1: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
2: \documentclass[nofootinbib,amsmath,amssymb,a4paper]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{bm}
7:
8:
9: \parindent=0pt
10: \parskip=5pt
11:
12: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{Quenched lattice calculation of semileptonic heavy-light meson form factors}
16:
17: \author{G.M. de Divitiis$^{a,b}$, R. Petronzio$^{a,b}$, N. Tantalo$^{b,c}$}
18: \affiliation{\vskip 10pt
19: $^{a}$~Universit\`a di Roma ``Tor Vergata'', I-00133 Rome, Italy\\
20: $^{b}$~INFN sezione di Roma ``Tor Vergata'', I-00133 Rome, Italy\\
21: $^{c}$~Centro Enrico Fermi, I-00184 Rome, Italy
22: }%
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: We calculate, in the continuum limit of quenched lattice QCD, the matrix elements of the
26: heavy-heavy vector current between heavy-light pseudoscalar meson states.
27: We present the form factors for different values of the initial and final meson masses
28: at finite momentum transfer.
29: In particular, we calculate the non-perturbative correction to the differential decay rate of
30: the process $B\rightarrow D\ell\nu$ including the case of a non-vanishing lepton mass.
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \maketitle
34:
35: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
36: \section{Introduction}
37: Semileptonic decays of heavy-light mesons play a central role in the study of flavour physics
38: both on the experimental and theoretical sides.
39: The extraction of the Cabibbo--Kobayashi--Maskawa~\cite{Cabibbo:1963yz,Kobayashi:1973fv}
40: matrix element $V_{cb}$, for example, requires the experimental measurement of the decay rate
41: of the process $B\rightarrow D^{(*)}\ell\nu_{\ell}$ and the theoretical calculation of the hadron
42: matrix elements of the flavour changing weak currents. A non-perturbative estimate of
43: the matrix elements can be obtained by lattice QCD.
44: Furthermore, within the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) it has been
45: shown~\cite{Isgur:1989ed} that the semileptonic transitions between heavy-light mesons
46: can be parametrized, at leading order of
47: the expansion in the inverse heavy quark mass,
48: in terms of a universal form factor known as Isgur-Wise function.
49: The Isgur-Wise function is universal in the sense that it describes any semileptonic
50: decay mediated by heavy-heavy weak currents regardless of the flavour of the initial
51: and final heavy quarks and of the spins of the mesons. From the phenomenological point
52: of view it is relevant to know the size of the corrections to the Isgur-Wise limit and
53: to establish at which order the heavy quark expansion has to be truncated to
54: produce useful results down to the charm mass.
55:
56: Matrix elements of the vector heavy-heavy currents between pseudoscalar
57: meson states are parametrized in terms of two form factors.
58: In the case of the light leptons $\ell=e,\mu$,
59: the differential decay rate of the process $B\rightarrow D\ell\nu_{\ell}$ is proportional
60: to the square of a particular linear combination of the two, $G^{B\rightarrow D}$.
61: The BaBar and Belle collaborations have already measured~\cite{Aubert:2007ab,Matyja:2007kt}
62: the branching ratios of the processes $B\rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau\nu_{\tau}$ and
63: a future measurement of the differential decay rate will make possible to extract
64: $V_{cb}$ also from this channel.
65: In this case a separate knowledge of the form factors
66: is required, both in the Standard Model and in its minimal extensions
67: (see for example refs.~\cite{Kiers:1997zt,Chen:2006nua}).
68: In ref.~\cite{de Divitiis:2007ui} we have already shown our final results for $G^{B\rightarrow D}$
69: by focusing on their phenomenological implications without giving all the details of the calculation.
70: Here we present detailed results of continuum and chiral extrapolations and separate
71: estimates of the two independent form factors for several values of the initial and final
72: heavy quark masses together with an analysis of the infinite heavy quark mass limit.
73: In addition, we make a prediction for the ratio of the differential decay rates
74: of the processes $B\rightarrow D\ell\nu_{\ell}$ with $\ell=\tau$ and $\ell=e,\mu$.
75:
76: The simulation of relativistic heavy quarks with masses ranging from the physical
77: $b$ mass down to the physical $c$ mass has been performed by using
78: the step scaling method (SSM)~\cite{Guagnelli:2002jd}, already applied
79: successfully to the determination of heavy
80: quark masses and heavy-light meson
81: decay constants~\cite{deDivitiis:2003wy,deDivitiis:2003iy,Guazzini:2006bn}.
82: The SSM allows to reconcile large quark masses with
83: adequate lattice resolution and large physical volumes.
84: The two form factors have been calculated for different values of the momentum transfer by making
85: use of flavour twisted boundary conditions~\cite{deDivitiis:2004kq},
86: that shift the discretized set of lattice momenta by an arbitrary amount
87: (see also~\cite{Bedaque:2004kc,Sachrajda:2004mi,Flynn:2005in}).
88:
89: The plan of the paper is as follows. In section~\ref{sec:ff} we introduce the form factors
90: in the continuum theory and re-derive the Luke's theorem~\cite{Luke:1990eg}.
91: In sections~\ref{sec:notations} and~\ref{sec:ssm} we set up the lattice notation
92: and describe the calculation.
93: In sections~\ref{sec:fvr} we discuss the results at finite volumes
94: while in section~\ref{sec:fr} we show our final results. We draw our conclusions
95: in section~\ref{sec:conc}.
96:
97:
98: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
99: \section{Form factors} \label{sec:ff}
100: The semileptonic decay of a pseudoscalar meson into another pseudoscalar meson is mediated by
101: the vector part of the weak $V-A$ current. The corresponding matrix element can be
102: parametrized in terms of two form factors,
103: %
104: \begin{eqnarray}
105: \langle \mathcal{M}_f\vert \ V^\mu \ \vert \mathcal{M}_i\rangle=
106: (p_i+p_f)^\mu \ f_+^{i\rightarrow f} + (p_i-p_f)^\mu \ f_-^{i\rightarrow f}
107: \nonumber
108: \end{eqnarray}
109: %
110: or, equivalently,
111: %
112: \begin{eqnarray}
113: \frac{\langle \mathcal{M}_f\vert \ V^\mu \ \vert \mathcal{M}_i\rangle}{\sqrt{M_i M_f}}=
114: (v_i+v_f)^\mu \ h_+^{i\rightarrow f} + (v_i-v_f)^\mu \ h_-^{i\rightarrow f}
115: \label{eq:hphmdef}
116: \end{eqnarray}
117: %
118: where $v_{i,f}=p_{i,f}/{M_{i,f}}$ are the $4$-velocities of the mesons.
119: The relations between the $h_{\pm}^{i\rightarrow f}$ and the $f_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}$
120: parametrizations are given by
121: %
122: \begin{eqnarray}
123: h_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}=\frac{(M_i+M_f)f_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}+
124: (M_i-M_f)f_\mp^{i\rightarrow f}}{2\sqrt{M_i M_f}}
125: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
126: f_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}=\frac{(M_i+M_f)h_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}
127: -(M_i-M_f)h_\mp^{i\rightarrow f}}{2\sqrt{M_i M_f}}
128: \nonumber
129: \end{eqnarray}
130: %
131: In the rest of this paper we work in the $h_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}$ parametrization that,
132: as it will emerge from the discussion below, is more convenient for the
133: study of the dependence of the form factors upon the masses of the initial and final heavy
134: quarks.
135:
136: The form factors depend upon the masses of the parent and daughter particles and upon
137: $w\equiv v_f\cdot v_i$
138: %
139: \begin{eqnarray}
140: h_\pm^{i\rightarrow f}(w)\equiv h_\pm(w,M_i,M_f),
141: \nonumber
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: %
144: Time reversal and hermiticity imply that $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}$ and
145: $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}$ are real.
146: Furthermore they imply that $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}$ is even under the
147: interchange of the initial and final states while $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}$ is odd,
148: %
149: \begin{eqnarray}
150: h_+(w,M_i,M_f)\, =\,h_+(w,M_f,M_i), \qquad \qquad
151: h_-(w,M_i,M_f)\, =\,-\ h_-(w,M_f,M_i)
152: \label{eq:evenodd}
153: \end{eqnarray}
154: %
155: In eq.~(\ref{eq:hphmdef}) one can consider the limit in which both
156: meson masses go to infinity at fixed $4$-velocity;
157: the left hand side is well defined in this limit and, consequently,
158: also the form factors.
159: It is thus legitimate to make a change of variables from the meson masses to the parameters
160: $\varepsilon_+$ and $\varepsilon_-$, defined as
161: %
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: \varepsilon_+=\frac{1}{M_f}+\frac{1}{M_i},
164: \qquad \qquad
165: \varepsilon_-=\frac{1}{M_f}-\frac{1}{M_i}
166: \nonumber
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: %
169: Expressed as functions of the new variables,
170: $h^{i\rightarrow f}_\pm\equiv h_\pm(w,\varepsilon_+,\varepsilon_-)$
171: are well defined at $\varepsilon_+=0$ and $\varepsilon_-=0$ and can be
172: expanded in power series around these points.
173: The symmetry properties of eq.~(\ref{eq:evenodd}) force the odd(even) powers of
174: $\varepsilon_-$ to vanish into the expansion of
175: $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}$ ($h_-^{i\rightarrow f}$), i.e.
176: %
177: \begin{eqnarray}
178: h_+(w,\varepsilon_+,\varepsilon_-) &=& h_+(w,0,0) +
179: \varepsilon_+ \frac{\partial h_+(w,0,0)}{\partial \varepsilon_+} +
180: \frac{\varepsilon_+^2}{2} \frac{\partial^2 h_+(w,0,0)}{\partial \varepsilon_+^2} +
181: \frac{\varepsilon_-^2}{2} \frac{\partial^2 h_+(w,0,0)}{\partial \varepsilon_-^2} + \dots
182: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
183: h_-(w,\varepsilon_+,\varepsilon_-) &=&
184: \varepsilon_- \frac{\partial h_-(w,0,0)}{\partial \varepsilon_-} +
185: \frac{\varepsilon_- \varepsilon_+}{2} \frac{\partial^2 h_-(w,0,0)}
186: {\partial \varepsilon_- \partial \varepsilon_+} + \dots
187: \label{eq:taylorexp1}
188: \end{eqnarray}
189: %
190: In the elastic case, when the initial and final mesons coincide,
191: $h_-^{i\rightarrow i}$ vanishes and the vector current is conserved. The conservation
192: of the vector current implies that $h_+^{i\rightarrow i}(w=1)=1$. This condition, inserted
193: in the previous equations, translates into a condition on the derivatives of
194: $h_+^{i\rightarrow i}$ with respect to $\varepsilon_+$
195: %
196: \begin{eqnarray}
197: \frac{\partial^n h_+(w=1,0,0)}{\partial \varepsilon_+^n} = 0
198: \nonumber
199: \end{eqnarray}
200: %
201: We thus expect that, for values of $w\simeq 1$ the corrections proportional
202: to $\varepsilon_+$ will be rather small while the ones proportional to $\varepsilon_-$,
203: not constrained by the vector symmetry, can play a role also at zero recoil.
204: This expectation is confirmed by our numerical results
205: (see section~\ref{sec:fr}).
206:
207: The discussion above is a re-derivation of the "Luke's theorem"~\cite{Luke:1990eg}.
208: The theorem, originally derived by using HQET arguments, states that
209: $h_+^{i\rightarrow i}$ it is not affected by first order corrections at zero recoil.
210: In our language
211: %
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: h_+(w=1,\varepsilon_+,\varepsilon_-) &=& 1 +
214: \frac{\varepsilon_-^2}{2} \frac{\partial^2 h_+(w=1,0,0)}{\partial \varepsilon_-^2} +
215: \dots
216: \label{eq:taylorexp2}
217: \end{eqnarray}
218: %
219: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp1}) confirm the analysis of the subleading corrections
220: to the form factors that has been carried out by the authors of ref.~\cite{Falk:1992wt}
221: within HQET\footnote{Some care is needed when eqs.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp1})
222: are compared with the corresponding results of ref.~\cite{Falk:1992wt}.
223: Indeed eqs.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp1}) are the result of a Taylor expansion and the coefficients
224: do not depend upon $\varepsilon_{+,-}$ and, consequently, upon the
225: meson masses.
226: Eqs.~(B1) of ref.~\cite{Falk:1992wt} are expansions in inverse powers of the quark masses
227: that depend upon the renormalization scale as well as the coefficients.
228: This dependence cancels at any given order.}.
229: The additional symmetries of the static theory imply relations among the coefficients
230: appearing in eqs.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp1}) and the corresponding ones arising in the
231: case of vector-pseudoscalar and vector-vector transitions. In particular,
232: $h_+^{i\rightarrow i}$ is proportional at leading order to the Isgur-Wise
233: function~\cite{Isgur:1989ed}.
234:
235: In ref.~\cite{de Divitiis:2007ui} we have shown the results concerning the form factor
236: $G^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$ that enters into the semileptonic decay rate of a $B$ meson into a
237: $D$ meson in the approximation of massless leptons $\ell=e,\mu$,
238: %
239: \begin{eqnarray}
240: &&\frac{d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D\ell\nu_{\ell}}}{dw}=
241: \vert V_{cb}\vert^2 \frac{G_F^2}{48\pi^3}(M_{B}+M_{D})^2M_{D}^3(w^2-1)^{3/2}
242: \left[ G^{B\rightarrow D}(w)\right]^2
243: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
244: &&1 \le w \le \frac{M_B^2+M_D^2}{2M_BM_D}
245: \nonumber
246: \end{eqnarray}
247: %
248: This form factor is related to
249: $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ and $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ by
250: %
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: G^{i\rightarrow f}(w)=h^{i\rightarrow f}_+(w)\ -\
253: \frac{M_f-M_i}{M_f+M_i}\ h^{i\rightarrow f}_-(w)
254: \nonumber
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: %
257: In the case $\ell=\tau$ the mass of the lepton cannot be neglected and the differential
258: decay rate is given by~\cite{Korner:1989qb,Kiers:1997zt}
259: %
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: &&\frac{d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D\tau\nu_{\tau}}}{dw}=
262: \frac{d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D (e,\mu)\nu_{e,\mu}}}{dw}
263: \left(1-\frac{r_{\tau}^2}{t(w)} \right)^2
264: \left\{
265: \left(1+\frac{r_{\tau}^2}{2t(w)} \right)
266: +\frac{3r_{\tau}^2}{2t(w)}\frac{w+1}{w-1} \left[\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)\right]^2
267: \right\}
268: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
269: && r_{\tau}=\frac{m_{\tau}}{M_B}, \qquad r=\frac{M_D}{M_B}, \qquad t(w)=1+r^2-2rw,
270: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
271: &&1 \le w \le \frac{M_B^2+M_D^2-m_{\tau}^2}{2M_BM_D}
272: \nonumber
273: \end{eqnarray}
274: %
275: In this work we provide an estimate of the function $\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$
276: appearing in the previous relations, including values at $w>1$. Its expression in terms of
277: $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ and $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ is given by
278: %
279: \begin{eqnarray}
280: \Delta^{i\rightarrow f}(w) &=&
281: \frac{1}{G^{i\rightarrow f}(w)}
282: \left[\frac{1-r}{1+r}\ h^{i\rightarrow f}_+(w)\ -\ \frac{w-1}{w+1}\ h^{i\rightarrow f}_-(w) \right]
283: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
284: &=&\left(\frac{1-r}{1+r}\ -\ \frac{w-1}{w+1}\ \frac{h^{i\rightarrow f}_-(w)}{h^{i\rightarrow f}_+(w)}\right)
285: \left(1\ -\ \frac{1-r}{1+r}\ \frac{h^{i\rightarrow f}_-(w)}{h^{i\rightarrow f}_+(w)}\right)^{-1}
286: \label{eq:deltadef}
287: \end{eqnarray}
288: %
289: In the elastic case $\Delta^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ vanishes identically and, in
290: the approximation in which $h^{i\rightarrow f}_-(w)$ is much smaller than $h^{i\rightarrow f}_+(w)$,
291: it is very well approximated by its static limit
292: %
293: \begin{eqnarray}
294: \Delta^{i\rightarrow f}(w) \simeq \frac{1-r}{1+r},\qquad\qquad r=\frac{M_f}{M_i}
295: \label{eq:deltastatic}
296: \end{eqnarray}
297: %
298:
299:
300:
301:
302: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
303: \section{Lattice Observables} \label{sec:notations}
304: We have carried out the calculation within the $O(a)$ improved
305: Schr\"odinger Functional formalism~\cite{Luscher:1992an,Sint:1993un} with $T=2L$ and vanishing background fields. Physical units have been set by using the Sommer's scale
306: and fixing $r_0=0.5$~fm~\cite{Guagnelli:1998ud,Necco:2001xg,Guagnelli:2002ia}.
307: In order to set the notations, we introduce the following source operators
308: %
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: &&O_{sr}=\frac{a^6}{L^3}\sum_{{\bf y},{\bf z}}{\bar{\zeta}_s({\bf y})\gamma_5\zeta_r({\bf z})},
311: \quad
312: O^\prime_{sr}=\frac{a^6}{L^3}\sum_{{\bf y},{\bf z}}{\bar{\zeta}^\prime_s({\bf y})\gamma_5
313: \zeta_r^\prime({\bf z})}
314: \nonumber
315: \end{eqnarray}
316: %
317: where $s$ and $r$ are flavour indexes while $\zeta$ and $\zeta^\prime$ are boundary fields at
318: $x_0=0$ and $x_0=T$ respectively.
319: The bulk operators are defined according to
320: %
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: &&A^0_{sr}(x)=\bar{\psi}_s(x)\gamma_5\gamma^0\psi_r(x),
323: \qquad
324: P_{sr}(x)=\bar{\psi}_s(x)\gamma_5\psi_r(x)
325: \qquad
326: \mathcal{A}^0_{sr}(x)=A^0_{sr}(x)+ac_A\frac{\partial_0+\partial_0^*}{2}P_{sr}(x)
327: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
328: &&V^\mu_{sr}(x)=\bar{\psi}_s(x)\gamma^\mu\psi_r(x),
329: \quad
330: T^{\mu\nu}_{sr}(x)=\bar{\psi}_s(x)\gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\psi_r(x)
331: \qquad
332: \mathcal{V}^\mu_{sr}(x)=V^\mu_{sr}(x)+ac_V\frac{\partial_\nu+\partial_\nu^*}{2}
333: T_{sr}^{\mu\nu}(x)
334: \nonumber
335: \end{eqnarray}
336: %
337: The improvement coefficient $c_A$ has been computed non-perturbatively
338: in ref.~\cite{Luscher:1996ug}. Regarding $c_V$, we have used the perturbative
339: result from ref.~\cite{Sint:1997jx} but its actual value influences our results
340: at the level of a few per mille.
341:
342: The quark masses have been defined through the PCAC relation.
343: We have calculated the following correlation functions
344: %
345: \begin{eqnarray}
346: f^A_{sr}(x_0)=-\sum_{\bf x}{\langle O_{rs} A^0_{sr}(x)\rangle}
347: \qquad \qquad \qquad
348: f^P_{sr}(x_0)=-\sum_{\bf x}{\langle O_{rs} P_{sr}(x)\rangle}
349: \nonumber
350: \end{eqnarray}
351: %
352: and defined
353: %
354: \begin{eqnarray}
355: m_r^{AWI}=\frac{1}{2f^P_{rr}}\left[\frac{\partial_0+\partial_0^*}{2}f^A_{rr}+ac_A\partial_0\partial_0^*f^P_{rr}\right],
356: \qquad \qquad \qquad
357: a m_r^{VWI}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{k_r}-\frac{1}{k_c}\right]
358: \nonumber
359: \end{eqnarray}
360: %
361: where $a$ is the lattice spacing, $k_r$ is the hopping parameter of the $r$ quark and
362: $k_c$ is the critical value of the hopping parameter.
363: The renormalization group invariant (RGI) quark masses have been obtained by
364: the following relation
365: %
366: \begin{eqnarray}
367: m_r = Z_M\;\left[1+(b_A-b_P)\ am_r^{VWI} \right]\; m^{AWI}_r
368: \label{eq:rgi}
369: \end{eqnarray}
370: %
371: The combination $b_A-b_P$ of the improvement coefficients of the axial current and pseudoscalar density has been computed non-perturbatively
372: in~\cite{deDivitiis:1997ka,Guagnelli:2000}. The factor $Z_M$
373: is known with very high precision in a range of inverse bare couplings that does not cover all
374: the values of $\beta$ used in our simulations.
375: We have used the results reported in table~6 of ref.~\cite{Capitani:1998mq}
376: to parametrize $Z_M$ in the enlarged range of $\beta$ values $[5.9,7.6]$.
377:
378: In order to define on the lattice the matrix elements of the vector current between
379: pseudoscalar meson states, we need to introduce other two correlation functions,
380: %
381: \begin{eqnarray}
382: &&\mathcal{F}_{i\rightarrow f}^\mu(x_0;{\bf p_i},{\bf p_f})= \frac{a^3}{2}\sum_{\bf x}{
383: \langle O_{li} \ \mathcal{V}^\mu_{if}(x)\ O_{fl}^\prime \rangle
384: },
385: \qquad \qquad \qquad
386: f_{\mathcal{A}}^f(x_0,{\bf p_f})=-\sum_{\bf x}{
387: \langle O_{lf} \mathcal{A}^0_{fl}(x)\rangle}
388: \nonumber
389: \end{eqnarray}
390: %
391: where $i$ and $f$ are the heavy flavour indexes and $l$ is the light one.
392: The external momenta have been set by using flavour twisted b.c. for the
393: heavy flavours; in particular we have used
394: %
395: \begin{eqnarray}
396: &&\psi_{i,f}(x+\hat{1}L)=e^{i\theta_{i,f}}\psi_{i,f}(x),
397: \qquad \qquad
398: p_1=\frac{\theta_{i,f}}{L}+\frac{2\pi k_1}{L},\qquad k_1\in \mathbb{N}
399: \nonumber
400: \label{eq:moms}
401: \end{eqnarray}
402: %
403: and ordinary periodic b.c. in the other spatial directions and for the light quarks.
404: We have worked in the Lorentz frame in which the parent particle is at rest (${\bf p_i=0}$).
405: In this frame $w$ is simply expressed in terms of the ratio between the energy and the
406: mass of the daughter particle $w=E_f/M_f$.
407: The matrix elements of $V^\mu$ have been defined by the following ratios
408: %
409: \begin{eqnarray}
410: \langle V^\mu \rangle_{D1}^{i\rightarrow f}\equiv
411: \langle \mathcal{M}_f\vert \ V^\mu \ \vert \mathcal{M}_i\rangle_{D1}\equiv
412: 2\sqrt{M_i E_f}\frac{\mathcal{F}_{i\rightarrow f}^\mu(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf p_f})}{
413: \sqrt{
414: \mathcal{F}_{i\rightarrow i}^0(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf 0})
415: \mathcal{F}_{f\rightarrow f}^0(T/2;{\bf p_f},{\bf p_f})
416: }}
417: \label{eq:def1}
418: \end{eqnarray}
419: %
420: that become the physical matrix elements in large volumes where single state
421: dominance is a good approximation.
422: An alternative definition of the matrix elements ($D2$), which
423: reduces to the previous one ($D1$) in the infinite volume and at zero lattice spacing,
424: can be obtained by considering
425: %
426: \begin{eqnarray}
427: \langle V^\mu \rangle_{D2}^{i\rightarrow f}\equiv
428: \langle \mathcal{M}_f\vert \ V^\mu \ \vert \mathcal{M}_i\rangle_{D2}\equiv
429: 2\frac{\sqrt{M_i} E_f f_{\mathcal{A}}^f(T/2,{\bf 0})}{\sqrt{M_f}f_{\mathcal{A}}^f(T/2,{\bf p_f})}
430: \frac{\mathcal{F}_{i\rightarrow f}^\mu(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf p_f})}{
431: \sqrt{
432: \mathcal{F}_{i\rightarrow i}^0(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf 0})
433: \mathcal{F}_{f\rightarrow f}^0(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf 0})
434: }}
435: \label{eq:def2}
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: %
438: In eqs.~(\ref{eq:def1}) and~(\ref{eq:def2}) the renormalization factors $Z_V$ and $Z_A$
439: cancel in the ratios together with the factors containing the improvement coefficients
440: $b_V$ and $b_A$.
441:
442: By calculating the following ratio
443: %
444: \begin{eqnarray}
445: x_f\;=\;\frac{\mathcal{F}_{f\rightarrow f}^1(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf p_f})}
446: {\mathcal{F}_{f\rightarrow f}^0(T/2;{\bf 0},{\bf p_f})}
447: \;=\; \frac{\langle \mathcal{M}_f\vert \ \mathcal{V}^1 \ \vert \mathcal{M}_f\rangle}
448: {\langle \mathcal{M}_f\vert \ \mathcal{V}^0 \ \vert \mathcal{M}_f\rangle}
449: \;=\; \frac{\sqrt{w^2-1}}{w+1} \nonumber
450: \end{eqnarray}
451: %
452: we have defined $w$, as well as meson masses and energies, entirely in terms of three point
453: correlation functions. This definition of $w$ is noisier than the one that can be obtained
454: in terms of ratios of two point correlation functions; however it leads to exact vector
455: current conservation when $M_f=M_i$ and reduces the final statistical error on the
456: form factors. The two definitions of the matrix elements lead to two definitions of the form factors that, in terms of $\langle V^0 \rangle_D$ and $\langle V^1 \rangle_D$, are
457: expressed by
458: %
459: \begin{eqnarray}
460: &&h_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w) \;=\; \frac{\langle V^0 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}{2M_i\sqrt{r}}\;
461: \left\{
462: 1\;
463: + \;\frac{\sqrt{w^2-1}}{w+1}
464: \;
465: \frac{\langle V^1 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}
466: {\langle V^0 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}\right\}
467: \label{eq:hpdefme}
468: \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
469: &&h_-^{i\rightarrow f}(w) \;=\; \frac{\langle V^0 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}{2M_i\sqrt{r}}
470: \left\{
471: 1\;
472: + \;\frac{w+1}{\sqrt{w^2-1}}
473: \;
474: \frac{\langle V^1 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}
475: {\langle V^0 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}\right\}
476: \label{eq:hmdefme}
477: \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
478: &&G^{i\rightarrow f}(w) \;=\; \frac{2r}{1+r}\;
479: \frac{\langle V^0 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}{2M_i\sqrt{r}}
480: \left\{1\;
481: + \;\frac{wr-1}{r\sqrt{w^2-1}}
482: \;
483: \frac{\langle V^1 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}
484: {\langle V^0 \rangle^{i\rightarrow f}}\right\},
485: \qquad \qquad
486: r=\frac{M_f}{M_i}
487: \label{eq:gdefme}
488: \end{eqnarray}
489: %
490: The last two equations are not defined at $w=1$; this is due to the second term
491: in the parenthesis of eq.~(\ref{eq:hmdefme}) and~(\ref{eq:gdefme})
492: that we extrapolate at zero recoil before calculating $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}(w=1)$
493: and $G^{i\rightarrow f}(w=1)$.
494: %
495: \begin{figure}[t]
496: \includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{pics/climits0}
497: \caption{\label{fig:climits0} Extrapolations to the continuum
498: limit of $G^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$. The data correspond to $m_l=m_s$, to
499: the definition $D1$ and to the data sets $L_0A$, $L_0B$ and $L_0C$.}
500: \end{figure}
501: %
502:
503: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
504: \section{the step scaling method} \label{sec:ssm}
505: The SSM has been introduced to cope with two-scale problems in lattice QCD. In the
506: calculation of heavy-light meson properties the two scales are the mass
507: of the heavy quarks ($b$,$c$) and the mass of the light quarks ($u$,$d$,$s$).
508: Here we consider the generic form factor
509: $F^{i\rightarrow f}=\{h_+^{i\rightarrow f},h_-^{i\rightarrow f},G^{i\rightarrow f}\}$
510: as a function of $w$, the volume $L^3$ and fix the meson states by the corresponding
511: heavy and light RGI quark masses that, being extracted by the lattice version of the
512: PCAC relation, are not affected by finite volume effects (see eq.~\ref{eq:rgi}).
513:
514: The first step of the finite volume recursion consists in calculating
515: the observable $F^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_0)$ on a small volume, $L_0$,
516: which is chosen to accommodate the dynamics of heavy quarks with masses ranging from the
517: physical value of the charm mass up to the mass of the bottom.
518: As in our previous work we fixed $L_0=0.4$~fm.
519: We have simulated five different heavy quark masses
520: $m_{i,f}=\{m_h^1,m_h^2,m_h^3,m_h^4,m_h^5\}$, five different momenta
521: $\theta_1=\{\theta^1_1,\theta^2_1,\theta^3_1,\theta^4_1,\theta^5_1\}$
522: (see eq.~(\ref{eq:moms})) and three light quark masses $m_l=\{m_l^1,m_l^2,m_l^3\}$.
523:
524: A first effect of finite volume is taken into account by evolving
525: the results from $L_0$ to $L_1=0.8$~fm through the factor
526: %
527: \begin{displaymath}
528: \sigma^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_0,L_1)=\frac{F^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_1)}{F^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_0)}
529: \end{displaymath}
530: %
531: computed for each value of $w$ and for each value of the light quark mass.
532: The crucial point is that the step scaling functions are calculated by simulating
533: heavy quark masses smaller than the $b$-quark mass.
534: The step scaling functions at $m_i\simeq m_b$ and $m_f\simeq m_c$
535: are obtained by directly simulating $m_f$ both on $L_0$ and on $L_1$ and
536: by a smooth extrapolation in $1/m_i$.
537:
538: Extrapolating the step scaling functions is more advantageous than extrapolating
539: the form factors. This can be easily understood by relying on HQET expectations
540: (see also eq.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp1})),
541: %
542: \begin{eqnarray}
543: \sigma^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_0,L_1) &=&
544: \frac{
545: F^{(0) \rightarrow f}(w;L_1)\;\left[1+
546: \frac{F^{(1) \rightarrow f}(w;L_1)}{m_i}+\dots\right]}
547: {F^{(0) \rightarrow f}(w;L_0)\;\left[1+
548: \frac{F^{(1) \rightarrow f}(w;L_0)}{m_i}+\dots\right]}
549: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
550: &=&
551: \frac{F^{(0) \rightarrow f}(w;L_1)}{F^{(0) \rightarrow f}(w;L_0)}
552: \;\left[
553: 1+\frac{F^{(1) \rightarrow f}(w;L_1)-F^{(1) \rightarrow f}(w;L_0)}{m_i}
554: +\dots\right]
555: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
556: &\equiv&
557: \sigma^{(0)\rightarrow f}(w;L_0,L_1)
558: \;\left[
559: 1+\frac{\sigma^{(1)\rightarrow f}(w;L_0,L_1)}{m_i}
560: +\dots\right]
561: \nonumber
562: \end{eqnarray}
563: %
564: In the previous relations the superscripts in parenthesis, $(n)$,
565: mark the order of the expansion in the inverse heavy quark mass.
566: The subleading correction to the step scaling functions is the difference
567: of two terms and vanishes in the infinite volume,
568: $\sigma^{(1)\rightarrow f}(w;L_0,L_1)=F^{(1) \rightarrow f}(w;L_1)-F^{(1) \rightarrow f}(w;L_0)$, becoming smaller and smaller as the volume is increased.
569: This matches the general idea that finite volume effects, measured
570: by the $\sigma$'s, are almost insensitive to the high energy scale.
571:
572: We also compute the step scaling functions of the elastic form factors
573: $h_+^{i\rightarrow i}$ at $m_i\simeq m_b$ by extrapolating the corresponding
574: results from smaller heavy quark masses. Also in this case
575: the $\sigma$'s are expected to be almost flat with respect to $1/m_i$.
576:
577: In order to remove the residual finite volume effects we iterate the procedure
578: described above once more passing from $L_1$ to $L_2=1.2$~fm. Our final results
579: are obtained from
580: %
581: \begin{eqnarray}
582: F^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_2) \quad=\quad
583: F^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_0)\quad
584: \sigma^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_0,L_1)\quad
585: \sigma^{i\rightarrow f}(w;L_1,L_2)
586: \label{eq:ssm}
587: \end{eqnarray}
588: %
589:
590:
591:
592: %
593: \begin{figure}[t]
594: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/h_pm_04_ml}
595: \caption{\label{fig:chirals0} Light quark mass dependence of
596: $h_+^{B\rightarrow D}(w;L_0)$ (left) and of $h_-^{B\rightarrow D}(w;L_0)$ (right).
597: The different sets of points correspond to different values of $m_l$ ranging from
598: about $m_s$ to about $m_s/4$. The data are in the continuum limit
599: and correspond to the definition $D1$.}
600: \end{figure}
601: %
602: %
603: \begin{figure}[t]
604: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/clssf}
605: \caption{\label{fig:ssfcl} Continuum extrapolation of $\sigma_+^{i\rightarrow i}(w=1.1;L_0,L_1)$ (left)
606: and $\sigma_+^{i\rightarrow i}(w=1.1;L_1,L_2)$ (right) at the heaviest values of the
607: heavy quark masses ($m_i\simeq m_b/4$ and $m_i\simeq m_b/2$ respectively).
608: The data correspond to $m_l=m_s$, to the definition $D1$ and
609: to the data sets $L_1A/L_0a$, $L_1B/L_0b$ (left) and $L_2A/L_1a$, $L_2B/L_1b$ (right).}
610: \end{figure}
611: %
612: %
613: \begin{figure}[t]
614: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/ssf_hpm_s1}
615: \caption{\label{fig:ssf1} Step scaling functions of $h_+^{i\rightarrow c}$ (left)
616: and $h_-^{i\rightarrow c}$ (right) as functions of $1/m_i$ for the first
617: evolution step (from $L_0$ to $L_1$). The black vertical
618: lines represent the physical points $m_i=m_c$ and $m_i=m_b$.
619: The data are in the continuum and chiral limits and correspond to the definition $D1$.}
620: \end{figure}
621: %
622: %
623: \begin{figure}[t]
624: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/ssf_hpm_s2}
625: \caption{\label{fig:ssf2} Step scaling functions of $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}$ (left)
626: and $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}$ (right) at fixed $m_f$ as functions of $1/m_i$ for the second
627: evolution step (from $L_1$ to $L_2$). The black vertical
628: lines represent the physical points $m_i=m_c$ and $m_i=m_b$.
629: The data are in the continuum and chiral limits and correspond to the definition $D1$.}
630: \end{figure}
631: %
632: %
633: \begin{figure}[t]
634: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/hp_2defs}
635: \caption{\label{fig:2defs} Comparison of the two definitions of $h_+^{B\rightarrow D}(w;L)$
636: at $L_0=0.4$~fm (left) and at $L_2=1.2$~fm (right).
637: The data are in the continuum and chiral limits.}
638: \end{figure}
639: %
640: %
641: \begin{figure}[t]
642: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/hp_voldep}
643: \caption{\label{fig:voldep} $h_+^{D\rightarrow D}(w=1.05;L)$ (left)
644: and $h_+^{D\rightarrow D}(w=1.10;L)$ (right)
645: as functions of the volume.
646: The black points have been obtained through the step scaling recursion
647: while the red points (slightly displaced on the $x$-axis to help the eye)
648: are the result of a direct simulation on the biggest volume.
649: The data are in the continuum and chiral limits and correspond to the definition $D1$.}
650: \end{figure}
651: %
652: %
653: \begin{figure}[t]
654: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/hpm_iw}
655: \caption{\label{fig:iw1}
656: In the left plot it is shown $h_+^{B\rightarrow f}(w)$ in the
657: infinite volume limit as a function of $w$ for different values of the
658: final heavy quark mass. The right plot shows $h_-^{B\rightarrow f}(w)$
659: for the same combinations of heavy quark masses.}
660: \end{figure}
661: %
662: %
663: \begin{figure}[t]
664: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/iwf}
665: \caption{\label{fig:iw2}
666: The left plot shows $h_+^{B\rightarrow B}(w)$
667: and $h_+^{D\rightarrow D}(w)$: in the range $1\le w \le 1.05$
668: the two elastic form factors are indistinguishable within the quoted errors while
669: $h_+^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$ in fig.~\ref{fig:iw1} shows appreciable corrections from the
670: Isgur-Wise limit, in particular at zero recoil.
671: The right plot shows $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}$ at zero recoil ($w=1$) as a function
672: of $\varepsilon_-^2$ (actually $(1/m_i-1/m_f)^2 \propto \varepsilon_-^2$,
673: $m_{i,f}$ being the RGI heavy quark masses): the solid line has been obtained
674: by fitting the data according to eq.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp2}). }
675: \end{figure}
676: %
677:
678:
679: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
680: \section{finite volume results} \label{sec:fvr}
681:
682: \subsection{small volume}
683: The small volume $L_0=0.4$~fm has been simulated by using three different values of the
684: lattice spacing (see table~\ref{tab:sims0}). The small physical extent of the volume
685: allowed us to simulate
686: relativistic heavy quarks with masses ranging from around $m_b$ down to $m_c$.
687: We have computed the form factors $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}$, $h_-^{i\rightarrow f}$
688: and $G^{i\rightarrow f}$ for all the combinations of heavy and light quark masses and
689: for five different values of the momentum transfer.
690:
691: In figure~\ref{fig:climits0} we show the continuum extrapolations of $G^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$.
692: The points in this figure correspond to $m_l=m_s$ but similar figures can be obtained for the
693: other values of the light and heavy quark masses and for the other form factors.
694:
695: In figure~\ref{fig:chirals0} we show $h_+^{B\rightarrow D}$ (left) and
696: $h_-^{B\rightarrow D}$ (right) as functions of $w$ for the three
697: different values of light quark masses that we have simulated (ranging from about $m_s$
698: to $m_s/4$).
699: As we have anticipated in ref.~\cite{de Divitiis:2007ui}, we find that
700: the $F$'s behave as constants with respect to $m_l$ within the statistical errors.
701: This happens for each combination of heavy quark masses and for each value of the lattice
702: spacing. Nevertheless we make a linear extrapolation to reach the chiral limit;
703: the resulting error largely accounts for the systematics due to these extrapolations.
704: In the following our results include the mild chiral extrapolation.
705:
706: \subsection{steps}
707: The parameters of the simulations of the evolution steps are given
708: in tables~\ref{tab:sims1} and~\ref{tab:sims2} .
709: We have been simulating at two different lattice spacings by limiting
710: the maximum value of the heavy quark mass to $m_i\simeq m_b/2$ for
711: the first step and to $m_i\simeq m_b/4$ for the second.
712: In figure~\ref{fig:ssfcl} we show the dependence upon the lattice spacing of
713: the step scaling functions $\sigma_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w=1.1;L_0,L_1)$ (left)
714: and $\sigma_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w=1.1;L_1,L_2)$ (right) in the worst case (largest value
715: of heavy quark masses).
716: In general our results are consistent
717: with a scaling regime within a few per mille accuracy and the continuum
718: step scaling functions of tables~\ref{tab:s1results} and~\ref{tab:s2results}
719: have been obtained by averaging the results at the two lattice spacings.
720:
721: In figure~\ref{fig:ssf1} we can test our hypothesis on
722: the low sensitivity of the step scaling functions upon the high energy scale.
723: The figure shows the step scaling functions of the form factors $h_+^{i\rightarrow c}$ (left)
724: and $h_-^{i\rightarrow c}$ (right) as functions of $1/m_i$. In both cases the dependence
725: upon $m_i$ is hardly appreciable and in the case of $h_+^{i\rightarrow c}$ the $\sigma$'s are
726: very close to one while $h_-^{i\rightarrow c}$ is affected by stronger finite volume effects.
727: We obtain the values at $m_i=m_b$ by linear fits.
728:
729: In figure~\ref{fig:ssf2} we plot the same quantities as in figure~\ref{fig:ssf1} for
730: the second evolution step (from $L_1$ to $L_2$, see table~\ref{tab:sims2}). Also
731: in this case the step scaling functions depend very smoothly upon $1/m_i$.
732:
733: \subsection{consistency checks}
734: In this section we illustrate the results of two checks that we have done in order to
735: convince ourselves on the consistency of the step scaling procedure.
736: As already discussed in sec.~\ref{sec:notations}, we have used two different definitions
737: of the matrix elements and, consequently, of each form factor. In figure~\ref{fig:2defs}
738: we show the comparison of $h_+^{B\rightarrow D}(w;L)$ at $L_0=0.4$~fm (left) and at
739: $L_2=1.2$~fm (right). We see that the results, while differing at finite volume,
740: converge to common values after the step scaling procedure.
741: This makes us confident of a correct accounting of finite volume effects.
742:
743: A second check of the whole procedure, and in particular of the continuum limit of the
744: step scaling functions, can be obtained by considering the elastic
745: form factor $h_+^{D\rightarrow D}(w;L)$ at fixed $w$ as a function of $L$.
746: The point is that the charm quark mass has been simulated directly on each physical
747: volume and, in particular, on the biggest one. In figure~\ref{fig:voldep} we fix
748: $w=1.05$ (left) and $w=1.10$ (right) and
749: see that the step scaling recursion (black points) converge to the result obtained
750: directly at $L_2=1.2$~fm (red points, slightly displaced to help the eye) making
751: us confident of a correct accounting of the cutoff effects and, in particular,
752: of a correct estimate of the error on the continuum step scaling functions.
753:
754: Our final results are obtained by averaging over the two definitions
755: and by combining in quadrature statistical errors with the systematic ones
756: that we estimate from the dispersion between $D1$ and $D2$.
757:
758: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
759: \section{final results} \label{sec:fr}
760: In this section we discuss our final results in the continuum, chiral and infinite volume
761: limits (table~\ref{tab:endofthestory}).
762: In order to establish the onset of
763: the static limit approximation we plot in figure~\ref{fig:iw1} the form factor $h_+^{B\rightarrow f}(w)$
764: as a function of $w$ for different values of the
765: final heavy quark mass. The right plot shows $h_-^{B\rightarrow f}(w)$
766: for the same combinations of heavy quark masses.
767: We see that the corrections to the static limits of both $h_+^{B\rightarrow f}(w)$ and
768: $h_-^{B\rightarrow f}(w)$ are of the order of $2$\% at the charm mass.
769: For heavy quark masses bigger than $m_b/2$ the corrections are almost negligible
770: (below $1$\%).
771:
772: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp1}) and~(\ref{eq:taylorexp2}) predict that the convergence toward
773: the static limit is faster in the case of the elastic form factors with respect to the
774: ones having $m_i>m_f$. This happens because near the point at zero recoil the subleading
775: corrections to $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ are proportional to the square of the difference
776: of the initial and final meson masses.
777: Figure~\ref{fig:iw2} clearly shows that this happens in practice. Indeed, in the left plot we
778: see that the elastic form factor $h_+^{D\rightarrow D}(w)$ is much closer to
779: the static limit (very well approximated by $h_+^{B\rightarrow B}(w)$) with respect to
780: the form factor $h_+^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$,
781: the one relevant into the calculation of $V_{cb}$ shown in figure~\ref{fig:iw1}.
782: In the right plot of figure~\ref{fig:iw2} we show how well
783: eq.~(\ref{eq:taylorexp2}) is approximated by our numerical data. The fit is performed on the
784: slope while the intercept is fixed to one.
785:
786: The QCD form factor $h_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w)$ is related to the renormalization
787: group invariant HQET Isgur-Wise function, $\xi(w)$, by the
788: following relation~\cite{Neubert:1992tg,Neubert:1992hb}
789: %
790: \begin{eqnarray}
791: h_+^{i\rightarrow f}(w) = \left[1+\beta_+(m_i,m_f;w)+\gamma_+(m_i,m_f;w) + O(m_{i,f}^{-2})\right]\xi(w)
792: \nonumber
793: \end{eqnarray}
794: %
795: where the $\gamma_+$ term accounts for non-perturbative power corrections proportional
796: to the inverse of the quark masses while the $\beta_+$ term accounts for perturbative
797: radiative corrections.
798: In the case of the elastic form factor $h_+^{i\rightarrow i}(w)$ at the highest value of
799: the simulated heavy quark masses, i.e. the bottom quark mass,
800: power corrections are completely negligible in our data
801: as clearly emerges from figures~\ref{fig:iw1} and~\ref{fig:iw2}:
802: %
803: \begin{eqnarray}
804: &&\gamma_+(m_b,m_b;w)\cong 0
805: \nonumber \\ \nonumber\\
806: &&h_+^{B\rightarrow B}(w) = \left[1+\beta_+(m_b,m_b;w) \right]\xi(w)
807: \nonumber
808: \end{eqnarray}
809: %
810: The function $\beta_+(m_b,m_b;w)$ depends logarithmically upon the bottom mass
811: through $\alpha_s(m_b)$ and vanishes at zero recoil
812: where the renormalized Isgur-Wise function is identically equal to one like
813: the relativistic QCD elastic form factor. These terms are of the percent order
814: and their logarithmic dependence upon $m_b$ cannot be extrapolated away from
815: our data. Nevertheless, in order to get the HQET Isgur-Wise function
816: our non-perturbative results for $h_+^{B\rightarrow B}(w)$
817: (given in table~\ref{tab:endofthestory})
818: can be further corrected by hand through the perturbative $\beta_+(m_b,m_b;w)$
819: given in ref.~\cite{Neubert:1992tg} at next to leading order\footnote{for a recent
820: lattice calculation of the Isgur-Wise function see ref.~\cite{Bowler:2002zh}}.
821: %
822: \begin{figure}[t]
823: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{pics/delta}
824: \caption{\label{fig:delta} The figure shows the function $\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$
825: in the chiral, continuum, and infinite volume limits. The solid line correspond to the static limit
826: result, $(M_B-M_D)/(M_B+M_D)$, and has been drawn by using the experimental determinations
827: of the meson masses.}
828: \end{figure}
829: %
830:
831: Finally, we show in figure~\ref{fig:delta} our best result for the function $\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$
832: that enters in the decay rate of the process $B\rightarrow D\tau\nu_{\tau}$ (see discussion
833: at the end of section~\ref{sec:ff}).
834: $\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$ does not show any significant dependence upon
835: $w$ and is very well approximated by its static limit (see eq.~\ref{eq:deltastatic}).
836: These findings represent a prediction that can be confirmed by a future measurement of the
837: differential decay rate of the process $B\rightarrow D\tau\nu_{\tau}$.
838: Indeed, the function $\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$
839: can be extracted experimentally by the ratio
840: $d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D\tau\nu_{\tau}}/d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D (e,\mu)\nu_{e,\mu}}$ that does not
841: depend upon the CKM matrix element. On the other hand, the knowledge of $\Delta^{B\rightarrow D}(w)$
842: is required in order to perform lepton-flavour universality checks on the extraction
843: of $V_{cb}$.
844:
845:
846: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
847: \section{conclusions} \label{sec:conc}
848: We have performed the calculation of the form factors that parametrize semileptonic
849: transitions among pseudoscalar heavy-light mesons and made a prediction for the ratio
850: $d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D\tau\nu_{\tau}}/d\Gamma^{B\rightarrow D (e,\mu)\nu_{e,\mu}}$.
851: In view of a future measurement of the differential
852: decay rate of the process $B\rightarrow D \tau \nu_\tau$, our results
853: will allow to perform lepton-flavour universality checks on the
854: extraction of $V_{cb}$.
855:
856: The form factors have
857: been obtained with a relative accuracy of the order of a few percent allowing to
858: establish the range of validity of the heavy quark effective theory for
859: these quantities.
860: In particular we have obtained a check of the predictions of the
861: Luke's theorem that we re-derived.
862: The corrections to the static limit are very small already in the case of the elastic form
863: factor $h_+^{D\rightarrow D}$ and negligible in the case of $h_+^{B\rightarrow B}$.
864: We have also established the accuracy of the static approximation to the form factors
865: of the decay $B\rightarrow D\ell\nu$ which is of the order of $2$-$3$\% at zero recoil
866: and reaches about $7$\% at $w=1.2$ where becomes definitely inadequate for precise
867: phenomenological applications.
868: %
869: \begin{table}[t]
870: \begin{ruledtabular}
871: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
872: $i\rightarrow f$ & $w$ & $G$ & $h_+$ & $h_-$ & $\Delta$ \\
873: \hline
874: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & & \\
875: & 1.03 & 0.971(07) & 0.971(07) & & \\
876: $D\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.955(06) & 0.955(06) & & \\
877: & 1.10 & 0.916(09) & 0.916(09) & & \\
878: & 1.20 & 0.828(20) & 0.828(20) & & \\
879: \hline
880: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & & \\
881: & 1.03 & 0.974(07) & 0.974(07) & & \\
882: $B\rightarrow B$ & 1.05 & 0.952(07) & 0.952(07) & & \\
883: & 1.10 & 0.903(16) & 0.903(16) & & \\
884: & 1.20 & 0.794(34) & 0.794(34) & & \\
885: \hline
886: & 1.00 & 1.026(17) & 1.017(03) & -0.011(23) & 0.466(26)\\
887: & 1.03 & 1.001(19) & 0.986(08) & -0.018(19) & 0.465(25)\\
888: $B\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.987(15) & 0.970(07) & -0.023(16) & 0.464(24)\\
889: & 1.10 & 0.943(11) & 0.928(10) & -0.024(12) & 0.463(24)\\
890: & 1.20 & 0.853(21) & 0.835(21) & -0.018(13) & 0.463(23)\\
891: \end{tabular}
892: \end{ruledtabular}
893: \caption{\label{tab:endofthestory}
894: Physical results. Average of the two definitions $D1$ and $D2$.}
895: \end{table}
896: %
897:
898: Our results have been obtained within the quenched approximation and further calculations
899: will be needed to asses the corrections due to unquenching.
900: On the other hand, the accuracy reached in the quenched case demonstrates
901: the feasibility and the opportunity of repeating the present calculation in the
902: unquenched theory. Indeed, the recursive matching process can be
903: extended to the sea quark masses that, alternatively, can be kept to their physical values
904: if the Schr\"odinger Functional formalism is used.
905: Moreover, flavour twisted boundary conditions can be used for heavy valence quarks
906: also in the $N_f=3$ unquenched theory. The real case will further differ by the
907: heavy flavour determinants that can be accounted for by a perturbative expansion
908: in the hopping parameter.
909:
910:
911: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
912: \begin{acknowledgments}
913: We warmly thank E.~Molinaro for his participation at an early stage of this work.
914: The simulations required to carry on this project
915: have been performed on the INFN apeNEXT machines at Rome "La Sapienza".
916: We thank A.~Lonardo, D.~Rossetti and P.~Vicini for technical advice.
917: \end{acknowledgments}
918:
919:
920:
921: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
922: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
923:
924: %\cite{Cabibbo:1963yz}
925: \bibitem{Cabibbo:1963yz}
926: N.~Cabibbo,
927: %``Unitary Symmetry and Leptonic Decays,''
928: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 10} (1963) 531.
929: %%CITATION = PRLTA,10,531;%%
930:
931: %\cite{Kobayashi:1973fv}
932: \bibitem{Kobayashi:1973fv}
933: M.~Kobayashi and T.~Maskawa,
934: %``CP Violation In The Renormalizable Theory Of Weak Interaction,''
935: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49} (1973) 652.
936: %%CITATION = PTPKA,49,652;%%
937:
938: %\cite{Isgur:1989ed}
939: \bibitem{Isgur:1989ed}
940: N.~Isgur and M.~B.~Wise,
941: %``WEAK TRANSITION FORM-FACTORS BETWEEN HEAVY MESONS,''
942: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 237} (1990) 527.
943: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B237,527;%%
944:
945: %\cite{Aubert:2007ab}
946: \bibitem{Aubert:2007ab}
947: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
948: %``Measurement of the Semileptonic Decays B --> D tau nubar and B --> D* tau
949: %nubar,''
950: arXiv:0707.2758 [hep-ex].
951: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.2758;%%
952:
953: %\cite{Matyja:2007kt}
954: \bibitem{Matyja:2007kt}
955: A.~Matyja {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
956: %``Observation of $B^0 \to D^{*-} \tau^+ \nu_{\tau}$ decay at Belle,''
957: arXiv:0706.4429 [hep-ex].
958: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.4429;%%
959:
960: %\cite{Kiers:1997zt}
961: \bibitem{Kiers:1997zt}
962: K.~Kiers and A.~Soni,
963: %``Improving constraints on tan(beta/m(H)) using B --> D tau anti-nu,''
964: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 5786
965: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706337].
966: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D56,5786;%%
967:
968: %\cite{Chen:2006nua}
969: \bibitem{Chen:2006nua}
970: C.~H.~Chen and C.~Q.~Geng,
971: %``Charged Higgs on B- --> tau anti-nu/tau and anti-B --> P (V) l anti-nu/l,''
972: JHEP {\bf 0610} (2006) 053
973: [arXiv:hep-ph/0608166].
974: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0610,053;%%
975:
976: %\cite{de Divitiis:2007ui}
977: \bibitem{de Divitiis:2007ui}
978: G.~M.~de Divitiis, E.~Molinaro, R.~Petronzio and N.~Tantalo,
979: %``Quenched lattice calculation of the B --> D l nu decay rate,''
980: arXiv:0707.0582 [hep-lat].
981: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0707.0582;%%
982:
983: %\cite{Guagnelli:2002jd}
984: \bibitem{Guagnelli:2002jd}
985: M.~Guagnelli, F.~Palombi, R.~Petronzio and N.~Tantalo,
986: %``f(B) and two scales problems in lattice QCD,''
987: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 546} (2002) 237
988: [arXiv:hep-lat/0206023].
989: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0206023;%%
990:
991: %\cite{deDivitiis:2003wy}
992: \bibitem{deDivitiis:2003wy}
993: G.~M.~de Divitiis, M.~Guagnelli, F.~Palombi, R.~Petronzio and N.~Tantalo,
994: %``Heavy-light decay constants in the continuum limit of lattice QCD,''
995: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 672}, 372 (2003)
996: [arXiv:hep-lat/0307005].
997: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B672,372;%%
998:
999: %\cite{deDivitiis:2003iy}
1000: \bibitem{deDivitiis:2003iy}
1001: G.~M.~de Divitiis, M.~Guagnelli, R.~Petronzio, N.~Tantalo and F.~Palombi,
1002: %``Heavy quark masses in the continuum limit of lattice QCD,''
1003: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675}, 309 (2003)
1004: [arXiv:hep-lat/0305018].
1005: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B675,309;%%
1006:
1007: %\cite{Guazzini:2006bn}
1008: \bibitem{Guazzini:2006bn}
1009: D.~Guazzini, R.~Sommer and N.~Tantalo,
1010: %``m(b) and f(B/s) from a combination of HQET and QCD,''
1011: PoS {\bf LAT2006} (2006) 084
1012: [arXiv:hep-lat/0609065].
1013: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0609065;%%
1014:
1015: %\cite{deDivitiis:2004kq}
1016: \bibitem{deDivitiis:2004kq}
1017: G.~M.~de Divitiis, R.~Petronzio and N.~Tantalo,
1018: %``On the discretization of physical momenta in lattice QCD,''
1019: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 408 (2004)
1020: [arXiv:hep-lat/0405002].
1021: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B595,408;%%
1022:
1023: %\cite{Bedaque:2004kc}
1024: \bibitem{Bedaque:2004kc}
1025: P.~F.~Bedaque,
1026: %``Aharonov-Bohm effect and nucleon nucleon phase shifts on the lattice,''
1027: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 593} (2004) 82
1028: [arXiv:nucl-th/0402051].
1029: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B593,82;%%
1030:
1031: %\cite{Sachrajda:2004mi}
1032: \bibitem{Sachrajda:2004mi}
1033: C.~T.~Sachrajda and G.~Villadoro,
1034: %``Twisted boundary conditions in lattice simulations,''
1035: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 609}, 73 (2005)
1036: [arXiv:hep-lat/0411033].
1037: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B609,73;%%
1038:
1039: %\cite{Flynn:2005in}
1040: \bibitem{Flynn:2005in}
1041: J.~M.~Flynn, A.~Juttner and C.~T.~Sachrajda [UKQCD Collaboration],
1042: %``A numerical study of partially twisted boundary conditions,''
1043: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 632}, 313 (2006)
1044: [arXiv:hep-lat/0506016].
1045: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B632,313;%%
1046:
1047: %\cite{Luke:1990eg}
1048: \bibitem{Luke:1990eg}
1049: M.~E.~Luke,
1050: %``Effects Of Subleading Operators In The Heavy Quark Effective Theory,''
1051: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 252} (1990) 447.
1052: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B252,447;%%
1053:
1054: %\cite{Falk:1992wt}
1055: \bibitem{Falk:1992wt}
1056: A.~F.~Falk and M.~Neubert,
1057: %``Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory. 1.
1058: %Formalism and meson form-factors,''
1059: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47} (1993) 2965
1060: [arXiv:hep-ph/9209268].
1061: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,2965;%%
1062:
1063: %\cite{Korner:1989qb}
1064: \bibitem{Korner:1989qb}
1065: J.~G.~Korner and G.~A.~Schuler,
1066: %``Exclusive Semileptonic Heavy Meson Decays Including Lepton Mass Effects,''
1067: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 46} (1990) 93.
1068: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C46,93;%%
1069:
1070: %\cite{Luscher:1992an}
1071: \bibitem{Luscher:1992an}
1072: M.~Luscher, R.~Narayanan, P.~Weisz and U.~Wolff,
1073: %``The Schrodinger functional: A Renormalizable probe for nonAbelian gauge
1074: %theories,''
1075: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 384} (1992) 168
1076: [arXiv:hep-lat/9207009].
1077: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B384,168;%%
1078:
1079: %\cite{Sint:1993un}
1080: \bibitem{Sint:1993un}
1081: S.~Sint,
1082: %``On the Schrodinger functional in QCD,''
1083: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 421}, 135 (1994)
1084: [arXiv:hep-lat/9312079].
1085: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B421,135;%%
1086:
1087: %\cite{Guagnelli:1998ud}
1088: \bibitem{Guagnelli:1998ud}
1089: M.~Guagnelli, R.~Sommer and H.~Wittig [ALPHA collaboration],
1090: %``Precision computation of a low-energy reference scale in quenched lattice
1091: %QCD,''
1092: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 535} (1998) 389
1093: [arXiv:hep-lat/9806005].
1094: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B535,389;%%
1095:
1096: %\cite{Necco:2001xg}
1097: \bibitem{Necco:2001xg}
1098: S.~Necco and R.~Sommer,
1099: %``The N(f) = 0 heavy quark potential from short to intermediate distances,''
1100: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 622}, 328 (2002)
1101: [arXiv:hep-lat/0108008].
1102: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B622,328;%%
1103:
1104: %\cite{Guagnelli:2002ia}
1105: \bibitem{Guagnelli:2002ia}
1106: M.~Guagnelli, R.~Petronzio and N.~Tantalo,
1107: %``The lattice scale at large beta in quenched QCD,''
1108: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 548}, 58 (2002)
1109: [arXiv:hep-lat/0209112].
1110: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B548,58;%%
1111:
1112: %\cite{Luscher:1996ug}
1113: \bibitem{Luscher:1996ug}
1114: M.~Luscher, S.~Sint, R.~Sommer, P.~Weisz and U.~Wolff,
1115: %``Non-perturbative O(a) improvement of lattice QCD,''
1116: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 491} (1997) 323
1117: [arXiv:hep-lat/9609035].
1118: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B491,323;%%
1119:
1120: %\cite{Sint:1997jx}
1121: \bibitem{Sint:1997jx}
1122: S.~Sint and P.~Weisz,
1123: %``Further results on O(a) improved lattice QCD to one-loop order of
1124: %perturbation theory,''
1125: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 502}, 251 (1997)
1126: [arXiv:hep-lat/9704001].
1127: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B502,251;%%
1128:
1129: %\cite{deDivitiis:1997ka}
1130: \bibitem{deDivitiis:1997ka}
1131: G.~M.~de Divitiis and R.~Petronzio,
1132: %``Non-perturbative renormalization constants on the lattice from flavour
1133: %non-singlet Ward identities,''
1134: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 419} (1998) 311
1135: [arXiv:hep-lat/9710071].
1136: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B419,311;%%
1137:
1138: %\cite{Capitani:1998mq}
1139: \bibitem{Capitani:1998mq}
1140: S.~Capitani, M.~Luscher, R.~Sommer and H.~Wittig [ALPHA Collaboration],
1141: %``Non-perturbative quark mass renormalization in quenched lattice QCD,''
1142: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 544} (1999) 669
1143: [arXiv:hep-lat/9810063].
1144: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B544,669;%%
1145:
1146: %\cite{Guagnelli:2000}
1147: \bibitem{Guagnelli:2000}
1148: M.~Guagnelli, R.~Petronzio, J.~Rolf, S.~Sint, R.~Sommer and U.~Wolff
1149: [ALPHA Collaboration],
1150: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 595}, 44 (2001)
1151: [arXiv:hep-lat/0009021].
1152: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B595,44;%%
1153:
1154: %\cite{Neubert:1992tg}
1155: \bibitem{Neubert:1992tg}
1156: M.~Neubert,
1157: %``Short distance expansion of heavy quark currents,''
1158: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 2212.
1159: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,2212;%%
1160:
1161: %\cite{Neubert:1992hb}
1162: \bibitem{Neubert:1992hb}
1163: M.~Neubert,
1164: %``Subleading Isgur-Wise form-factors from QCD sum rules,''
1165: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 3914.
1166: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D46,3914;%%
1167:
1168: %\cite{Bowler:2002zh}
1169: \bibitem{Bowler:2002zh}
1170: K.~C.~Bowler, G.~Douglas, R.~D.~Kenway, G.~N.~Lacagnina and C.~M.~Maynard
1171: [UKQCD Collaboration],
1172: %``Semi-leptonic decays of heavy mesons and the Isgur-Wise function in
1173: %quenched lattice QCD,''
1174: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637} (2002) 293
1175: [arXiv:hep-lat/0202029].
1176: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B637,293;%%
1177:
1178: \end{thebibliography}
1179: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1180:
1181:
1182:
1183:
1184: %
1185: \begin{table}
1186: \begin{ruledtabular}
1187: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1188: & $\beta$ & $T\times L^3$ & $N_{cnfg}$ & $k$ & $\theta$\\
1189: \hline
1190: $L_0A$ & 7.300 & $48\times 24^3$ & 277 & 0.124176 & 0.000000\\
1191: & & & & 0.124844 & 0.953456\\
1192: & & & & 0.128440 & 1.201080\\
1193: & & & & 0.129224 & 2.042983\\
1194: & & & & 0.131950 & 2.573569\\
1195: & & & & 0.134041 & \\
1196: & & & & 0.134098 & \\
1197: & & & & 0.134155 & \\
1198: \hline
1199: $L_0B$ & 7.151 & $40\times 20^3$ & 224 & 0.122666 & 0.000000\\
1200: & & & & 0.123437 & 0.953456\\
1201: & & & & 0.127605 & 1.201079\\
1202: & & & & 0.131511 & 1.719170\\
1203: & & & & 0.131686 & 2.488490\\
1204: & & & & 0.134277 & \\
1205: & & & & 0.134350 & \\
1206: & & & & 0.134422 & \\
1207: \hline
1208: $L_0C$ & 6.963 & $32\times 16^3$ & 403 & 0.120081 & 0.000000\\
1209: & & & & 0.120988 & 0.953456\\
1210: & & & & 0.126050 & 1.201079\\
1211: & & & & 0.131082 & 1.719170\\
1212: & & & & 0.131314 & 2.488490\\
1213: & & & & 0.134526 & \\
1214: & & & & 0.134614 & \\
1215: & & & & 0.134702 & \\
1216: \end{tabular}
1217: \end{ruledtabular}
1218: \caption{\label{tab:sims0}
1219: Table of lattice simulations of the small volume.}
1220: \end{table}
1221: %
1222: %
1223: \begin{table}
1224: \begin{ruledtabular}
1225: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1226: $i\rightarrow f$ & $w$ & $G$ & $h_+$ & $h_-$ \\
1227: \hline
1228: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & \\
1229: & 1.03 & 0.979(02) & 0.979(02) & \\
1230: $D\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.967(03) & 0.967(03) & \\
1231: & 1.10 & 0.942(04) & 0.942(04) & \\
1232: & 1.20 & 0.894(06) & 0.894(06) & \\
1233: \hline
1234: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & \\
1235: & 1.03 & 0.980(02) & 0.980(02) & \\
1236: $B\rightarrow B$ & 1.05 & 0.969(03) & 0.969(03) & \\
1237: & 1.10 & 0.940(05) & 0.940(05) & \\
1238: & 1.20 & 0.882(09) & 0.882(09) & \\
1239: \hline
1240: & 1.00 & 1.025(17) & 1.013(03) & -0.020(37) \\
1241: & 1.03 & 1.009(14) & 0.992(03) & -0.032(29) \\
1242: $B\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 1.000(13) & 0.980(04) & -0.040(23) \\
1243: & 1.10 & 0.976(11) & 0.953(04) & -0.048(17) \\
1244: & 1.20 & 0.929(09) & 0.903(06) & -0.053(12) \\
1245: \end{tabular}
1246: \end{ruledtabular}
1247: \caption{\label{tab:s0results}
1248: Small volume results, $L_0=0.4$~fm. Results corresponding to the definition $D1$.}
1249: \end{table}
1250: %
1251: \begin{table}
1252: \begin{ruledtabular}
1253: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1254: & $\beta$ & $T\times L^3$ & $N_{cnfg}$ & $k$ & $\theta$\\
1255: \hline
1256: $L_0a$ & 6.737 & $24\times 12^3$ & 608 & 0.12490 & 0.000000\\
1257: & & & & 0.12600 & 0.953456\\
1258: & & & & 0.12770 & 1.201080\\
1259: & & & & 0.12979 & 1.719172\\
1260: & & & & 0.13015 & 2.488491\\
1261: & & & & 0.13430 &\\
1262: & & & & 0.13460 &\\
1263: & & & & 0.13490 &\\
1264: \hline
1265: $L_0b$ & 6.420 & $16\times 8^3$ & 800 & 0.120674 & 0.000000\\
1266: & & & & 0.122220 & 0.953456\\
1267: & & & & 0.124410 & 1.201079\\
1268: & & & & 0.127985 & 1.719172\\
1269: & & & & 0.128066 & 2.488491\\
1270: & & & & 0.134304 &\\
1271: & & & & 0.134770 &\\
1272: & & & & 0.135221 &\\
1273: \hline
1274: $L_1A$ & 6.737 & $48\times 24^3$ & 260 & 0.12490 & 0.000000\\
1275: & & & & 0.12600 & 2.042983\\
1276: & & & & 0.12770 & 2.573569\\
1277: & & & & 0.12979 & 3.438340\\
1278: & & & & 0.13015 & 4.976980\\
1279: & & & & 0.13430 &\\
1280: & & & & 0.13460 &\\
1281: & & & & 0.13490 &\\
1282: \hline
1283: $L_1B$ & 6.420 & $32\times 16^3$ & 350 & 0.120674 & 0.000000\\
1284: & & & & 0.122220 & 2.042983 \\
1285: & & & & 0.124410 & 2.573569 \\
1286: & & & & 0.127985 & 3.438340 \\
1287: & & & & 0.128066 & 4.976980 \\
1288: & & & & 0.134304 & \\
1289: & & & & 0.134770 & \\
1290: & & & & 0.135221 & \\
1291: \end{tabular}
1292: \end{ruledtabular}
1293: \caption{\label{tab:sims1}
1294: Table of lattice simulations of the first step.}
1295: \end{table}
1296: %
1297: %
1298: \begin{table}
1299: \begin{ruledtabular}
1300: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1301: $i\rightarrow f$ & $w$ & $\sigma_G$ & $\sigma_+$ & $\sigma_-$ \\
1302: \hline
1303: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & \\
1304: & 1.03 & 0.999(01) & 0.999(01) & \\
1305: $D\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.997(02) & 0.997(02) & \\
1306: & 1.10 & 0.993(03) & 0.993(03) & \\
1307: & 1.20 & 0.985(05) & 0.985(05) & \\
1308: \hline
1309: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & \\
1310: & 1.03 & 0.997(02) & 0.997(02) & \\
1311: $B\rightarrow B$ & 1.05 & 0.996(02) & 0.996(02) & \\
1312: & 1.10 & 0.991(04) & 0.991(04) & \\
1313: & 1.20 & 0.981(09) & 0.981(09) & \\
1314: \hline
1315: & 1.00 & 1.002(02) & 1.003(01) & 0.89(16)\\
1316: & 1.03 & 0.999(03) & 1.000(02) & 0.86(13)\\
1317: $B\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.996(04) & 0.998(02) & 0.83(11)\\
1318: & 1.10 & 0.991(04) & 0.993(03) & 0.77(08)\\
1319: & 1.20 & 0.980(05) & 0.983(05) & 0.72(08)\\
1320: \end{tabular}
1321: \end{ruledtabular}
1322: \caption{\label{tab:s1results}
1323: First step, from $L_0=0.4$~fm to $L_1=0.8$~fm. Results corresponding to the definition $D1$.}
1324: \end{table}
1325: %
1326: %
1327: \begin{table}
1328: \begin{ruledtabular}
1329: \begin{tabular}{lccccc}
1330: & $\beta$ & $T\times L^3$ & $N_{cnfg}$ & $k$ & $\theta$\\
1331: \hline
1332: $L_1a$ & 6.420 & $32\times 16^3$ & 360 & 0.126600 & 0.000000\\
1333: & & & & 0.127400 & 1.603930\\
1334: & & & & 0.128030 & 2.080840\\
1335: & & & & 0.128650 & 2.978423\\
1336: & & & & 0.129500 & 4.311249\\
1337: & & & & 0.134304 & \\
1338: & & & & 0.134770 & \\
1339: & & & & 0.135221 & \\
1340: \hline
1341: $L_1b$ & 5.960 & $16\times 8^3$ & 480 & 0.118128 & 0.000000\\
1342: & & & & 0.119112 & 1.603930 \\
1343: & & & & 0.120112 & 2.080840 \\
1344: & & & & 0.121012 & 2.978423 \\
1345: & & & & 0.122513 & 4.311249 \\
1346: & & & & 0.131457 & \\
1347: & & & & 0.132335 & \\
1348: & & & & 0.133226 & \\
1349: \hline
1350: $L_2A$ & 6.420 & $48\times 24^3$ & 250 & 0.126600 & 0.000000\\
1351: & & & & 0.127400 & 2.405895\\
1352: & & & & 0.128030 & 3.121260\\
1353: & & & & 0.128650 & 4.467634\\
1354: & & & & 0.129500 & 6.200000\\
1355: & & & & 0.134304 & \\
1356: & & & & 0.134770 & \\
1357: & & & & 0.135221 & \\
1358: \hline
1359: $L_2B$ & 5.960 & $24\times 12^3$ & 592 & 0.118128 & 0.000000\\
1360: & & & & 0.119112 & 2.405895\\
1361: & & & & 0.120112 & 3.121260\\
1362: & & & & 0.121012 & 4.467634\\
1363: & & & & 0.122513 & 6.200000\\
1364: & & & & 0.131457 & \\
1365: & & & & 0.132335 & \\
1366: & & & & 0.133226 & \\
1367: \end{tabular}
1368: \end{ruledtabular}
1369: \caption{\label{tab:sims2}
1370: Table of lattice simulations of the second step.}
1371: \end{table}
1372: %
1373: %
1374: \begin{table}
1375: \begin{ruledtabular}
1376: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
1377: $i\rightarrow f$ & $w$ & $\sigma_G$ & $\sigma_+$ & $\sigma_-$ \\
1378: \hline
1379: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & \\
1380: & 1.03 & 0.993(01) & 0.993(01) & \\
1381: $D\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.988(02) & 0.988(02) & \\
1382: & 1.10 & 0.973(05) & 0.973(05) & \\
1383: & 1.20 & 0.921(16) & 0.921(16) & \\
1384: \hline
1385: & 1.00 & 1.000(00) & 1.000(00) & \\
1386: & 1.03 & 0.992(02) & 0.992(02) & \\
1387: $B\rightarrow B$ & 1.05 & 0.986(03) & 0.986(03) & \\
1388: & 1.10 & 0.961(10) & 0.961(10) & \\
1389: & 1.20 & 0.890(24) & 0.890(24) & \\
1390: \hline
1391: & 1.00 & 1.000(01) & 1.000(01) & 0.63(32)\\
1392: & 1.03 & 0.992(02) & 0.993(02) & 0.65(25)\\
1393: $B\rightarrow D$ & 1.05 & 0.987(02) & 0.988(02) & 0.67(21)\\
1394: & 1.10 & 0.972(05) & 0.972(05) & 0.65(21)\\
1395: & 1.20 & 0.921(14) & 0.921(14) & 0.45(33)\\
1396: \end{tabular}
1397: \end{ruledtabular}
1398: \caption{\label{tab:s2results}
1399: Second step, from $L_1=0.8$~fm to $L_2=1.2$~fm. Results corresponding to the definition $D1$.}
1400: \end{table}
1401: %
1402:
1403:
1404:
1405: %ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1406: \end{document}
1407: