1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[prl,aps,floats,amsmath,amssymb,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,
3: preprintnumbers,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
4:
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{epstopdf}
7:
8: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
10: \def\ltorder{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu
11: \lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
12: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
13: \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}} % greater than or approx. symbol
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \preprint{
18: \vbox{
19: \hbox{BNL-HET-07/19, Edinburgh 2007/38, MKPH-T-07-16, RBRC-699, SHEP-0743}
20: }}
21:
22: \title{$K_{l3}$ semileptonic form factor from $2+1$ flavor lattice
23: QCD}
24:
25: \author{P.~A.~Boyle}
26: \affiliation{School of Physics, University of Edinburgh,
27: Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK}
28: \author{A.~J\"uttner}
29: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Kernphysik,
30: Johannes Gutenberg-Universit\"at Mainz,
31: D-55099 Mainz, Germany}
32: \author{R.~D.~Kenway}
33: \affiliation{School of Physics, University of Edinburgh,
34: Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK}
35: \author{C.~T.~Sachrajda}
36: \affiliation{School of Physics and Astronomy, University of
37: Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK}
38: \author{S.~Sasaki}
39: \affiliation{RIKEN-BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National
40: Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973, USA}
41: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo
42: 113-0033, Japan}
43: \author{A.~Soni}
44: \affiliation{Physics Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
45: Upton, NY 11973, USA}
46: \author{R.~J.~Tweedie}
47: \affiliation{School of Physics, University of Edinburgh,
48: Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK}
49: \author{J.~M.~Zanotti}
50: \affiliation{School of Physics, University of Edinburgh,
51: Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK}
52: %
53: \collaboration{RBC+UKQCD Collaborations} \noaffiliation
54: %
55: \begin{abstract}
56: We present the first results for the $K_{l3}$ form factor from
57: simulations with $2+1$ flavors of dynamical domain wall quarks.
58: %
59: Combining our result, namely $f_+(0)=0.964(5)$, with the latest
60: experimental results for $K_{l3}$ decays leads to
61: $|V_{us}|=0.2249(14)$, reducing the uncertaintity in this important
62: parameter.
63: %
64: For the $O(p^6)$ term in the chiral expansion we obtain $\Delta
65: f=-0.013(5)$.
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68: \pacs{11.15.Ha,12.15.Hh,12.38.Aw,12.38.-t,12.38.Gc,13.20.Eb}
69: \keywords{lattice QCD, CKM matrix, Kaon, semileptonic}
70:
71: \maketitle
72:
73: The increasing precision with which the unitarity of the CKM matrix
74: \cite{Cabibbo:1963yz} can be tested is an important tool for exploring
75: the limits of the Standard Model.
76: %
77: One such unitarity relation is
78: %
79: \begin{equation}
80: |V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2+|V_{ub}|^2=1\,,
81: \end{equation}
82: %
83: whose uncertainty is dominated by the precision of $|V_{us}|$.
84: %
85: In order to obtain $|V_{us}|$ from experimental measurements of the rate
86: for an $s\to u$ decay process, it is necessary to quantify the
87: corresponding non-perturbative QCD effects.
88: %
89: In this paper we present first lattice results from simulations with
90: $2+1$ flavors of domain wall quarks, which respect chiral and flavor
91: symmetries to high accuracy, for the evaluation of the
92: form factor $f_+(0)$ necessary to determine $|V_{us}|$ from
93: $K\to\pi\ell\nu_\ell$ ($K_{\ell 3}$) semileptonic decays.
94: %
95: Precise knowledge of $f_+(0)$ is crucial also for deducing $|V_{td}|$
96: from a measurement of $K \to \pi^0 \nu \bar \nu$.
97: %
98:
99: Our determination of $f_+(0)$ includes estimates of all systematic
100: errors (chiral and $q^2$ extrapolations, discretization and finite
101: volume effects), and reduces the combined theoretical and
102: experimental error in $|V_{us}|$ from the PDG(2006) result of
103: 0.2257(21) to
104: \footnote{For a recent review of lattice determinations of $f_K$ (necessary for
105: the determination of $|V_{us}|$ from $K_{\ell 2}$ leptonic decays) and
106: previous computations of $f_+(0)$ %the semileptonic form factors
107: see \cite{juettnerlatt2007}.}
108: %
109: \be
110: |V_{us}| = 0.2249(14)\,.
111: \ee
112: %
113:
114: The combination $|V_{us}f_+(0)|$ can be obtained from the experimental
115: rate for $K_{\ell 3}$ decays
116: %
117: \begin{eqnarray}
118: \Gamma_{K\to\pi l\nu} &=& C_K^2\frac{G_F^2 m_K^5}{192\pi^3} I\,
119: S_{EW} \\
120: &\times& \left[1+2\Delta_{SU(2)} +2\Delta_{EM}\right]
121: |V_{us}|^2|f_+(0)|^2\, , \nonumber
122: \end{eqnarray}
123: %
124: where $I$ is the phase space integral which can be evaluated from the
125: shape of the experimental form factor, and
126: $\Delta_{SU(2)},\,S_{EW},\,\Delta_{EM}$ contain the isospin breaking,
127: short distance electroweak and long distance electromagnetic
128: corrections, respectively.
129: %
130: $f_+(0)$ is the form factor defined from the $K\to \pi$ matrix element
131: of the weak vector current, $V_\mu=\bar{s}\gamma_\mu u$, evaluated at
132: zero momentum transfer
133: %
134: \be
135: \langle \pi(p^\prime) \big | V_\mu \big | K(p)\rangle = (p_\mu +
136: p_\mu^\prime) f_+(q^2) + (p_\mu - p_\mu^\prime)
137: f_-(q^2)\,,
138: \label{eq:ME}
139: \ee
140: %
141: where $q^2=(p-p^\prime)^2$.
142: %
143: PDG(2006) quotes \cite{blucher06}\footnote{A more recent analysis
144: finds $|V_{us}f_+(0)|=0.21673(46)$~\cite{Moulson:2007fs}.}
145: %
146: \be
147: |V_{us}f_+(0)|=0.2169(9)\ ,
148: \ee
149: %
150: hence in order to obtain $|V_{us}|$ at a precision commensurate with
151: current experiments, we need to determine $f_+(0)$ with an error of
152: less than 1\%.
153:
154: In chiral perturbation theory (ChPT), $f_+(0)$ is expanded in terms of
155: the light pseudoscalar meson masses
156: %
157: \be
158: f_+(0) = 1 + f_2 + f_4 + \ldots,\quad (f_n={\cal
159: O}(m^n_{\pi,\,K,\,\eta}))\ .
160: \label{eq:chiralexp}
161: \ee
162: %
163: Current conservation ensures that in the $SU(3)_\text{flavor}$ limit
164: $f_+(0)=1$, hence $f_2$ and $f_4$ are \textit{small}.
165: %
166: Additionally, as a result of the Ademollo-Gatto Theorem
167: \cite{Ademollo:1964sr}, which states that $f_2$ receives no
168: contribution from local operators appearing in the effective theory,
169: $f_2$ is determined unambiguously in terms of $m_\pi$, $m_K$ and
170: $f_\pi$, and takes the value $f_2=-0.023$ at the physical values of
171: the meson masses~\cite{Leutwyler:1984je}.
172: %
173: Our task is now reduced to one of finding
174: %
175: \be
176: \Delta f = f_+(0) - (1 + f_2) \ .
177: \label{eq:deltaf}
178: \ee
179: %
180: Until recently, the canonical estimate of $\Delta f=-0.016(8)$ was due
181: to Leutwyler \& Roos (LR) \cite{Leutwyler:1984je}, whereas more recent
182: ChPT based phenomenological analyses favor a value consistent with
183: zero (see Table~\ref{table:lattresults}).
184: %
185: These determinations, however, require model input; the 50\% error in
186: the LR result, for example, was estimated within the context of a
187: simple quark model.
188: %
189: Hence a model independent determination of $\Delta f$ with a reliable
190: error estimate is necessary.
191: %
192: We compile recent lattice and phenomenological results in
193: Table~\ref{table:lattresults}.
194: %
195: Our lattice calculation has been discussed in preliminary form in
196: \cite{Antonio:2007mh} and we now finalize our results with the
197: inclusion of the complete set of data and
198: %
199: a careful estimate of all systematic errors.
200: %
201:
202: \begin{table}
203: \begin{center}
204: \caption{Summary of ChPT and lattice results. ${}^\dagger$
205: Results in conference proceedings only. $^*$ Used slope of
206: experimental form factor as input. $\ddag$~Information not
207: provided.
208: }
209: \label{table:lattresults}
210: \begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{2mm}}l@{\hspace{1mm}}lcc@{\hspace{1mm}}c}
211: \hline
212: Ref. & \hspace{2mm}$f_+(0)$ & \hspace{4mm}$\Delta f$ & $m_\pi$ [GeV] &
213: $a$ [fm] & $N_f$
214: \\ \hline
215: \cite{Leutwyler:1984je}\phantom{$^\dagger$$^*$} & 0.961(8) & -0.016(8) &&&\\
216: \cite{Bijnens:2003uy}\phantom{$^\dagger$$^*$} & 0.978(10) & +0.001(10) &&&\\
217: \cite{Cirigliano:2005xn}\phantom{$^\dagger$$^*$} & 0.984(12) & +0.007(12) &&&\\
218: \cite{Jamin:2004re}\phantom{$^\dagger$$^*$} & 0.974(11) & -0.003(11) &&&\\
219: \hline
220: \cite{Becirevic:2004ya}\phantom{$^\dagger$$^*$}&0.960(5)(7)&-0.017(5)(7)&$\gsim 0.5$ & 0.07 & 0 \\
221: \cite{Dawson:2006qc}\phantom{$^\dagger$$^*$} & 0.968(9)(6)&-0.009(9)(6)&$\gsim 0.49$& 0.12 & 2 \\
222: \cite{Okamoto:2004df}$^\dagger$$^*$& 0.962(6)(9)&-0.015(6)(9)&$\ddag$&$\ddag$& 2+1 \\
223: \cite{Tsutsui:2005cj}$^\dagger$\phantom{$^*$}& 0.967(6)&-0.010(6)&$\gsim 0.55$& 0.09 & 2 \\
224: \cite{Brommel:2007wn}$^\dagger$\phantom{$^*$}& 0.965(2)&-0.012(2)&$\gsim 0.5$ & 0.08 & 2 \\
225: This work & 0.964(5) & -0.013(5) & $\gsim 0.33$ & 0.114 & 2+1 \\
226: \hline
227: \end{tabular}
228: \end{center}
229: \end{table}
230:
231: We simulate with $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavors generated with the
232: Iwasaki gauge action \cite{Iwasaki:1985we} at $\beta=2.13$, which
233: corresponds to an inverse lattice spacing $a^{-1}=1.73(3)\,\text{GeV}$
234: ($a=0.114(2)\,\text{fm}$)~\cite{Allton:2007hx,24cubed}, and the domain
235: wall fermion action \cite{Kaplan:1992bt} with a residual mass of
236: $am_\text{res}= 0.00315(2)$ \cite{Allton:2007hx,24cubed}.
237: %
238: The simulated strange quark mass, $am_s=0.04$, is close to its
239: physical value \cite{24cubed}, and we choose four values for the light
240: quark masses, $am_{ud}$, which correspond to pion masses as light as
241: 329 MeV \cite{Allton:2007hx,24cubed}.
242: %
243: The calculations are performed on two volumes, $16^3$
244: ($(1.83)^3\,\text{fm}^3$) and $24^3$ ($(2.74)^3\,\text{fm}^3$), at
245: each quark mass, except the lightest mass which is only simulated on
246: the larger volume.
247: %
248: Simulation details are summarized in Table~\ref{table:parameters} and
249: more details can be found in \cite{Allton:2007hx,24cubed}.
250:
251:
252: We start by rewriting the vector form factors given in (\ref{eq:ME})
253: to define the scalar form factor
254: %
255: \be
256: f_0(q^2) = f_+(q^2) + \frac{q^2}{m_K^2 - m_\pi^2}f_-(q^2)\ ,
257: \ee
258: %
259: which can be obtained on the lattice at $q^2_\text{max}=(m_K -
260: m_\pi)^2$ with high statistical accuracy
261: \cite{Becirevic:2004ya,Hashimoto:1999yp}.
262: %
263: In Table~\ref{table:q2max} we present our results for
264: $f_0(q^2_\text{max})$ for each of the simulated quark masses and
265: volumes.
266: %
267:
268: \begin{table}[t]
269: \begin{center}
270: \caption{Simulation parameters: bare light quark mass ($am_{ud}$),
271: pion ($m_{\pi}$) and kaon ($m_K$) masses for both volumes.}
272: \label{table:parameters}
273: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{2mm}}|@{\hspace{2mm}}l@{\hspace{4mm}}l@{\hspace
274: {2mm}}|@{\hspace{2mm}}l@{\hspace{4mm}}l}
275: \hline
276: \multicolumn{1}{c}{}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$16^3\times 32$} &
277: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$24^3\times 64$}
278: \\ \hline
279: $am_{ud}$ & $m_{\pi}$~[GeV] & $m_K$~[GeV] &
280: $m_{\pi}$~[GeV] & $m_K$~[GeV]
281: \\ \hline
282: 0.03 & 0.674(11) & 0.723(12) & 0.671(11) & 0.719(12) \\
283: 0.02 & 0.557(9) & 0.666(11) & 0.556(9) & 0.663(11) \\
284: 0.01 & 0.428(7) & 0.614(10) & 0.416(7) & 0.604(10) \\
285: 0.005 &\hspace{4mm}-&\hspace{4mm}-& 0.329(5) & 0.575(9) \\
286: \hline
287: \end{tabular}
288: \end{center}
289: \end{table}
290:
291:
292: For each quark mass, in addition to evaluating $f_0(q^2)$ at
293: $q^2=q^2_\text{max}$, we determine the form factor at several negative
294: values of $q^2$, allowing us to interpolate to $q^2=0$.
295: %
296: Specifically, in the notation of (\ref{eq:ME}), we evaluate the form
297: factor with $|\vec{p}\,'|=0$, $|\vec{p}\,|=p_L$ or
298: $|\vec{p}\,|=\sqrt{2}\,p_L$ where $p_L=2\pi/L$ and $L$ is the spatial
299: extent of the lattice, and also with $|\vec{p}\,|=0$,
300: $|\vec{p}\,'|=p_L$ or $|\vec{p}\,'|=\sqrt{2}\,p_L$\,.
301: %
302: To obtain the $f_0(q^2)$ we use standard ratio techniques
303: \cite{Hashimoto:1999yp,Becirevic:2004ya,Dawson:2006qc}, which do not
304: require normalization of the vector current.
305:
306:
307: \begin{table}[b]
308: \begin{center}
309: \caption{Results for $f_0(q^2_\text{max})$ where
310: $q^2_\text{max}=(m_K - m_\pi)^2$.}
311: \label{table:q2max}
312: %\vspace*{-2mm}
313: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}l@{\hspace{2mm}}l@{\hspace
314: {1mm}}|@{\hspace{1mm}}l@{\hspace{2mm}}l}
315: \hline
316: \multicolumn{1}{c}{}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$16^3\times 32$} &
317: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$24^3\times 64$}
318: \\ \hline
319: $am_{ud}$ &$q^2_\text{max}$~[GeV$^2$] & $f_0(q^2_\text{max})$
320: &$q^2_\text{max}$~[GeV$^2$] & $f_0(q^2_\text{max})$ \\ \hline
321: 0.03 & 0.00233(4) & 1.00035(3) & 0.00235(4) & 1.00029(6) \\
322: 0.02 & 0.01178(24) & 1.00241(19) & 0.01152(20) & 1.00192(34) \\
323: 0.01 & 0.03475(66) & 1.01436(81) & 0.03524(62) & 1.00887(89) \\
324: 0.005 &\hspace{7mm}-&\hspace{7mm}-& 0.06070(107) & 1.02143(132) \\
325: \hline
326: \end{tabular}
327: \end{center}
328: \end{table}
329:
330: In order to gain the maximum amount of information from limited data,
331: we perform a simultaneous fit to both the $q^2$ and quark mass
332: dependencies using the ansatz
333: %
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: \lefteqn{f_0(q^2,m_\pi^2,m_K^2) = }\nonumber\\
336: &&\frac{1+f_2+(m_K^2-m_\pi^2)^2(A_0 + A_1(m_K^2+m_\pi^2))}
337: {1-q^2/(M_0+M_1(m_K^2+m_\pi^2))^2}\ ,
338: \label{eq:global}
339: \end{eqnarray}
340: %
341: with four fit parameters $A_0,\,A_1,\,M_0,\,M_1$, and where $f_2$ is
342: the NLO term appearing in the chiral expansion (\ref{eq:chiralexp}),
343: evaluated by inserting the lattice results for $m_\pi,\,m_K$ and the
344: physical value for $f_\pi$ (132~MeV) into the expression appearing in
345: ChPT \cite{Leutwyler:1984je} at each quark mass~\footnote{Here we note
346: that by using $f_\pi$ in $f_2$, we are following convention
347: \cite{Leutwyler:1984je}. The true SU(3) LEC $f_0$, however, is
348: likely to be somewhat smaller, resulting in a larger and more
349: dominant contribution coming from the corresponding $f_2$, and hence
350: a more apparent convergence of the ChPT. Our lattice calculation
351: determines $1-f_+$ directly and will only differ slightly in the
352: extrapolation ansatz.}.
353:
354: The expression (\ref{eq:global}) is well motivated since we know from
355: the Ademollo-Gatto Theorem that to leading order $\Delta f \propto
356: (m_s - m_{ud})^2$, hence we expect
357: %
358: \be
359: f_0(0) = 1 + f_2 + (m_K^2-m_\pi^2)^2 (A_0 +
360: A_1(m_K^2+m_\pi^2))\, ,
361: \label{eq:chiral1}
362: \ee
363: %
364: which incorporates the correct $SU(3)_\text{flavor}$ limit,
365: $f_+(0)=1$, to be a good phenomenological ansatz for the mass
366: dependence of $f_0(0)=f_+(0)$.
367: %
368: This motivates the numerator in (\ref{eq:global}), while the
369: denominator comes from simply including a quark mass dependence into
370: the standard pole dominance form
371: %
372: \be
373: f_0(q^2) = f_0(0)/(1-q^2/M^2)\ ,
374: \label{eq:monopole}
375: \ee
376: %
377: where $M$ is a pole mass, which has been shown to describe the
378: $q^2$-dependence of lattice results of $f_0(q^2)$ very well
379: \cite{Dawson:2006qc,Becirevic:2004ya}.
380:
381: The traditional approach of sequentially interpolating in $q^2$
382: (\ref{eq:monopole}) followed by chiral extrapolation of $f_+(0)$
383: (\ref{eq:chiral1}) should agree with our simultaneous fit
384: (\ref{eq:global}).
385: %
386: Fitting the $24^3$ data only yields excellent agreement (shown in
387: the final two rows of Table~\ref{table:fzero}), with a reduced error
388: evident in the simultaneous fit, which we therefore take as our best
389: result.
390: %
391: For the $16^3$ data the pole fits generally have a poor $\chi^2$/dof.
392: %
393: We also find that the simultaneous and sequential fits to the $q^2$
394: and mass dependence for the $16^3$ data differ at $1.2\sigma$.
395: %
396: Consequently we only use the $16^3$ data to check that the
397: finite-volume effects are small.
398: %
399: Tables~\ref{table:q2max} and \ref{table:fzero} demonstrate that this
400: is the case.
401:
402:
403: \begin{figure}[tb]
404: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f_zero-gpole_correct.eps}
405: \vspace*{-8mm}
406: \caption{Scalar form factor, $f_0(q^2)$, together with the simultaneous
407: fit of (\ref{eq:global}) as described in the text. }
408: \label{fig:global}
409: \end{figure}
410:
411:
412: \begin{table}[b]
413: \begin{center}
414: \caption{Results for $f_+(0)$ using pole dominance
415: (\ref{eq:monopole}) and quadratic (\ref{eq:quadratic})
416: fits to each data set, together with the chiral extrapolations
417: using (\ref{eq:chiral1}) with the $24^3\times 64$ data
418: only. The final row gives the results for simultaneous
419: $q^2$ and quark mass
420: fits ((\ref{eq:global}) and (\ref{eq:globquad})) using the
421: same data sets.}
422: \label{table:fzero}
423: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{2.5mm}}|@{\hspace{2.5mm}}l@{\hspace{5mm}}r@{\hspace
424: {2.5mm}}|@{\hspace{2.5mm}}l@{\hspace{5mm}}r}
425: \hline
426: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Pole} &
427: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Quadratic}
428: \\ \hline
429: $am_{ud}$ & $f_+(0)$ & $\chi^2$/dof &
430: $f_+(0)$ & $\chi^2$/dof
431: \\ \hline
432: \multicolumn{5}{c}{$16^3\times 32$} \\
433: \hline
434: 0.03 & 0.99925(8) & 5.0/3 & 0.99938(12)& 4.2/2 \\
435: 0.02 & 0.9951(6) & 13.5/3 & 0.9959(9) & 13.0/2 \\
436: 0.01 & 0.9889(26) & 13.9/3 & 0.9866(33) & 10.9/2 \\
437: \hline
438: \multicolumn{5}{c}{$24^3\times 64$} \\
439: \hline
440: 0.03 & 0.9991(2) & 2.1/3 & 0.9990(2) & 1.5/2 \\
441: 0.02 & 0.9960(7) & 2.3/3 & 0.9962(9) & 1.9/2 \\
442: 0.01 & 0.9841(29) & 10.4/3 & 0.9806(39) & 7.7/2 \\
443: 0.005 & 0.9774(35) & 4.0/3 & 0.9749(59) & 2.7/2 \\
444: \hline
445: chiral & 0.9644(39) & 3.4/2 & 0.9622(61) & 5.1/2 \\
446: sim. fit & 0.9644(33) & 28.7/16 & 0.9610(43) & 26.4/14 \\
447: \hline
448: \end{tabular}
449: \end{center}
450: \end{table}
451:
452:
453: We present the results from a fit to the $24^3\times 64$ data sets
454: using (\ref{eq:global}) in Fig.~\ref{fig:global}.
455: %
456: Here the curve shows the fit function at the physical meson masses,
457: while the difference $f_0(q^2,m_\pi^{\rm latt},m_K^{\rm latt})$ $-$
458: $f_0(q^2,m_\pi^{\rm phys},m_K^{\rm phys})$ has been subtracted from our
459: raw data points and the small scatter is indicative of the quality of
460: our fit.
461:
462:
463: The quark mass dependence of (\ref{eq:global}) is presented in
464: Fig.~\ref{fig:global-chiral}.
465: %
466: The solid line represents the fit function evaluated at $q^2=0$,
467: plotted as a function of $m_\pi^2$, while the dashed line is the
468: contribution coming from the ${\cal O}(p^4)$ terms in the chiral
469: expansion, $1+f_2$.
470: %
471: Our results clearly indicate a sizeable, negative value for $\Delta f
472: =-0.013(3)$, in contrast to the recent ChPT based results
473: of~\cite{Bijnens:2003uy,Cirigliano:2005xn,Jamin:2004re}.
474: %
475: In Fig.~\ref{fig:global-chiral} we also overlay the results given in
476: Table~\ref{table:fzero} for $f_0(0)$ obtained from individual pole
477: fits on each of our ensembles and earlier $N_f=2$ results
478: \cite{Dawson:2006qc}.
479:
480: \begin{figure}[tb]
481: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f_zero-gpolechiral.eps}
482: \vspace*{-5mm}
483: \caption{Scalar form factor, $f_0(0)$,
484: together with the simultaneous fit (solid line) on the $24^3$ data
485: (red circles) using (\ref{eq:global}).}
486: \label{fig:global-chiral}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: So far, we have assumed a pole dominance behavior (\ref{eq:global})
490: in our lattice data, whose $q^2$ dependence differs marginally at NLO
491: from an expression obtained in ChPT \cite{Bijnens:2003uy}.
492: %
493: In order to estimate the systematic error due to this choice, we also
494: present in Table~\ref{table:fzero} results for fits to our data using
495: a quadratic ansatz
496: %
497: \be
498: f_0(q^2) = a_0 + a_1 q^2 + a_2 q^4\ ,
499: \label{eq:quadratic}
500: \ee
501: %
502: together with a chiral extrapolation using (\ref{eq:chiral1}).
503: %
504: A simultaneous fit similar to (\ref{eq:global}) is possible via
505: %
506: \begin{eqnarray}
507: \lefteqn{f_0(q^2,m_\pi^2,m_K^2) = }\nonumber\\
508: &&1+f_2+(m_K^2-m_\pi^2)^2(A_0 + A_1 + A_2(m_K^2+m_\pi^2)) +\nonumber\\
509: &&(A_3 +(2A_0+A_1)(m_K^2+m_\pi^2))\,q^2 +\nonumber\\
510: &&(A_4-A_0+A_5(m_K^2+m_\pi^2))\,q^4\ .
511: \label{eq:globquad}
512: \end{eqnarray}
513: %
514: The form of this ansatz is motivated by the expression obtained in
515: ChPT \cite{Bijnens:2003uy}.
516: %
517: We quote the result from a fit to the $24^3\times 64$ data using
518: (\ref{eq:globquad}) in the last row of Table~\ref{table:fzero}, where
519: we find that the results of the two fits, (\ref{eq:global}) and
520: (\ref{eq:globquad}), agree within statistical precision and we take
521: the difference (0.0034) as an estimate of the systematic error in
522: choosing (\ref{eq:global}) as our preferred ansatz.
523:
524:
525: Recently, an alternative parametrization, obtained by using
526: analyticity and crossing symmetry, has been proposed
527: \cite{Hill:2006bq}.
528: %
529: We find that fitting our data using this ansatz leads to results that
530: lie within the systematic uncertainty of 0.0034 discussed above.
531:
532: Our simulations are performed with a strange quark mass
533: ($am_s+am_\text{res}\simeq 0.043$) which is heavier than the physical
534: mass ($am_s+am_\text{res}\simeq 0.037$).
535: %
536: Both (\ref{eq:global}) and (\ref{eq:globquad}) are modelled according
537: to ChPT and this mass difference is corrected when we insert the
538: physical kaon mass to obtain our final result.
539: %
540: This correction is accurate in as much as our extrapolation model
541: describes our data, and any error introduced is included in our
542: estimate of the systematic error.
543: %
544: Future simulations will include a second valence strange quark
545: mass to decrease the reliance on our fit model.
546:
547:
548: Finally, since we simulate at a single lattice spacing, we are
549: unable to extrapolate to the continuum limit.
550: %
551: However, leading lattice artefacts with domain wall fermions are of
552: $O(a^2 \Lambda^2_{QCD})$; assuming $\Lambda_{QCD} \sim 300$~MeV we
553: estimate these to be no larger than $\approx 4\%$ (of $1-f_+$).
554: %
555: A comparison of the pion and kaon decay constants obtained from our
556: simulations with their physical values provides a test for the
557: reliablity of our result.
558: %
559: After including the effects to NLO due to chiral logs, we find $f_\pi$
560: and $f_K$ about 4\% below experiment~\cite{24cubed}, which is
561: consistent with our estimated scaling error.
562: %
563: We will explicitly check this for $K_{\ell 3}$ decays on our new
564: ensemble which is being generated on a finer lattice.
565: %
566: Note that our current uncertainty is dominated by statistics and the
567: chiral and $q^2$ extrapolations and not by the discretization error.
568: %
569: Hence our final result is
570: %
571: \be
572: f_+(0)=0.9644(33)(34)(14)\ ,
573: \ee
574: %
575: where the first error is statistical, and the second and third are
576: estimates of the systematic errors due to our choice of
577: parametrization (\ref{eq:global}) and lattice artefacts, respectively.
578: %
579: To put this result in context, we compare our value with other
580: determinations of $f_+(0)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:fzero}.
581: %
582: We see that our result agrees very well with the Leutwyler-Roos
583: value~\cite{Leutwyler:1984je} and earlier lattice calculations
584: \cite{Becirevic:2004ya,Okamoto:2004df,Tsutsui:2005cj,Dawson:2006qc}.
585: %
586: In particular, we note that our findings prefer a sizeable, negative
587: value for $\Delta f=-0.0129(33)(34)(14)$, in contrast to recent ChPT
588: based phenomenological
589: results~\cite{Bijnens:2003uy,Cirigliano:2005xn,Jamin:2004re}.
590:
591: \begin{figure}[!t]
592: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=7.3cm]{compare_kl3.eps}
593: \caption{Comparision with other determinations of $f_+(0)$.}
594: \label{fig:fzero}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: Using $|V_{us}f_+(0)|=0.2169(9)$ from PDG(2006)
598: \cite{blucher06}\footnote{Using
599: the result
600: from \cite{Moulson:2007fs} gives $|V_{us}| =
601: 0.2247(5)(11)$.}
602: %
603: \be
604: |V_{us}| = 0.2249(9)_\text{exp}(11)_{f_+(0)}\ ,
605: \ee
606: %
607: and combined with $|V_{ud}|=0.97377(27)$~\cite{blucher06} we find
608: %
609: \be
610: |V_{ud}|^2 + |V_{us}|^2 + |V_{ub}|^2 = 1-\delta,\quad
611: \delta=0.0012(8)\,,
612: \ee
613: %
614: compared with the PDG(2006)~\cite{blucher06} result,
615: $\delta=0.0008(10)$.
616: %
617: Further reduction in the lattice error is imperative.
618: %
619: Our $q^2$ interpolation systematic is removable in principle
620: \cite{Boyle:2007wg} and we are in the process of addressing both this
621: and discretization systematics with a new set of simulations.
622:
623: We thank D.\,Chen, N.\,Christ, M.\,Clark, S.\,Cohen, C.\,Cristian,
624: Z.\,Dong, A.\,Gara, A.\,Jackson, C.\,Jung,
625: C.\,Kim, L.\,Levkova, X.\,Liao, G.\,Liu, R.\,Mawhinney,
626: S.\,Ohta, K.\,Petrov, T.\,Wettig and A.\,Yamaguchi for developing with
627: us the QCDOC machine and its software. This development and
628: resulting computer equipment were funded by
629: U.S.\ DOE grant DE-FG02-92ER40699, PPARC JIF grant
630: PPA/J/S/1998/00756 and RIKEN. This work was supported by DOE
631: grants DE-FG02-92ER40699 and DE-AC02-98CH10886, PPARC grants
632: PPA/G/O/2002/00465, PP/D000238/1, PP/C504386/1, PPA/G/S/2002/00467 and
633: PP/D000211/1 and JSPS grant (19540265).
634: %
635: We thank BNL, EPCC, RIKEN, and the U.S.\ DOE for supporting the
636: essential computing facilities
637: %
638: We also thank D.\,Antonio, C.\,Dawson, T.\,Izubuchi, T.\,Kaneko,
639: C.\,Maynard and B.\, Pendleton for assistance.% and useful discussions.
640: %
641:
642: \begin{thebibliography}{50}
643: %\cite{Cabibbo:1963yz}
644: \bibitem{Cabibbo:1963yz}
645: N.~Cabibbo,
646: %``UNITARY SYMMETRY AND LEPTONIC DECAYS,''
647: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 10}, 531 (1963);
648: %%CITATION = PRLTA,10,531;%%
649: %
650: %\cite{Kobayashi:1973fv}
651: %\bibitem{Kobayashi:1973fv}
652: M.~Kobayashi and T.~Maskawa,
653: %``CP Violation In The Renormalizable Theory Of Weak Interaction,''
654: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49}, 652 (1973).
655: %%CITATION = PTPKA,49,652;%%
656:
657: \bibitem{juettnerlatt2007}
658: A.~J\"uttner, %{\it Status of Kaon physics on the lattice},
659: PoS {\bf LAT2007}, 014 (2007).
660:
661: \bibitem{blucher06}
662: E.~Blucher and W.J.~Marciano,
663: ``$V_{ud},\,V_{us}$, the Cabibbo angle and CKM unitarity'', PDG,
664: 2006.
665:
666: %\cite{Moulson:2007fs}
667: \bibitem{Moulson:2007fs}
668: M.~Moulson [FlaviaNet],
669: % Working Group on Kaon Decays],
670: %``V(us) from kaon decays,''
671: arXiv:hep-ex/0703013.
672: %%CITATION = HEP-EX/0703013;%%
673:
674: %\cite{Ademollo:1964sr}
675: \bibitem{Ademollo:1964sr}
676: M.~Ademollo and R.~Gatto,
677: %``NONRENORMALIZATION THEOREM FOR THE STRANGENESS VIOLATING VECTOR CURRENTS,''
678: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 13}, 264 (1964).
679: %%CITATION = PRLTA,13,264;%%
680:
681: %\cite{Leutwyler:1984je}
682: \bibitem{Leutwyler:1984je}
683: H.~Leutwyler and M.~Roos,
684: % ``Determination Of The Elements V (Us) And V (Ud) Of The Kobayashi-Maskawa
685: %Matrix,''
686: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 25}, 91 (1984).
687: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C25,91;%%
688:
689: %\cite{Bijnens:2003uy}
690: \bibitem{Bijnens:2003uy}
691: J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera,
692: %``K(l3) decays in chiral perturbation theory,''
693: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 669}, 341 (2003).
694: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0303103].
695: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B669,341;%%
696:
697: %\cite{Cirigliano:2005xn}
698: \bibitem{Cirigliano:2005xn}
699: V.~Cirigliano {\it et al.},
700: %G.~Ecker, M.~Eidemuller, R.~Kaiser, A.~Pich and J.~Portoles,
701: %``The Green function and SU(3) breaking in K(l3) decays,''
702: JHEP {\bf 0504}, 006 (2005).
703: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0503108].
704: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503108;%%
705:
706: %\cite{Jamin:2004re}
707: \bibitem{Jamin:2004re}
708: M.~Jamin, J.~A.~Oller and A.~Pich,
709: %``Order p**6 chiral couplings from the scalar K pi form factor,''
710: JHEP {\bf 0402}, 047 (2004).
711: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0401080].
712: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0402,047;%%
713:
714: %\cite{Becirevic:2004ya}
715: \bibitem{Becirevic:2004ya}
716: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},
717: % ``The K --> pi vector form factor at zero momentum transfer on the
718: %lattice,''
719: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 705}, 339 (2005);
720: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0403217];
721: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403217;%%
722: %
723: %\cite{Becirevic:2004bb}
724: %\bibitem{Becirevic:2004bb}
725: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},
726: % ``SU(3)-breaking effects in kaon and hyperon semileptonic decays from
727: %lattice QCD,''
728: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 24S1}, 69 (2005).
729: % [arXiv:hep-lat/0411016].
730: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0411016;%%
731:
732: %\cite{Okamoto:2004df}
733: \bibitem{Okamoto:2004df}
734: M.~Okamoto,
735: %``Full CKM matrix with lattice QCD,''
736: arXiv:hep-lat/0412044.
737: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0412044;%%
738:
739: %\cite{Tsutsui:2005cj}
740: \bibitem{Tsutsui:2005cj}
741: N.~Tsutsui {\it et al.},
742: %``Kaon semileptonic decay form factors in two-flavor QCD,''
743: % PoS
744: arXiv:hep-lat/0510068.
745: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0510068;%%
746:
747: %\cite{Dawson:2006qc}
748: \bibitem{Dawson:2006qc}
749: C.~Dawson {\it et al.},
750: %T.~Izubuchi, T.~Kaneko, S.~Sasaki and A.~Soni,
751: %``Vector form factor in K(l3) semileptonic decay with two flavors of
752: %dynamical domain-wall quarks,''
753: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 114502 (2006).
754: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0607162].
755: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,114502;%%
756:
757: %\cite{Brommel:2007wn}
758: \bibitem{Brommel:2007wn}
759: D.~Br\"ommel {\it et al.},
760: %``Kaon semileptonic decay form factors from N_f = 2 non-perturbatively
761: %O(a)-improved Wilson fermions,''
762: arXiv:0710.2100 [hep-lat].
763: %%CITATION = NONE,,;%%
764:
765: %\cite{Antonio:2007mh}
766: \bibitem{Antonio:2007mh}
767: D.~J.~Antonio {\it et al.},
768: %``K(l3) form factor with N(f) = 2+1 dynamical domain wall fermions: A
769: %progress report,''
770: arXiv:hep-lat/0702026.
771: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT/0702026;%%
772:
773: %\cite{Iwasaki:1985we}
774: \bibitem{Iwasaki:1985we}
775: Y.~Iwasaki,
776: % ``RENORMALIZATION GROUP ANALYSIS OF LATTICE THEORIES AND IMPROVED LATTICE
777: %ACTION: TWO-DIMENSIONAL NONLINEAR O(N) SIGMA MODEL,''
778: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 258}, 141 (1985);
779: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B258,141;%%
780: %\cite{Iwasaki:1984cj}
781: %\bibitem{Iwasaki:1984cj}
782: Y.~Iwasaki and T.~Yoshie,
783: % ``Renormalization Group Improved Action For SU(3) Lattice Gauge Theory And
784: %The String Tension,''
785: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 143}, 449 (1984).
786: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B143,449;%%
787:
788: %\cite{Allton:2007hx}
789: \bibitem{Allton:2007hx}
790: C.~Allton {\it et al.} ,
791: %``2+1 flavor domain wall QCD on a (2 fm)$^3$ lattice:light meson spectroscopy
792: %with $L_s$ = 16,''
793: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 014504 (2007).
794: % [arXiv:hep-lat/0701013].
795: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,014504;%%
796:
797: %\cite{Lin:2007pt}
798: \bibitem{24cubed}
799: M.~Lin and E.~E.~Scholz,
800: %``Chiral Limit and Light Quark Masses in 2+1 Flavor Domain Wall QCD,''
801: arXiv:0710.0536 [hep-lat];
802: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.0536;%%
803: %\bibitem
804: % C.~Allton {\it et al.}
805: [RBC/UKQCD Collaboration]
806: in preparation.
807:
808: %\cite{Kaplan:1992bt}
809: \bibitem{Kaplan:1992bt}
810: D.~B.~Kaplan,
811: %``A Method for simulating chiral fermions on the lattice,''
812: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 288}, 342 (1992);
813: % [arXiv:hep-lat/9206013];
814: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9206013;%%
815: %\cite{Shamir:1993zy}
816: %\bibitem{Shamir:1993zy}
817: Y.~Shamir,
818: %``Chiral fermions from lattice boundaries,''
819: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 406}, 90 (1993).
820: % [arXiv:hep-lat/9303005].
821: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9303005;%%
822:
823: %\cite{Hashimoto:1999yp}
824: \bibitem{Hashimoto:1999yp}
825: S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.},
826: %A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie, S.~M.~Ryan and J.~N.~Simone,
827: % ``Lattice {QCD} calculation of anti-B --> D l anti-nu decay form factors at
828: %zero recoil,''
829: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 014502 (2000).
830: % [arXiv:hep-ph/9906376].
831: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906376;%%
832:
833: %\cite{Hill:2006bq}
834: \bibitem{Hill:2006bq}
835: R.~J.~Hill,
836: %``Constraints on the form factors for K --> pi l nu and implications for
837: %|V(us)|,''
838: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 096006 (2006).
839: % [arXiv:hep-ph/0607108].
840: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607108;%%
841:
842: %\cite{Boyle:2007wg}
843: \bibitem{Boyle:2007wg}
844: P.~A.~Boyle {\it et al.},
845: %J.~M.~Flynn, A.~Juttner, C.~T.~Sachrajda and J.~M.~Zanotti,
846: %``Hadronic form factors in lattice QCD at small and vanishing momentum
847: %transfer,''
848: JHEP {\bf 0705}, 016 (2007).
849: % [arXiv:hep-lat/0703005].
850: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0705,016;%%
851:
852: \end{thebibliography}
853:
854: \end{document}
855: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
856:
857: