1: \documentclass[prd,aps,floatfix,preprint,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[prd,aps,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: %--- packages ---
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{longtable}
8: \usepackage{axodraw}
9:
10: \setlength{\textwidth}{17cm}
11: \setlength{\textheight}{24cm}
12: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-5mm}
13: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-5mm}
14: \setlength{\topmargin}{-15mm}
15: \setlength{\parskip}{8pt}
16: %
17: \def\drv#1{{\partial_{#1}}}
18: \def\drvstar#1{\partial\kern-0.5pt\smash{\raise 4.5pt\hbox{$\ast$}}
19: \kern-5.0pt_{#1}}
20: \def\lvec#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}
21: \setbox1=\hbox{$\scriptstyle\leftarrow$}
22: #1\kern-\wd0\smash{
23: \raise\ht0\hbox{$\raise1pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle\leftarrow$}$}}
24: \kern-\wd1\kern\wd0}
25: \def\ldrv#1{{\lvec{\,\partial}_{#1}}}
26: \def\ldrvstar#1{\lvec{\,\partial}\kern-0.5pt\smash{\raise 4.5pt\hbox{$\ast$}}
27: \kern-5.0pt_{#1}}
28: \newcommand{\simg}{\rlap{\raise -4pt \hbox{$\sim$}}
29: \raise 3pt \hbox{$>$}}
30: \newcommand{\siml}{\rlap{\raise -4pt \hbox{$\sim$}}
31: \raise 3pt \hbox{$<$}}
32: \newcommand{\del}{\partial}
33: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
34: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}
35: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: \begin{document}
38: %%%%%
39: \vspace*{-20mm}
40: \begin{flushright}
41: \normalsize
42: KEK-CP-205\\
43: UTHEP-555\\
44: YITP-07-85
45: \end{flushright}
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47: %%%%%%%%% TITLE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
49: \title{
50: $B_K$ with two flavors of dynamical overlap fermions
51: }
52: \author{
53: S.~Aoki$^{a,b}$, H.~Fukaya$^{c}$, S.~Hashimoto$^{d,e}$,
54: J.~Noaki$^{d}$, T.~Kaneko$^{d,e}$, H.~Matsufuru$^d$, T.~Onogi$^f$,
55: N.~Yamada$^{d,e}$\\[1ex]
56: (JLQCD Collaboration)
57: }
58: \affiliation{
59: $^a$Graduate School of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of
60: Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8571, Japan\\
61: $^b$Riken BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,
62: New York 11973, USA\\
63: $^c$The Niels Bohr Institute, The Niels Bohr International Academy,
64: Blegdamsvej 17 DK-2100 Copenhagen {\O}, Denmark\\
65: $^d$High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba
66: 305-0801,Japan\\
67: $^e$School of High Energy Accelerator Science, The Graduate University
68: for Advanced Studies (Sokendai), Tsukuba 305-0801, Japan\\
69: $^f$Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University,
70: Kyoto 606-8502, Japan
71: }
72: \date{\today}
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We present a two-flavor QCD calculation of $B_K$ on a $16^3 \times 32$
75: lattice at $a\sim 0.12$ fm (or equivalently $a^{-1}$=1.67 GeV).
76: Both valence and sea quarks are described by the overlap fermion
77: formulation.
78: The matching factor is calculated nonperturbatively with the
79: so-called RI/MOM scheme.
80: We find that the lattice data are well described by the next-to-leading
81: order (NLO) partially quenched chiral perturbation theory (PQChPT) up
82: to around a half of the strange quark mass ($m_s^{\rm phys}/2$).
83: The data at quark masses heavier than $m_s^{\rm phys}/2$ are fitted
84: including a part of next-to-next-to-leading order terms.
85: We obtain
86: $B_K^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})= 0.537(4)(40)$, where the
87: first error is statistical and the second is an estimate of systematic
88: uncertainties from finite volume, fixing topology, the matching factor,
89: and the scale setting.
90: \end{abstract}
91: \maketitle
92: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
93:
94: \section{Introduction}
95: \label{sec:introduction}
96:
97: The indirect CP violation in neutral kaon decays, characterized by the
98: $|\epsilon_K|$ parameter, plays an important role to constrain the
99: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements.
100: Experimentally, $|\epsilon_K|$ has been measured to an excellent precision,
101: $|\epsilon_K| = (2.233 \pm 0.015)\times 10^{-3}$~\cite{Yao:2006px},
102: through the two pion decays of long-lived neutral kaons.
103: Within the standard model, $|\epsilon_K|$ is expressed
104: as~\cite{Buchalla:1995vs}
105: \begin{eqnarray}
106: |\epsilon_K|=(\mbox{known factor})\times B_K(\mu) \times
107: f(\bar\rho,\bar\eta),
108: \label{eq:epsilon}
109: \end{eqnarray}
110: where $f(\bar\rho,\bar\eta)$ is a known function of the Wolfenstein
111: parameters, $\bar\rho$ and $\bar\eta$, and $B_K(\mu)$ is a less known
112: hadronic matrix element defined by
113: \begin{eqnarray}
114: B_K(\mu)
115: = \frac{\langle \overline{K^0} |\,
116: \bar d \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)s\
117: \bar d \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)s\,
118: | K^0 \rangle}
119: {\frac{8}{3}f_K^2 m_K^2}.
120: \label{eq:bk definition}
121: \end{eqnarray}
122: The $\Delta S = 2$ four-quark operator
123: $\bar{d}\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)s \bar{d}\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)s$ is
124: renormalized at a scale $\mu$.
125: The parameters appearing in the denominator, $f_K$ and $m_K$, denote the
126: leptonic decay constant and mass of kaon, respectively.
127: Since the precision of the constraint on the fundamental parameters such as
128: $(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$ is limited by the theoretical uncertainty in the
129: kaon $B$ parameter $B_K$, its precise calculation has a direct relevance to
130: the study of the flavor structure of the standard model and beyond.
131: The purpose of this study is to provide such a precise calculation of $B_K$
132: using lattice QCD.
133:
134: The numerator in~(\ref{eq:bk definition}) involving the
135: $(V-A)\times (V-A)$ four-quark operator behaves as $m_K^2$ for the
136: external states at rest, hence it vanishes in the chiral limit of kaon.
137: This behavior is altered if the four-quark operator mixes with other
138: operators with different chiral structures under renormalization.
139: Since the denominator in~(\ref{eq:bk definition}) contains $m_K^2$ and
140: so vanishes in the chiral limit too, the appearance of operators with
141: different chirality in the numerator causes unphysical divergence in the
142: ratio toward the chiral limit.
143: In the lattice calculation with the Wilson-type fermion formulations,
144: this problem occurs because the formulations explicitly violate the
145: chiral symmetry.
146: Calculation of $B_K$ using the Wilson-type fermions, therefore, is not
147: very precise due to the uncontrolled operator mixing (for recent efforts
148: in unquenched calculations, see~\cite{Flynn:2004au,Mescia:2005ew}).
149: For this reason, the lattice calculation of $B_K$ has historically been
150: done using the staggered fermion formulation, with which the chiral
151: symmetry is realized at a cost of introducing unwanted flavors.
152: A quenched calculation using the staggered fermion~\cite{Aoki:1997nr}
153: has long been a ``benchmark'' calculation until recently,
154: which is $B_K(2\mathrm{~GeV}) = 0.628(42)$ without an estimate of
155: quenching uncertainty.
156: More recently, the domain-wall fermion, which respects an approximate
157: chiral symmetry on the lattice without introducing extra flavors, is
158: applied to the calculation of $B_K$.
159: Quenched calculations showed that the lattice artifact is significantly
160: smaller than that of the staggered fermion and hence the continuum
161: extrapolation is more
162: straightforward~\cite{AliKhan:2001wr,Blum:2001xb,Aoki:2005ga}.
163: Therefore, a great effort has been made to realize unquenched
164: simulations using the domain-wall fermion; a 2+1-flavor calculation
165: result has recently been presented by the RBC-UKQCD
166: collaboration~\cite{Antonio:2007pb}, which is
167: $B_K(2\mathrm{~GeV}) = 0.524(10)(28)$ with a combined statistical (the
168: first error) and systematic (the second) error being 6\%.
169: (An earlier result of two-flavor QCD is also
170: available~\cite{Aoki:2004ht}.)
171:
172: This work improves these lattice calculations of $B_K$ in several
173: directions.
174: First of all, we use the overlap fermion formulation, which exactly
175: respects a lattice variant of chiral symmetry.
176: The problem of the operator mixing is absent in this formulation.
177: With the domain-wall fermion, this is a nontrivial problem, because
178: there is a tiny but nonzero operator mixing which could be enhanced by
179: the unsuppressed chiral behavior of wrong chirality operators as
180: discussed above.
181: A detailed study gives an estimate of order 0.1\% effect for
182: $B_K$~\cite{Aoki:2007xm}, which is negligible in the precision we are
183: aiming at, but a calculation without such a delicate problem from the
184: beginning is desirable.
185: The exact chiral symmetry also helps to further reduce the
186: discretization effect, since the $O(a)$ effect is completely absent.
187:
188: Second, the use of chiral perturbation theory (ChPT), and even partially
189: quenched (PQ) ChPT is justified in the analysis of lattice
190: data, especially in the chiral extrapolation.
191: Because of the pion (and kaon) loop effect, $B_K$ develops a nonanalytic
192: quark mass dependence, the so-called chiral logarithm, which may give a
193: non-negligible contribution in the chiral extrapolation of lattice data
194: to the physical up and down quark masses.
195: Whether the observed quark mass dependence of lattice data is well
196: described by ChPT is a complicated problem, since the mass region where
197: the ChPT formula is applicable is not known from the outset and thus has
198: to be tested by the lattice calculation for each quantity of interest.
199: This test is difficult without the exact chiral symmetry, because the
200: ChPT formula itself must be modified by including the effect of the
201: violated chiral symmetry.
202: Another requirement for an unambiguous test is a sufficient number of
203: data points.
204: We explore a broader sea and valence quark mass region covered with
205: significantly more data points than former studies.
206: In this work, we perform the test using the next-to-leading order (NLO)
207: PQChPT formula by varying the sea quark mass region in the fit.
208: The statistical signal of individual data points is improved by accumulating more
209: statistics and by using a new technique, {\it i.e.}, low-mode averaging.
210: As a consequence, we are able to identify the applicability region of the NLO
211: PQChPT, which makes the chiral extrapolation more reliable.
212:
213: In spite of these obvious advantages, the overlap fermion formulation
214: has not been used extensively especially for dynamical fermion
215: simulations.
216: The main problem is in its large computational cost to approximate the
217: matrix sign function appearing in the definition of the overlap
218: operator.
219: Superficially, the cost is similar to that of the domain-wall fermion which
220: requires $N_s$ (length in the fifth dimension) times more computation,
221: but in the hybrid Monte Carlo (HMC) simulation, the overlap fermion is much
222: harder because of the discontinuity of the sign function, which requires
223: a special trick, such as the
224: ``reflection-refraction''~\cite{Fodor:2003bh}.
225: This makes the dynamical overlap fermion simulation substantially more
226: costly.
227: In this work, we avoid this problem by introducing a topology fixing
228: term to a gauge field action~\cite{Fukaya:2006vs}, with which we never
229: encounter the discontinuity of the sign function.
230: The physical effect of fixing the topological charge can be understood
231: and be estimated, at a solid theoretical ground, as a finite volume
232: effect~\cite{Aoki:2007ka}.
233:
234: The overlap fermion simulation has already been applied to a calculation
235: of pion and kaon masses and decay constants~\cite{Noaki:2007es}, pion
236: form factor~\cite{Kaneko:2007nf}, $\pi^\pm-\pi^0$ mass
237: splitting~\cite{Shintani:2007ub}, topological
238: susceptibility~\cite{Aoki:2007pw}, and more applications are planned.
239: The simulation is also extended to the $\epsilon$-regime, where the sea
240: quark mass is even smaller than the physical value, and is used to
241: extract the chiral condensate and pion decay constant in the chiral
242: limit~\cite{Fukaya:2007fb,Fukaya:2007yv,Fukaya:2007cw,Fukaya:2007pn}.
243: An overview of our project is presented in~\cite{Matsufuru:2007uc}.
244:
245: A potential problem of our work is that the simulation is performed with
246: two flavors of sea quarks that correspond to up and down quarks.
247: The effect of the strange sea quark is neglected.
248: Although we do not expect its significant effect on $B_K$, the actual
249: correction is hardly estimated within the two-flavor theory.
250: We therefore have a plan to extend this work to a 2+1-flavor
251: calculation~\cite{Hashimoto:2007vv}, for which this work serves as a
252: prototype calculation with an almost realistic setup.
253:
254: The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
255: The lattice actions and simulation parameters are described in
256: Sec.~\ref{sec:parameters}.
257: The methods to calculate the bare $B_K$ and the nonperturbative
258: matching factor are introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:Method and results}.
259: In Sec.~\ref{sec:test-PQChPT}, we compare the quark mass dependence of
260: $B_K$ with the prediction of NLO PQChPT to see the consistency.
261: In Sec.~\ref{sec:extraction of BK}, how to extract the physical $B_K$ is
262: presented.
263: Systematic errors in our result are discussed in
264: Sec.~\ref{sec:systematic errors}.
265: A summary of this work is given in Sec.~\ref{summary}.
266:
267:
268: \section{Simulation parameters}
269: \label{sec:parameters}
270:
271: We perform the calculation on a $16^3\times 32$ lattice using the
272: Iwasaki gauge action.
273: The periodic boundary condition is set in all four directions.
274: Both dynamical and valence quarks are described by the overlap-Dirac
275: operator~\cite{Neuberger:1997fp,Neuberger:1998wv},
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: D_{\rm ov}(m_q)
278: = \left(m_0+\frac{m_q}{2}\right)
279: +\left(m_0-\frac{m_q}{2}\right)\gamma_5\,{\rm sgn}(H_W(-m_0)),
280: \end{eqnarray}
281: where $m_q$ is a quark mass and $H_W(-m_0)$ denotes the standard
282: Hermitian Wilson-Dirac operator with a negative mass.
283: Throughout this work we take $m_0$=1.6.
284: A generation of configurations with dynamical overlap quarks requires a huge
285: computational cost.
286: To accelerate HMC, we introduce extra (unphysical) Wilson fermion and
287: ghost fields, which suppress the appearance of the zero mode of
288: $H_W(-m_0)$~\cite{Fukaya:2006vs}.
289: At a price, the global topological charge $Q$ is frozen during the HMC
290: evolution.
291: At $\beta$=2.30 the inverse lattice spacing is $1/a=1.67(2)(2)$ GeV,
292: which is determined through $r_0=0.49$ fm~\cite{Sommer:1993ce} in the
293: $Q=0$ sector.
294: The physical spatial volume of our lattice is about (1.9 fm)$^3$.
295: We carry out the simulations at six sea quark masses:
296: $m_{\rm sea}$=0.015, 0.025, 0.035, 0.050, 0.070, 0.100 in the lattice
297: unit.
298: These approximately cover the mass range
299: $[m_s^{\rm phys}/6,~m_s^{\rm phys}]$, where $m_s^{\rm phys}$ denotes the
300: physical strange quark mass.
301: The lightest pion is about 290 MeV, which gives $m_\pi L\sim$2.7.
302: The main calculation is made in the $Q=0$ sector.
303: In order to study the topological charge dependence, we have also
304: generated configurations in the $Q=-2$ and $-4$ sectors at
305: $m_{\rm sea}$=0.050.
306: We have accumulated 10000 trajectories for each sea quark mass at $Q=0$
307: and 5000 at $Q=-2$ and $-4$.
308: More details about the algorithm and parameters to generate the
309: configurations are described in~\cite{Kaneko:2006pa}.
310:
311: The calculation of $B_K$ is done at every 20 trajectories for each sea quark
312: mass, and a single jackknife bin consists of 5 measurements.
313: For each sea quark mass, we take six valence quark masses and calculate
314: $B_K$ with all possible combinations of two valence quarks.
315: The gauge is fixed to the Coulomb gauge except for the calculation of
316: the nonperturbative matching factor, which is done in the Landau
317: gauge.
318: Low-mode averaging~\cite{DeGrand:2004qw} is implemented for all
319: correlation functions, which substantially improves the statistical
320: signal.
321:
322: \section{Method and results}
323: \label{sec:Method and results}
324:
325: \subsection{Two-point functions and pseudoscalar meson masses}
326: \label{subsec:2pt}
327:
328: We calculate kaon two-point functions
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: C^{(2),\rm p-w}_{A_4A_4}(t)
331: = \sum_{\vec x}\langle\,A_4(t,\vec x)\,
332: A_4^{\rm wall}(0)\,\rangle.
333: \label{eq:two-pt-def}
334: \end{eqnarray}
335: with a wall source at $t_{\rm src}$ and a point sink at $t+t_{\rm src}$.
336: $A_4(t,\vec x)= \bar q_1(t,\vec x)\,\gamma_4\gamma_5\,q_2'(t,\vec x)$ is
337: the axial-vector current.
338: The wall source is defined by
339: $A^{\rm wall}_4(t)=\big(\sum_{\vec x} \bar q_2(t,\vec x)\big)\,
340: \gamma_4\gamma_5\,\big(\sum_{\vec y}q_1(t,\vec y)\big)$.
341: $q_1$ and $q_2$ represent two different flavors of quarks described by
342: the overlap formalism, and in the definition of the axial-vector current
343: $q_2$ is modified to
344: $q_2'(x)=\left[1-D_{\rm ov}(0)/(2\,m_0)\right]q_2(x)$ such that the
345: axial-vector current exactly transforms into the vector current
346: $V_4(t,\vec x)= \bar q_1(t,\vec x)\,\gamma_4\,q_2'(t,\vec x)$ under the
347: axial transformation.
348: We take an average of physically equivalent two-point functions over the
349: four source points $t_{\rm src}=0, 8, 16, 24$.
350: Because of the periodic boundary condition in the time direction, its
351: asymptotic behavior in large $t$ is given by
352: \begin{eqnarray}
353: \mbox{eq.~(\ref{eq:two-pt-def})}
354: \rightarrow
355: \frac{V_3\,Z^{\rm wall}_{A_4}}{2\,m_P}
356: f_P\,m_P\,
357: \left(e^{-m_P\,t}+e^{m_P\,(t-N_t)}
358: \right),
359: \label{eq:2-pt}
360: \end{eqnarray}
361: where $N_t=32$ and $V_3=16^3$.
362: Data at two time slices equally separated from $t=16$ are averaged.
363: The correlated fit is carried out to extract $m_P$ and
364: $Z^{\rm wall}_{A_4}f_P/2$, where
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: Z^{\rm wall}_{A_4}
367: &=& \langle P|\,\sum_{\vec x}
368: \bar q_2(0,\vec x)\,\gamma_4\gamma_5\,q_1(0,\vec 0)\,
369: |\,0\rangle,\\
370: f_P\,m_P
371: &=& \langle0|A_4(0)|P\rangle.
372: \end{eqnarray}
373: The fit range is chosen to be $t=[\,9,\,16]$ for all the sea and valence
374: quark masses.
375: The numerical results for $m_P$ and $Z_{A_4}^{\rm wall}f_P/2$ are listed
376: in Tables~\ref{tab:mass-results-0.015}-\ref{tab:mass-results-0.050-Q-4}
377: for each ensemble.
378: We also calculate pseudoscalar two-point functions $\langle PP\rangle$
379: and make a correlated fit to obtain the mass.
380: Effective mass plots for the pseudoscalar and axial-vector two-point
381: functions are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:efplt}.
382: Horizontal lines show the mass and one-sigma band obtained from the fit,
383: also indicating the fit ranges chosen.
384: We confirm that the masses extracted from $\langle PP\rangle$ and
385: $\langle A_4A_4\rangle$ are consistent within 1 standard deviation for
386: all the cases.
387: We use the mass from $\langle A_4A_4\rangle$ in the following
388: analysis.
389:
390:
391: \subsection{Three-point functions and $B_P$}
392: \label{subsec:3pt}
393:
394: In order to obtain $B_K$ we also need to calculate three-point
395: functions defined by
396: \begin{eqnarray}
397: \hspace*{-3ex}
398: C^{(3)}_{L_\mu L_\mu}(t_2,t,t_1)
399: = \sum_{\vec x} \langle\,
400: A_4^{\rm wall}(t_2)\
401: O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}(t,\vec x)\
402: A^{\rm wall}_4(t_1)\,\rangle,
403: \label{eq:3pt-def}
404: \end{eqnarray}
405: where
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}
408: =\bar q_1 \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)q_2'\
409: \bar q_1 \gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)q_2'
410: \label{eq:four-quark-op}
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: is the $\Delta S$=2 four-quark operator defined on the lattice.
413: In the calculation of three-point functions, the kaon interpolating
414: operator, that is the wall source, is put at fixed time slices $t_1$ and
415: $t_2$ while the position of four-quark operator $t$ is varied as shown
416: in Fig.~\ref{fig:method}.
417: We take $|t_2-t_1|$=16 or 24, which we call set A and B respectively.
418: For set A we take $(t_2,t_1)$=(16, 0) and (24, 8), while for set B we take
419: $(t_2,t_1)$=(24, 0), (32, 8), (8, 16), and (16, 24).
420: Within each set, all the three-point functions are equivalent after
421: proper translation in the time direction, so they are averaged after
422: the translation.
423: For the set A (with $|t_2-t_1|$=16), two equivalent regions, $0<t<16$
424: and $16<t<32$ are further averaged.
425: The averaged three-point functions are finally shifted such that the
426: wall source for the set A and B is $(t_2, t_1)=(16,\ 0)$ and $(32,\ 8)$,
427: respectively.
428:
429: At large time separation, $|t_2-t|\gg 1$ and $|t-t_1|\gg 1$,
430: (\ref{eq:3pt-def}) is expected to behave as
431: \begin{eqnarray}
432: \mbox{eq.~(\ref{eq:3pt-def})}
433: \rightarrow&&
434: V_3\,c_0\,
435: e^{-m_P(t_2-t_1)}\nonumber\\
436: &+& V_3\,c_1\,
437: e^{-m_P\,N_t-\Delta_P (t_2-t_1)/2}
438: \cosh\bigg[(2\,m_P+\Delta_P)
439: \left(t-\frac{t_2+t_1}{2}\right)\bigg]\no\\
440: &+& V_3\,c_2\,
441: e^{-(m_{P'}+m_P)\frac{t_2-t_1}{2}}
442: \cosh\left[(m_{P'}-m_P)
443: \bigg(t-\frac{t_2+t_1}{2}\bigg)\right]\nonumber\\
444: &+& V_3\,c_3\,
445: e^{-m_P N_t-(m_{P'}-m_P+\Delta'_P)(t_2-t_1)/2}
446: \cosh\left[(m_{P'}+m_P+\Delta'_P)
447: \left(t-\frac{t_2+t_1}{2}\right)
448: \right].
449: \label{eq:3pt-1}
450: \end{eqnarray}
451: The meaning of each term is explained in the following.
452: The first term in~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}) contains the hadron matrix
453: element relevant to the calculation of $B_K$, and
454: $c_0=(Z^{\rm wall}_{A_4})^2\,
455: \langle \bar P|O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}\ |P \rangle/(2\,m_P)^2$.
456: The schematic diagram corresponding to this contribution is shown
457: in Fig.~\ref{fig:relevant}.
458: While this contribution does not depend on $t$, in the real data, as
459: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3pt}, the three-point function depends on $t$,
460: and the dependence is more pronounced for the lighter meson (left).
461: To describe this $t$-dependence, we incorporate three additional terms:
462: a contribution of a kaon wrapping around the lattice in the time
463: direction, an excited state contamination, and a mixture of a wrapping
464: kaon and an excited state.
465: The diagrams corresponding to these three contributions are depicted
466: in Fig.~\ref{fig:contaminations}.
467: The second term in~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}) represents a wrapping kaon
468: contribution [Fig.~\ref{fig:contaminations} (top)], and $c_1$ contains
469: the transition amplitude of a two-kaon state $|P, P\rangle$ to the
470: vacuum, $\langle 0|O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}\ |P, P \rangle$.
471: $\Delta_P = E_{\rm total} - 2 m_P$ denotes the total energy difference
472: between an interacting and noninteracting two-kaon system, and is
473: extracted through the fit.
474: The third term describes the transition amplitude between the ground
475: state $|P\rangle$ and the first excited state $|{\bar P}'\rangle$,
476: hence $c_2$ contains
477: $\langle {\bar P}'|\,O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}\,|P\rangle$
478: [Fig.~\ref{fig:contaminations} (middle)].
479: The excited state mass $m_{P'}$ is extracted from the two-point function
480: with a point source and a point sink through a double cosh fit using the
481: fixed ground state mass.
482: Finally the fourth term represents the mixture contribution
483: [Fig.~\ref{fig:contaminations} (bottom)].
484:
485: The set A and B are fitted simultaneously to obtain $c_0$ with $m_P$
486: fixed to the value extracted from the two-point function.
487: In the fit, two cases are examined, one taking the excited state
488: contaminations, {\it i.e.}, the $c_2$ and $c_3$ terms
489: in~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}), into account and the other not.
490: The $c_1$ term is always included.
491: In both cases, the fit range dependence is investigated.
492: For later use, the fit ranges $[\,t_{\rm min},\,t_{\rm max}]$ for the
493: set A and B are parametrized as
494: \begin{eqnarray}
495: [\,t_{\rm min},\,t_{\rm max}]
496: = \left\{\begin{array}{cc}
497: {[\ 8-dt,\ 8+dt]} &\ \ \ \mbox{for set A},\\
498: {[\, 16-dt, 24+dt]} &\ \ \ \mbox{for set B}.
499: \end{array}\right.
500: \end{eqnarray}
501: Then $8-dt$ corresponds to the time separation between an end of the fit
502: range and the nearest source operator.
503:
504: We first perform an uncorrelated simultaneous fit without the $c_2$ and
505: $c_3$ terms.
506: The solid curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:3pt} represent the results for $dt=2$.
507: The numerical results of $c_0$, $c_1$ and $\Delta_P$ for $dt=2$ are
508: tabulated in
509: Tables~\ref{tab:mass-results-0.015}-\ref{tab:mass-results-0.050-Q-4}.
510: As seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:3pt}, the fit results are on the top of the
511: data within the error, and the $\chi^2$/dof values in the fit are
512: acceptable and in the range of [0.01, 0.2].
513: Although as seen from the table $\Delta_P$ is not determined very well
514: especially when the quark is light, the obtained values for $\Delta_P$
515: are reasonably consistent with those in~\cite{Yagi:lat07}, in which
516: $\Delta_P$ is calculated on the same configurations at
517: $m_{\rm sea}=m_{v1}=m_{v2}$ on the way to obtaining the $I$=2
518: $\pi$-$\pi$ scattering length, and is determined to a better precision.
519: The lattice $B$-parameter for a general pseudoscalar meson, which we
520: call $B_P^{\rm lat}$ in the following, is then obtained through
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: B_P^{\rm lat}
523: &=& \frac{3}{8}
524: \left(\frac{2}{Z^{\rm wall}_{A_4}\,f_P}\right)^2
525: \times
526: \frac{(Z^{\rm wall}_{A_4})^2
527: \langle \bar P|O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}\ |P \rangle}
528: {(2\,m_P)^2},
529: \end{eqnarray}
530: where the first and second factors are obtained from the two- and
531: three-point functions, respectively.
532: By varying $dt$, we obtain the $dt$-dependence of $B_P^{\rm lat}$ in
533: Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-rangedep} (open symbols), where the data with
534: $m_{\rm sea}$=$m_{v1}$=$m_{v2}$=$m_q$ are shown.
535: The results at $dt=2$ are indicated by the solid horizontal lines in
536: the figure.
537: It is seen that $B_P^{\rm lat}$ systematically increases at large $dt$
538: with $dt$ while it remains unchanged for $dt \le 2$.
539:
540: To make an analysis including the $c_2$ and $c_3$ terms, we use the
541: first excited state mass $m_{P'}$ extracted from the two-point function
542: with the point source and point sink.
543: Through a double cosh fit with a fixed ground state mass, we obtain
544: Fig.~\ref{fig:excited state mass}, which shows the first excited state
545: mass $m_{P'}$ as a function of $m_{\rm sea}$=$m_{v1}$=$m_{v2}$=$m_q$.
546: Although the statistical error is sizable, $m_{P'}$ reasonably
547: extrapolates to the experimentally measured value of the excited state
548: mass of $\pi$(1300).
549: In the following fits, $m_{P'}$ is fixed to the value thus extracted.
550: As seen from~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}), $\Delta_P'$ always appears in the
551: combination $m_{P'}+\Delta_P'$.
552: According to some trial fits in which $\Delta_P'$ is treated as a free
553: parameter, it turned out that $\Delta_P'$ is not determined well and its
554: size is similar to or even smaller than the statistical error of
555: $m_{P'}$.
556: Therefore, in the following analysis, whose purpose is to test the
557: stability against the fit range, we set $\Delta_P'$ to zero.
558: The simultaneous fit to~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}) including the $c_2$ and $c_3$
559: terms is carried out with varying $dt$ as before, and the resulting
560: $dt$-dependence of $B_P^{\rm lat}$ is shown in
561: Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-rangedep} (filled symbols).
562: It turns out that in this case $B_P^{\rm lat}$ does not depend on $dt$
563: and its value is consistent with the open symbol at $dt \le 2$ for all
564: the quark masses.
565:
566: To show the significance of each term in~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}), each
567: contribution is separately plotted with a logarithmic scale in
568: Fig.~\ref{fig:3pt-each}.
569: We find that the contributions from the $c_2$ and $c_3$ terms
570: in~(\ref{eq:3pt-1}) are always smaller than the others.
571: An exception is the set A at $m_{\rm sea}$=0.050 (right), in
572: which the $c_2$ term is as large as the $c_1$ term.
573: But in this case the size of these contributions is only a few \% of the
574: relevant term to extract $B_P^{\rm lat}$.
575: Another possible contamination, which has not been discussed so far, is
576: the one containing the transition amplitude between the first excited
577: states, $\langle {\bar P}'|\,O^{\rm lat}_{L_\mu L_\mu}\,|P'\rangle$.
578: Using $m_{P'}$ obtained above, its effect to $B_P^{\rm lat}$ is
579: estimated to be less than 0.03 \%, and so is neglected.
580:
581: From the above observations, in the following analysis we use
582: $B_P^{\rm lat}$ obtained at $dt=2$ without the $c_2$ and $c_3$ terms.
583:
584: \subsection{Nonperturbative matching}
585: \label{subsec:npr}
586:
587: We adopt the RI/MOM scheme~\cite{Martinelli:1994ty} to calculate the
588: matching factor.
589: We follow the standard method, which is briefly described in the
590: following.
591: In this subsection, we consider the renormalization of the operator of
592: the chiral structure
593: $VV+AA$,
594: $(\bar q_1 \gamma_\mu\,q_2'\ \bar q_1 \gamma_\mu\,q_2')+
595: (\bar q_1 \gamma_\mu\gamma_5\,q_2'\ \bar q_1\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\,q_2')$,
596: rather than $O_{L_\mu L_\mu}$ defined in (\ref{eq:four-quark-op}),
597: since in the presence of chiral symmetry the matching factors for these
598: two operators are equivalent.
599: Fixing the gauge to the Landau gauge, we first calculate the five-point
600: vertex function (or equivalently the amputated five-point function) for
601: the $VV+AA$ operator, where four external off-shell momenta are set to a
602: common value.
603: By applying a proper spin-color projection, the vertex function is
604: decomposed into five different structures,
605: $(VV\pm AA),\ (SS\pm PP),\ TT$, where $V,A,S,P,T$ denote vector,
606: axial-vector, scalar, pseudoscalar, and tensor bilinears, respectively.
607: In Fig.~\ref{fig:npr mixing}, the lattice momentum dependence of the
608: multiplicative part (circles) and the mixing part (other symbols) are
609: shown.
610: As is guaranteed by the exact chiral symmetry, the nonmultiplicative
611: contributions are strongly suppressed and vanish asymptotically as
612: momentum becomes large.
613: By imposing the renormalization condition that the $VV+AA$ component of
614: the renormalized vertex function be equal to the tree-level value, we
615: obtain $Z_q^{-2}\,Z_{VV+AA}$ with $Z_q$ the quark wave function
616: renormalization.
617: We also calculate the vertex function for the axial-vector current with
618: the same momentum configurations to obtain $Z_q^{-1}\,Z_{A}$.
619: Taking a ratio of the multiplicative part of the five-point vertex
620: function to a square of the vertex function for the axial-vector
621: current, we obtain $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RI/MOM}=Z_{VV+AA}/Z_{A}^2$ at each
622: quark mass and each momentum.
623:
624: The momentum $a p_\mu$ is defined by $a p_\mu = 2\pi n_\mu/L_\mu$,
625: where $L_\mu$ is the number of total lattice sites in the $\mu$
626: direction and $n_\mu$ is an integer.
627: While $n_\mu$ can take the value in the range of
628: $[-(L_\mu/2)+1, (L_\mu/2)]$, in order to avoid the large discretization
629: error we restrict the range to that satisfying $a p_\mu < 1$.
630: Namely, $n_\mu$ can only take
631: $n_i = \{-2, -1, 0, 1, 2\}$ for $i=x, y, z$ and
632: $n_t = \{-5, -4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5\}$.
633: Then the maximum value for $(a p)^2$ used in the following analysis is
634: about 2.81.
635:
636: The chiral extrapolation of $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RI/MOM}$ is made
637: linearly in the quark mass as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:npr chiral extrp}.
638: A clear dependence on quark mass is observed at relatively small
639: $(ap)^2$ while the dependence vanishes at larger $(ap)^2$.
640: After the chiral limit at each lattice momentum, we finally obtain
641: $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RI/MOM}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:npr zrgi} (open
642: circles).
643: In~\cite{Aoki:2007xm}, possible nonperturbative contaminations are
644: discussed in detail.
645: With the momentum setup commonly used in the RI/MOM scheme, some
646: nonperturbative effects may be enhanced in the small momentum region.
647: They are responsible for the linear dependence on the quark mass in this
648: region.
649: To avoid such contaminations, in the following analysis we restrict the
650: data point to those of $(ap)^2>1.2337$, where the linear slope is
651: consistent with zero within 2 standard deviations.
652:
653: From $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RI/MOM}(p^2)$ the renormalization group invariant
654: (RGI) factor $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}$ is obtained by
655: \begin{eqnarray}
656: && Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}
657: =w^{-1}_{\rm RI/MOM}(\mu^2)\,Z_{B_K}^{\rm RI/MOM}(\mu^2),
658: \end{eqnarray}
659: where
660: \begin{eqnarray}
661: w_{\rm RI/MOM}(\mu^2)
662: =\left(\alpha_s(\mu^2)\right)^{\frac{\gamma_0}{2\beta_0}}
663: \left[1-\frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{4\pi}J_{\rm RI/MOM}\right],
664: \label{eq:running-factor}
665: \end{eqnarray}
666: is the running factor due to the anomalous dimension at the
667: next-to-next-to-leading order.
668: $\gamma_0=4$ and
669: \begin{eqnarray}
670: J_{\rm RI/MOM}
671: =\frac{-(23931-2862 N_f+128 N_f^2)}{6\,(33-2 N_f)^2}+1+8\ln 2,
672: \label{eq:J_rimom}
673: \end{eqnarray}
674: which is calculated in~\cite{Ciuchini:1997bw}.
675: We use the running coupling constant at the same order given by
676: \begin{eqnarray}
677: \alpha_s(\mu^2)
678: =\frac{4\pi}{\beta_0 L}
679: \left[1-\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0^2}\frac{\ln L}{L}
680: \right],
681: \end{eqnarray}
682: with $\beta_0=\frac{33-2 N_f}{3}$, $\beta_1=102-10 N_f-\frac{8}{3}N_f$
683: and $L=\ln(\mu^2/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2)$.
684: In~\cite{Della Morte:2004bc}, $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ for $N_f=2$ in the
685: $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme is calculated to be 245(16)(16) MeV assuming
686: $r_0$=0.5 fm.
687: By summing up the two errors and converting to $r_0$=0.49 fm, we obtain
688: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=250(33)$ MeV which we will use in the following
689: analysis.
690:
691: The resulting $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:npr zrgi}
692: (filled triangles).
693: $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}$ must be independent of the renormalization scale up
694: to neglected higher order effects.
695: The remaining scale dependence due to the neglected higher order effects
696: is estimated as follows.
697: In our momentum region, the factor $1/w_{\rm RI/MOM}(\mu^2)$ is well
698: approximated by a linear function of $(ap)^2$ as
699: $w_0\,[1+w_1\,(ap)^2]$.
700: The slope $w_1$ determined with two points $(ap)^2$=1.2337 and 2.81438
701: is 0.017 or 0.022, with and without the $O(\alpha_s)$ term
702: in~(\ref{eq:running-factor}), respectively.
703: From the difference of $w_1$ between these two cases, we deduce that the
704: $O(\alpha_s^2)$ correction affects $w_1$ by less than 0.005.
705: On the other hand, fitting the data to a linear function of $(ap)^2$, we
706: obtain $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}=1.226(5)\times[1+0.030(2)\times(ap)^2)]$.
707: Therefore, we conclude that the remaining $(ap)^2$ dependence is
708: dominated by the $O(a^2p^2)$ discretization effects, which are removed
709: by a linear extrapolation to $(ap)^2=0$ as shown in
710: Fig.~\ref{fig:npr zrgi}.
711: We observe a clear nonzero slope in $(ap)^2$ for $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}$,
712: but the coefficient is sufficiently small to rely on the extrapolation.
713:
714: To follow the standard convention, the matching factor is converted to
715: that in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme using
716: \begin{eqnarray}
717: Z_{B_K}^{\rm \overline{MS}}(\mu^2)
718: =w_{\rm \overline{MS}}(\mu^2)\,Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI},
719: \end{eqnarray}
720: where $w_{\rm \overline{MS}}(\mu^2)$ is obtained from
721: (\ref{eq:running-factor}) by replacing $J_{\rm RI/MOM}$
722: with~\cite{Ciuchini:1997bw}
723: \begin{eqnarray}
724: J_{\rm \overline{MS}}
725: =\frac{-(23931-2862 N_f+128 N_f^2)}{6\,(33-2 N_f)^2}+\frac{17}{3}.
726: \end{eqnarray}
727: We obtain $w_{\rm \overline{MS}}(\mu^2)=0.7086$ at $\mu=$2 GeV.
728:
729: In the whole procedure, the largest uncertainty comes from the
730: perturbative running.
731: The matching factor at a given scale $\mu$ in the RI/MOM scheme is
732: obtained nonperturbatively, but its conversion to other schemes is not.
733: The systematic uncertainty is then estimated by the size of the
734: correction of the highest order included (next-to-leading order in this
735: work), which is 0.071 for $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}$ and 0.020 for
736: $Z_{B_K}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})$.
737: The uncertainty of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ gives $\pm$0.013 for
738: $Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}$ and $\pm$0.0002 for
739: $Z_{B_K}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})$.
740: These systematic errors are added in quadrature.
741: Finally we obtain
742: \begin{eqnarray}
743: Z_{B_K}^{\rm RGI}=1.224(5)(72),\ \ \
744: Z_{B_K}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})=0.867(3)(20),
745: \end{eqnarray}
746: where the first error is statistical and the second one is systematic.
747: The results for the $B$-parameter in the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme at
748: $\mu$=2 GeV, $B_P^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2 {\rm GeV})$, are given in
749: Tables~\ref{tab:mass-results-0.015}-\ref{tab:mass-results-0.050-Q-4}.
750:
751:
752: \section{Test with NLO PQChPT}
753: \label{sec:test-PQChPT}
754:
755: Before extrapolating the lattice data to the physical kaon mass
756: ($m_{v1}=m_{\rm sea}\rightarrow m_{ud}^{\rm phys},\
757: m_{v2}\rightarrow m_s^{\rm phys}$),
758: we test whether the quark mass dependence of $B_P$ is consistent with
759: the NLO PQChPT
760: prediction.
761: In other words we try to identify the quark mass region, where the
762: lattice results are well described by ChPT.
763: We restrict the data points used to those which satisfy
764: $m_{\rm sea}\le m_{\rm valence}$ for the reason described below.
765:
766: In~\cite{Becirevic:2003wk}, the finite volume effect (FVE) to $B_K$ is
767: studied to NLO in the framework of finite volume PQChPT, where the
768: ``kaon'' consists of a light quark with mass $m_{v1}$ and the physical
769: strange quark mass with $m_{v2}$ fixed to $m_s^{\rm phys}$.
770: Its numerical results indicate that the FVE is more profound as $m_{v1}$
771: vanishes while $m_{\rm sea}$ is fixed.
772: This can be deduced from the NLO PQChPT formula for $B_K$ in the infinite
773: volume alone, because it contains the term proportional to
774: $m_{\rm sea}\ln (m_{v1}/m_{v2})$ and the loop integral leading to this
775: term is expected to be sensitive to the infrared cutoff, or equivalently
776: to the size of the spatial volume.
777: Then the chiral expansion with $m_{v1}\ll m_{\rm sea}$ becomes unlikely
778: to converge quickly and hence less reliable.
779: Quantitatively, the estimate of the FVE to $B_K$
780: in~\cite{Becirevic:2003wk} gives about 3 \% for
781: $m_{v1} \sim m_s^{\rm phys}/5$ and
782: $m_{v2}=m_{\rm sea} \sim m_s^{\rm phys}$ and so appears to be under
783: control.
784: However it is pointed out in~\cite{Colangelo:2005gd} (and cautioned
785: in~\cite{Becirevic:2003wk}) that at the NLO the FVE could be
786: significantly underestimated for $m_{\pi}$ and $f_\pi$.
787: For example, the NLO estimate of the FVE to $f_\pi$ gives about 2 \%
788: correction at our lightest unquenched point while the inclusion of NNLO
789: gives 4\%--5 \%.
790: It should be noted that this study is made at the unquenched points
791: ($m_{\rm sea}=m_{v1}=m_{v2}$).
792: Therefore it could be worse when $m_{v1}\ll m_{\rm sea}\sim m_{v2}$
793: because of the above reason.
794: Motivated by these observations, in the following analysis we include
795: the data points only when $m_{\rm sea}\le m_{\rm valence}$.
796:
797: In this test, we focus on the data points consisting of degenerate
798: quarks ($m_{v1}=m_{v2}$) for simplicity.
799: The NLO PQChPT prediction for $B_P$ with degenerate valence quarks
800: is~\cite{Golterman:1997st,Becirevic:2003wk},
801: \begin{eqnarray}
802: B_P
803: &=& B_P^\chi\Bigg[\,
804: 1- \frac{6\,m_P^2}{(4\pi f)^2}
805: \,\ln\left(\frac{m_P^2}{\mu^2}\right)\Bigg]
806: + (b_1-b_3)\,m_P^2 + b_2\,m_{ss}^2,
807: \label{NLOform}
808: \end{eqnarray}
809: where $m_{ss}$ is the pseudoscalar meson mass with
810: $m_{v1}=m_{v2}=m_{\rm sea}$ and $B^\chi_P$, $f$, $(b_1-b_3)$, and $b_2$
811: are free parameters.
812: $f$ is the tree-level pion decay constant in the $f_\pi\sim$130 MeV
813: normalization, and is the only parameter which controls nonlinear
814: dependence of $B_P$ on the pseudoscalar meson mass squared.
815: In the fit, $\mu$ is set to 1 GeV.
816: The numerical data are fitted to (\ref{NLOform}) with a varying fit
817: range.
818:
819: The fit results are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:nlo-test} (top) and
820: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-valdep-fit2-limit} (left).
821: While all fit ranges tested give acceptable $\chi^2/$dof, $f$
822: monotonically increases as the fit range is extended.
823: $f$'s obtained from the two narrowest ranges are consistent with each
824: other within 1 standard deviation, and also consistent with a naive
825: expectation $100\sim 130$ MeV.
826: We also attempt another fit fixing $f$ to 0.0659, which corresponds to
827: 110 MeV obtained in our separate calculation~\cite{Noaki:2007es}.
828: The numerical results and plot are given in Table~\ref{tab:nlo-test}
829: (bottom) and in Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-valdep-fit2-limit} (right),
830: respectively.
831: The $\chi^2$/dof is acceptable for the two narrowest fit ranges, and the
832: results for other fit parameters are consistent with the values obtained
833: without fixing $f$.
834: From these observations, we conclude that the data for $m_q\le 0.050$
835: are inside the NLO regime while the data at around the strange quark
836: mass are not.
837:
838:
839: \section{Extraction of $B_K$}
840: \label{sec:extraction of BK}
841:
842: Since the NLO PQChPT formula describes the data only up to about a half
843: of the physical strange quark mass, to extract $B_K$ at physical quark
844: masses from the data, it is necessary to modify the NLO PQChPT formula.
845: We incorporate an analytic term into the original NLO PQChPT
846: formula~\cite{Golterman:1997st,Becirevic:2003wk,Aoki:2004ht} as
847: \begin{eqnarray}
848: B_{12}
849: &=& B_{12}^\chi\Bigg[
850: 1- \frac{2}{(4\pi f)^2}
851: \Bigg\{ m_{ss}^2 + m_{11}^2 -
852: \frac{3\,m_{12}^4+m_{11}^4}{2\,m_{12}^2}
853: + m_{12}^2\left( \ln\left(\frac{m_{12}^2}{\mu^2}\right)
854: + 2\,\ln\left(\frac{m_{22}^2}{\mu^2}\right)
855: \right)
856: \nonumber\\&&\hspace*{18ex}
857: - \frac{1}{2}\left(
858: \frac{m_{ss}^2(m_{12}^2+m_{11}^2)}{2\,m_{12}^2}
859: + \frac{m_{11}^2
860: (m_{ss}^2-m_{11}^2)}
861: {m_{12}^2-m_{11}^2}
862: \right)
863: \ln\left(\frac{m_{22}^2}{m_{11}^2}\right)
864: \Bigg\}\Bigg]
865: \nonumber\\&&\hspace*{0ex}
866: + b_1\,m_{12}^2
867: + b_3\,m_{11}^2\left(-2+\frac{m_{11}^2}{m_{12}^2} \right)
868: + b_2\,m_{ss}^2
869: % + d_1\,m_{11}^2\,m_{22}^2
870: + d_1\,(m_{12}^2)^2,
871: \label{eq:NLOform-nondege}
872: \end{eqnarray}
873: where $m_{ij}$ is the pseudoscalar meson mass consisting of valence quarks
874: $i$ and $j$.
875: %We define the lighter valence quark mass by $m_{v1}$ and the other by
876: %$m_{v2}$.
877: In the limit of $m_{v1}=m_{v2}$, the above formula without the last
878: term reduces to (\ref{NLOform}).
879: The formula (\ref{eq:NLOform-nondege}) without the last term is the
880: NLO PQChPT
881: prediction for nondegenerate valence
882: quarks~\cite{Golterman:1997st,Becirevic:2003wk,Aoki:2004ht}, and the
883: last term is added to interpolate the data in the heavy valence quark
884: mass region.
885: Since the modification is used to interpolate the existing data in the
886: heavier valance quark mass region, its precise form is irrelevant to the
887: final result.
888: Actually we have confirmed that introducing the other term
889: $d_2 (m_{11}^2m_{22}^2)$ into the formula changes the final result by
890: 0.2 \% at most.
891:
892: The fit is performed with four data sets, each of which includes the
893: data of three, four, five or six lightest sea quarks.
894: All the data satisfying $m_{\rm sea} \le \min(m_{v1}, m_{v2})$ are
895: included in the fit.
896: Numerical results and the plots are given in Table~\ref{tab:nnlo} and
897: Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-nnlo-nondege-limit}, respectively.
898: Solid curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-nnlo-nondege-limit} represent the fit
899: result extrapolated to the point where one of the valence quark mass and
900: the sea quark mass ($m_{\rm sea}$) are equal to the physical $u, d$ mass
901: ($m^{\rm phys}_{ud}$) while the other valence quark mass is free.
902: Therefore the lines show the strange (or heavier valence) quark mass
903: dependence of the $B$-parameter.
904: Since the four curves obtained with different data sets are
905: indistinguishable from each other and all the data used in the fit are
906: on top of each other, we may conclude that the difference between
907: degenerate and nondegenerate data is negligible for $B_P$.
908: As seen from Table~\ref{tab:nnlo}, $B_P^\chi$'s, $b_2$'s and $f$'s for
909: all the fit ranges are reasonably consistent with those obtained for the
910: two narrowest fit ranges with unfixed $f$ in the NLO test shown in
911: Table~\ref{tab:nlo-test} (top).
912: Interpolating to physical $m_K^2$, we obtain
913: $B_K^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})$, listed in Table~\ref{tab:nnlo}.
914: We take $B_K^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})=0.537(4)$, which is the
915: result with the fit range [0.015, 0.050], as the central value.
916: The difference from the others ($\pm 0.002$) is ignored as it is
917: much smaller than other systematic errors.
918:
919: \section{Systematic errors}
920: \label{sec:systematic errors}
921:
922: \subsection{Finite volume effects}
923:
924: With our lattice size and the lightest pion mass, $m_\pi L$ is slightly
925: smaller than 3, for which one expects sizable finite volume effects.
926: One of such effects, which is special in the partially quenched theory
927: and becomes significant when $m_{v1},m_{v2}<m_{\rm sea}$, has been
928: eliminated by omitting a potentially dangerous data set.
929: If we apply the estimate based on the finite volume NLO PQChPT
930: analysis~\cite{Becirevic:2003wk} to our lattice setup with $L$=2 fm, the
931: finite size effect is estimated to be less than 1 \% over all the data points
932: we have included in the fit.
933: However, as mentioned before, the NNLO analysis revealed that the NLO
934: analysis could significantly underestimate the effect for $m_{\pi}$ and
935: $f_\pi$~\cite{Colangelo:2005gd}.
936: Unfortunately, the NNLO calculation of $B_K$ is not available.
937: Therefore, we add 5 \% uncertainty, which is the NNLO estimate on
938: $f_\pi$ at our lightest quark mass~\cite{Noaki:2007es}, as a
939: conservative upper bound of the finite volume effect.
940:
941: \subsection{Fixing topology}
942:
943: In our calculation there is a finite volume effect of a different
944: origin, {\it i.e.}, the fixed topological charge.
945: This effect is suppressed for large volumes as $1/V$, and is calculable
946: provided that the topological susceptibility and the $\theta$-dependence
947: of the quantity of interest are known~\cite{Brower:2003yx,Aoki:2007ka}.
948: The topological susceptibility is calculated on the same set of
949: lattices~\cite{Aoki:2007pw}.
950: Within the framework of ChPT, it can be shown that the most significant
951: $\theta$-dependence of the physical quantities is that of pion mass and
952: other quantities are affected through it.
953: We estimate the size of the effect on $B_P$ as
954: \begin{eqnarray}
955: \sim B^\chi_P \frac{m_P^2}{(4\pi\,f)^2}\frac{1}{\langle Q^2 \rangle}
956: \left(1-\frac{Q^2}{\langle Q^2 \rangle}\right),
957: \label{eq:assumption}
958: \end{eqnarray}
959: which appears at the next-to-leading order of ChPT.
960: Here, $\langle Q^2 \rangle=\chi_t V_4\sim 10$ at
961: $m_q=0.05$~\cite{Aoki:2007pw} and $V_4$ is the four-dimensional volume.
962: At this sea quark mass, the correction to the $Q=0$ result is estimated
963: to be 1.4\%, and the difference between $Q=0$ and $-2$ $(-4)$ to be
964: 0.6\% (2.4\%).
965: To see whether this expected difference is seen or not, three results of
966: $B_P$ at $m_q$=0.05 in the $Q$=0, $-2$, $-4$ sectors are compared in
967: Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-nnlo-nondege-limit-topo}.
968: Since the size of the statistical error for the measured $B_P$ is about
969: 1\% or so as shown in the figure, we do not expect clear systematic
970: $Q$-dependence of $B_P$, that is confirmed by the numerical data.
971: From this observation, we can safely assume that~(\ref{eq:assumption})
972: gives a reasonable estimate.
973: We quote 1.4\ \% as an estimate for the systematic error due to fixing
974: the topological charge.
975: A more complete analysis is available for $f_\pi$~\cite{Noaki:2007es}, for
976: which the effect of fixing the topological charge is estimated to be
977: about 1\ \% or less depending on the quark mass.
978:
979:
980: \subsection{Other systematic errors}
981:
982: In addition to the above errors, we estimated 2 \% uncertainty in the
983: determination of $Z_{B_K}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2\ {\rm GeV})$.
984: Since the calculation is made only at one lattice spacing, a reliable
985: estimate of the scaling violation is difficult.
986: There is, however, an indication that the overlap fermion formulation
987: has relatively small scaling violation within the quenched calculation
988: of $B_K$~\cite{Babich:2006bh}, where no significant dependence on the
989: lattice spacing was observed between $1/a\sim$ 2.2~GeV and 1.5~GeV.
990: Even at a fixed lattice spacing, the use of a different input to fix
991: the lattice spacing could lead to an appreciable change of $B_K$
992: because $B_K$ has a significant dependence on the squared meson mass
993: $(a m_{12})^2$ as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:bp-nnlo-nondege-limit}.
994: It turns out that if one changes $1/a$ by $\pm$ 5 \% for instance, $B_K$
995: is changed by $\mp$ 5 \%.
996:
997: This calculation is made with two flavors of dynamical quarks, and the
998: strange quark is quenched.
999: In~\cite{Aoki:2004ht} and \cite{Antonio:2007pb}, the RBC collaboration
1000: estimate $B_K$ with two and three dynamical flavors using the domain-wall
1001: lattice fermion formalism.
1002: While no clear dependence on the number of dynamical flavors is seen
1003: between these two calculations, we cannot draw a definite conclusion
1004: at the moment as these two calculations used different gauge actions.
1005: Therefore, we leave the estimate of the systematic error due to the
1006: missing strange quark contribution to the sea for future works.
1007:
1008: Summing up the estimates of the systematic errors due to finite volume
1009: effects (5 \%), fixing topology (1.4 \%), the matching factor (2 \%), and
1010: the scale setting (5 \%) in quadrature, we quote our result of the
1011: $N_f$=2 calculation obtained at $1/a\sim$ 1.67 GeV as
1012: \begin{eqnarray}
1013: B_K^{\overline{\rm MS}}(2~\mbox{GeV})
1014: % = 0.534(5)(30),
1015: = 0.537(4)(40),
1016: \label{eq:bk-final}
1017: \end{eqnarray}
1018: where the first and the second errors are statistical and systematic.
1019: Notice that the systematic error shown here does not include those due
1020: to the scaling violation and neglecting the dynamical strange quark.
1021:
1022: \section{Summary}
1023: \label{summary}
1024:
1025: We performed a dynamical overlap fermion calculation of $B_K$ for the
1026: first time.
1027: Although the three-point functions are contaminated by the
1028: wrapping-around kaons and the excited states because of the short
1029: temporal extent of our lattice, thanks to the low-mode averaging the
1030: statistical signal is substantially improved so that we could extract
1031: the meson and antimeson transition amplitude accurately.
1032:
1033: Using the extracted values of the $B$-parameter, consistency with the
1034: NLO PQChPT prediction for $B_K$ is tested.
1035: It turns out that the NLO prediction well describes the measured $B_P$
1036: up to around a half of the strange quark mass.
1037: By extrapolating $B_P$ to the physical $m_K$, we
1038: obtain~(\ref{eq:bk-final}), where the uncertainties from the ordinary
1039: finite volume effect, fixing topology and renormalization constant are
1040: included in the systematic error.
1041:
1042: The next step to do is the determination of $B_K$ in three-flavor QCD.
1043: The generation of configurations with three flavors of dynamical overlap
1044: fermions is underway~\cite{Hashimoto:2007vv}.
1045: With this calculation, the effect of quenching the strange quark is
1046: removed.
1047: We are planning a study of the finite volume effects in the three-flavor
1048: calculation by performing the calculation with two different volumes.
1049: Then the dominant uncertainties in this calculation would be eliminated.
1050:
1051: \section{Acknowledgment}
1052:
1053: We would like to thank Damir Becirevic for giving us the numerical data
1054: of~\cite{Becirevic:2003wk} and Dr. Enno Scholz for a useful comment.
1055: H.F. would like to thank Nishina Memorial Foundation.
1056: Numerical simulations are performed on the IBM System Blue Gene Solution
1057: at High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK) under support
1058: of its Large Scale Simulation Program (No. 07-16).
1059: This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of
1060: Education (Nos. 17740171, 18034011, 18340075, 18740167, 18840045,
1061: 19540286, and 19740160).
1062:
1063: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1064:
1065: \bibitem{Yao:2006px}
1066: W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1067: %``Review of particle physics,''
1068: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
1069: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
1070:
1071: \bibitem{Buchalla:1995vs}
1072: For the full expression, see
1073: G.~Buchalla, A.~J.~Buras and M.~E.~Lautenbacher,
1074: %``Weak Decays Beyond Leading Logarithms,''
1075: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996)
1076: [arXiv:hep-ph/9512380].
1077: %%CITATION = RMPHA,68,1125;%%
1078:
1079: \bibitem{Flynn:2004au}
1080: J.~M.~Flynn, F.~Mescia and A.~S.~B.~Tariq [UKQCD Collaboration],
1081: %``Sea quark effects in B(K) from N(f) = 2 clover-improved Wilson fermions,''
1082: JHEP {\bf 0411}, 049 (2004)
1083: [arXiv:hep-lat/0406013].
1084: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0411,049;%%
1085:
1086: \bibitem{Mescia:2005ew}
1087: F.~Mescia, V.~Gimenez, V.~Lubicz, G.~Martinelli, S.~Simula and C.~Tarantino,
1088: %``Kaon B-parameter with N(F) = 2 dynamical Wilson fermions,''
1089: PoS {\bf LAT2005}, 365 (2006)
1090: [arXiv:hep-lat/0510096].
1091: %%CITATION = POSCI,LAT2005,365;%%
1092:
1093: \bibitem{Aoki:1997nr}
1094: S.~Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
1095: %``Kaon B parameter from quenched lattice QCD,''
1096: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 5271 (1998)
1097: [arXiv:hep-lat/9710073].
1098: %%CITATION = PRLTA,80,5271;%%
1099:
1100: \bibitem{AliKhan:2001wr}
1101: A.~Ali Khan {\it et al.} [CP-PACS Collaboration],
1102: %``Kaon B parameter from quenched domain-wall QCD,''
1103: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 114506 (2001)
1104: [arXiv:hep-lat/0105020].
1105: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D64,114506;%%
1106:
1107: \bibitem{Blum:2001xb}
1108: T.~Blum {\it et al.} [RBC Collaboration],
1109: %``Kaon matrix elements and CP-violation from quenched lattice QCD. I: The
1110: %3-flavor case,''
1111: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 114506 (2003)
1112: [arXiv:hep-lat/0110075].
1113: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D68,114506;%%
1114:
1115: \bibitem{Aoki:2005ga}
1116: Y.~Aoki {\it et al.},
1117: %``The kaon B-parameter from quenched domain-wall QCD,''
1118: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 094507 (2006)
1119: [arXiv:hep-lat/0508011].
1120: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,094507;%%
1121:
1122: \bibitem{Antonio:2007pb}
1123: D.~J.~Antonio {\it et al.} [RBC Collaboration],
1124: %``Neutral kaon mixing from 2+1 flavor domain wall QCD,''
1125: arXiv:hep-ph/0702042.
1126: %%CITATION = HEP-PH/0702042;%%
1127:
1128: \bibitem{Aoki:2004ht}
1129: Y.~Aoki {\it et al.},
1130: %``Lattice QCD with two dynamical flavors of domain wall fermions,''
1131: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 114505 (2005)
1132: [arXiv:hep-lat/0411006].
1133: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D72,114505;%%
1134:
1135: \bibitem{Aoki:2007xm}
1136: Y.~Aoki {\it et al.},
1137: %``Non-perturbative renormalization of quark bilinear operators and B_K using
1138: %domain wall fermions,''
1139: arXiv:0712.1061 [hep-lat].
1140: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0712.1061;%%
1141:
1142: \bibitem{Fodor:2003bh}
1143: Z.~Fodor, S.~D.~Katz and K.~K.~Szabo,
1144: %``Dynamical overlap fermions, results with hybrid Monte-Carlo algorithm,''
1145: JHEP {\bf 0408}, 003 (2004)
1146: [arXiv:hep-lat/0311010].
1147: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0408,003;%%
1148:
1149: \bibitem{Fukaya:2006vs}
1150: H.~Fukaya, S.~Hashimoto, K.~I.~Ishikawa, T.~Kaneko, H.~Matsufuru,
1151: T.~Onogi and N.~Yamada [JLQCD Collaboration],
1152: %``Lattice gauge action suppressing near-zero modes of H(W),''
1153: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 094505 (2006)
1154: [arXiv:hep-lat/0607020].
1155: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,094505;%%
1156:
1157: \bibitem{Aoki:2007ka}
1158: S.~Aoki, H.~Fukaya, S.~Hashimoto and T.~Onogi,
1159: %``Finite volume QCD at fixed topological charge,''
1160: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 054508 (2007)
1161: [arXiv:0707.0396 [hep-lat]].
1162: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,054508;%%
1163:
1164: \bibitem{Noaki:2007es}
1165: J.~Noaki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
1166: %``Light meson spectrum with $N_f=2$ dynamical overlap fermions,''
1167: arXiv:0710.0929 [hep-lat].
1168: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.0929;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{Kaneko:2007nf}
1171: T.~Kaneko, H.~Fukaya, S.~Hashimoto, H.~Matsufuru, J.~Noaki, T.~Onogi
1172: and N.~Yamada [JLQCD collaboration],
1173: %``Pion form factor from all-to-all propagators of overlap quarks,''
1174: arXiv:0710.2390 [hep-lat].
1175: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.2390;%%
1176:
1177: \bibitem{Shintani:2007ub}
1178: E.~Shintani, H.~Fukaya, S.~Hashimoto, H.~Matsufuru, J.~Noaki, T.~Onogi
1179: and N.~Yamada [JLQCD Collaboration],
1180: %``Pion mass difference from vacuum polarization,''
1181: arXiv:0710.0691 [hep-lat].
1182: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.0691;%%
1183:
1184: \bibitem{Aoki:2007pw}
1185: S.~Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD and TWQCD Collaboration],
1186: %``Topological susceptibility in two-flavor lattice QCD with exact chiral
1187: %symmetry,''
1188: arXiv:0710.1130 [hep-lat].
1189: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.1130;%%
1190:
1191: \bibitem{Fukaya:2007fb}
1192: H.~Fukaya {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
1193: %``Two-flavor lattice QCD simulation in the epsilon-regime with exact chiral
1194: %symmetry,''
1195: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98}, 172001 (2007)
1196: [arXiv:hep-lat/0702003].
1197: %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,172001;%%
1198:
1199: \bibitem{Fukaya:2007yv}
1200: H.~Fukaya {\it et al.},
1201: %``Two-flavor lattice QCD in the epsilon-regime and chiral Random Matrix
1202: %Theory,''
1203: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 054503 (2007)
1204: [arXiv:0705.3322 [hep-lat]].
1205: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,054503;%%
1206:
1207: \bibitem{Fukaya:2007cw}
1208: H.~Fukaya {\it et al.} [JLQCD collaboration],
1209: %``Meson correlators in the epsilon-regime of two-flavor lattice QCD,''
1210: arXiv:0710.3468 [hep-lat].
1211: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.3468;%%
1212:
1213: \bibitem{Fukaya:2007pn}
1214: H.~Fukaya {\it et al.} [JLQCD collaboration],
1215: %``Lattice study of meson correlators in the epsilon-regime of two-flavor
1216: %QCD,''
1217: arXiv:0711.4965 [hep-lat].
1218: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0711.4965;%%
1219:
1220: \bibitem{Matsufuru:2007uc}
1221: H.~Matsufuru [JLQCD Collaboration],
1222: %``Exploring the chiral regime with dynamical overlap fermions,''
1223: arXiv:0710.4225 [hep-lat].
1224: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.4225;%%
1225:
1226: \bibitem{Hashimoto:2007vv}
1227: S.~Hashimoto {\it et al.} [JLQCD collaboration],
1228: %``Lattice simulation of 2+1 flavors of overlap light quarks,''
1229: arXiv:0710.2730 [hep-lat].
1230: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0710.2730;%%
1231:
1232: \bibitem{Neuberger:1997fp}
1233: H.~Neuberger,
1234: %``Exactly massless quarks on the lattice,''
1235: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417}, 141 (1998)
1236: [arXiv:hep-lat/9707022].
1237: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B417,141;%%
1238:
1239: \bibitem{Neuberger:1998wv}
1240: H.~Neuberger,
1241: %``More about exactly massless quarks on the lattice,''
1242: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 427}, 353 (1998)
1243: [arXiv:hep-lat/9801031].
1244: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B427,353;%%
1245:
1246: \bibitem{Sommer:1993ce}
1247: R.~Sommer,
1248: %``A New way to set the energy scale in lattice gauge theories and its
1249: %applications to the static force and alpha-s in SU(2) Yang-Mills
1250: %theory,''
1251: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 411}, 839 (1994)
1252: [arXiv:hep-lat/9310022].
1253: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B411,839;%%
1254:
1255: \bibitem{Kaneko:2006pa}
1256: T.~Kaneko {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
1257: %``JLQCD's dynamical overlap project,''
1258: PoS {\bf LAT2006}, 054 (2006)
1259: [arXiv:hep-lat/0610036];
1260: %%CITATION = POSCI,LAT2006,054;%%
1261: S.~Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
1262: arXiv:0803.3197.
1263: %``Two-flavor QCD simulation with exact chiral symmetry''
1264:
1265: \bibitem{DeGrand:2004qw}
1266: T.~A.~DeGrand and S.~Schaefer,
1267: %``Improving meson two-point functions in lattice QCD,''
1268: Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\ {\bf 159}, 185 (2004)
1269: [arXiv:hep-lat/0401011];
1270: %%CITATION = CPHCB,159,185;%%
1271: %\cite{Giusti:2004yp}
1272: %\bibitem{Giusti:2004yp}
1273: L.~Giusti, P.~Hernandez, M.~Laine, P.~Weisz and H.~Wittig,
1274: %``Low-energy couplings of QCD from current correlators near the
1275: %chiral limit,''
1276: JHEP {\bf 0404}, 013 (2004)
1277: [arXiv:hep-lat/0402002].
1278: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0404,013;%%
1279:
1280: \bibitem{Yagi:lat07}
1281: T.~Yagi, M.~Ohtani, O.~Morimatsu, S.~Hashimoto,
1282: %``I=2 pi-pi scattering length with dynamical overlap fermion''
1283: talk given at the XXV International Symposium On Lattice Field Theory,
1284: University of Regensburg, July 30-August 4, 2007,
1285: PosLat (2007)086.
1286:
1287: \bibitem{Martinelli:1994ty}
1288: G.~Martinelli, C.~Pittori, C.~T.~Sachrajda, M.~Testa and A.~Vladikas,
1289: %``A General Method For Nonperturbative Renormalization Of Lattice
1290: %Operators,''
1291: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 445}, 81 (1995)
1292: [arXiv:hep-lat/9411010];
1293: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B445,81;%%
1294: %\cite{Donini:1999sf}
1295: %\bibitem{Donini:1999sf}
1296: A.~Donini, V.~Gimenez, G.~Martinelli, M.~Talevi and A.~Vladikas,
1297: %``Non-perturbative renormalization of lattice four-fermion operators
1298: % without power subtractions,''
1299: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 10}, 121 (1999)
1300: [arXiv:hep-lat/9902030].
1301: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C10,121;%%
1302:
1303: \bibitem{Ciuchini:1997bw}
1304: M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, V.~Lubicz, G.~Martinelli, I.~Scimemi and L.~Silvestrini,
1305: %``Next-to-leading order QCD corrections to Delta(F) = 2 effective
1306: %Hamiltonians,''
1307: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 523}, 501 (1998)
1308: [arXiv:hep-ph/9711402].
1309: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B523,501;%%
1310:
1311: \bibitem{Della Morte:2004bc}
1312: M.~Della Morte, R.~Frezzotti, J.~Heitger, J.~Rolf, R.~Sommer and U.~Wolff
1313: [ALPHA Collaboration],
1314: %``Computation of the strong coupling in QCD with two dynamical flavours,''
1315: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 713}, 378 (2005)
1316: [arXiv:hep-lat/0411025].
1317: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B713,378;%%
1318:
1319: \bibitem{Becirevic:2003wk}
1320: D.~Becirevic and G.~Villadoro,
1321: %``Impact of the finite volume effects on the chiral behavior of f(K) and
1322: %B(K),''
1323: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 054010 (2004)
1324: [arXiv:hep-lat/0311028].
1325: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,054010;%%
1326:
1327: \bibitem{Colangelo:2005gd}
1328: G.~Colangelo, S.~Durr and C.~Haefeli,
1329: %``Finite volume effects for meson masses and decay constants,''
1330: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 721}, 136 (2005)
1331: [arXiv:hep-lat/0503014].
1332: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B721,136;%%
1333:
1334: \bibitem{Golterman:1997st}
1335: M.~F.~L.~Golterman and K.~C.~L.~Leung,
1336: %``Applications of partially quenched chiral perturbation theory,''
1337: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 5703 (1998)
1338: [arXiv:hep-lat/9711033].
1339: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D57,5703;%%
1340:
1341: \bibitem{Brower:2003yx}
1342: R.~Brower, S.~Chandrasekharan, J.~W.~Negele and U.~J.~Wiese,
1343: %``QCD at fixed topology,''
1344: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 560}, 64 (2003)
1345: [arXiv:hep-lat/0302005].
1346: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B560,64;%%
1347:
1348: \bibitem{Babich:2006bh}
1349: R.~Babich, N.~Garron, C.~Hoelbling, J.~Howard, L.~Lellouch and C.~Rebbi,
1350: %``K0 anti-K0 mixing beyond the standard model and CP-violating electroweak
1351: %penguins in quenched QCD with exact chiral symmetry,''
1352: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74}, 073009 (2006)
1353: [arXiv:hep-lat/0605016].
1354: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D74,073009;%%
1355:
1356: \end{thebibliography}
1357: \newpage
1358: \input{fig}
1359: \input{table}
1360: \end{document}
1361: