effects, together with an estimate of electromagnetic and isospin breaking corrections for hadronic observables. This precise and first principles description of the standard model at low energies allows the determination of multiple quantities that are essential inputs for phenomenology and not accessible to perturbation theory. One of the fundamental parameters that are determined from simulations of lattice QCD is the strong coupling constant, which plays a central role in the quest for precision at the LHC. Lattice calculations currently provide its best determinations, and will play a central role in future phenomenological studies. For this reason we believe that it is timely to provide a pedagogical introduction to the lattice determinations of the strong coupling. Rather than analysing individual studies, the emphasis will be on the methodologies and the systematic errors that arise in these determinations. We hope that these notes will help lattice practitioners, and QCD phenomenologists at large, by providing a self-contained introduction to the methodology and the possible sources of systematic error. The limiting factors in the determination of the strong coupling turn out to be different from the ones that limit other lattice precision observables. We hope to collect enough information here to allow the reader to appreciate the challenges that arise in order to improve further our knowledge of a quantity that is crucial for LHC phenomenology. Crown Copyright & nbsp;(c) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The point-splitting renormalization method offers a prescription to calculate finite expectation values of quadratic operators constructed from quantum fields in a general curved spacetime. It has been recently shown by Levi and Ori that when the background metric possesses an isometry, like stationary or spherically symmetric black holes, the method can be upgraded into a pragmatic procedure of renormalization that produces efficient numerical calculations. In this paper we show that when the background enjoys three-dimensional spatial symmetries, like homogeneous expanding universes, the above pragmatic regularization technique reduces to the well-established adiabatic regularization method.

Abstract: Purpose. To estimate Type B uncertainties in absorbed-dose calculations arising from the different implementations in current state-of-the-art Monte Carlo (MC) codes of low-energy photon cross-sections (<200 keV). Methods. MC simulations are carried out using three codes widely used in the low-energy domain: PENELOPE-2018, EGSnrc, and MCNP. Three dosimetry-relevant quantities are considered: mass energy-absorption coefficients for water, air, graphite, and their respective ratios; absorbed dose; and photon-fluence spectra. The absorbed dose and the photon-fluence spectra are scored in a spherical water phantom of 15 cm radius. Benchmark simulations using similar cross-sections have been performed. The differences observed between these quantities when different cross-sections are considered are taken to be a good estimator for the corresponding Type B uncertainties. Results. A conservative Type B uncertainty for the absorbed dose (k = 2) of 1.2%-1.7% (<50 keV), 0.6%-1.2% (50-100 keV), and 0.3% (100-200 keV) is estimated. The photon-fluence spectrum does not present clinically relevant differences that merit considering additional Type B uncertainties except for energies below 25 keV, where a Type B uncertainty of 0.5% is obtained. Below 30 keV, mass energy-absorption coefficients show Type B uncertainties (k = 2) of about 1.5% (water and air), and 2% (graphite), diminishing in all materials for larger energies and reaching values about 1% (40-50 keV) and 0.5% (50-75 keV). With respect to their ratios, the only significant Type B uncertainties are observed in the case of the water-to-graphite ratio for energies below 30 keV, being about 0.7% (k = 2). Conclusions. In contrast with the intermediate (about 500 keV) or high (about 1 MeV) energy domains, Type B uncertainties due to the different cross-sections implementation cannot be considered subdominant with respect to Type A uncertainties or even to other sources of Type B uncertainties (tally volume averaging, manufacturing tolerances, etc). Therefore, the values reported here should be accommodated within the uncertainty budget in low-energy photon dosimetry studies.