1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \chapter{Data analysis}\label{analysis}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: This chapter addresses the analysis of the data which were obtained from the Monte-Carlo simulations of lattice QCD in the quenched approximation. The continuum limit was taken for the decay constant and the mass splitting of the ${\rm {D_s^{(\ast)}}}$-meson and the renormalization group invariant charm quark mass. The combined analysis of the simulation results for a number of heavy quark masses around the charm quark mass, together with predictions and simulation results from HQET, allowed to determine the decay constant of the ${\rm B_s^{(\ast)}}$-meson and the corresponding mass splitting at the physical point from an interpolation in the meson mass. Furthermore, estimates for the magnitude of the first spin- and flavor-symmetry breaking terms in the $1/M_Q$-expansion in HQET could be given.
5: \section{Data analysis - general remarks}\label{dataanalysis}
6: The results and errors from the simulations at all values of $\beta$ have been obtained from statistical samples %(cf. table \ref{scalingparams})
7: of the primary quantities
8: \be\ba{rl}
9: f_{ O}(x_0), g_{ O}(T-x_0)&{\rm for}\; O=A,\,V,\,P,\,T\; {\rm and}\\
10: \\
11: f_{ O}^T&{\rm for}\; O=P,\,V,
12: %f_A(x_0),\;f_P(x_0),\;k_V(x_0),\;k_T(x_0),\;f_1,\;k_1,\\
13: %g_A(x_0),\;g_P(x_0),\;l_V(x_0),\;l_T(x_0),\\
14: \ea
15: \ee
16: over the whole range of $x_0\in[a,T-a]$, using the jackknife method. The correlation functions for the forward and the backward direction $f_{ O}(x_0)$ and $g_{O}(T-x_0)$ have been averaged at each step of the Monte-Carlo history\footnote{This is possible only for vanishing background field in the Schr\"odinger Functional.},
17: \be
18: f_{ O}(x_0)\equiv \oh(f_{O}(x_0)+g_{ O}(T-x_0)).
19: \ee
20: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
21: %\subsection{Secondary quantities}
22: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
23: Using the improvement and renormalization constants introduced in section \ref{imprandrenormconstants}, the secondary quantities
24: \be\ba{c}\label{2ndaryquant}
25: \fPS,\; \fV,\; \fPS/\fV,\; m_{\rm PS},\; m_{\rm V},\; \mPS-\mV \;{\rm and}\\% $m_{\rm PS}^2-m_{\rm V}^2$\\
26: \\
27: {{Y_{\rm PS}}\over{C_{\rm PS}}},\;{Y_{\rm V}\over C_{\rm V}},\; {R\over C_{\rm PS/V}},\;\frac{\Delta m}{{C_{\rm spin}}}\\%, ${m_{\rm av}\over{C_{\rm mass}}M_Q}$ \\
28: \ea\ee
29: were constructed from them following the definitions in section \ref{meffandfds} and section \ref{asymptotics}. No autocorrelation in the data was observed.
30:
31: The renormalization and improvement coefficients are only known up to statistical and systematic errors from their determination in lattice simulations. % or up to an error due to the finite order in perturbation theory.
32: In order to take this error properly into account, a statistical sample of all constants with a Gaussian distribution around their mean and with the width defined by their error was generated, using a pseudo random number generator (\verb|randn| in MATLAB). These samples were handed over to the jackknife routine and then treated in the same way as the Monte-Carlo data of the primary observables.
33:
34: The error due to perturbation theory in the conversion functions $C_{\rm X}(M_Q/\Lambda_{\MSbar})$ as listed in table \ref{parametrizations} has been taken into account by error propagation.
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: \subsection{Plateaus}
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39: First, jackknife results were determined for the effective mass
40: \be\ba{rcl}
41: m^{\rm X}_{\rm eff}(x_0+{a\over 2})&=&{1\over a}\ln\left(\frac{f^I_{ O}(x_0)}{f^I_{ O}(x_0+{a})}\right).\\
42: \ea\ee
43: \begin{figure}
44: % fdsplots.m and effmplots.m
45: \begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
46: \centering
47: \psfrag{x0}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
48: \psfrag{r0mPS}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0m_{\rm PS}^{\rm eff}(x_0)$}
49: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/mPSfAI513.eps}\\[3ex]
50: \psfrag{x0}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
51: \psfrag{r0mPS}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0{\rm F_{PS}}(x_0)$}
52: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/fds513.eps}
53: \end{minipage}
54: \begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
55: \centering
56: \psfrag{x0}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
57: \psfrag{r0mPS}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0m_{\rm V}^{\rm eff}(x_0)$}
58: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/mVkVI513.eps}\\[3ex]
59: \psfrag{x0}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
60: \psfrag{r0mPS}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0{\rm F_V}(x_0)$}
61: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/fdsstar513.eps}
62: \end{minipage}\\[1ex]
63: \caption{Plot of the effective mass $m_{\rm X}^{\rm eff}$ and the decay constant ${\rm F_X}(x_0)$ at $\beta=6.7859$ for the combination of hopping parameters $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_3$.}\label{repeffmass}
64: \end{figure}
65: Figure \ref{repeffmass} shows the results for the combination $\kappa_1-\kappa_3$ of hopping parameters at $\beta_5=6.7859$.
66: As expected from (\ref{effectivemass}), the effective mass exhibits a plateau for intermediate times, and contributions from excited states of mass $\Delta$ and glueballs of mass $m_{\rm G}$ for small and large times $x_0$, respectively.
67:
68: The meson mass $m_{\rm X}$ can be extracted as the average over the plateau.
69: In order to keep the systematic errors in $m_{\rm X}$ due to contaminations by excited states under control, the time interval, where their relative contributions are below a chosen threshold was determined. The thresholds that have been used are given in table \ref{thresholdvals}. Thus, the statistical error will always exceeds the systematic error. The time interval, or plateau range, can be determined by means of the following iterative procedure:
70:
71: One first subjectively chooses a sensible plateau range and subtracts the average over the plateau from the data.
72:
73:
74:
75: \begin{table}
76: \centering
77: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
78: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
79: $r_0m_{\rm PS}$ &$r_0m_{\rm V}$ &$r_0{\rm F_{PS}}$ &$r_0{\rm F_{V}}$\\
80: \\
81: $0.5\%$ &$0.7\%$ &$0.5\%$ &$0.7\%$\\[1ex]
82: \hline\hline
83: \end{tabular}
84: \caption{Thresholds for the accepted contribution of excited states to the plateau range.}\label{thresholdvals}
85: \end{table}
86:
87: \bi
88: \item[1.)]
89: From the logarithm of this data, estimates for the contributions (cf. (\ref{effectivemass}))
90: \be\ba{c}\label{exccontrib}
91: {2 \sinh(a\Delta/2)}\eta^{q_{{\rm X}}}_{{\rm X}}e^{-x_0\Delta},\;\;{2 \sinh(a m_{\rm G}/2)}\eta^{0}_{{\rm X}}e^{-(T-x_0)m_{\rm G}}\\
92: \ea
93: \ee
94: to the effective mass can be obtained in terms of linear fits to the time dependence for small and large times. The fit ranges have to be chosen subjectively. This procedure is illustrated in figure \ref{thresholds}, again for $\kappa_1-\kappa_3$ at $\beta=6.7859$. The data sometimes does not exhibit a clear linear behavior and the fit range cannot be chosen without ambiguities. Therefore, the extracted glueball masses and mass gaps can only be interpreted as estimates, which however suffices for the purposes here.
95: \item[2.)]
96: The sum of the relative contributions of excited meson states and glueballs to the plateau as a function of the time $x_0$ is shown in figure \ref{estimateplots}. The new plateau range is defined as the time interval, where this contribution is below the threshold given in table \ref{thresholdvals}.
97: \item[3.)]
98: The procedure can be repeated with the newly defined plateau average, until the plateau range is stable, which usually occurs after one or two iterations.
99: \ei
100: \begin{figure}
101: % systplots.m
102: \centering
103: \begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
104: \centering
105: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
106: \psfrag{logr0mPSfAI513mplateau}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize$\log|r_0(m^{\rm eff}_{\rm PS}(x_0)-m_{\rm PS}^{\rm plateau})|$}
107: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/systmPSfAI513.eps}\\[3ex]
108: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
109: \psfrag{logr0fds513mplateau}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize$\log|r_0({\rm F_{PS}}(x_0)-{\rm F}_{\rm PS}^{\rm plateau})|$}
110: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/systfds513.eps}
111: \end{minipage}
112: \begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
113: \centering
114: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
115: \psfrag{logr0mVkVI513mplateau}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize$\log|r_0(m^{\rm eff}_{\rm V}-m_{\rm V}^{\rm plateau})|$}
116: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/systmVkVI513.eps}\\[3ex]
117: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
118: \psfrag{logr0fdsstar513mplateau}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize$\log|r_0({\rm F_{V}}(x_0)-{\rm F}_{\rm V}^{\rm plateau})|$}
119: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/effmasses/systfdsstar513.eps}
120: \end{minipage}\\[1ex]
121: \caption{Fits to the logarithm of the subtracted effective mass and the subtracted decay constant. The slope of the linear fits give an estimate for the mass gap $\Delta$ (dashed line) and the glueball mass $m_{\rm G}$ (dash-dotted line). The dotted lines indicate the corresponding fit range in each case.}\label{thresholds}
122: \end{figure}
123:
124:
125: \begin{figure}
126: % systplots.m
127: \begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
128: \centering
129: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
130: \psfrag{relerr}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize relative error in $m_{\rm PS}^{\rm eff}(x_0)$}
131: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/plots/systmPS513.eps}\\[3ex]
132: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
133: \psfrag{relerr}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize relative error in ${\rm F_{PS}}(x_0)$}
134: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/plots/systfds513.eps}
135: \end{minipage}
136: \hspace{.2cm}
137: \begin{minipage}{.49\linewidth}
138: \centering
139: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
140: \psfrag{relerr}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize relative error in $m_{\rm V}^{\rm eff}(x_0)$}
141: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/plots/systmV513.eps}\\[3ex]
142: \psfrag{x0oa}[t][c][1][0]{\large $x_0/a$}
143: \psfrag{relerr}[c][c][1][0]{\footnotesize relative error in ${\rm F_{V}}(x_0)$}
144: \epsfig{scale = .5,file=./bildla/plots/systfdsstar513.eps}
145: \end{minipage}\\[1ex]
146: \caption{Estimated systematic contribution to the plateau due to excited meson states (dashed line), due to glueballs (dash-dotted line) and the sum of both contributions (solid line). The plateau average is taken over the range, where both contributions are below the threshold (indicated by the bold dashed line).}\label{estimateplots}
147: \end{figure}
148:
149: One finally obtains the meson mass $m_{\rm X}$ as the average over all the plateau ranges listed in table \ref{plateauranges} in the appendix. They typically extend over $1r_0$ to $1.5r_0$ and their position approximately scales with $\beta$.
150: The estimates for the glueball mass have been summarized in table \ref{mG}. The values given there for each value of $\beta$ are the averages over the fits obtained from the six hopping parameter combinations $\kappa_1-\kappa_2\dots\kappa_1-\kappa_7$. The estimates for the gap energy are tabulated in table \ref{gaps}.
151:
152: With the plateau ranges of $m_{\rm X}$ at hand, one now has to repeat the procedure for the decay constant
153: \be\ba{rcl}
154: \rm{F}_{\rm X}(x_0)&=&-2Z_{O}(m_{\rm X}L^3)^{-1/2}\,e^{(x_0-T/2)m_{\rm X}}\frac{f_{ O}(x_0)}{\sqrt{f_O^T}}.\\
155: \ea\ee
156: Here, the contributions of the excited states to the plateau are of the form
157: \be\ba{c}\label{exccontrib}
158: \eta_{{{\rm X}}}^{{q_{\rm X}}}\,e^{-x_0\Delta},\; \;\eta_{{{\rm X}}}^{0}\,e^{-(T-x_0)m_{\rm G}}. \\
159: \ea\ee
160: Representative plots of the procedure are shown next to the ones for the effective mass in the figures \ref{repeffmass} to \ref{estimateplots}.
161:
162:
163: Although feasible in principle, a continuum limit for the glueball mass has not been taken because of the uncertainties in the determination of the corresponding fit ranges. But even at finite lattice spacing, the data is mostly compatible with the glueball mass of the $0^{++}$-glueball as obtained in the dedicated lattice simulations and summarized in table \ref{mGlit}.
164:
165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
166: \begin{table}
167: \centering
168: \begin{tabular}{crrrr}
169: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
170: &$r_0m_{\rm G,F_{PS}}$&$r_0m_{\rm G,F_{V}}$&$r_0m_{\rm G,m^{\rm eff}_{PS}}$&$r_0m_{\rm G,m^{\rm eff}_{V}}$\\
171: \\[-2ex]
172: % data compiled with deltaglue.m
173: \input{./tables/glue.txt} [1ex]
174: \hline\hline
175: \end{tabular}
176: \caption{Estimates for the glueball mass. In the case $r_0m_{\rm G,F_{V}}$ at $\beta_1$, the data was too noisy to allow for a sensible fit. }\label{mG}
177: \end{table}
178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
179: \begin{table}
180: \centering
181: \begin{tabular}{lcl}
182: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
183: Collab. &&$r_0m_{0^{++}}$ \\[1ex]
184: Morningstar \emph{et. al.} &\cite{Morningstar:1999rf} &4.21(11)(4) \\
185: Bali \emph{et. al.} &\cite{Vaccarino:1999ku} &4.33(10)\\
186: Teper &\cite{Teper:1998kw} &4.35(11) \\
187: UKQCD &\cite{Bali:1993fb} &4.05(16) \\
188: Niedermayer \emph{et. al.} &\cite{Niedermayer:2000yx} &4.12(21)\\[1ex]
189: \hline\hline\\
190: \end{tabular}\caption{Lattice data for the lowest glueball mass ($0^{++}$) in the continuum with (combined) statistical and systematic errors.}\label{mGlit}
191: \end{table}
192:
193: For the determination of the charm quark mass using the PCAC-relation, no plateau average over the involved correlation functions has been taken, as the statistical errors turned out to be very small. Instead, the value at $x_0=2/3T$ was used, where the contamination by excited states was reasonably small.
194:
195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
196: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
197: \subsection{Interpolation in the meson mass}\label{cutoff}
198: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
199: The observables at different quark masses but at constant $\beta$ have been evaluated on the same set of gauge configurations and are therefore correlated. Indeed, the corresponding normalized covariance matrix of the observables which was determined in the jackknife procedure has large off-diagonal elements. It was checked, that this does not affect the error estimation in the data interpolation.
200:
201: \subsubsection{Interpolation to lines of constant physics}\label{interpolation}
202: The pseudo scalar and vector meson masses computed at each lattice spacing do not coincide exactly (cf. figure \ref{interpolpoints} and table \ref{tabplatav1} in the appendix).
203: Thus, for a continuum limit along a line of constant physics, the secondary quantities (\ref{2ndaryquant}) were interpolated to common values. For the decay constant and the mass splitting, this was done linearly in the inverse meson mass $m_{\rm PS}$ or $m_{\rm V}$, whereas in the case of the renormalization group invariant charm quark mass, linearly in the meson mass. These parameterizations are not only suggested by HQET, but are also supported by visual examination of the mass dependence of all secondary quantities.
204:
205: Figure \ref{interpolpoints} shows the choice of meson masses given in table \ref{exactintmasses} for the pseudo scalar and the vector meson channel, to which the secondary observables were interpolated. Most of the masses were chosen such as to lie in the vicinity of the simulated ones in order to reduce the error introduced by the interpolation. In one case, the interpolation was performed to the experimentally known masses \cite{PDBook} of the $\rm D_s$ and $\rm D_s^\ast$ meson respectively.
206:
207: The data obtained for $\kappa_6$ and $\kappa_7$ at $\beta_5=6.7859$ were discarded for the whole analysis, since roundoff effects were observed for the heavy quark masses simulated for, which could be ruled out reliably only for $\kappa_5$ (cf. \ref{stoppingcrit}).
208: \begin{table}
209: \centering
210: \begin{tabular}{cccCccc}
211: \hline\hline
212: &&&&\\[-2ex]
213: i &1 &2 &3 &4 &5 &6\\[1ex]
214: %&&&&&&\\
215: \hline
216: &&&&&\\[-2ex]
217: $r_0m^i_{\rm PS}$ &3.768 &4.327 &4.987 & 5.653 & 6.211 & 6.560\\[1ex]
218: $aM_Q<0.64$ &$\beta_2-\beta_5$&$\beta_2-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$\\[1ex]
219: \hline&&&&&\\[-2ex]
220: $r_0m^i_{\rm V}$ &4.210&4.660 &5.363 &5.920 &6.280 &6.550\\[1ex]
221: $aM_Q<0.64$ &$\beta_2-\beta_5$&$\beta_2-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$&$\beta_3-\beta_5$\\[1ex]
222: \hline\hline\\
223: \end{tabular}\caption{Meson masses to which all observables were interpolated before taking the continuum limit. The masses in the third column ($i=3$) correspond to the experimentally known values of the $\rm D_s$ and $\rm D_s^\ast$ meson respectively \cite{PDBook}. In addition, the lattices which will be included into the continuum extrapolation are given in terms of the corresponding coupling constant (cf. section \ref{cutoff}).}\label{exactintmasses}
224: \end{table}
225: \begin{figure}
226: \centering
227: \psfrag{oormPS1}[c][c][1][0]{ $1/(r_0m_{\rm PS})$}
228: \psfrag{oormV2}[c][c][1][0]{ $1/(r_0m_{\rm V})$}
229: %\psfrag{oor0mDs}[bl][r][1][0]{\large $1/(r_0m_{\rm D_s})$}
230: \psfrag{b11}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_1$}
231: \psfrag{b12}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_2$}
232: \psfrag{b13}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_3$}
233: \psfrag{b14}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_4$}
234: \psfrag{b15}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_5$}
235: %\psfrag{b21}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_1$}
236: %\psfrag{b22}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_2$}
237: %\psfrag{b23}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_3$}
238: %\psfrag{b24}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_4$}
239: %\psfrag{b25}[c][c][1][0]{ $\beta_5$}
240: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/interpolpoints.eps}
241: \caption{Simulated inverse pseudo scalar masses for the combinations of hopping parameters $\kappa_1-\kappa_2,\dots,\kappa_1-\kappa_7$ (circles). The dashed lines indicate the inverse masses to which the observables have been interpolated at each value of $\beta$ before the continuum limit has been taken.}\label{interpolpoints}
242: \end{figure}
243: \subsubsection{Interpolation to the $b$-quark}
244: Prior to the interpolation between the region of the charm quark mass and the static limit, the continuum extrapolation for the desired observables at the masses given in table \ref{exactintmasses} was carried out.
245: This ordering of the procedure is suggested by the expectation, that discretization errors are quark mass dependent. Since all the observables have been determined in the $O(a)$-improved theory, one would naively assume, that they approach the continuum limit approximately linearly in $a^2$.
246: In \cite{Kurth:2001yr}, deviations from this scaling behavior for heavy quarks were observed.
247: A comparison of lattice results in the finite volume $\orda$-improved Schr\"odinger Functional at non-vanishing lattice spacing with results from perturbation theory at zero lattice spacing revealed, that the expected scaling behavior breaks down for heavy quark with $(am_Q^{\MSbar})^2\gtrsim 0.2$. Thus, the bound
248: \be\label{cutoffcrit}
249: aM_Q\lesssim 0.64.
250: \ee
251: has to be fulfilled by all the data that enter the analysis.
252: Table \ref{exactintmasses} shows the meson masses together with the range of $\beta$-values that are compatible with this bound.
253:
254: The interpolations were carried in the meson mass. This allowed to localize the physical point of the $\bsub$-meson exactly, because its mass is known very precisely from experiment ($m_{\bsub}=5.36966(24)$ GeV \cite{PDBook}). In units of the Sommer-scale, the mass translates to $r_0m_{\bsub}=13.6056(6)$.
255:
256: In HQET, one expects that the heavy quark mass differs from the heavy-light meson mass only by the binding energy $\bar\Lambda$ and terms of $O(1/M_Q)$ (cf. (\ref{massformula})). Thus, the functional dependence of the observables on the meson mass is compatible with the fit-ansatz
257: \be
258: a_0+{a_1\over r_0m_{\rm PS}}+{a_2\over r_0m_{\rm PS}^2}+\dots\;.
259: \ee
260: The coefficients $a_i$ can be taken as estimates for the magnitude of the contributions to heavy-light observables from higher orders in the HQET expansion.
261:
262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
263: \section{The ${\rm D_s}$- and the $\dsubstar$-meson and the $c$-quark mass}
264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
265: In this section, a precise determination of the observables
266: \be
267: \fds,\,\fdsstar,\,\fds/\fdsstar\,{\rm and}\,r_0(m_{\dsubstar}-m_{\dsub})
268: \ee
269: is presented.
270:
271: Simulations with a continuum extrapolation for the decay constant from rather coarse lattice resolutions have been done in \cite{Alexandrou:1994mr,Gupta:1996zd,Aoki:1997xe,Bernard:1997by} and more recent studies with an extended approach to the continuum limit, $O(a)$-improved Wilson fermions and also partly with dynamical quarks have been carried out in \cite{El-Khadra:1998hq,Bernard:1998xi,AliKhan:2000eg,Becirevic:1998ua,Bowler:2000xw,deDivitiis:2003wy,Juttner:2003ns,Bernard:2002pc,Maynard:2001zd}.
272: A recent summary of lattice data for the $\dsub$-system can be found for example in \cite{Ryan:2001ej}. Some representative results are summarized in table \ref{otherfds}.
273:
274:
275:
276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
277: \subsection{The decay constants $\fds$ and $\fdsstar$ and the ratio $\fds/\fdsstar$}
278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
279: % D_s decay constant - continuum extrapolation
280: % decayconst.m
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282: After interpolating the data for the decay constants $\fds$ and $\fdsstar$ at each finite lattice spacing (cf. table \ref{tabplatav1}) to the physical point, given in terms of the mass $r_0m_{\dsub}=4.987$ \cite{PDBook}, one obtains the corresponding values in the continuum from a linear extrapolation in $(a/r_0)^2$. The extrapolations for $\fds$ and $\fds/\fdsstar$ are shown in figure \ref{fdscont}. For $\fds$, the fit has $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=1.9$, for $\fdsstar$ $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=1.6$ and for $\fds/\fdsstar$ a value of $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=0.7$. The final results in the continuum are
283: \begin{center}
284: \begin{tabular}{lcl}
285: $r_0\fds$&=&\input{./tables/fdscont.txt},\\
286: $r_0\fdsstar$&=&\input{./tables/fdsstarcont.txt},\\
287: $\fds/\fdsstar$&=&\input{./tables/FoFstarcont.txt}.\\
288: \end{tabular}
289: \end{center}
290: Using $r_0=0.5$ fm, the results for the decay constants translate to \linebreak$\fds=\input{./tables/fdscontphys.txt}$MeV and $\fdsstar=\input{./tables/fdsstarcontphys.txt}$MeV. The error is the combination of statistical and systematic contributions within the quenched approximation.
291: \begin{figure}
292: \centering
293: \psfrag{aor0sq}[t][c][1][0]{\large$(a/r_0)^2$}
294: \psfrag{fds}[b][c][1][0]{\large$r_0 \rm F_{D_s}$}
295: \psfrag{val}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0\rm F_{D_s}=$\input{./tables/fdscont.txt}}
296: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/fdscont.eps}\\\vspace{1cm}
297: \psfrag{aor0sq}[t][c][1][0]{\large $(a/r_0)^2$}
298: \psfrag{fds}[b][c][1][0]{\large$\fds/ \fdsstar $}
299: \psfrag{valstar}[c][c][1][0]{\large$\fds/ \fdsstar=$\input{./tables/FoFstarcont.txt}}
300: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/FoFstarcont.eps}
301: \caption{Continuum limit for the decay constant ${\rm F_{D_s}}$ and the ratio $\fds/{\rm F_{D_s^\ast}}$.}\label{fdscont}
302: \end{figure}
303:
304: Following the arguments of section \ref{cutoff}, the data from the simulations at $\beta_1=6.0$ and $\beta_2=6.1$ has not been included into the fits.
305: However, the stability of the extrapolation has been tested by studying the change in observables under the inclusion of $\beta_2=6.1$. This re\-sul\-ted in $r_0\fds$=\input{./tables/fdswwbcont.txt} with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=1.9$, $r_0\fdsstar$=\input{./tables/fdsstarwwbcont.txt} with $\chi^2=2.4$ and $\fds/\fdsstar$=\input{./tables/FoFstarwwbcont.txt} with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=1.5$. Thus, the observables change by 2\%, 8\% and 6\% respectively, and the results from both fit ranges agree within errors.
306:
307: The data at $\beta_2-\beta_4$ has previously been used to determine the pseudo scalar decay constant in the continuum with a final value of $\fds=252(9)$MeV \cite{Juttner:2003ns}, where the scale was also set with the Kaon decay constant. This value differs from the one obtained here by 26 MeV and the two results are not compatible within errors.
308:
309: Table \ref{otherfds} summarizes some recent values for the decay constants from quenched as well as from dynamical simulations by other groups.
310: There are indications, that the effect of unquenching is a shift in the decay constant to about 10\% higher values \cite{Ryan:2001ej,Bernard:2002pc}. However, results with dynamical quarks still suffer from large statistical and systematic uncertainties so that a reliable estimate of the quenching error is not yet possible.
311: \begin{table}\centering
312: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{0.5mm}}c@{\hspace{2mm}}l@{\hspace{2.5mm}}rl@{\hspace{3.5mm}}lc}
313: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
314: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Reference } &\multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm F}^{N_f=0}_{\rm D_s}/$MeV} &$N_f$&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\fds/$MeV}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm F}_{\rm D_s^\ast}^{N_f=0}/$MeV}&{\begin{tabular}{c}scale\\setting\end{tabular}}\\[1ex]
315: \hline\\[-2ex]
316: ALPHA &\cite{Juttner:2003ns} &$252(9)$ &&&&$r_0$\\[.3ex]
317: Becirevic \emph{et. al.}&\cite{Becirevic:1998ua} &$231(12)(^{+6}_{-0})$ &&&$272(16)(^{+0}_{-20})$ &$m_\rho$\\[.3ex]
318: Bowler \emph{et. al.}&\cite{Bowler:2000xw} &$229(3)(^{+23}_{-12})$ &&&$264(10)(^{+15}_{-20})$ &$f_\pi$\\[.3ex]
319: CP-PACS&\cite{AliKhan:2000eg} &$250(1)(^{+24}_{-18})$ &2&$267(13)(^{+27}_{-17})$ &&$m_\rho$\\[.3ex]
320: de Divitiis&\cite{deDivitiis:2003wy} &240(5)(5) &&&&$r_0$\\[.3ex]
321:
322: %Bernard\cite{Bernard:2000ht} & &$N_f=2\;\fds=223\pm5^{+19}_{-17}$\\
323: MILC&\cite{Bernard:2002pc} &$223(5)(^{+18}_{-17})$ &2&$241(5)(^{+ 29}_{-26})$ &&$f_\pi$\\[.3ex]
324: % stat syst Nf2, partial quenching for missing strange, chiral logs
325: UKQCD&\cite{Maynard:2001zd} &$229(3)(^{+23}_{-12})$ &&&&$f_\pi$\\[.3ex]
326:
327:
328: Wingate \emph{et. al.}&\cite{Wingate:2003gm} & &3&290(7)(41) &&$\Upsilon$\\[.3ex]
329: Ryan (\emph{world av.})&\cite{Ryan:2001ej} &$230(15)$ &&$250(30) $ \\[1ex]
330: \hline\hline\\
331: \end{tabular}\caption{Results for the decay constant $\fds$ and $\fdsstar$ from other groups. The errors are statistical and systematic.}\label{otherfds}
332: \end{table}
333:
334:
335: Only the decay constant for the $\dsub$-meson has been determined in an experiment. Two recent measurements quote ${\rm F}_{\rm D_s}^{\rm exp}=285(19)(40)$MeV \cite{Heister:2002fp} and ${\rm F_{\rm D_s}^{\rm exp}}=280(19) (28) (34)$MeV \cite{Chadha:1998zh}, where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. In the latter case, the third error is also systematic due to an uncertainty in branching ratios. The present world average from experimental determinations is ${\rm F}_{\rm D_s}^{\rm exp}=267(33)$MeV \cite{PDBook}.
336:
337: Also QCD sum rules have been used to determine $\fds$. In \cite{Narison:2001pu} a value of $\fds=235(24)$MeV has been suggested.
338:
339:
340:
341:
342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
343: \subsection{The mass splitting $r_0(m_{\rm D_s^\ast}-m_{\rm D_s})$}% and $r_0^2(m_{\rm D_s^\ast}^2-m_{\rm D_s}^2$}
344: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
345: In the same way as for the decay constant, after interpolating the data to the physical point given by the mass of the $\dsub$-meson, the continuum extrapolation can be carried out for the mass splitting $r_0(m_{\rm D_s^\ast}-m_{\rm D_s})$
346: (cf. figure \ref{clms1}). The resulting value is
347: \begin{center}
348: \begin{tabular}{rcl}
349: $r_0(m_{\rm \dsubstar}-m_{\rm \dsub})$&=&\input{./tables/r0mV_r0mPSmPScont.txt}\hspace{-1mm},\\
350: \end{tabular}
351: \end{center}
352: The linear fit has $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=0.1$.
353: Converted to physical units with $r_0=0.5\,$ fm, the value is $(m_{\rm \dsubstar}-m_{\rm \dsub})=\,$\input{./tables/r0mV_r0mPSmPScontphys.txt}MeV.
354: The result is compatible with the current experimental data taken from \cite{PDBook}, $(m_{\rm \dsubstar}-m_{\rm \dsub})^{\rm exp}=143.8(4)$MeV.
355:
356: In a previous lattice study, where the same techniques were applied but the continuum extrapolation was made from coarser lattices \cite{Rolf:2002gu}, a value of $(m_{\rm \dsubstar}-m_{\rm \dsub})=122(14)$MeV was quoted. Another computation \cite{Becirevic:1998ua} gave $(m_{\rm \dsubstar}-m_{\rm \dsub})=97(12)$MeV as the final result. This result was obtained on rather coarse lattices and the discrepancy with respect to experiment was ascribed to cutoff effects.
357:
358: \begin{figure}
359: \centering
360: \psfrag{aor0sq}[t][c][1][0]{\large $(a/r_0)^2$}
361: \psfrag{r0mV}[b][c][1][0]{\large$r_0(m_{\rm D_s^\ast}-m_{\rm D_s})$}
362: \psfrag{val}[c][c][1][0]{$r_0(m_{\rm D_s^\ast}-m_{\rm D_s})=$\input{./tables/r0mV_r0mPSmPScont.txt}}
363: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/r0mV_r0mPSmPScont.eps}
364: \caption{Continuum limit for the mass splitting. The diamond represents the experimental value. Only the data at the filled squares entered the fit.}\label{clms1}
365: \end{figure}
366:
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368: \subsection{The renormalization group invariant charm quark mass $M_c$}
369: The renormalization factor $Z_M(g_0)$, which has been introduced in section \ref{imprandrenormconstants}, can be used to relate the two definitions of renormalized quark masses (\ref{rensub}) and (\ref{PCACmass}) to the renormalization group invariant quark masses.
370:
371: On the one hand, employing the definition of the PCAC-mass (\ref{barePCACmass}), the charm quark mass can be extracted from the correlation functions containing non-degenerate quarks,
372: \be\ba{rcl}
373: r_0M_{c{|m_{sc}}} & = & Z_M \Bigl\{2r_0 m_{sc}
374: \left[ 1+(b_A-b_P){1\over 2} (am_{\rm q,c}+am_{\rm q,s})\right]\\
375: &-&r_0m_{\rm s}\left[1+(b_A-b_P)am_{\rm q,s}\right]\Bigr\}.
376: \ea\ee
377: Here, the flavor indices have been replaced by the particular quark flavor ($c$ for charm and $s$ for strange).
378: The relation can also be applied to the mass degenerate case, where one obtains \be
379: r_0M_{c{|m_c}} = Z_M r_0 m_c \left[ 1+(b_A-b_P)am_{\rm q,c}\right].
380: \ee
381: On the other hand, it can be extracted directly from the corresponding bare subtracted quark mass via the relation
382: \be
383: r_0M_{c{|m_{\rm q,c}}} = Z_M Z r_0 m_{\rm q,c}
384: \left[ 1+b_m am_{\rm q,c}\right].
385: \label{RGIs}
386: \ee
387:
388: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
389: % RGI charm quark mass from the heavy-light PCAC relation
390: % RGImass.m
391: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
392: The continuum extrapolations of all the three definitions of the renormalization group invariant charm quark mass $M_c$ are illustrated in figure \ref{Mccont}. Within the errors, they all converge to the same continuum result. The final result was taken from the continuum limit of $r_0M_{c{|m_{sc}}}$, since the smallest cutoff effects were observed in this case. The corresponding linear fit has $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=0.32$ and the extrapolated value at $a=0$ is
393: \begin{center}
394: \begin{tabular}{rcl}
395: $r_0M_c$&=&\input{./tables/r0Mccont.txt}.
396: \end{tabular}
397: \end{center}
398: Using $r_0=0.5$ fm, this translates into $M_c=$\input{./tables/r0Mccontphys.txt}GeV. By inverting equation (\ref{Mombar}) with MAPLE, this value can be translated to the $\MSbar$-scheme and one gets $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)=1.27(3)$ GeV. In this step, the 4-loop anomalous dimensions $\gamma^{\MSbar}$ and $\beta$ have been employed and the error of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}=238(19)$ MeV \cite{Capitani:1998mq} has been taken into account.
399:
400: The Particle Data group \cite{PDBook} gives $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)\approx 1.15 - 1.35$ GeV as a range for the charm quark mass, excluding current data from the lattice. In addition, they also quote $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)=1.26(13)(20)$GeV as the world average from the lattice. Here, the second error is an estimated uncertainty of 15\% due to the quenched approximation.
401:
402: The determination of the charm quark mass in lattice QCD has a long history \cite{Allton:1994ae,Bochkarev:1996ai,Kronfeld:1998zc,Gimenez:1998uv,Rolf:2002gu,Becirevic:2001yh,deDivitiis:2003iy}.
403: Other recent measurements in quenched lattice QCD include \cite{Becirevic:2001yh} with $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)=1.26(3)(12)$GeV and \cite{Kronfeld:1998zc} with $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)=1.33(8)$GeV, with statistical and systematic error in the first case and combined statistical and systematic error in the second case. The first result has been obtained in the $O(a)$-improved theory at the rather coarse lattice spacing $a\approx0.07$ fm and the latter has been obtained from a continuum extrapolation. In \cite{deDivitiis:2003iy}, the continuum limit for the charm quark mass was taken by using a step scaling method. The final result quoted there is $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)=1.319(28)$ GeV. A result for the charm quark mass which was obtained in the same way as here, but without a simulation at $\beta_5$ has been carried out in \cite{Rolf:2002gu}, with a final value of $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)=1.301(34)$ GeV.
404:
405: An unquenched computation has been carried out by UKQCD \cite{Wingate:2003gm} with $N_f=3$ flavors of dynamical light quarks. Although only preliminary and at very large lattice spacing ($a\approx 1.1$ fm), no effects of sea quarks compared to the quenched results \cite{Rolf:2002gu,Becirevic:2001yh} were observed.
406:
407: \begin{figure}
408: \centering
409: \psfrag{aor0sq}[t][c][1][0]{\large$(a/r_0)^2$}
410: \psfrag{r0Mc}[b][c][1][0]{\large$r_0M_c$}
411: \psfrag{M1}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0M_{c{|m_{cc}}}$}
412: \psfrag{M2}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0M_{c{|m_{sc}}}$}
413: \psfrag{M3}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0M_{c{|m_{q,c}}}$}
414: \psfrag{val}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0M_{c{|m_{sc}}}$=\input{./tables/r0Mccont.txt}}
415: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/r0Mccont.eps}
416: \caption{Continuum extrapolation for the renormalization group invariant charm quark mass $M_c$. Only the data at the filled squares entered the respective fit.}\label{Mccont}
417: \end{figure}
418:
419: The value for the charm quark mass obtained here is compatible within errors with all previous determinations.
420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
421: \subsection{Quenched scale ambiguity}\label{QSA}
422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
423: In order to assess the quenched scale ambiguity (cf. section \ref{settingthescale}), the data has been analyzed again, with the line of constant physics for the continuum extrapolation defined at the physical meson masses $r_0^\prime m_{\dsub}=5.486$, to which the data has been interpolated. The results and the ambiguity with respect to the case $r_0=0.5$ fm are the following:
424: \begin{center}
425: \begin{tabular}{lcrcr}
426: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
427: &&&&ambiguity\\[1ex]
428: \hline\\[-2ex]
429: $\fds_{|r_0^{\prime}} $&=&$\input{./tables/fdscontSA.txt}$ MeV&$\to$&$-\input{./tables/fdscontphysSA.txt}\%$\\[1ex]
430: $\fdsstar_{|r_0^{\prime}} $&=&$ \input{./tables/fdsstarcontSA.txt}$ MeV&$\to$&$-\input{./tables/fdsstarcontphysSA.txt}\%$\\
431: \\
432: $ (m_{\dsubstar}-m_{\dsub})_{|r_0^{\prime}} $&=&$ \input{./tables/r0mV_r0mPSmPScontSA.txt}$ MeV&$\to$&$-\input{./tables/r0mV_r0mPSmPScontphysSA.txt}\%$\\
433: \\
434: $M_{c|r_0^{\prime} } $&=&$ \input{./tables/r0MccontSA.txt}$ GeV&$\to$&$+\input{./tables/r0MccontphysSA.txt}\%$\\
435: \\
436: $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)$&$=$&1.32(3) GeV&$\to$&+4\%\\[1ex]
437: \hline\hline\\
438: \end{tabular}
439: \end{center}
440: The magnitude of the ambiguities agree with equivalent estimates in \cite{Juttner:2003ns} for the decay constant and in \cite{Rolf:2002gu} for the charm quark mass.
441: It should be mentioned here, that the {quenched scale ambiguity} only gives an estimate for the ambiguity inherent to the quenched approximation. The true quenching error can only be determined by direct comparison to results in the full theory.
442:
443: \subsection{Discussion}
444: \begin{table}
445: \centering
446: \begin{tabular}{lrrc}
447: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
448: observable &experiment\cite{PDBook}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{lattice}&precision\\
449: & & &(quenched)\\[1ex]
450: \hline\\[-2ex]
451: $\fds$ &267(33) MeV &\input{./tables/fdscontphys.txt}MeV&3\%\\
452: $\fdsstar$ & &\input{./tables/fdsstarcontphys.txt}MeV&8\%\\
453: $\fds/\fdsstar$ & &\input{./tables/FoFstarcont.txt}&7\%\\[.5ex]
454:
455: $m_{\rm D_s}$ &1.9683(5) GeV &\multicolumn{1}{l}{input}\\
456: $m_{\dsubstar}-m_{\dsub}$ &143.8(4) MeV &\input{./tables/r0mV_r0mPSmPScontphys.txt}MeV&7\%\\[1ex]
457: $M_c$ & &\input{./tables/r0Mccontphys.txt}GeV&2\%\\
458: $\mbar_c(\mbar_c)$& &1.27(3) GeV&2\%\\[1ex]
459: \hline\hline\\
460: \end{tabular}\caption{Summary of results for the $\dsub$- and the $\dsubstar$-meson and the $c$-quark mass.}\label{DSres}
461: \end{table}
462: All results in this section have been summarized in table \ref{DSres} together with the final error and the corresponding experimental values (where available).
463: Most of the observables determined here, are compatible within errors with the previous lattice simulations and with QCD sum rules. Especially in the case of the pseudo scalar decay constant it has been demonstrated, that it is possible to produce lattice data, which matches the precision of experiments, i.e. CLEO-c with a predicted error for $\fds$ of 2\% \cite{CLEO-c}.
464:
465: In the case of the meson mass splitting and the renormalization group invariant charm quark mass, the data obtained here is nicely compatible with the expected linear scaling in $(a/r_0)^2$, which is confirmed by the small $\chi^2$ of the corresponding fits.
466:
467: For the decay constant $\fds$, although still acceptable, the relatively large value $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=1.9$ indicates, that the data is not quite compatible with the expected linear scaling behavior.
468: In contrast to the mass splitting and the quark mass, the boundary-to-boundary correlation functions $f_A^T$ and $f_V^T$ enter the definition of the pseudo scalar and the vector meson decay constant, respectively. Both quantities are known to fluctuate strongly in the Monte-Carlo history. The situation might therefore improve with larger statistics at $\beta_5$.
469:
470: The simulation results from the coarser lattices, which have been excluded from the continuum extrapolation in order to avoid mass dependent cutoff effects, deviate considerably from a linear scaling in $(a/r_0)^2$. This confirms the findings in \cite{Kurth:2001yr} and the upper bound $aM_Q\le 0.64$ for the heavy quark mass at finite lattice spacing, suggested there.
471:
472: Despite working in the quenched approximation, most of the results presented in this section are compatible within errors with the corresponding values from experiment. A slight discrepancy was discovered for the decay constant. However, unquenching in this case is expected to increase the value by about 10\%.
473:
474: Although all sources of systematic error have been taken into account during the data analysis, it could be shown, that lattice results can meet the accuracy of precision experiments.
475:
476:
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478: \section{The $\rm B_s$- and the $\bsubstar$-meson and HQET}
479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
480: This section presents the combined analysis of predictions from HQET together with the relativistic data for heavy quarks with masses around the charm quark mass.
481:
482: \subsection{Incorporation of results from the static limit}
483: Similar to the observables for the $\dsub$-meson, the quantities
484: \be\label{intobs}
485: r_0^{3/2}{{Y_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}},\;{R\over C_{\rm PS/V}}\,{\rm and}\,r_0{{\Delta m}\over C_{\rm spin}},\\%\,{\rm and}\,r_0 {m_{\rm av}\over C_{\rm mass}M_Q}.
486: \ee
487: which are defined in section \ref{asymptotics}, have been extrapolated to the continuum at the pseudo scalar masses which are collected in table \ref{exactintmasses} together with the associated fit range.
488:
489: In the case of $r_0^{3/2}{{Y_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}}$ at the largest mass $m_{\rm PS}^6$, the linear continuum extrapolation of three data points as depicted in figure \ref{worstcase} has a large $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=2.5$. Although $P(\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=2.5)\lesssim 10\%$, the continuum value has been included into the further data analysis, since the extrapolations to $a=0$ at all other pseudo scalar masses behaved much better.
490:
491: \begin{figure}
492: \centering
493: \psfrag{mass}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0m_{\rm PS}=\input{./tables/PSmass6.txt},\,{\rm c.l.}=\input{./tables/clPS6.txt}$}
494: \psfrag{aor0sq}[t][c][1][0]{\large$(a/r_0)^2$}
495: \psfrag{fsqrtmC}[b][c][1][0]{\large$r_0^{3/2}{\rm F_{ PS}\sqrt{m_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}(M_Q/\Lambda_{\rm QCD})}$}
496: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/fPSsqrtmoC6.eps}
497: \caption{Continuum limit for $r_0^{3/2}{\rm F_{ PS}}\sqrt{m_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}$ at the largest pseudo scalar mass $m_{\rm PS}^6$ with $\chi^2/{\rm d.o.f.}=2.5$. Only the data at the filled symbols entered the fit.}\label{worstcase}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500: For $r_0^{3/2}{{Y_{\rm PS}}/ C_{\rm PS}}$, the non-perturbatively determined value in the static approximation \cite{DellaMorte:2003mn}
501: \be
502: r_0^{3/2}\Phi_{\rm PS,RGI}^{\rm stat}=1.74(13)
503: \ee
504: has been included into the fit as a constraint in the static limit. For the ratio ${R/ C_{\rm PS/V}}$ and the mass splitting $r_0{{\Delta m}/ C_{\rm spin}}$,
505: the asymptotics as detailed in section \ref{asymptotics} have been included to constrain the interpolation.
506: Figure \ref{interF}, \ref{interfof} and \ref{intersplit} show the results. The interpolation has been carried out, once including the data in the range of pseudo scalar masses from $r_0m_{\rm PS}^1 - r_0m_{\rm PS}^6$ and once with the masses $r_0m_{\rm PS}^3 - r_0m_{\rm PS}^6$. For the larger mass range, a second order polynomial was used as the fit-ansatz, while for the smaller mass range also a linear fit was applied. The physical point of the $\bsub$-meson and the corresponding results from the interpolations are indicated by the circles. Table \ref{HQETcoeffs} shows the parameters of the fit polynomial
507: \be
508: a_0+{a_1\over r_0m_{\rm PS}}+{a_2\over (r_0m_{\rm PS})^2}+\dots\;.
509: \ee
510:
511: The errors associated to the fit-parameter $a_1$ in the case of linear interpolations is not too large. Thus, $a_1$ can be taken as a rough estimate of the magnitude of the first-order correction.
512:
513: A fit of ${R/ C_{\rm PS/V}}$ over the mass range $r_0m_{\rm PS}^3 - r_0m_{\rm PS}^6$ with a 2nd order polynomial is not feasible due to the large error associated with the data. In the other cases, 2nd order polynomials fit the data well for both mass ranges. However, the corresponding coefficients can only be determined very inaccurately and significant statements about higher order contributions cannot be made.
514:
515: \begin{table}\centering
516: \begin{tabular}{c@{\hspace{1cm}}cc@{\hspace{1.5cm}}ccc}
517: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
518: observable &\multicolumn{2}{c}{\hspace{-1.5cm}linear} &\multicolumn{3}{c}{quadratic}\\
519: &$a_0$ &$a_1$ &$a_0$ &$a_1$ &$a_2$\\[1ex]
520: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
521: \multicolumn{6}{c}{mass range $m_1\dots m_6$}\\
522: \\[-2ex]
523: \hline\\
524: $r_0^{3/2}{Y_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}$
525: &-&-&\input{./tables/fcoeffsquadisl116.txt}\\
526: \\
527: ${R\over C_{\rm PS/V}}$
528: &-&- &1.0 &\input{./tables/fofcoeffsquad16.txt}\\
529: \\
530: ${r_0\Delta m\over C_{\rm spin}}$
531: &- &- &0.0 &\input{./tables/mscoeffsquad16.txt}\\[2ex]
532: %\\
533: \hline\\[-2ex]
534: \multicolumn{6}{c}{mass range $m_3\dots m_6$}\\
535: \\[-2ex]
536: \hline\\
537: $r_0^{3/2}{Y_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}$&\input{./tables/fcoeffslinisl136.txt}&\input{./tables/fcoeffsquadisl136.txt}\\
538: \\
539: ${R\over C_{\rm PS/V}}$&1.0 &\input{./tables/fofcoeffslin36.txt} &1.0 &-&-\\
540: \\
541: ${r_0\Delta m\over C_{\rm spin}}$&0.0 &\input{./tables/mscoeffslin36.txt} &0.0 &\input{./tables/mscoeffsquad36.txt}\\[2ex]
542: %\\
543: \hline\hline
544: \end{tabular}
545: \caption{Coefficients and associated error of the polynomial fit $a_0+{a_1\over r_0m_{\rm PS}}+{a_2\over (r_0m_{\rm PS})^2}$ for the interpolation between the relativistic data and the static approximation for various observables.}\label{HQETcoeffs}
546: \end{table}
547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
548: % Interpolation for the decay constant with c.l. of relativistic data
549: % extrapol.m
550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
551: \begin{figure}\begin{minipage}[c]{\linewidth}
552: \centering
553:
554: \psfrag{1or0mPS}[t][c][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm PS}$}
555: \psfrag{mDs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm D_s}$}
556: \psfrag{mBs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm B_s}$}
557: \psfrag{FmC}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0^{3/2}{{Y_{\rm PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}}$}
558: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/polationisl136.eps}\label{FBs36}\\
559: \vspace{1cm}
560: \psfrag{1or0mPS}[t][c][1][0]{\large$1/r_0m_{\rm PS}$}
561: \psfrag{mDs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm D_s}$}
562: \psfrag{mBs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm B_s}$}
563: \psfrag{FmC}[c][c][1][0]{\large$r_0^{3/2}{Y_{ PS}}\over C_{\rm PS}$}
564: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/polationisl116.eps}
565: \end{minipage}
566: \caption{Interpolation for the decay constant of the pseudo scalar meson with a linear and a quadratic fit ansatz (solid and dashed line resp.). Only the data at the filled squares was included into the fit. The circles represent the values at the physical point of the $\bsub$-meson.}\label{interF}
567: \end{figure}
568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
569: % Ratio of the PS to the V decay constant
570: % fof.m
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572:
573:
574:
575: \begin{figure}
576: \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
577: \centering
578: \psfrag{oor0mPS}[t][c][1][0]{\large$1/r_0m_{\rm PS}$}
579: \psfrag{mDs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm D_s}$}
580: \psfrag{mBs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm B_s}$}
581: \psfrag{fof}[b][c][1][0]{\large${{ R_{PS}}\over C_{\rm PS/V}}$}
582: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/fof36.eps}\\
583: \vspace{1cm}
584: \psfrag{oor0mPS}[t][c][1][0]{\large$1/r_0m_{\rm PS}$}
585: \psfrag{mDs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm D_s}$}
586: \psfrag{mBs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm B_s}$}
587: \psfrag{fof}[b][c][1][0]{\large${{R_{PS}}\over C_{\rm PS/V}}$}
588: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/fof16.eps}
589: \end{minipage}
590: \caption{Interpolation for the ratio of the pseudo scalar and the vector meson decay constant with a linear and a quadratic fit ansatz (solid and dashed line resp.). Only the the data at the filled squares was included into the fit. The circles represent the values at the physical point of the $\bsub$-meson.}\label{interfof}
591: \end{figure}
592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
593: % Mass splitting
594: % ms2.m
595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
596: \begin{figure}
597: \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
598: \centering
599: \psfrag{oor0mPS}[t][c][1][0]{\large$1/r_0m_{\rm PS}$}
600: \psfrag{mDs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm D_s}$}
601: \psfrag{mBs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm B_s}$}
602: \psfrag{r0mVmPSoCspin}[b][c][1][0]{\large${r_0\Delta m\over C_{\rm spin}}$}
603: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/splitting36.eps}\\
604: \vspace{1cm}
605: \psfrag{oor0mPS}[t][c][1][0]{\large$1/r_0m_{\rm PS}$}
606: \psfrag{mDs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm D_s}$}
607: \psfrag{mBs}[b][l][1][0]{\large $1/r_0m_{\rm B_s}$}
608: \psfrag{r0mVmPSoCspin}[b][c][1][0]{\large${r_0\Delta m\over C_{\rm spin}}$}
609: \epsfig{scale=.8,file=./bildla/plots/splitting16.eps}
610: \end{minipage}
611: \caption{Interpolation for the mass splitting with a linear and a quadratic fit ansatz (solid and dashed line resp.). Only the data at the filled squares was included into the fit. The circles represent the values at the physical point of the $\bsub$-meson.}\label{intersplit}
612: \end{figure}
613:
614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
615: \subsection{Interpolation to the ${\rm B_{s}^{(\ast)}}$-meson}
616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
617: In the following, the determination of the observables
618: \be
619: \fbs,\,\fbs/\fbsstar,\,{\rm and}\,r_0(m_{\bsubstar}-m_{\bsub})
620: \ee
621: will be presented.
622: One first extracts the value of the corresponding interpolation at the physical point \cite{PDBook}
623: \be\ba{ccc}
624: m_{\bsub} =5.3696(24){\rm GeV} &\to& r_0m_{\bsub}=13.604(61),\\
625: \ea
626: \ee
627: which is indicated by the blue circles in the respective plots \ref{interF}, \ref{interfof} and \ref{intersplit}.
628: Then, the conversion functions have to be eliminated. In the case of the decay constant and the ratio of the decay constants, also the square roots of the meson masses have to be eliminated (cf. section \ref{asymptotics}).
629: To this end, the conversion functions $C_{\rm X}(M_Q/\Lambda_{\MSbar})$ were taken at the value of the $b$-quark mass $r_0M_b=16.12(29)$ which has been determined non-perturbatively in quenched QCD \cite{Heitger:2003nj}.
630: The results for all observables for the $\bsub$-meson are summarized in table \ref{Bsresults} for the various interpolations that have been carried out.
631:
632: The quadratic interpolation over the mass range $m_{\rm {PS}}^3\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$ leads to very large errors and significant results cannot be obtained. The linear interpolation over the larger mass range $m_{\rm {PS}}^1\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$ on the other hand stretches across a domain, where sizeable higher order contributions are to be expected. Both interpolations were therefore discarded for the further analysis.
633: \begin{table}
634: \centering
635: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrr}
636: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
637: Fit &\multicolumn{1}{c}{linear}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{quadr.} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{linear} &\multicolumn{1}{c}{quadr.} \\
638: Mass range & $m_{\rm PS}^1\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$&$m_{\rm PS}^1\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$&$m_{\rm {PS}}^3\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$&$m_{\rm PS}^3\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$\\[1ex]
639: \hline\\[-2ex]
640:
641: $r_0\fbs$ &\input{./tables/fvalslinisl116.txt}&\input{./tables/fvalslinisl216.txt}&\input{./tables/fvalslinisl136.txt}&\input{./tables/fvalslinisl236.txt}\\[1ex]
642: $\fbs/\fbsstar$ &\input{./tables/fofvallin16.txt}&\input{./tables/fofvalquad16.txt}&\input{./tables/fofvallin36.txt}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{-}\\[1ex]
643: $r_0(m_{\bsub}-m_{\bsubstar})$ &\input{./tables/msvallin16.txt}&\input{./tables/msvalquad16.txt}&\input{./tables/msvallin36.txt}&\input{./tables/msvalquad36.txt}\\[1ex]
644: \hline\hline\\
645: \end{tabular}\caption{Results for $\bsub$ from the interpolation.}\label{Bsresults}
646: \end{table}
647: In order to determine the final results, the linear interpolation including the masses $m_{\rm {PS}}^3\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$ and the quadratic interpolation including the masses $m_{\rm {PS}}^1\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$ were then compared. First, the corresponding results from table \ref{Bsresults} translated to physical units are
648: \begin{center}
649: \begin{tabular}{lrC}
650: \hline\hline&&\\[-2ex]
651: Fit &\multicolumn{1}{c}{linear}&\multicolumn{1}{C}{quadr.} \\
652: Mass range &$m_{\rm PS}^3\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$&$m_{\rm PS}^1\dots m_{\rm PS}^6$\\[1ex]
653: \hline&&\\[-2ex]
654: $\fbs$ &\input{./tables/fvalsphyslinisl136.txt}MeV&\multicolumn{1}{R}{\input{./tables/fvalsphysquadisl116.txt}MeV}\\[1ex]
655: $\fbs/\fbsstar$ &\input{./tables/fofvallin36.txt}&\multicolumn{1}{R}{\input{./tables/fofvalquad16.txt}}\\[1ex]
656: $m_{\bsub}-m_{\bsubstar}$ &\input{./tables/msvalphyslin36.txt}MeV&\multicolumn{1}{R}{\input{./tables/msvalphysquad16.txt}MeV}\\[1ex]
657: \hline\hline\\
658: \end{tabular}
659: \end{center}
660:
661: The results of both fits are compatible within 1$\sigma$. While the error for the ratio of the decay constants and for the mass splitting is twice as large in the case of the interpolation with the 2nd order polynomial, the error is approximately the same for the decay constant. Comparing the results from both fits, no preference becomes apparent. However, in order to arrive at a conservative error estimate, the values obtained from the quadratic interpolation were chosen as the final results.
662: All final results for the $\rm B_s^{(\ast)}$-meson are collected in table \ref{BSres}
663:
664:
665: Using QCD sum rules, $\fbs=236(30)$MeV \cite{Narison:2001pu} and $\fbs=244(21)$MeV \cite{Jamin:2001fw} have been determined.
666: Other groups have done lattice simulations in the quenched theory as well as with dynamical quarks with $N_f = 2$ and $N_f = 3$ flavors. The corresponding results have been summarized in table \ref{otherfbs}. Again it turns out, that unquenching yields decay constants that are about 10\% larger than in the quenched case. However, dynamical simulations still suffer from large systematic errors.
667:
668: The experimental value of the mass splitting is 47.0(26)MeV \cite{PDBook}.
669: \begin{table}\centering
670: \begin{tabular}{l@{\hspace{1.5mm}}cl@{\hspace{1.5mm}}rl@{\hspace{1.5mm}}cc}
671: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
672: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Reference } &\multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm F}_{\rm B_s}^{N_f=0}/$MeV} &$N_f$&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\fbs/$MeV}&\begin{tabular}{c}scale\\setting\end{tabular}\\[1ex]%&\multicolumn{1}{c}{${\rm F}_{\rm B_s}^{N_f=0}/$MeV}\\[1ex]
673: \hline\\[-2ex]
674: ALPHA &\cite{Rolf:2003mn} &206(10) &&&$r_0$\\[.3ex]
675: Becirevic \emph{et. al.}&\cite{Becirevic:1998ua} &$204(16)(^{+28}_{-0})$ &&&$m_\rho$\\[.3ex]%$229(20)(^{+31}_{-16})$\\[.3ex]
676: Bowler \emph{et. al.}&\cite{Bowler:2000xw} &$220(6)(^{+23}_{-28})$ &&&$f_\pi$\\[.3ex]
677: CP-PACS&\cite{AliKhan:2000eg} &$219(10)$ &2&$250(10)(^{+15}_{-13})$&$m_\rho$ \\[.3ex]
678: CP-PACS&\cite{AliKhan:2001jg} &$220(4)(31)$ &2&$242(9)(^{+51}_{-34})$&$m_\rho$ \\[.3ex]
679: de Divitiis&\cite{deDivitiis:2003wy} &192(6)(4) &&&$r_0$\\[.3ex]
680: JLQCD &\cite{Aoki:2003xb} & &2&$215(9)(^{+14}_{-13})$ &$m_\rho$\\[.3ex]
681:
682: MILC&\cite{Bernard:2002pc} &$199(5)(^{+23}_{-22})$ &2&$217(6)(^{+ 37}_{-28})$ &$f_\pi$\\[.3ex]
683: % stat syst Nf2, partial quenching for missing strange, chiral logs
684: UKQCD&\cite{Maynard:2001zd} &$220(6)(^{+23}_{-28})$ &&&$f_\pi$\\[.3ex]
685:
686:
687: Wingate \emph{et. al.}&\cite{Wingate:2003gm} & &3&260(7)(28) &$\Upsilon$ \\
688: Ryan (\emph{world av.})&\cite{Ryan:2001ej} &$200(20)$ &&$230(30) $\\[1ex]
689: \hline\hline\\
690: \end{tabular}
691: \caption{Results for the decay constant $\fbs$ from other groups with statistical and systematic errors.}\label{otherfbs}
692: \end{table}
693:
694:
695:
696:
697: \subsection{Quenched scale ambiguity}
698: As in the case of the $\dsub$- and $\dsubstar$-meson, the quenched scale ambiguity has been estimated. The size
699: \begin{center}
700: \begin{tabular}{lcrcrc}
701: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
702: &&&&ambiguity\\
703: \hline\\[-2ex]
704: $\fbs_{|r_0^{\prime}} $&=&$\input{./tables/fvalsphyslinisl136SA.txt}$ MeV&$\to$&$-\input{./tables/fvalsphyslinisl136SArat.txt}\%$ &\\
705: \\
706: $ (m_{\bsubstar}-m_{\bsub})_{|r_0^{\prime}} $&=&$ \input{./tables/msvalphyslinSA36.txt}$ MeV&$\to$&-$\input{./tables/msvalphyslinSArat36.txt}\%$\\[1ex]
707: \hline\hline\\
708:
709: \end{tabular}
710: \end{center}
711: is roughly the same as for the corresponding observables of the $\dsub$-meson.
712: \subsection{Discussion}
713: The interpolation between the results from quenched QCD around the charm sector and HQET indicates, that the coefficients of the linear and quadratic
714: term in the heavy quark expansion
715: \be
716: a_0+{a_1\over r_0m_{\rm PS}}+{a_2\over (r_0m_{\rm PS})^2}+\dots
717: \ee
718: are of order $O(1)$ and one can therefore expect, that HQET is a good approximation for ${\rm B_{(s)}}$-mesons.
719:
720: The interpolation has also been used successfully to determine observables of the $\bsub$-meson with reasonable errors. All final results have been summarized in table \ref{BSres}, together with experimental data and the associated errors within the quenched approximation.
721:
722: The result for the decay constant is compatible with most of the previous studies. The mass splitting that was determined from the simulations is not compatible with experiment when setting the scale with the Kaon decay constant. It agrees however, when setting the scale with the nucleon mass instead.
723:
724:
725:
726:
727:
728:
729: \begin{table}
730: \centering
731: \begin{tabular}{lrrc}
732: \hline\hline\\[-2ex]
733: observable &experiment\cite{PDBook}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{lattice}&precision\\
734: & & &(quenched)\\[1ex]
735: \hline\\[-2ex]
736: $\fbs$ & & \input{./tables/fvalsphysquadisl116.txt}{\rm MeV}&5\%\\[.5ex]
737: $\fbsstar$ & &\input{./tables/fvalsphysquadisl216.txt}MeV&6\%\\
738: ${\fbs/ \fbsstar}$ & & \input{./tables/fofvalquad16.txt}&3\%\\[1ex]
739: $m_{\rm B_s}$ &5.3696(24) GeV &input\\[.5ex]
740: $m_{\rm B_s^\ast}$ &5.4166(35) GeV &\\
741: $m_{\bsubstar} - m_{\bsub}$ &47.0(26) MeV& \input{./tables/msvalphysquad16.txt}{\rm MeV}&11\%\\[1ex]
742: \hline\hline\\
743:
744: \end{tabular}\caption{Summary of results for the $\bsub$- and the $\bsubstar$-meson.}\label{BSres}
745: \end{table}
746:
747:
748: