1: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long
2: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.
3: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.
4: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal
5: % Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes
6: % Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear
7: % Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear
8: \documentclass[aps,prd,superscriptaddress,amsmath,groupedaddress,twocolumn,floatfix]{revtex4}
9: %\documentclass[aps,prd,superscriptaddress,amsmath,groupedaddress,preprint,floatfix,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
10:
11: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
12: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS
13: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line
14: % below if necessary.
15: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
16: \usepackage{color,graphicx,dcolumn,hhline}
17: %\usepackage[color]{showkeys}
18: \newcommand{\msbar}{\text{$\overline{\text{MS}}$}}
19: \newcommand{\naive}{\text{na\"\i ve}}
20: \def\cO{{\cal O}}
21: \def\chpt{\raise0.4ex\hbox{$\chi$}PT}
22: \def\schpt{S\raise0.4ex\hbox{$\chi$}PT}
23: \def\gtwid{$\,$\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}$\,$}
24: \def\ltwid{$\,$\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}$\,$}
25: \def\MeV{{\rm Me\!V}}
26: \def\GeV{{\rm Ge\!V}}
27: \def\eq#1{Eq.~(\ref{eq:#1})}
28: \def\et{{\it et al.}}
29:
30: % For preprint version
31: \newcommand{\tmpgreen}{green }
32: \newcommand{\tmpmagenta}{magenta }
33: % for PRD version
34: %\newcommand{\tmpgreen}{} %gray
35: %\newcommand{\tmpmagenta}{}
36: \begin{document}
37: %\preprint{CLNS-XXXX/XX}
38: \title{First determination of the strange and light quark masses from full
39: lattice QCD}
40: %Institutions alphabetical; ignore "Physics Dept" or "University"
41: \affiliation{American Physical Society, One Research Road, Box 9000, Ridge, NY 11961, USA}
42: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
43: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA}
44: %\affiliation{DAMTP, Cambridge University, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK}
45: \affiliation{Laboratory of Elementary-Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}
46: \affiliation{School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK}
47: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK}
48: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA}
49: \affiliation{Physics Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA}
50: \affiliation{Physics Department, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA 95211, USA}
51: \affiliation{Physics Department, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada}
52: \affiliation{Physics Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA}
53: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Washington University, St.~Louis, MO 63130, USA}
54: \author{${}^{b}$C.~Aubin}\affiliation{Department of Physics, Washington University, St.~Louis, MO 63130, USA}
55: \author{\ ${}^{b}$C.~Bernard}\affiliation{Department of Physics, Washington University, St.~Louis, MO 63130, USA}
56: \author{\ ${}^{a,c}$C.~T.~H.~Davies}\affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK}
57: \author{\ ${}^{b}$C.~DeTar}\affiliation{Physics Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA}
58: \author{\ ${}^{b}$Steven~Gottlieb}\affiliation{Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA}
59: \author{\ ${}^{a,c}$A.~Gray}\affiliation{Physics Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA}
60: \author{\ ${}^{b}$E.~B.~Gregory}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
61: \author{\ ${}^{a,c}$J.~Hein}\affiliation{School of Physics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK}
62: \author{\ ${}^{b}$U.~M.~Heller}\affiliation{American Physical Society, One Research Road, Box 9000, Ridge, NY 11961, USA}
63: \author{\ ${}^{b}$J.~E.~Hetrick}\affiliation{Physics Department, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA 95211, USA}
64: \author{\ ${}^{a}$G.~P.~Lepage}\affiliation{Laboratory of Elementary-Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}
65: \author{\ ${}^{a,c}$Q.~Mason}%\email{Q.J.Mason@damtp.cam.ac.uk}
66: %\affiliation{DAMTP, Cambridge University, Cambridge, CB3 0WA, UK}
67: \affiliation{Laboratory of Elementary-Particle Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA}
68: \author{\ ${}^{b}$J.~Osborn}\affiliation{Physics Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA}
69: \author{\ ${}^{a}$J.~Shigemitsu}\affiliation{Physics Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA}
70: \author{\ ${}^{b}$R.~Sugar}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA}
71: \author{\ ${}^{b}$D.~Toussaint}\affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA}
72: \author{\ ${}^{a}$H.~Trottier}\affiliation{Physics Department, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada}
73: \author{\ ${}^{a}$M.~Wingate}\affiliation{Institute for Nuclear Theory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA}
74: \collaboration{${}^a$HPQCD, ${}^b$MILC, ${}^c$UKQCD}
75: %\email[]{Your e-mail address}
76: %\homepage[]{Your web page}
77: %\thanks{}
78: %\altaffiliation{}
79: %\affiliation{}
80:
81: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress
82: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be
83: %used with the \author command).
84: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.
85: \noaffiliation
86:
87: \date{\today}
88:
89: \begin{abstract}
90: We compute the strange quark mass $m_s$ and
91: the average of the $u$ and $d$ quark masses $\hat m$
92: using full lattice QCD with three dynamical quarks
93: combined with the experimental values for the
94: $\pi$ and $K$ masses. The simulations have degenerate
95: $u$ and $d$ quarks with masses $m_u=m_d\equiv\hat m$
96: as low as $m_s/8$, and two different values of the
97: lattice spacing. The bare lattice quark masses
98: obtained are converted to the $\msbar$ scheme using perturbation
99: theory at $\cal{O}$$(\alpha_S)$. Our results are:
100: $m_s^\msbar(2\,\GeV) = 76(0)(3)(7)(0)\;\MeV$,
101: $\hat m^\msbar(2\,\GeV) = 2.8(0)(1)(3)(0)\; \MeV$, and
102: $m_s/\hat m = 27.4(1)(4)(0)(1)$,
103: where the errors are from statistics, simulation, perturbation theory,
104: and electromagnetic effects, respectively.
105:
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line
109: %\pacs{}
110: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this
111: %\keywords{}
112:
113: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords
114: \maketitle
115:
116:
117: \section{Introduction}
118: The masses of the strange
119: and light quarks are fundamental parameters
120: of the Standard Model that are {\it a priori} unknown and
121: must be determined from experiment.
122: This is
123: complicated, however, by confinement in QCD, so that quarks cannot be
124: observed as isolated particles. We can only determine their
125: masses by solving QCD for observable
126: quantities, such as hadron masses, as a function of the quark mass.
127: This can be accomplished with the numerical techniques of lattice QCD.
128: Precise knowledge of quark masses constrains Beyond
129: the Standard Model scenarios as well as providing
130: input for phenomenological calculations of Standard
131: Model physics.
132: The strange quark mass, in particular, is needed for various phenomenological
133: studies, including the important CP-violating quantity
134: $\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon$~\cite{Buras:1996dq}, where
135: its uncertainty severely limits the theoretical precision.
136:
137: Previously, shortcomings in the formulation of
138: QCD on the lattice and limitations in computing power have
139: meant that lattice calculations were forced to work
140: with an unrealistic QCD vacuum that either
141: ignored dynamical (sea) quarks or included only
142: $u$ and $d$ quarks with masses much heavier than in Nature.
143: This condemned determinations of the quark masses
144: to rather large systematic errors (10--20\%) arising from the
145: inconsistency of comparing such a theory with experiment.
146: The determination presented here
147: uses simulations with the improved
148: staggered quark formalism that have a much more
149: realistic QCD vacuum with two light dynamical
150: quarks and one strange dynamical quark.
151: We describe how the bare quark masses in
152: the lattice QCD Lagrangian can be fixed using
153: chiral perturbation theory to extrapolate lattice
154: results to the physical point, and how the lattice quark masses obtained can be
155: transformed to a continuum scheme (\msbar)
156: using lattice perturbation theory.
157: Working in the region of dynamical $u/d$
158: quark masses below $m_s/2$ and down to $m_s/8$ gives us control
159: of chiral extrapolations and avoids the
160: large systematic errors from dynamical
161: quark mass and unquenching effects that previous calculations
162: have had.
163:
164: Staggered quarks are fast to simulate. They
165: keep a remnant of chiral symmetry on
166: the lattice, and therefore give a
167: Goldstone pion mass which vanishes with the bare quark mass.
168: This allows the relatively simple determination of the
169: quark mass described here, which is not available, for example,
170: in the Wilson quark formalism.
171:
172: The staggered quark formalism does have several unwanted
173: features, however.
174: With the \naive\ staggered action,
175: large discretization errors appear, although they
176: are formally only $\mathcal{O}(a^2)$ or higher ($a$ is the lattice spacing). The
177: renormalization of operators to match a continuum
178: scheme can also be large and badly behaved in perturbation
179: theory. This is true, for example, for the mass
180: renormalization that is needed here. It turns out
181: that both problems have the same source, a particular form
182: of discretization error in the action, called ``taste violation,'' and
183: both are ameliorated by use of
184: the improved staggered formalism~\cite{Lepage:1998vj}.
185: The perturbation theory then shows small
186: renormalizations~\cite{Hein:2001kw,Lee:2002ui,Mason:2002mm} and
187: discretization errors are much reduced
188: ~\cite{Blum:1997uf,Bernard:1998mz,Orginos:1998ue}.
189: Empirically, taste violation remains
190: the most important discretization error in the improved theory, despite being
191: subleading to ``generic'' discretization errors. The Goldstone meson masses
192: we will discuss here are affected by this
193: at one-loop in the chiral expansion.
194: Staggered chiral perturbation theory
195: (\schpt)~\cite{Lee:1999zx,Bernard:2001yj,Aubin:2003mg,Aubin:2003ne}
196: allows us to control these effects and reduce discretization errors significantly.
197:
198: A more fundamental concern about staggered fermions is based on the need
199: to take the fourth root of the quark determinant to convert the four-fold
200: duplication of ``tastes'' into one quark flavor. It is possible that there are nonlocalities
201: in the continuum limit that would spoil the description of QCD at some
202: level.
203: %This introduces non-localities at finite lattice
204: %spacing, which could potentially spoil the description of QCD in
205: %the continuum limit.
206: Checks of the formalism against experimental results
207: \cite{Davies:2003ik,Aubin:2003ne,MILC_SPECTRUM,MILC_FPI,Gottlieb:2003bt},
208: make this unlikely, we believe, but further work along these lines is
209: crucial and continuing.
210:
211: \section{Lattice data}\label{sec:data}
212: The simulation data of the MILC collaboration~\cite{MILC_SPECTRUM,Bernard:2001av}
213: are analyzed; staggered quarks with leading errors at
214: $\mathcal{O}(\alpha_S a^2,a^4)$~\cite{Lepage:1998vj} and
215: one-loop Symanzik improved gluons with
216: tadpole-improvement~\cite{Luscher:1985zq,Alford:1995hw}. Two sets of configurations
217: are used: a ``coarse'' set at lattice spacing
218: $a\approx1/8$~fm and sea quark masses of $am'_u=am'_d\equiv a\hat m' =0.005$, 0.007, 0.01, 0.02, 0.03
219: with $am'_s=0.05$, and a ``fine'' set at $a\approx1/11$~fm with
220: sea quark masses of $a\hat m' =0.0062,$ 0.0124 and $am'_s=0.031$.
221: Here we use primes on the sea quark masses to emphasize that
222: these are the nominal quark masses used in the simulation, not the physical masses
223: $m_s$ or $\hat m\equiv (m_u +m_d)/2$.
224: The simulations are ``partially quenched,'' with a range of
225: valence masses from $m'_s$ down to $m'_s/10$ (coarse) and
226: $m'_s/5$ (fine), not necessarily equal to the sea quark masses, simulated
227: on each lattice.
228: It should be noted that the quark masses in lattice units quoted here
229: contain a factor of $u_{0P}$, the tadpole-improvement factor determined
230: from the fourth root of the average plaquette,
231: compared with a more conventional definition of quark mass~\cite{Lepage:1998vj}.
232: This is taken care of nonperturbatively before our renormalization below.
233:
234: The lattice spacing $a$ is determined ultimately from the
235: $\Upsilon^\prime$--$\Upsilon$ mass difference~\cite{agray}, a useful quantity because it is
236: approximately independent of quark masses, including the $b$-mass.
237: %and therefore does not need complicated iterative tuning.
238: An analysis of a wide range of other ``gold-plated'' hadron masses and
239: decay constants on these configurations shows agreement with
240: experiment at the 2--3\% level~\cite{Davies:2003ik}.
241: Gold-plated hadrons are stable
242: (in QCD), with masses at least $100\; \MeV$ below decay thresholds,
243: so their masses are well-defined both experimentally and
244: theoretically, important for fixing the parameters of QCD.
245: %It is particularly important
246: %hat only gold-plated hadrons are used to fix the
247: %arameters of QCD to avoid propagating unnecessary systematic
248: %rrors through the rest of the calculation.
249: The only gold-plated
250: light mesons available to fix $\hat m$ and $m_s$ are
251: the $\pi$ and $K$. There is none
252: with only $s$ valence quarks because the $\phi$ is unstable
253: and the pseudoscalar is strongly mixed. Baryons can provide an alternative,
254: the nucleon for $\hat m$ and the $\Omega$ for $m_s$, but
255: their statistical errors are large, and they are not very sensitive to
256: the quark masses.
257:
258: Our analysis uses \schpt\
259: \cite{Aubin:2003mg} to fit the
260: dependence of the results on the quark masses.
261: This dependence can then be extrapolated/interpolated to the point where
262: the (Goldstone) $\pi$ and $K$ have their physical masses, thereby
263: determining the bare lattice $\hat m$ and $m_s$.
264: At the level of precision at which we are working, and because we
265: take $m_u = m_d$, we must be careful about electromagnetic (EM)
266: and isospin-violating effects.
267: At lowest nontrivial order in $e^2$ and the quark masses, Dashen's theorem
268: \cite{Dashen:eg} states that
269: $m^2_{\pi^+}$ and $m^2_{K^+}$ receive equal EM
270: contributions; while the $\pi^0$ and $K^0$ masses are unaffected. However,
271: at next order, there can be large and different contributions to $m^2_{\pi^+}$ and $m^2_{K^+}$ of
272: order $e^2m_K^2$ \cite{Donoghue:hj,Urech:1994hd,Bijnens:1996kk}.
273: Let $\Delta_E$ \cite{Nelson-thesis} parameterize violations of Dashen's theorem:
274: $(m^2_{K^+}-m^2_{K^0})_{\rm EM}= (1 + \Delta_E)(m^2_{\pi^+}-m^2_{\pi^0})_{\rm EM}$.
275: Then Refs.~\cite{Donoghue:hj,Urech:1994hd,Bijnens:1996kk} suggest $\Delta_E\approx 1$.
276:
277: %Since our simulations take $m_u=m_d$, we need to extract quantities that are insensitive to isospin violations.
278: Including EM and isospin effects, the physical values of $\hat m$ and $m_s$ can then be determined by
279: extrapolating the lattice squared meson masses to $m^2_{\hat \pi}\equiv m^2_{\pi^0}$ and
280: $m^2_{\hat K}\equiv (m_{K^0}^2 + m_{K^+}^2 -(1+\Delta_E) ( m_{\pi^+}^2 - m_{\pi^0}^2))/2$, using experimental
281: values on the right hand side of these expressions.
282: We are neglecting $\cO((m_u-m_d)^2)$ corrections, which should be tiny \cite{GASSER_LEUTWYLER}.
283: EM contributions to the neutral particle masses are also neglected,
284: and we take account of this in our error.
285: For the $\pi^0$ the violation of Dashen's theorem
286: is $\cO(e^2m_\pi^2/(8\pi^2f_{\pi}^2))$ and negligible. For
287: $m^2_{K^0}$ the violation is in principle
288: the same order as for $m_{K^+}^2$ \cite{Urech:1994hd}, but in model
289: calculations \cite{Bijnens:1996kk} it appears to be
290: very small. To be conservative, we consider EM contributions to $m^2_{K^0}$ of
291: order of half the violations of Dashen's theorem, with unknown sign.
292: %$(m_{K^0}^2)_{\rm EM}=\pm(\Delta_E/2)(m^2_{\pi^+}-m^2_{\pi^0})_{\rm EM}$.
293: Effectively,
294: this replaces $\Delta_E\approx 1$ in the formula for $m_{\hat K}^2$ above with the
295: range 0--2, which we take as the EM systematic error.
296: %is in any case a conservative range for $\Delta_E$. Below, we use
297: %$\Delta_E=1$ for central values, and the range $0\le\Delta_E\le2$ to estimate the
298: %EM systematic error.
299:
300: \section{Chiral Fits and Systematic Errors}
301:
302: Here we briefly describe the fits to \schpt\
303: theory forms and the estimate of the associated errors~\cite{Aubin:2003ne,MILC_FPI}.
304: Because the squared meson
305: masses ($M^2_{\rm meson}$) are nearly linear in the valence quark masses,
306: the final values of the quark masses
307: are quite insensitive to details of the chiral fits.
308: Chiral logs and NLO (and higher)
309: analytic terms only affect the results at the $\approx 5\%$ level.
310:
311: \schpt\ is a joint expansion in $x_q$ and $x_{a^2}$, which are dimensionless
312: measures of the size of quark mass and lattice spacing effects, respectively:
313: \begin{equation}
314: % CB factor of 2 different normalization from Peter
315: x_q \equiv \frac{2\mu m_q}{8\pi^2 f_\pi^2} ; \quad
316: x_{a^2} \equiv \frac{a^2\overline{\Delta}}{8\pi^2 f_\pi^2} \ .
317: \end{equation}
318: $m_q$ is the quark mass, ${2\mu m_q}$ is the tree-level mass of a $q\bar q$ meson,
319: and $f_\pi\approx 131\; \MeV$.
320: $a^2\overline{\Delta}$ is an average meson splitting between different tastes.
321: On the coarse lattices
322: $x_{a^2}\approx 0.09$; on the fine,
323: $x_{a^2}\approx 0.03$.
324:
325: For physical kaons, the relevant expansion parameter is
326: $x_{ud,s}\equiv (x_{ud}+x_s)/2\approx 0.18$. Since our lattice data is
327: very precise (0.1 to 0.7\% on $M^2_{\rm meson}$), it is clear that we cannot
328: expect NLO or even NNLO \chpt\ to work well up to the kaon mass. If however the
329: valence quark masses are limited by $m_x+m_y \ltwid 0.75m'_s$, we obtain
330: good fits including NNLO analytic terms. Such fits are consistent with \chpt\ expectations:
331: the coefficients of NLO and NNLO terms are $\cO(1)$ when these terms are expressed as functions of
332: $x_q$ and $x_{a^2}$. When fitting up to the strange mass
333: we include NNNLO as well as NNLO terms, but satisfy the chiral constraints by
334: fixing the NLO terms from lower mass fits. Since the $s$ quark mass can be
335: reached in simulations, the
336: form of the NNLO and NNNLO terms is not important;
337: such terms simply allow for a reasonable interpolation to the physical $m_s$.
338:
339: Both decay constant and $M^2_{\rm meson}$ data and both coarse and fine
340: ensembles are fit simultaneously.
341: Although NLO taste-violations are explicitly included,
342: we allow for ``generic'' discretization errors by
343: using a Bayesian fit~\cite{gplbayes} that permits
344: physical parameters to change by
345: order $\alpha_S a^2 \Lambda^2_{QCD}\sim 2\%$
346: in going from the coarse to the fine configurations.
347:
348: The $\Upsilon$ system provides an absolute lattice scale,
349: but it is convenient to use the relative scale determined from $r_1$,
350: a parameter derived from the heavy quark potential~\cite{Sommer:1994ce,Bernard:2000gd},
351: to compare accurately the scale for different sea quark masses
352: within the coarse or fine set. $\Upsilon$ splittings give
353: $r_1=0.317(7)(3)\;$fm \cite{MILC_SPECTRUM}.
354: Using the volume dependence calculated in NLO \schpt\ \cite{Bernard:2001yj,Aubin:2003mg},
355: (and tested against results on different volumes \cite{MILC_SPECTRUM})
356: the small finite-volume effects ($<$ 0.75\% in $M^2_{\rm meson}$ ) can be removed from our data with
357: negligible residual error.
358:
359: Figure~\ref{F:ChiExtrap} compares our fit with our partially quenched
360: data for $M^2_{\rm meson}$.
361: The data appear quite linear to the eye.
362: Indeed, linear fits
363: change our result for the quark masses by only $2$ to $7\%$,
364: depending on the fit range chosen and whether or not
365: the correlated decay constants are fit simultaneously.
366: However, since the statistical
367: errors in our data are so small, the
368: nonlinearities from chiral logs and higher order analytic terms are crucial for obtaining good fits:
369: linear fits have $\chi^2/{\rm dof}\! \sim\! 20$.
370: Nonlinear fits have a confidence level of 0.28, are crucial to obtaining Gasser-Leutwyler parameters and
371: affect the decay constants by $\sim\! 4$--$12\%$.
372:
373: \begin{figure}[t]%
374: \begin{center}%
375: {\includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=0,clip]{chiral_extrap_cb.ps}}%
376: \end{center}%
377: \caption{Partially quenched data for squared meson masses made out of valence
378: quarks $x$ and $y$ as a function of
379: $m_x/m'_s$.
380: We show results from two lattices: a coarse
381: lattice with sea quark masses $a\hat m'=0.01$, $am'_s=0.05$,
382: and a fine lattice with $a\hat m'=0.0062$,
383: $am'_s=0.031$. Three sets of ``kaon'' points
384: with $m_y=m'_s, 0.8 m'_s, 0.6 m'_s$, are plotted for
385: each lattice.
386: ``Pion'' points have $m_x=m_y$.
387: The solid lines come from a fit to all the data (not just that plotted).
388: The statistical errors in the points, as
389: well as the variation in the data with sea quark masses
390: are not visible on this scale.
391: The \tmpgreen dashed lines give the continuum fit described in
392: the text, and the \tmpmagenta vertical dotted line gives
393: the physical $\hat m/m_s$ obtained.}
394: \label{F:ChiExtrap}%
395: \end{figure}%
396:
397: We extrapolate/interpolate in mass on the coarse and fine lattices separately to find
398: the lattice values of the light and strange masses
399: that give $m^2_{\hat \pi}$ and $m^2_{\hat K}$.
400: We get $am_s$ = 0.0390(1)(20), $a\hat m$ = 0.00141(1)(8) on
401: the coarse lattices and 0.0272(1)(12) and 0.000989(3)(40) on the
402: fine, where errors are statistical and systematic. The
403: systematic errors are dominated by the chiral extrapolation/interpolation,
404: estimated by varying the fits,
405: and the scale uncertainty (EM effects account for the slight difference with~\cite{MILC_SPECTRUM}).
406: Alternatively one can
407: extrapolate the chiral fit parameters to the continuum,
408: setting taste-violating parameters zero, and then
409: perform the chiral extrapolation/interpolation to the
410: physical masses. This is shown as the dashed \tmpgreen
411: lines in Fig.~\ref{F:ChiExtrap}.
412: The methods give final \msbar\ masses that differ by less than 2\%. We choose the
413: first method for the central values and include the variation with method in the systematic error.
414:
415:
416: The same \schpt\ fits that produce the quark masses above give
417: Gasser-Leutwyler parameters in reasonable
418: agreement with phenomenological values~\cite{Aubin:2003ne} and
419: $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ in agreement with experiment~\cite{Davies:2003ik,Aubin:2003ne}.
420: Final results and all details
421: of the fits will be described in Ref.~\cite{MILC_FPI}.
422:
423: \begin{figure}[tb]
424: \begin{center}%
425: {\includegraphics[scale=0.35,angle=0,clip]{mscheck_color.ps}}%
426: \end{center}%
427: \caption{Lattice results for two masses which show sensitivity to $m_s$, plotted
428: against $\hat m'/m_s'$. The valence $s$ masses are
429: taken at the $m_s$ values determined here. The bursts give the corresponding experimental
430: result.
431: The squares are $2m_{B_{s,av}}-m_\Upsilon$ for two of the
432: coarse ensembles.
433: %OMIT: defined in text:
434: %, where $m_{B_{s,av}}$ is the spin-average mass of $B_s$
435: %and $B_s^*$.
436: The upper results are for the mass of the $\Omega$ ($sss$) baryon, on both coarse (diamonds) and fine
437: (crosses) ensembles.
438: \label{F:2mb_mups}}
439: \end{figure}
440:
441: %\section{Further Checks of $m_s$}
442: It is important to provide further checks of $m_s$ and $\hat m$ using
443: other gold-plated masses and mass differences. We focus on
444: $m_s$ because it has smaller statistical error and less dependence on chiral extrapolations.
445: From the heavy hadron sector
446: $2m_{B_{av},s} - m_{\Upsilon}$
447: is sensitive to $m_s$ but not to other masses. Here
448: $2m_{B_{av},s}$ is the $B_s$, $B_s^*$ spin-averaged mass, used
449: to reduce dependence on the coefficients of
450: relativistic corrections in the $b$-quark action. Note, however, that the $B_s^*$
451: is close to decay threshold and
452: may not be gold-plated.
453: Figure~\ref{F:2mb_mups} shows coarse-lattice data for this splitting.
454: The results are 2\% high, but this is also our estimate of discretisation
455: errors in the calculation (we do not expect sensitivity to
456: taste-violation~\cite{wingate}). This quantity then provides a check of
457: our $m_s$ determination at the 20\% level because the experimental splitting
458: varies only by $\approx$ 15\% in changing from $\hat m$ to $m_s$.
459: Figure~\ref{F:2mb_mups} also shows results for the $\Omega$
460: baryon mass, on both coarse and fine ensembles. Although
461: statistical errors are large there is a trend downwards on
462: the finer lattices and signs that a
463: continuum extrapolated result will agree with experiment.
464: An expected 2\% error on the final value for $m_{\Omega}$ would lead to a 6\%
465: determination
466: of $m_s$.
467: \section{Connecting $m^{\text{lattice}}$ with $m^{\msbar}$}\label{sec:perth}
468: The continuum quark mass in the conventional
469: modified Minimal Subtraction scheme is determined from:
470: \begin{equation}
471: m^{\msbar}(\mu)\! = \!\frac{(am)_0}{a} \left(1\!+\!\alpha_V(q^*)\,Z_m^{(2)}\!\left(a\mu,(am)_0\right)
472: +\mathcal{O}(\alpha^2)\right),
473: \end{equation}
474: where $(am)_0$ is the \emph{a posteriori} tuned bare
475: mass in lattice units obtained above, converted from the MILC convention by
476: dividing by $u_{0P}$.
477: $Z_m$ is the mass renormalization that
478: connects the bare lattice mass and the $\msbar$ mass.
479: The strong coupling constant in the $V$ scheme
480: is set using third order perturbative expressions for the
481: logarithms of small Wilson loops~\cite{Davies:2002mv,new_alpha} compared
482: with lattice results on these configurations.
483: The value obtained is run to an optimal scale $q^*$, chosen as described below.
484:
485: $Z_m$ is calculated by connecting the bare quark-mass to the pole-mass in
486: lattice perturbation theory~\cite{Hein:2001kw}, and using the pole
487: mass to $\msbar$ mass relation~\cite{Melnikov:2000qh} at one loop.
488: The lattice calculation was done both by hand and using automated
489: methods~\cite{Trottier:2003bw,Q:thesis}, which become increasingly
490: important for improved actions. The evaluation
491: has been checked to lower precision via a completely different method~\cite{Becher:2002if}.
492: Integrals were evaluated here using the numerical integration package, {\tt VEGAS}~\cite{Lepage:1978sw}. We find
493: \begin{equation}
494: \label{eq:Zm}
495: Z_m^{(2)}(a\mu,am_0) = \left(b(am_0)-\frac4{3\pi}-\frac2\pi\ln(a\mu)\right),
496: \end{equation}
497: where $b(am)\approx 0.5432-0.46(am)^2$, correct to 0.1\% up to $(am)=0.1$.
498: $\gamma_0=\frac2\pi$ is the universal one-loop anomalous mass dimension.
499: Naive staggered quarks have a poorly convergent $Z_m$ with
500: $b(0)\approx3.6$ as a result of
501: taste-violations.
502: It is clear that the improved staggered quark result is much better.
503: Tadpole-improvement is also important, because of
504: the long paths of gluon fields
505: required to suppress taste-violations.
506: Without tadpole-improvement $b(0)=2.27$.
507:
508: We match our lattice to the \msbar\ scheme at the target scale of
509: $2\;\GeV$, though the results and errors are not sensitive to this choice.
510: Because the mass renormalization has
511: an anomalous dimension, the optimal $q^*$ value for
512: $\alpha_V$ at this scale is dependent on $a$.
513: $q^*$ is set by a
514: second order BLM method~\cite{Hornbostel:2002af}. On the fine lattices, $q^*$ is
515: $1.80/a$~\cite{agray} %$4.08(5)\;\GeV$
516: and
517: $\alpha_V(q^*)=0.247(4)$ in $Z_m$.
518: On the
519: coarse lattices, $q^*=2.335/a$, %= 3.71(4)\;\GeV$,
520: giving $\alpha_V(q^*)= 0.252(5)$.
521: A conservative estimate of the perturbative error in $Z_m$,
522: informed by the chiral fits, is
523: $1.5 \times \alpha_V^2\approx\! 9\%$.
524:
525: This gives $m_s^\msbar$ values of 74.3 $\MeV$ on the fine lattices
526: and 72.3 $\MeV$ on the coarse lattices. Our central values are obtained by
527: extrapolating linearly in $\alpha_S a^2$, the size of the leading discretization errors.
528: Alternatives, such as a linear extrapolation in $\alpha^2_S a^2$, the size of taste-violations,
529: or a continuum-extrapolated chiral fit, give
530: results that vary by less than 1 MeV, which
531: we take as the extrapolation error and fold into the total systematic error.
532: Our final quark masses are:
533: \begin{eqnarray}
534: m_s^\msbar(2\,\GeV) & = & 76(0)(3)(7)(0)\; \MeV \\*
535: \hat m^\msbar(2\,\GeV) & = & 2.8(0)(1)(3)(0)\; \MeV \\*
536: m_s/\hat m & = & 27.4(1)(4)(0)(1) \ ,
537: \label{eq:results}
538: \end{eqnarray}
539: where the errors come from statistics, simulation systematics, perturbation theory,
540: and electromagnetic effects, respectively.
541: The systematic error includes the scale error in quadrature
542: with the chiral and continuum extrapolation errors.
543: The ratio $m_{s}/\hat m$ in \eq{results} is almost independent of the perturbation
544: theory.
545: It is also strongly constrained by the fact that $2m_K^2 - m_{\pi}^2$
546: is almost independent of light quark mass over a large
547: range. For our coarse lattices it increases by 2\% as $\hat m'$ changes
548: from $m_s'/5$ to $m_s'$; for the fine lattices by 4\%.
549:
550: \section{Comparison with previous determinations}
551: There is a long history of sum rule determinations of the strange
552: quark mass, with the general trend of decreasing values.
553: The current status~\cite{Gamiz:2002nu,Gupta:2001cu,Gupta:2003fn} is broad agreement between
554: results from scalar and pseudoscalar spectral functions and
555: from SU(3) breaking in $\tau$ hadronic decays, with $m_s$ around 100(20) MeV. The latter
556: method, however, is sensitive to the value of $|V_{us}|$.
557: %Using the Particle Data Group $|V_{us}|$ gives an average strange quark mass
558: %of 105$\pm$20 MeV.
559: Lattice results in the
560: quenched approximation give values around 100 MeV but
561: more recent results with two flavors of rather heavy dynamical
562: quarks give a smaller value around 90 MeV~\cite{Wittig:2002ux}.
563: Both quenched and $n_f = 2$ results suffer from the inherent systematic error
564: of comparing an unphysical theory with experiment: results
565: depend on what hadronic masses are used.
566: Some determinations also do not use
567: gold-plated quantities.
568: JLQCD~\cite{Kaneko:2003re} quote a preliminary $n_f$ = 3 result
569: of 75.6(3.4) MeV, not yet including discretization and finite volume errors.
570: They use clover quarks with $\hat m'\gtwid m_s/2$, setting
571: $a$ with the $\rho$ mass.
572:
573: Here we give results from $n_f = 3$ simulations
574: in the chiral regime.
575: % and at two different values of the
576: %lattice spacing.
577: Using gold-plated quantities
578: to fix the QCD parameters means that there is no remaining
579: ambiguity in the match between QCD and experiment.
580: The value we obtain for $m_s$ is lower than previous results,
581: but we maintain that it is based on a firmer footing.
582: It violates some quoted bounds from sum rules \cite{Lellouch:1997hp},
583: but these are open to question \cite{Gupta:2003fn}.
584: Our result for $m_s/\hat m$ is significantly larger than
585: that determined from NLO \chpt\ phenomenology \cite{Leutwyler:1996qg}, but
586: is compatible with a NNLO analysis \cite{Amoros:2001cp}.
587: We believe that existing staggered-quark results
588: \cite{Davies:2003ik,Aubin:2003ne,MILC_SPECTRUM,MILC_FPI}
589: make it unlikely that there are fundamental problems with the formalism we
590: are using.
591: \vspace*{2mm}
592:
593: \section{Conclusions}
594: Lattice QCD simulations with improved staggered quarks
595: have allowed a new determination of the strange and light quark
596: masses with much reduced systematic error:
597: our final values are $m_s^\msbar(2\,\GeV)=76(8)\;\MeV$;
598: $\hat m^\msbar(2\,\GeV)=2.8(3)\;\MeV$ (adding
599: errors in quadrature).
600: The current lattice simulation error
601: can be reduced still further
602: by generating ensembles with a second (lower) value of the sea strange quark mass and
603: is already underway.
604: The limiting factor for this determination is
605: no longer unquenching but the unknown higher
606: order terms in the perturbative mass
607: renormalization.
608: The two-loop calculation
609: is clearly needed to improve
610: our result significantly and is also underway.
611: The three-loop errors on masses that would then remain
612: would be only $\cal{O}$(2\%), putting the
613: determination into a new region of precision.
614:
615: %\acknowledgments
616: This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, the US National Science Foundation,
617: PPARC and the EU.
618: We thank George Fleming, Maarten Golterman, and Rajan Gupta for useful discussions.
619:
620: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
621: \bibitem{Buras:1996dq} A.\ J.\ Buras, M.\ Jamin and M.\ E.\ Lautenbacher, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B389}, 749 (1996).
622: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608365;%%
623: \bibitem{Lepage:1998vj} G.\ P.\ Lepage, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D59}, 074502 (1999).
624: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9809157;%%
625: \bibitem{Hein:2001kw} J.\ Hein \et, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106}), 236 (2002); H.\ Trottier \et, ibid, 856.
626: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0110045;%%
627: \bibitem{Lee:2002ui} W-J.\ Lee and S.\ R.\ Sharpe, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D66}, 114501 (2002).
628: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0208018;%%
629: \bibitem{Mason:2002mm} Q.\ Mason \et\ (HPQCD), Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 119}), 446 (2003).
630: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0209152;%%
631: \bibitem{Blum:1997uf} T.\ Blum \et, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55}, 1133 (1997).
632: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9609036;%%
633: \bibitem{Bernard:1998mz} C.\ Bernard \et\ (MILC), Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 014503 (1998);
634: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9712010;%%
635: Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 111502, (2000).
636: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9912018;%%
637: \bibitem{Orginos:1998ue} K.\ Orginos and D.\ Toussaint, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D59} 014501 (1999);
638: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9805009;%%
639: K.\ Orginos, D.\ Toussaint and R.\ L.\ Sugar, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60} 054503 (1999).
640: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9903032;%%
641: \bibitem{Lee:1999zx} W-J.\ Lee and S.\ R.\ Sharpe, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60}, 114503 (1999).
642: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9905023;%%
643: \bibitem{Bernard:2001yj} C.\ Bernard (MILC), Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D65}, 054031 (2002).
644: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0111051;%%
645: \bibitem{Aubin:2003mg} C.\ Aubin and C.\ Bernard (MILC), Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D68}, 034014 (2003);
646: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0304014;%%
647: ibid, 074011 (2003).
648: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0306026;%%
649: \bibitem{Aubin:2003ne} C.\ Aubin \et\ (MILC), Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 129}), 227 (2004).
650: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0306026;%%
651: \bibitem{Davies:2003ik} C.\ T.\ H.\ Davies \et\ (Fermilab, HPQCD, MILC, UKQCD), Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} 022001 (2004).
652: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0309088;%%
653: \bibitem{MILC_SPECTRUM} C.\ Aubin \et\ (MILC), hep-lat/0402030.
654: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0402030;%%
655: \bibitem{MILC_FPI} C.\ Aubin \et\ (MILC), in preparation.
656: \bibitem{Gottlieb:2003bt} S.\ Gottlieb, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 129}), 17 (2004).
657: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310041;%%
658: % added:
659: \bibitem{Bernard:2001av} C.\ Bernard \et\ Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 054506 (2001).
660: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0104002;%%
661:
662: \bibitem{Luscher:1985zq} M.\ L\"{u}scher and P.\ Weisz, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B158}, 250 (1985).
663: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B158,250;%%
664: \bibitem{Alford:1995hw} M.\ Alford \et, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B361}, 87 (1995).
665: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9507010;%%
666: \bibitem{agray} A.\ Gray \et, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 119}) 592 (2003).
667: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0209022;%%
668: \bibitem{Dashen:eg} R.~F.~Dashen, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 183}, 1245 (1969).
669: %%CITATION = PHRVA,183,1245;%%
670: \bibitem{Donoghue:hj} J.~F.~Donoghue, B.~R.~Holstein and D.~Wyler, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 2089 (1993).
671: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,2089;%%
672: \bibitem{Urech:1994hd} R.~Urech, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 433}, 234 (1995).
673: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9405341;%%
674: \bibitem{Bijnens:1996kk} J.~Bijnens and J.~Prades, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 490}, 239 (1997).
675: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610360;%%
676: \bibitem{Nelson-thesis} D.\ Nelson, hep-lat/0212009.
677: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0212009;%%
678: \bibitem{GASSER_LEUTWYLER} J.~Gasser and H.~Leutwyler, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B250}, 465 (1985).
679: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B250,465;%%
680: \bibitem{gplbayes} G.\ P.\ Lepage \et, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106}) 12 (2002).
681: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208224;%%
682: \bibitem{Sommer:1994ce} R.\ Sommer, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B411}, 839 (1994).
683: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9310022;%%
684: \bibitem{Bernard:2000gd} C.\ Bernard \et, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 034503 (2000).
685: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0002028;%%
686: \bibitem{wingate} M.\ Wingate \et, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 67} 054505 (2003).
687: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0211014;%%
688: \bibitem{Davies:2002mv} C.\ Davies \et, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 119}) 595 (2003).
689: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0209122;%%
690: \bibitem{new_alpha} Q.\ Mason, H.\ Trottier \et, in preparation.
691: \bibitem{Melnikov:2000qh} K.\ Melnikov and T.\ v.\ Ritbergen, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B482}, 99 (2000).
692: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912391;%%
693: \bibitem{Trottier:2003bw} H.\ D.\ Trottier, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 129}), 142 (2004).
694: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310044;%%
695: \bibitem{Q:thesis} Q.\ Mason (2003), Cornell University, PhD thesis.
696: \bibitem{Becher:2002if} T.\ Becher and K.\ Melnikov, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D66}, 074508 (2002).
697: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207201;%%
698: \bibitem{Lepage:1978sw} G.\ P.\ Lepage, J.\ Comput.\ Phys.\ {\bf 27}, 192 (1978).
699: %%CITATION = JCTPA,27,192;%%
700: \bibitem{Hornbostel:2002af} K.\ Hornbostel, G.\ P.\ Lepage and C.\ Morningstar, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D67}, 034023 (2003).
701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208224;%%
702: \bibitem{Gamiz:2002nu} E.\ Gamiz \et, JHEP {\bf 01}, 060 (2003).
703: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309172;%%
704: \bibitem{Gupta:2001cu} R.\ Gupta and K.\ Maltman, Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf A16S1B}, 591 (2001).
705: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101132;%%
706: \bibitem{Gupta:2003fn} R.\ Gupta, hep-ph/0311033.
707: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311033;%%
708: \bibitem{Wittig:2002ux} H.\ Wittig, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 119}) 59 (2003).
709: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0210025;%%
710: \bibitem{Kaneko:2003re} T.~Kaneko {\it et al.} (CP-PACS, JLQCD), Nucl.\ Phys.\ B (Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 129}), 188 (2004).
711: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0309137;%%
712: \bibitem{Lellouch:1997hp} L.\ Lellouch, E.\ de Rafael and J.\ Taron, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B414}, 195 (1997).
713: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707523;%%
714: \bibitem{Leutwyler:1996qg} H.\ Leutwyler, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B378}, 313 (1996).
715: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602366;%%
716: \bibitem{Amoros:2001cp} G.~Amoros, J.~Bijnens and P.~Talavera, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 602}, 87 (2001).
717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101127;%%
718: \end{thebibliography}
719: \end{document}
720:
721: