1: \section{Application to static-light B$_\mrm{s}$-mesons \label{s:stat}}
2: We have carried out a test in quenched HQET, discretizing the static
3: quark by the HYP2 action and the strange quark
4: by the non-perturbatively $\Oa$-improved Wilson action.
5: Space-time is $2L\times L^3$ with periodic boundary conditions,
6: $L\approx1.5\,\fm$ and we consider two lattice spacings:
7: $0.1\,\fm$ and $0.07\,\fm$ ($\beta=6.0219$ and $6.2885$), respectively
8: with $\kappa=0.133849\,,\; 0.1349798$.
9: The all-to-all strange-quark propagators \cite{alltoall:dublin}
10: are constructed
11: from 50 (approximate) low modes and two noise fields on each
12: timeslice of 100 configurations.
13:
14: The gauge links entering in the interpolating
15: fields are smeared with 3 iterations of (spatial) APE smearing
16: \cite{smear:ape,basak}. Then 8 different levels of Gaussian smearing
17: \cite{wavef:wupp1}
18: are applied
19: to the strange-quark field and we use a simple $\gamma_0\gamma_5$ structure
20: in Dirac space for all 8 interpolating fields. The local field
21: (no smearing) is included to compute the decay constant.
22: % is defined as
23: % \psi_S(x) = (1 + [\sigma/(4N)] \Delta)^N \psi(x)
24: % N and \sigma are such that [\sigma/(4N)] = 0.1
25: The resulting $8\times8$ correlation function is first truncated
26: to an $N\times N$ one projecting with the $N$ eigenvectors
27: of $C(t_i)$ with the largest eigenvalues. Here $t_i$ is taken to be
28: roughly 0.2 fm (i.e.\ $t_i=2a$ at $\beta=6.0219$ and $3a$ at
29: $\beta=6.2885$).
30: With $N$ not too large,
31: this avoids numerical instabilities and large statistical
32: errors in the GEVP\cite{gevp:bern}.
33: We present our results for the spectrum and for the decay constant below.
34:
35: %\subsection{Spectrum}
36:
37: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
38: \begin{figure}[htb]
39: \begin{center}
40: \hspace*{-1.2cm}
41: \epsfig{file=plots/Estat0_rich2_b6.3.ps,width=6.4cm,angle=270}
42: \hspace*{-2.2cm}
43: \epsfig{file=plots/Estat1_rich2_b6.3.ps,width=6.4cm,angle=270}
44: \hspace*{-1.cm}
45: \end{center}
46: \caption{\footnotesize{\sl The estimate $a E_n^{\rm eff,\stat}(t,t_0)$,
47: $n=1,2$,
48: as a function of $t$, for $N=2,3,4,5$ from top to bottom at $a=0.07\,\fm$.
49: The curves are $E_n + \alpha_N\, \rme^{-\Delta E_{N+1,1}\, t}$
50: (see comment about $\Delta E_{N+1,1}$ in the text).
51: The coefficients $\alpha_N$ are fitted for each $N$.
52: } }
53: \label{f:E163}
54: \end{figure}
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: \Fig{f:E163} shows the effective energies
57: \eq{e:eneff} for the lowest two levels at $a=0.07\,\fm$.
58: Statistical errors for the ground-state effective energy
59: are below a level of about $3\,\MeV$ for time
60: separations $t\leq1\,\fm$. Unexpectedly, these errors
61: are roughly independent of $t_0$ and of $N\leq5$.
62: The functional form of the systematic corrections
63: \eq{e:corren} works very well down to surprisingly small
64: $t$ and the independence of $t_0$ is confirmed by the
65: data. Since the corrections are well understood to be below
66: the $\MeV$--level for $t>0.6\,\fm\,, N\geq4$, we may quote
67: for example
68: $E_1^{\stat}$ with a total error of about $1\,\MeV$.
69: We emphasize that what counts is of course the time separation
70: in physical units. The data at the coarser lattice spacing
71: are very similar.
72:
73: For this analysis, the energy gaps on the coarser
74: lattice,
75: $a\Delta E_{N+1,1} \approx 0.46, 0.65, 0.83$,
76: respectively for $N = 2, 3, 4$,
77: have been taken from
78: plateaux of $a E_n^{\rm eff,\stat}(t,t_0)$ for $N=6$.
79: They have then been appropriately rescaled with the lattice spacing.
80: A similar procedure has been used for $a \Delta E_{N+1,2}$.
81:
82: %\subsection{Decay constant}
83:
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85: \begin{figure}[htb]
86: \begin{center}
87: %\epsfig{file=plots/psi_eff_b63,width=6.5cm,angle=270}
88: \epsfig{file=plots/psi_eff_rich2_b6.3.ps,width=6.5cm,angle=270}
89: \end{center}
90: \caption{\footnotesize{\sl Bare effective static decay constant
91: as a function of $t_0$ for different values of $t-t_0$ at $a=0.07\,\fm$.
92: The curves are $F + \alpha_N\, \rme^{-\Delta E_{N+1,1}\, t_0}$
93: (see comment about $\Delta E_{N+1,1}$ in the text).
94: \label{f:psi63}
95: } }
96: \end{figure}
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98:
99: \Fig{f:psi63} shows the effective decay constant, \eq{e:corren},
100: at the smaller
101: lattice spacing. The leading corrections again dominate
102: at small time already. For $N=5$ there is a rather early plateau around
103: $t_0=0.4\,\fm$, where both excited-state corrections are well below
104: the \% level and the statistical errors are around 0.7\,\%.
105: The same statements hold for $a=0.10\,\fm$. Note that we fit the
106: corrections separately for each $t-t_0$ and $N$ as a function of $t_0$.
107: The decay of the fit parameters $\alpha_N$ as a
108: function of $t-t_0$ is of the expected form \eq{e:corrp1}.
109:
110: \section{Conclusions}
111: From a detailed analysis of the corrections
112: to the eigen--values and vectors of the GEVP,
113: it becomes clear that $t_0$ should not be made too
114: small. In particular if $t_0\geq t/2$, the simple
115: forms \eq{e:corren}, \eq{e:corrpn} can be shown. These
116: corrections decay exponentially with the large gaps $E_{N+1}-E_n$.
117: For first-order corrections in an effective theory
118: a similar suppression holds, with the energy differences of the
119: lowest-order theory.
120:
121: As pointed out to us at the conference,
122: the authors of \cite{gevp:dudek} studied the GEVP for a toy model with ten states
123: and noted that it is relevant to have $t_0$ ``large enough''.
124: Fig.17 of \cite{gevp:dudek} indeed
125: illustrates that the effective energies become independent of $t_0$ when
126: (roughly) $t_0 \geq t/2$ is respected.\\[1ex]
127:
128: