1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage[dvips]{color} %%% for colors in the graphs
3: \usepackage{cite,graphicx} %%% for pictures and figures
4: \usepackage{amssymb}
5: \usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{xspace} %%% to get the correct spacing of
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8: \usepackage{setspace}
9: %\doublespacing
10:
11: %%% self-defined abbreviations
12: \setlength{\unitlength}{1pt} %%% always good to have...
13: %%
14: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
15: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.99}
16: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.99}
17: \setlength{\textfloatsep}{0.5cm}
18:
19: \textheight 23.cm
20: \textwidth 17.0cm
21: \topmargin -1.cm
22: \hoffset -2.5cm
23: \headsep 1.5cm
24: \parindent 1.2em
25: \newcommand{\vs}{\vspace{-0.2cm}}
26: \flushbottom %%% footnotes inside page
27:
28: % Defining one's own title page
29: %
30: \newcommand{\mytitle}[1]{
31: \begin{center}
32: \LARGE{\textbf{#1}}
33: \end{center}}
34: \newcommand{\myauthor}[1]{\textbf{#1}}
35: \newcommand{\myaddress}[1]{\textit{#1}}
36: \newcommand{\mypreprint}[1]{\begin{flushright} #1 \end{flushright}}
37: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
38: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
39: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
40: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
41:
42: %\newcommand{\half}{\mbox{\small $\frac{1}{2}$}}
43:
44: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: \begin{document}
46: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
47:
48: \begin{titlepage}
49: \mypreprint{DESY 07-006 \\ IFUP-TH/2007-2}
50:
51:
52: \vspace*{0.5cm}
53: \mytitle{Decay constants of charm and beauty pseudoscalar heavy-light mesons
54: on fine lattices}
55: \vspace*{0.3cm}
56:
57: \begin{center}
58: \myauthor{A. Ali Khan$^a$},
59: \myauthor{V. Braun$^a$},
60: \myauthor{T. Burch$^a$},
61: \myauthor{M. G\"ockeler$^a$},
62: \myauthor{G. Lacagnina$^b$},
63: \myauthor{A. Sch\"afer$^a$}
64: {\bf and}
65: \myauthor{G. Schierholz$^{c}$}
66:
67: \vspace*{0.5cm}
68: \myaddress{$^a$
69: Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik,
70: Universit\"at Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany} \\[2ex]
71: \myaddress{$^b$
72: Dipartimento di Fisica,
73: Universit\`a di Pisa and INFN, \\ Pisa, Italy}\\[2ex]
74: \myaddress{$^c$
75: John von Neumann-Institut f\"ur Computing NIC, Deutsches
76: Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, \\ 15738 Zeuthen, Germany\\[2ex]
77: Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, 22603 Hamburg, Germany}
78:
79: \vspace*{0.5cm}
80:
81: QCDSF Collaboration
82:
83: \end{center}
84:
85: \vspace*{0.5cm}
86:
87: \begin{abstract}
88: \noindent We compute decay constants of heavy-light
89: %and heavy-strange
90: mesons in quenched lattice QCD with a lattice spacing of $a \simeq 0.04$ fm
91: {\rm using} non-perturbatively $O(a)$ improved Wilson fermions {\rm and }
92: $O(a)$ improved currents. {\rm We obtain}
93: %The results are
94: $f_{D_s} = 220(6)(5)(11)$ MeV,
95: $f_D = 206(6)(3)(22)$ MeV, $f_{B_s} = 205(7)(26)(17)$ MeV and
96: $f_B = 190(8)(23)(25)$ MeV, using the Sommer parameter $r_0 = 0.5$ fm
97: %{(\bf 0.467???)}
98: to set the scale. The first error is statistical, the second systematic
99: and the third from assuming a $\pm 10\%$ uncertainty in the experimental
100: value of $r_0$. A detailed discussion is given in the text.
101: We also present {\rm results}
102: %values
103: for the meson decay constants $f_K$ and
104: $f_\pi$ and the $\rho$ meson mass.
105:
106: \vspace*{0.2cm}
107:
108: \noindent PACS: 12.38.Gc, 13.20.Fc, 13.20.He
109: \end{abstract}
110: \end{titlepage}
111:
112: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
113: %\section{Introduction}
114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
115: {\noindent \bf 1.}
116: {\rm Weak decays of heavy-light mesons with $c$ and $b$ quarks are interesting for
117: studies of CP violation and determination of the CKM mixing angles.
118: New experimental data on such decays are emerging
119: (e.g.~\cite{Bellefb2006,CLEOfd2005,CLEOfds2006,Babarfds2006}) and
120: their interpretation requires knowledge of hadronic matrix elements
121: governed by the strong interaction. Lattice QCD allows one to calculate
122: the strong matrix elements from first principles. However,
123: if the heavy quark mass $m_Q$ is of the order of the inverse lattice spacing $a$,
124: considerable discretization effects proportional to
125: powers of $am_Q$ occur.}
126:
127:
128:
129: %The calculation of the weak matrix elements of heavy-light mesons with $c$ and $b$
130: %quarks as heavy partners in QCD is of interest for determinations of the CKM matrix elements
131: %related to the charged weak currents of heavy quarks. New experimental
132: %measurements of the decays are emerging
133: %(e.g.~\cite{Bellefb2006,CLEOfd2005,CLEOfds2006,Babarfds2006}) and can be
134: %compared with theoretical results. Lattice QCD allows to calculate
135: %the decay constants from first principles.
136: % If the heavy quark mass is of the order of the inverse lattice spacing,
137: %one may, however, worry that with relativistic heavy
138: %quarks (e.g.\ clover fermions) considerable discretization
139: %effects proportional to
140: %powers of the heavy quark mass occur.
141:
142: %obvious remedy is to simulate on very fine lattices. Another
143: One possibility for coping with this problem
144: is to use an effective theory such as Heavy Quark Effective
145: Theory (HQET)~\cite{eichten1989} or
146: Nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD)~\cite{lepage1994}. These formalisms
147: start from an infinitely heavy quark and
148: consider corrections to this limit in the form of an
149: expansion in the inverse of $m_Q$.
150: However, to study the charm quark
151: in HQET or NRQCD requires a
152: considerable number of correction terms, and one still has to worry about
153: the uncertainty from the truncation of the $1/m_Q$ expansion.
154: A formulation for relativistic quarks where masses can be of $O(1)$ in
155: lattice units is the Fermilab approach~\cite{elkhadra1997} and
156: modifications thereof, developed in~\cite{aoki2003,kayaba2006}
157: and~\cite{lin2006}.
158: One expects that the dominating discretization effects are then proportional
159: to powers of momenta of $O(\Lambda_{QCD})$.
160: While within HQET non-perturbative renormalization is
161: possible~\cite{dellamorte2006}, in
162: many of the calculations using effective theories the
163: renormalization constants are calculated only in perturbation
164: theory (e.g. in Ref.~\cite{wingate2004}), leading to further
165: uncertainties.
166:
167: Another possibility is to simulate on very fine lattices, and this
168: is the approach we have adopted in the present paper.
169: We have performed a quenched lattice study of heavy mesons
170: with a lattice spacing $a$ of about 0.04 fm.
171: %We use $O(a)$ improved Wilson (clover) fermions. The coefficient of the
172: %action and most of the renormalization constants of the axial current are
173: %non-perturbatively determined. With this formalism we hope that
174: On such a fine lattice a relativistic treatment of the
175: charm quark should be justified and we expect that
176: discretization errors are small compared to
177: previous calculations on coarser lattices.
178: We also make an attempt to study $B$ mesons in our relativistic framework.
179: {\rm
180: Even on our fine lattice we cannot simulate $B$ mesons directly, but
181: the required extrapolation becomes relatively short-range. We expect that the
182: resulting uncertainty is not much larger than the systematic error caused
183: by the use of an effective theory.
184: }
185: %Even on our fine lattice we cannot simulate $B$ mesons directly. Therefore a
186: %(relatively short) extrapolation is still required, but we expect that the
187: %resulting uncertainty is not much larger than the systematic error caused
188: %by the use of an effective theory.
189: For example, recent unquenched
190: calculations of $f_B$ and $f_{B_s}$~\cite{wingate2004,gray2005} employ NRQCD for the $b$ quark
191: and quote a $\sim 10\%$ error based on
192: perturbation theory and other systematic effects.
193:
194: In this article we present results
195: for the leptonic decay constants of the $D_s$, $B_s$, $D$ and $B$ mesons.
196: We also evaluate light meson masses and decay constants to compare with
197: previous quenched calculations of the light spectrum on coarser lattices
198: and in order to be able to disentangle discretization and quenching effects.\\[2mm]
199:
200:
201: %In section 2 we describe the details of our lattice simulation,
202: %the fixing of the physical values of the light and the heavy quark
203: %masses, and the extraction of the decay constants. Our results for
204: %decay constants of light pseudoscalar mesons are presented in section 3.
205: %The results for the heavy-light meson decay constants and our error
206: %estimates are discussed in section 4. In section 5 we compare our
207: %work to other recent results. A short summary is given in
208: %section 6.
209:
210: %
211: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
212: %\section{Simulation details} \label{simu}
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214: {\noindent \bf 2.}
215: Our results are {\rm based on the analysis of}
216: %obtained from
217: 114 quenched Wilson gauge configurations simulated at the coupling parameter $\beta = 6.6$
218: % \be
219: % S_g = -\beta\sum_{x,\mu<\nu}\left(1 - \frac{1}{3}Re W_{\mu\nu}^{1\times 1}
220: % \right), \,\,
221: % \ee
222: with a mixed heatbath and microcanonical overrelaxation algorithm
223: using the publicly available MILC code~\cite{milccode}.
224: The lattice volume is $40^3 \times 80$, i.e.\
225: our lattice extends over $40$ points ($\sim 1.59$ fm) in space and 80 points in
226: time.
227: The lattice spacing is determined using the Sommer parameter $r_0 = 0.5$ fm.
228: This choice is motivated by a previous calculation~\cite{maynard2002}
229: which used $r_0$ to determine the lattice spacings and found that the
230: results for $f_{D_s}$ from a
231: quenched lattice and a lattice with $N_f = 2$ agreed
232: ($a \approx 0.1$ fm in these calculations).
233: From the interpolating formula given in~\cite{necco01},
234: one finds for our lattice $a^{-1} = 4.97$ GeV.
235:
236: For the quarks we use the $O(a)$ improved clover formulation~\cite{SW1985},
237: % \ba
238: % S_f &= &\sum_{x,y}\overline{q}_x D_{W,xy} q_y - c_{SW}\frac{ig\kappa}{2}
239: % \sum_x \overline{q}_x\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}q_x,
240: % \ea
241: % where $D_{W,xy}$ is the Wilson fermion operator and $F_{\mu\nu}$ a standard
242: % discretized color field strength operator.
243: with the nonperturbative value of the clover coefficient $c_{SW}= 1.467$
244: determined in Ref.~\cite{luscher1997a}. We work with seven quark masses
245: corresponding to three ``light'' hopping parameters
246: $\kappa = 0.13519, 0.13498, 0.13472$ and four ``heavy'' hopping parameters,
247: $\kappa = 0.13000, 0.12900, 0.12100, 0.11500$. Statistical errors are
248: estimated by means of a bootstrap procedure using 500 bootstrap samples.
249: For the central values
250: we take the median. The error bars are calculated including 34\% of the
251: sample values below and above the median, respectively. Since the upper and
252: lower error bars are found to be quite symmetric for most of our data, we just
253: quote the larger of the two.
254: %We studied the autocorrelations for pseudoscalar meson
255: %correlators. The worst case shows a decay of the correlations after a
256: %separation of one lattice.
257: The autocorrelation times for the pseudoscalar meson propagator appear
258: to be small. In the worst case we studied, the autocorrelations decay after
259: a distance of one configuration.
260:
261: To extract the decay constants we follow the procedure described in
262: Ref.~\cite{gockeler1998}.
263: For light and for heavy-light mesons we calculate the correlation functions
264: \ba
265: C_{PA4}^{SL}(t) &=& V \sum_{\vec x}
266: \langle A_4(\vec x, t) P^{S\dagger}(0) \rangle, \nonumber \\
267: C_{PP}^{Si}(t) &=& V \sum_{\vec x} \langle P^i(\vec x, t) P^{S\dagger}(0) \rangle,
268: \ea
269: where $A_4$ is the local axial vector current operator,
270: $P$ the pseudoscalar density which can be local ($i=L$) or Jacobi
271: smeared ($i=S$), and $V$ is the spatial lattice volume.
272:
273: \begin{table}[htb]
274: \begin{center}
275:
276: \begin{tabular*}{0.90\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
277: \hline
278: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\kappa_1 $}
279: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\kappa_2 $}
280: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$am_{PS}$}
281: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$am_V$}
282: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$af^{(0)}$}
283: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$af^{(1)}$}
284: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$af$} \\
285: \hline
286: 0.13519 & 0.13519 & $ 0.1059(13)$ & $ 0.1928(62)$ & $0.0376(11)$ & $0.0248(13)$ & $0.0312(09)$ \\
287: 0.13498 & 0.13519 & $ 0.1231(12)$ & $ 0.2005(48)$ & $0.0388(11)$ & $0.0251(12)$ & $0.0324(09)$ \\
288: 0.13498 & 0.13498 & $ 0.1388(10)$ & $ 0.2107(43)$ & $0.0403(10)$ & $0.0258(10)$ & $0.0337(08)$ \\
289: 0.13472 & 0.13519 & $ 0.1422(11)$ & $ 0.2065(39)$ & $0.0405(11)$ & $0.0261(11)$ & $0.0339(09)$ \\
290: 0.13472 & 0.13498 & $ 0.1560(10)$ & $ 0.2186(33)$ & $0.0418(10)$ & $0.0270(10)$ & $0.0351(08)$ \\
291: 0.13472 & 0.13472 & $ 0.1722(09)$ & $ 0.2292(27)$ & $0.0434(10)$ & $0.0283(09)$ & $0.0366(08)$ \\
292: \hline
293: \end{tabular*}
294: \end{center}
295: \caption{\small Light meson masses and decay constants in lattice units.}
296: \label{tab:lmasses}
297: \end{table}
298: %
299: Masses and amplitudes are determined from fits of the correlation functions
300: with
301: \ba
302: C_{PP}^{Si}(t) & = & A_{PP}^{Si}
303: \left(e^{-Et} + e^{-E(T-t)}\right), \\
304: C_{PA4}^{SL}(t) & = & A_{PA4}^{SL} \left(e^{-Et} - e^{-E(T-t)}\right),
305: \ea
306: where $E$ is the ground state energy.
307: In Table~\ref{tab:lmasses} we give the raw data for the light
308: pseudoscalar meson masses, determined from $C_{PP}^{SL}$, and for
309: light vector meson masses from smeared-local
310: correlation functions of the spatial components of the vector currents.
311:
312: To determine the bare quark masses, we calculate
313: $\kappa_{crit}$, the $\kappa$ value corresponding to massless quarks,
314: from a fit of the squared mass of a pseudoscalar meson (``pion'')
315: consisting of quarks with mass parameters $\kappa_1$ and
316: $\kappa_2$ as a function of the averaged $O(a)$ improved quark mass
317: \be
318: \left(am_{PS}\right)^2 = a_1 \,a\tilde{m}_q, \label{eq:kappafit}
319: \ee
320: with
321: \[
322: \tilde{m}_q = (1 + b_m\,am_q)\,m_q\,,\; m_q = \frac 1 2 (m_{q1}+m_{q2})
323: \]
324: and
325: $am_{qi} = \frac 1 2 (\frac{1}{\kappa_i}-\frac{1}{\kappa_{crit}}),\,i=1,2$.
326: We use the non-perturbative value of $-0.6636$ for the improvement parameter
327: $b_m$ using an interpolating formula from Ref.~\cite{guagnelli2001}.
328: The fit includes all data with $\kappa_{1,2} \geq 0.13472$, where we find
329: the improved quark masses to just lie on a straight line.
330: We find $\kappa_{crit} = 0.135472(11)$.
331: The hopping parameter corresponding to the average
332: $u$ and $d$ quark mass, $\kappa_\ell$, is determined by
333: setting $m_{PS}$ on the left hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappafit})
334: equal to the
335: physical pion mass, $m_{PS} = 138$ MeV. We find $\kappa_\ell = 0.135456(10)$.
336:
337:
338:
339: We parameterize the quark mass dependence of
340: light meson decay matrix elements
341: with hopping parameters $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$
342: by fitting them to a function of the form
343: \be
344: c_0 + c_1 \, a\tilde{m}_q . \label{eq:chiralfit}
345: \ee
346: The light quark mass dependence of masses and decay matrix elements of heavy-light mesons
347: is parameterized using a linear fit as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:chiralfit}), with
348: $\tilde{m}_q$ being the light quark mass instead of the average quark mass.
349:
350: We also calculate the
351: {\rm vector (``$\rho$ meson'')}
352: %$\rho$ meson
353: mass.
354: The fit and the chiral extrapolation assuming a quark mass dependence as in
355: Eq.~(\ref{eq:chiralfit}) are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hlmass}. At $\kappa_\ell$ we
356: find $846(37)$ MeV (the error is statistical), which is roughly a
357: $10\%$ ($2\sigma$) discrepancy with experiment.
358: We compare our result to other recent
359: quenched calculations in Table~\ref{tab:rhomasses}. Within errors our
360: result agrees with Ref.~\cite{pleiter_diss}, where a continuum
361: extrapolation from coarser lattices with $O(a)$ improved clover
362: fermions is performed. We also list
363: studies employing chiral lattice fermions where smaller quark masses can be
364: reached while coarser lattices are
365: used~\cite{gattr2004,galletly2006,bietenholz2006}.
366: Ref.~\cite{galletly2006} quotes results from two lattice spacings.
367: In Table~\ref{tab:rhomasses} we present the results from their finer lattice.
368: To determine the strange quark mass parameter $\kappa_s$, we interpolate the vector meson
369: mass to the physical $\phi$ meson mass, $M_\phi = 1.01946(19)$ GeV.
370: We find $\kappa_s = 0.13502(6)$. This is our ``method I'' for determining the
371: $\kappa$ value corresponding to the strange quark mass. Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappafit})
372: and setting $m_K^2$ to the experimental value for $(m_{K_+}^2 + m_{K_0}^2)/2$ gives a value in
373: very close agreement: $\kappa_s = 0.134981(9)$.
374:
375:
376: The raw data for the heavy-light meson masses are given in
377: Table~\ref{tab:hdecay}. To find the physical values of the heavy-light
378: meson masses, we extrapolate for each heavy quark mass linearly in $m_q$,
379: see Eq.~(\ref{eq:chiralfit}).
380: The fits are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hlmass}.
381: The quark mass dependence is linear to very good accuracy. This is
382: in contrast to the findings of, e.g., Ref.~\cite{chiu2005}.
383: In the final step,
384: the calculation of the decay constants, the physical values of the
385: $c$ and $b$ quark masses will be reached by interpolating or extrapolating the
386: heavy-light meson mass to the $D$ or $B$ mass and the heavy-strange
387: meson mass to the $D_s$ or $B_s$ mass.
388:
389: In a quenched calculation, different methods to choose the input for
390: determining physical parameters may give different answers. In order to
391: investigate the influence of this arbitrariness we also use the
392: heavy-light spectrum to determine $\kappa_s$ and call this
393: procedure ``method II''.
394: We consider the splitting between mesons with a heavy quark and a
395: strange quark (generically denoted by $M_s$) and a meson with a
396: heavy quark and a quark with the $u,d$ quark mass (denoted
397: by $M_\ell$). In our data, as well as in experiment, the $M_s-M_\ell$
398: mass difference is fairly independent of the heavy quark mass.
399: To fix $\kappa_s$ in method II, we choose a heavy quark
400: close to the charm mass from our simulation points, namely $\kappa= 0.129$,
401: and set the splitting between the $M_s$ and the $M_\ell$ masses
402: equal to the experimental value for the $D$ meson, $m_{D_s}-m_D = 98.85(30)$ MeV.
403: The corresponding value for the strange hopping parameter is
404: $\kappa_s = 0.134929(15)$.
405: %The corresponding pseudoscalar meson mass,
406: % $704(^{14}_{12})$ MeV, is close to
407: %$\sqrt{2}\times m_K = 700$ MeV, which one would expect
408: %from the lowest order in chiral perturbation theory.
409: %
410: % \begin{table}[htb]
411: % \begin{center}
412:
413: % \begin{tabular*}{0.80\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|llll|}
414: % \hline
415: % \multicolumn{1}{|c}{$\beta $}
416: % & \multicolumn{1}{c}{volume}
417: % & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$N_{cfg}$}
418: % & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$a^{-1}$[GeV]} \\
419: % \hline
420: % 6.6 & $40^3\times 80$ & 114 & \\
421: % \hline
422: % \end{tabular*} \\
423: % \begin{tabular*}{0.80\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|ll|}
424: % \hline
425: % \multicolumn{1}{|l}{light $\kappa $}
426: % & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{heavy $\kappa$} \\
427: % \hline
428: % 0.13519, 0.13498, 0.13472 & 0.13000, 0.12900, 0.12100, 0.11500 \\
429: % \end{tabular*} \\
430: % \begin{tabular*}{0.80\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|ll|}
431: % \multicolumn{1}{|l}{$\kappa_{crit}$}
432: % & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{ $\kappa_l$} \\
433: % \hline
434: % $0.135476(^{11}_9)$ & $0.135466(^{10}_9)$ \\
435: % \hline
436: % \end{tabular*} \\
437: % \begin{tabular*}{0.80\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|llll|}
438: % \hline
439: % \multicolumn{1}{|c}{$c_{SW}$}
440: % & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$Z_A$}
441: % & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$c_A$}
442: % & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$b_A$} \\
443: % \hline
444: % 1.467 & 0.8338 & -0.01967 & 1.2143 \\
445: % \hline
446: % \end{tabular*}
447:
448: % \end{center}
449: % \caption{\smallParameters of our simulations.}
450: % \label{tab:params}
451: % \end{table}
452: %
453: %
454: %
455: \begin{table}[htb]
456: \begin{center}
457:
458: \begin{tabular*}{0.90\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|l|l|l|l|l|}
459: \hline
460: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{Ref.}
461: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$a^{-1}$[GeV]}
462: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{quark action}
463: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{gauge action}
464: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$m_\rho$[GeV]} \\
465: \hline
466: this work & $4.97$& clover & Wilson & $0.849(38)$ \\
467: \cite{pleiter_diss} & cont & clover & Wilson & $0.797(13)$ \\
468: \cite{gattr2004} & $1.33$ & chirally improved & L\"uscher-Weisz & $0.791(42)$ \\
469: \cite{gattr2004} & $ 1.29$ & fixed point & fixed point & $0.828(25)$ \\
470: \cite{galletly2006} & $2.09$ & overlap & L\"uscher-Weisz & $0.79(2) $ \\
471: \cite{bietenholz2006} & $1.60$ & overlap hypercube & Wilson & $1.017(40)$ \\
472: \hline
473: \end{tabular*}
474: \end{center}
475: \caption{\small $\rho$ meson masses from quenched lattice calculations.
476: The lattice scale has been determined using $r_0 = 0.5$ fm in all calculations
477: except in \cite{galletly2006} where $r_0 = 0.56$ fm is used. The quoted errors
478: are only statistical.}
479: \label{tab:rhomasses}
480: \end{table}
481: %
482: We calculate the pseudoscalar decay constants from the improved axial vector
483: current $A_\mu^I$
484: \be
485: A_4^I = Z_A(1+ ab_A m_q)
486: \left(A_4 + c_A a\partial_4 P\right), \label{eq:ren}
487: \ee
488: where $A_\mu(x) = \overline{q}_{1x} \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 q_{2x}$ and
489: $P(x) = \overline{q}_{1x}\gamma_5 q_{2x}$.
490: %$am_i = \frac 1 2 (\frac{1}{\kappa_i}-\frac{1}{\kappa_{crit}}), \;i = 1, 2$.
491: %The derivative $\partial_4$ is calculated at the analysis step,
492: %i.e.\ from the correlation function of the currents.
493: We take the nonperturbatively determined values for $Z_A$ from
494: \cite{luscher1997b} and for $c_A$ from \cite{luscher1997a}. For our
495: calculation, this gives
496: $Z_A = 0.8338$ and $c_A = -0.01967$.
497: The coefficient $b_A$ is calculated from 1-loop perturbation
498: theory~\cite{sint1996}. Using a boosted coupling
499: $g_0^2 \rightarrow g_0^2/u_0^4$ with
500: $u_0 = \langle \frac 1 3 Tr U_P\rangle^{1/4}$, we find
501: $b_A = 1.2143$ which is close to the result one finds using the tadpole-improved
502: scheme of~\cite{bhattacharya2001}.
503: A non-perturbative determination of $b_A$
504: on coarser lattices ($\beta \leq 6.4$)~\cite{bhattacharya2006} also
505: gives values in agreement with boosted perturbation theory within errors.
506:
507: %$M$ denotes in the following the meson mass.
508: The meson matrix elements of the currents
509: \ba
510: f^{(0)} & = & \frac{1}{M}\langle 0|A_4|M \rangle,\nonumber \\
511: f^{(1)} & = &
512: \frac{1}{M}\langle 0|a\partial_4 P|M \rangle =
513: -\frac{1}{M}\sinh(aM)\langle 0|P|M \rangle,\nonumber \\
514: f\hphantom{^{(0)}} & = & \frac{1}{M}\langle 0|A_4^I|M \rangle,
515: \ea
516: are related to the amplitudes by
517: \ba
518: f^{(0)} & = & -2\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}\frac{\sqrt{2}A_{PA4}^{SL}}
519: {\sqrt{MVA_{PP}^{SS}}} , \\
520: f^{(1)} & = & 2\sqrt{\kappa_1\kappa_2}\sinh(aM)\frac{\sqrt{2}A_{PP}^{SL}}
521: {\sqrt{MVA_{PP}^{SS}}} ,
522: \ea
523: where $M$ denotes the meson mass.
524: The convention for the factors of $\sqrt 2$ corresponds
525: to the normalization where $f_\pi \simeq 130$ MeV.
526: %
527: \begin{table}[htb]
528: \begin{center}
529:
530: \begin{tabular*}{0.95\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
531: \hline
532: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$\kappa_1 $}
533: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\kappa_2 $}
534: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$am_{PS}$}
535: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$af^{0}$}
536: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$af^{1}$}
537: & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$af$} \\
538: \hline
539: 0.11500 & 0.13519 & $0.8363(15)$ & $ 0.0371(11)$ & $ 0.0532(17)$ & $ 0.0423(13)$ \\
540: 0.12100 & 0.13519 & $0.6676(13)$ & $ 0.0417(14)$ & $ 0.0496(17)$ & $ 0.0432(14)$ \\
541: 0.12900 & 0.13519 & $0.4065(11)$ & $ 0.0475(13)$ & $ 0.0417(13)$ & $ 0.0435(12)$ \\
542: 0.13000 & 0.13519 & $0.3685(12)$ & $ 0.0478(13)$ & $ 0.0399(13)$ & $ 0.0431(12)$ \\
543: 0.11500 & 0.13498 & $0.8431(12)$ & $ 0.0383(12)$ & $ 0.0551(19)$ & $ 0.0437(13)$ \\
544: 0.12100 & 0.13498 & $0.6747(11)$ & $ 0.0429(12)$ & $ 0.0517(16)$ & $ 0.0446(12)$ \\
545: 0.12900 & 0.13498 & $0.4145(10)$ & $ 0.0488(15)$ & $ 0.0431(14)$ & $ 0.0448(14)$ \\
546: 0.13000 & 0.13498 & $0.3765(09)$ & $ 0.0490(13)$ & $ 0.0412(12)$ & $ 0.0443(12)$ \\
547: 0.11500 & 0.13472 & $0.8517(11)$ & $ 0.0402(12)$ & $ 0.0584(19)$ & $ 0.0460(13)$ \\
548: 0.12100 & 0.13472 & $0.6836(10)$ & $ 0.0446(13)$ & $ 0.0541(16)$ & $ 0.0466(14)$ \\
549: 0.12900 & 0.13472 & $0.4242(08)$ & $ 0.0508(13)$ & $ 0.0453(13)$ & $ 0.0469(12)$ \\
550: 0.13000 & 0.13472 & $0.3866(08)$ & $ 0.0507(13)$ & $ 0.0430(12)$ & $ 0.0460(12)$ \\
551: \hline
552: \end{tabular*}
553: \end{center}
554: \caption{\small Pseudoscalar heavy-light meson masses and decay constants at the simulation points.}
555: \label{tab:hdecay}
556: \end{table}
557: %
558: \begin{figure}[htb]
559: \begin{center}
560: \centerline{
561: \epsfig{file=rho.eps,width=8cm}
562: \epsfig{file=m_chiral.eps,width=8cm}
563: }
564: \end{center}
565: \vspace{-0.3cm}
566: \caption{\small Chiral extrapolation of meson masses. On the left, light vector meson
567: masses, on the right, heavy-light pseudoscalar meson masses for the heavy hopping parameters
568: $\kappa = 0.115$ (circles),
569: $\kappa = 0.121$ (squares), $\kappa = 0.129$ (diamonds) and
570: $\kappa = 0.130$ (triangles).
571: Open symbols denote the simulation points, closed symbols the chiral extrapolation. }
572: \label{fig:hlmass}
573: \end{figure}
574: %
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576: %\section{Light meson decay constants}\label{sec:light}
577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
578: %
579:
580: \vspace*{0.2cm}
581:
582: {\noindent \bf 3.}
583: The fit of the light meson decay constants according to
584: Eq.~(\ref{eq:chiralfit}) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:l_decay}.
585: Mesons with degenerate and nondegenerate quark masses fall
586: on the same straight line.
587: \begin{figure}[htb]
588: \begin{center}
589: \epsfig{file=fpi.eps,width=7cm}
590: \caption{\small Chiral fit of light meson decay constants. The
591: chirally extrapolated value is denoted by the filled circle. }
592: \label{fig:l_decay}
593: \end{center}
594: \end{figure}
595: For $f_\pi$, the value at the physical $u,d$ quark mass, and $f_K$, the value
596: extrapolated to the averaged strange and $u,d$ quark mass, we find
597: \be
598: f_\pi = 140(4) \mbox{ MeV}\,,\;\;
599: f_K = 153(4) \mbox{ MeV}.
600: \ee
601: This result for $f_\pi$ agrees well with the value of 137(2) MeV determined
602: by~\cite{pleiter_diss}
603: using an extrapolation to the continuum from coarser lattices.
604: Both values are slightly larger than the experimental value of
605: $f_{\pi^+} = 130.7(4)$ MeV.
606: % To see whether the difference is a generic feature of
607: % quenching, we also compare to a recent quenched calculation using overlap
608: % fermions~\cite{galletly2006}. On their finer lattice ($a^{-1}\approx 2$ GeV), they
609: % find the value of 129(3) MeV which is $\sim 1.5$ combined $\sigma$ smaller than ours and
610: % very close to experiment. This may be due to a slight
611: % negative bending at small pion masses.
612: Our value for $f_K$ is $6\%$ or $2\sigma$ lower than the result
613: from~\cite{pleiter_diss} of 163(1) MeV. The experimental value is
614: $f_{K^+} = 159.8(15)$ MeV.
615:
616: The SU(3) flavor breaking ratio of the light decay constants in our
617: calculation {\rm turns out to be} relatively {\rm small.}
618: %close to one.
619: We find
620: \be
621: f_K/f_\pi -1 = 0.088(12)\,.
622: \ee
623: {\rm Our number is substantially lower}
624: %The result is substantially smaller
625: than the experimental value of 0.222, but
626: is consistent with a recent quenched calculation using overlap
627: fermions~\cite{babich2006}, which finds $f_K/f_\pi -1 = 0.09(4)$
628: {\rm using the same scale setting} with
629: %if the scale is set using
630: $r_0 = 0.5$ fm. It is also consistent
631: with other quenched determinations (see~\cite{davies2004}).
632: %
633: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
634: %\section{Heavy-light decay constants}\label{sec:heavy}
635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636: %
637:
638: \vspace*{0.2cm}
639:
640: {\noindent \bf 4.}
641: {\rm Next we }
642: %Let us now
643: consider the heavy-light decay constants.
644: To determine values at the physical quark masses, we extrapolate
645: or interpolate the decay constants separately in the light and the
646: heavy quark mass. For the fits in the light quark mass we use
647: a function of the form (\ref{eq:chiralfit}) with $m_q$ being the
648: mass of the quark with the light $\kappa$ parameter of the
649: heavy-light meson instead of the average quark mass.
650: %
651: \begin{figure}[htb]
652: \begin{center}
653: \centerline{
654: \epsfig{file=Phi_chiral.eps,width=8cm}
655: \epsfig{file=Phi_vs_oneoverM_med.eps,width=7.75cm}
656: }
657: \end{center}
658: \vspace{-0.3cm}
659: \caption{\small On the left, chiral extrapolation of heavy-light decay matrix
660: elements. Symbols have the same meaning as in the right part of
661: Fig.~\ref{fig:hlmass}.
662: On the right, heavy quark mass dependence of
663: heavy-light decay matrix elements. Squares
664: denote strange, and diamonds denote physical light quarks. Closed symbols
665: denote heavy quark masses extrapolated to the $b$ or interpolated to the
666: $c$ quark mass.}
667: \label{fig:decay_vs_M}
668: \end{figure}
669: %
670: For the extrapolation to the $b$ quark mass and
671: also for an interpolation to the $c$ quark mass we use a formula motivated
672: by HQET (see e.g.~\cite{neubert1993}).
673: {\rm In the heavy quark limit, matching of the decay matrix element in the effective
674: theory to the matrix element in full QCD introduces logarithmic corrections in the heavy quark
675: mass which have to be resummed. In addition, power corrections in $1/m_Q$ have to be added.
676: % which describes the limit of
677: %infinite quark mass $m_Q$ and the $1/m_Q$ corrections to it.
678: %In the
679: %matching of the decay matrix element in the effective
680: %theory to the matrix element in full QCD, logarithmic dependencies
681: %on the heavy quark mass occur. These dependencies
682: %can be resummed, and the resummed matrix element can be expanded in the inverse
683: %heavy quark mass.
684: Since the extrapolation to the $b$ mass in our case is rather
685: short, the precise form of the extrapolation formula is not important.
686: We use only the lowest order running for $\alpha_s$,
687: and take the heavy-light meson mass $M_\ell$ (and not the quark mass $m_Q$)
688: as an expansion (scale) parameter:
689: }
690: %We normalize the coefficient at the $B$ meson mass $M_B$ to one and fit the
691: %decay matrix elements with the formula
692: \be
693: \Phi \equiv \left(\frac{\alpha_s(M_B)}{\alpha_s(M_\ell)}\right)^{\gamma_0/(2b_0)}
694: \times f\sqrt{M_\ell} = c_0\left(1 + \frac{c_1}{M_\ell}+ \frac{c_2}{M_\ell^2}\right).
695: \ee
696: {\rm Here}
697: $\gamma_0 = -4$ is the leading {\rm order}
698: %term of the
699: anomalous dimension of the
700: axial vector current, and $b_0 = 11$ is the leading
701: coefficient of the {\rm QCD} $\beta$ function
702: %of the coupling
703: for zero dynamical flavors.
704: The fits and the interpolated values are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:decay_vs_M}.
705: The values of the fit parameters are $c_0 = 0.55(4)$ GeV$^{3/2}$,
706: $c_1 = -0.66(19)$ GeV and $c_2 = 0.38(21)$ GeV$^2$
707: if the light quark mass
708: is the $u,d$ quark mass, and $c_0 = 0.59(4)$ GeV$^{3/2}$,
709: $c_1 = -0.70(14)$ GeV and $c_2 = 0.39(15)$ GeV$^2$
710: for the $s$ quark.
711: %
712: \begin{table}[htb]
713: \begin{center}
714:
715: \begin{tabular*}{0.80\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|l|l|l|l|}
716: \hline
717: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Decay constant ratios} \\
718: \hline
719: $f_{D_s}/f_{D}$ & $f_{B_s}/f_{B} $ & $f_{D_s}/f_{B_s} $ & $f_{D}/f_{B} $ \\
720: \hline
721: $1.068(18)(20)$ & $1.080(28)(31)$ & $1.069(28)(160)$ & $1.082(42)(168)$ \\
722: \hline
723: \end{tabular*}
724: \end{center}
725: \caption{\small Ratios of heavy-light decay constants. The first error is statistical,
726: and the second systematic. The systematic errors are discussed in the text.}
727: \label{tab:results}
728: \end{table}
729: %
730: %\subsection{Error estimation}
731: %
732:
733: {\rm
734: Our final results for the ratios of heavy-light decay constants are presented in
735: Table~\ref{tab:results}, and the heavy-light decay constants are given along with
736: a comparison in Table~\ref{tab:comp}.
737:
738:
739: Estimation of systematic errors is notoriously difficult.
740: One source of uncertainty concerns setting the quark masses to their physical values.
741: For the strange quark this can be estimated by comparing the results from our methods I and II and
742: suggests an error of 4 MeV for $f_{D_s}$ and $f_{B_s}$.
743: {}For the $u,d$ quarks a chiral extrapolation is required. The corresponding error is difficult
744: to estimate. Our data are consistent with the simplest linear chiral extrapolation.
745: Quenched chiral perturbation theory provides a more sophisticated formula.
746: However, it is not clear if it is applicable to our data.
747: The uncertainty in fixing the heavy quark mass can be estimated by comparing
748: the difference between the mass fixed from quarkonium and
749: from the heavy-light meson system. Since the $\eta_c$ meson mass
750: using the charm quark hopping parameter determined from
751: the $D_s$ meson agrees with the physical value, we assume that this uncertainty is rather
752: small in our calculation.
753: In addition, for the $B$ system there
754: is an uncertainty from the extrapolation in the heavy quark mass.
755: The difference between a quadratic fit to the matrix elements
756: $f\sqrt{M}$ and a quadratic fit to $\Phi$ is very small and changes the
757: values for the decay constants by less than 1 MeV. If
758: only the three lighter heavy quark
759: masses are included in the extrapolation to the $b$ mass, $f_{B_s}$ ($f_B$) changes
760: by $-3$ ($+1$) MeV.
761: }
762:
763:
764:
765:
766:
767: %Systematic errors arise from uncertainties in extracting the ground state
768: %contribution from the correlation functions, the determination of physical values of
769: %the lattice parameters such as the lattice spacing and the physical
770: %quark masses, quenching, discretization effects, errors in the
771: %renormalization constants and finite volume effects.
772:
773: %{\it Should probably include a comment on the fitting interval dependence for
774: %some typical correlation funcstions.}
775:
776:
777: %Now we try to estimate the uncertainty in determining the light and strange quark
778: %masses. We estimate the uncertainty of the heavy-light decay constants
779: %from the ambiguity in the determination of the strange quark mass by comparing
780: %the results from our method I and II. This suggests 1 MeV for
781: %$f_{D_s}$ and 2 MeV for $f_{B_s}$.
782: %{\bf I still have
783: %to check the numerical values with the results from the last analysis}
784: %An error in the
785: %determination of the $u,d$ quark mass is difficult to estimate. Our
786: %data suggest only a linear chiral extrapolation. Quenched chiral perturbation
787: %theory may provide a more sophisticated extrapolation formula, however it is not clear if
788: %it is applicable to our data.
789: %chiral perturbation theory at low order will describe the lattice
790: %data. That in some cases it does not describe it, can be seen e.g. in the
791: %discussion of the $\rho$ meson mass in~\cite{galletly2006}.
792:
793:
794: %There are various sources of uncertainty for the determination of the heavy quark masses.
795: %One of them is the uncertainty in the determination of the $b$ and $c$ quark mass.
796: %This we take as the difference between the mass fixed from quarkonium and
797: %from the heavy-light meson system. Further, for the $B$ system there
798: %is an uncertainty from the extrapolation in the heavy quark mass.
799: %The difference between a quadratic fit to the matrix elements
800: %$f\sqrt{M}$ and a quadratic fit to $\Phi$ is very small and changes the
801: %values for the decay constants by at most 1 MeV (for $f_{B_s}$). If
802: %only the three lighter heavy quark
803: %masses are included in the extrapolation to the $b$ mass, $f_B$ ($f_{B_s}$) changes
804: %by $-4$ ($+1$) MeV.
805:
806:
807:
808: Since we have results only from one lattice spacing, we cannot perform
809: a continuum extrapolation from our data alone and have to estimate the
810: discretization effects as a systematic error.
811: Leading discretization effects are $O(a^2)$.
812: {\rm A rough estimate of them can be obtained}
813: %One possibility to estimate them is
814: by squaring the $O(a)$ corrections appearing
815: in the Symanzik improvement program. For the charm quark, the
816: correction proportional to $c_A$ is small, around 2\%, while the term
817: proportional to the quark mass and $b_A$ is around 10\% of the size
818: of the matrix element itself. The square of the sum of these variations
819: is around 1\%, which we take as our estimate for the discretization
820: error of $f_D$ and $f_{D_s}$. A similar consideration for the
821: $B$ and $B_s$ systems results in an
822: estimate of a discretization error of roughly $12\%$.
823: For the error in the renormalization constants we use the estimate
824: given for $Z_A$ in Ref.~\cite{luscher1997b} of 1\%.
825: %
826: \begin{figure}[thb]
827: \begin{center}
828: \epsfig{file=Mkin.eps,width=6.5cm}
829: \end{center}
830: \caption{\small Difference of the kinetic mass and the rest mass for heavy-light mesons
831: with the light hopping parameter $\kappa = 0.13498$. The line at zero is plotted to guide the
832: eye. }
833: \label{fig:mkin}
834: \end{figure}
835: Since the heavy-light meson masses in lattice units in our simulation increase
836: up to values of $\sim 0.8$ one {\rm might} be concerned about cutoff effects
837: in the dispersion relation for the heavy-light meson.
838: We therefore compare the kinetic
839: mass~\cite{elkhadra1997} $M_{\rm kin}$ calculated from
840: \be
841: E^2 = M^2 + \frac{M}{M_{\rm kin}}\vec{p}^{\, 2} + O(p^4),
842: \ee
843: where $M$ is the rest energy of the meson. Results for the light quark mass close to
844: the strange quark mass are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mkin}.
845: We find that discretization errors in the dispersion relation are smaller
846: than the statistical errors.
847:
848: The finite volume effects of the ratio $f_{B_s}/f_B$ have been
849: investigated in the framework of heavy meson chiral perturbation
850: theory~\cite{arndt2004}. For quenched lattices of spatial extent
851: $1.6$ fm and pseudoscalar meson masses around $500$ MeV (which
852: corresponds to the smallest quark mass used in our simulation) they are quoted
853: to be around 1\% or smaller. It is plausible that the finite volume
854: effects for $D$ and $D_s$ mesons are of similar size.
855:
856: We estimate the
857: total systematic error due to discretization effects, errors in
858: $Z_A$, finite volume effects and ambiguities in fixing the physical quark masses by
859: collecting all contributions and adding them in quadrature. It is given as the
860: second error in Table~\ref{tab:comp}.
861:
862: The ratios are less sensitive to some of the systematic effects. The dominating ones
863: for $f_{D_s}/f_{B_s}$ and $f_{D}/f_{B}$ are the discretization effects. For $f_{D_s}/f_D$ and
864: $f_{B_s}/f_B$ we find a variation depending on how the strange quark mass is set,
865: while the estimated discretization effects are smaller than the statistical errors.
866: The uncertainties from fixing the physical quark masses and the discretization errors
867: (added in quadrature) are given as the second error in Table~\ref{tab:results}.
868:
869: We have used the value of the
870: Sommer parameter $r_0 = 0.5$ fm to set the scale in physical units. This choice allows
871: for a direct comparison with previous lattice determinations (see below) but is not
872: universally accepted. With a different value of the Sommer parameter our results have to
873: be modified accordingly.
874: The variation of the
875: decay constants if $r_0$ is changed by $\pm 10\%$ is given as third error
876: bar for our results in Table~\ref{tab:comp}~\footnote{We
877: note, however, that a value of $r_0 = 0.45$ fm leads to seemingly unphysical results.
878: In particular the $SU(3)$ breaking in the meson masses and decay constants becomes very
879: small. Also, different methods to set the strange quark mass
880: produce more noticeable differences in the results. }.
881: %Increasing (decreasing) the value of the Sommer parameter by $\sim 10\%$
882: %results in an increase (decrease) of $f_{D_s}$ by 5\%, of $f_D$ by 10\%, of
883: %$f_{B_s}$ by $8\%$, and of $f_B$ by $13\%$.
884: %
885: \begin{table}[htb]
886: \begin{center}
887:
888: \begin{tabular*}{0.90\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|l|l|l|l|}
889: \hline
890: Ref. & $N_f$, HQ action, scale & $f_{D_s}$[MeV] & $f_{D}$[MeV] \\
891: \hline
892: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Lattice } \\
893: \hline
894: this work & 0, clover, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm& $220(6)(5)(11)$ & $206(6)(3)(22)$ \\
895: \protect\cite{giuseppe2000} & 0, clover, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm&
896: $243(2)(^{03}_{24})$ & $222(3)(^{04}_{33})$ \\
897: \protect\cite{rolf2003} & 0, clover, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm & 252(9) & \\
898: \protect\cite{juettner2005} & 0, clover, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm& 225(6) & \\
899: \protect\cite{kayaba2006} & 0, mod. Fermilab, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm& 237(5) & \\
900: \protect\cite{chiu2005} & 0, overlap, $f_\pi$ & 266(10)(18) & 235(8)(14) \\
901: \protect\cite{aubinfd2005} & $2+1$, Fermilab, $\Upsilon$ spectrum & 249(3)(16) & 201(3)(17) \\
902: \hline
903: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Experiment } \\
904: \hline
905: \protect\cite{CLEOfds2006} & & $280(12)(6)$ & \\
906: \protect\cite{Babarfds2006} & & $283(17)(16)$ & \\
907: \protect\cite{CLEOfd2005} & & & $223(17)(3)$ \\
908: \hline
909: \end{tabular*}
910: \begin{tabular*}{0.90\textwidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}|l|l|l|l|}
911: \hline
912: Ref. &
913: $N_f$, HQ action, scale &
914: $f_{B_s}$[MeV] &
915: $f_{B}$[MeV] \\
916: \hline
917: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Lattice } \\
918: \hline
919: this work & 0, clover, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm & $205(7)(26)(17)$ & $190(8)(23)(25)$ \\
920: \protect\cite{giuseppe2000} & 0, clover, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm&
921: $240(4)(^{12}_{42})$ & $217(5)(^{13}_{40})$ \\
922: \protect\cite{dellamorte2005} & 0, clover+static, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm & 205(12) & \\
923: \protect\cite{guazzini2006} & 0, clover+static, $r_0 = 0.5$ fm & 191(6) & \\
924: \protect\cite{wingate2004} & $2+1$, NRQCD, $\Upsilon$ spectrum & 260(7)(28) & \\
925: \protect\cite{gray2005} & $2+1$, NRQCD, $\Upsilon$ spectrum & & 216(9)(20) \\
926: \hline
927: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Experiment } \\
928: \hline
929: \protect\cite{Bellefb2006} & experiment & & $229(^{36}_{31})(^{34}_{37})$ \\
930: \protect\cite{utfit2006} & UTfit & 227(9) & \\
931: \hline
932: \end{tabular*}
933: \end{center}
934: \caption{\small Heavy-light decay constants from lattice calculations and
935: experiment for the $D$ (upper table) and for the $B$ system (lower table). For the
936: lattice calculations, the number of flavors
937: in the simulation ($N_f$), the heavy
938: quark (HQ) action, and the quantity used to set the scale are also indicated.
939: The first error bar is the statistical, the second (where given) the systematic
940: error except for the uncertainty in $r_0$. For our work we quote a third error assuming
941: a $\pm 10\%$ uncertainty in the physical value of
942: $r_0$. For the result from \cite{juettner2005} we quote the value from the
943: finest lattice instead of the continuum extrapolated result.}
944: \label{tab:comp}
945: \end{table}
946: %
947: %\subsection{Comparison to other lattice results and experiment}
948: %
949:
950: \vspace*{0.2cm}
951:
952: {\noindent \bf 5.}
953: {\rm Finally, we} compare our results to other lattice calculations of
954: decay constants. There exist recent quenched results for $f_{D_s}$ from nonperturbatively
955: $O(a)$ improved clover fermions~\cite{giuseppe2000,rolf2003,juettner2005}
956: for a range of lattice spacings ($0.03 \leq a \leq 0.1$ fm) as well as
957: for overlap quarks~\cite{chiu2005}. The comparison with the clover results
958: is particularly interesting because it sheds some light on the
959: discretization effects and might indicate the possibility of
960: a joint continuum extrapolation.
961: We plot the clover data in Fig.~\ref{fig:fDs} as a
962: function of the squared lattice spacing together with the overlap data.
963: First we notice that on coarser lattices there is a
964: discrepancy between the clover data of Refs.~\cite{giuseppe2000}
965: and~\cite{rolf2003}. The discrepancy
966: corresponds roughly to the difference one obtains when $c_A$ values from different
967: nonperturbative calculations for a meson mass $> 2.4$ GeV are used, as discussed in~\cite{giuseppe2000}.
968: Furthermore, {\rm the work}~\cite{rolf2003}
969: uses a nonperturbatively determined value for $b_A$~\cite{bhattacharya2002}.
970: On the finer lattice of Ref.~\cite{giuseppe2000} ($\beta = 6.2$) the value used in
971: Ref.~\cite{rolf2003} is about $6\%$ larger than the perturbative
972: number, which according to our estimates would affect the decay constants by at most $2\%$.
973: At $\beta = 6.0$ the difference
974: is even smaller.
975: On the finest lattice used by~\cite{rolf2003} ($\beta = 6.45$)
976: the difference between the
977: perturbative and nonperturbative values of $b_A$ is $\sim 7\%$, which translates on a fine lattice into
978: only a very small difference in the decay constants. In a more recent
979: calculation~\cite{bhattacharya2006} the nonperturbative value at that $\beta$ value has come into agreement
980: with perturbation theory, as mentioned in Section 2.
981:
982: Our data is in good agreement with the value obtained by
983: J\"uttner on his finest lattice~\cite{juettner2005}.
984: The overlap value from \cite{chiu2005} is on the other hand
985: substantially larger. Being determined on a relatively
986: coarse lattice it might be affected by discretization errors.
987: {\rm It is important that}
988: all data shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fDs} come from lattices with {\rm similar} spatial extent
989: between $1.5$ and $1.6$ fm. So, finite size effects {\rm can} be expected to be
990: {\rm roughly the same} in all calculations.
991: %
992: \begin{figure}[thb]
993: \begin{center}
994: \epsfig{file=fDs_vs_a_nocont.eps,width=8cm}
995: \end{center}
996: \caption{\small Lattice spacing dependence of quenched $f_{D_s}$ from $O(a)$
997: improved clover
998: quarks (this work, star), (UKQCD~\cite{giuseppe2000}, diamonds),
999: (ALPHA~\cite{rolf2003}, squares), (J\"uttner~\cite{juettner2005}, circle),
1000: and overlap quarks (Ref.~\cite{chiu2005}, triangle).
1001: The error bars show statistical and fitting uncertainties only.
1002: The scale is set using $r_0 = 0.5$ fm with the exception
1003: of~\cite{chiu2005} where $f_\pi$ is employed for the conversion of the decay constant
1004: to physical units.
1005: If $r_0 = 0.5$ fm is used instead, their lattice spacing decreases by
1006: $12\%$, which would increase their result for the decay constant
1007: even further. }
1008: \label{fig:fDs}
1009: \end{figure}
1010:
1011: Our result for $f_{B_s}$ is consistent with the quenched
1012: calculations of~\cite{dellamorte2005,guazzini2006}, but considerably
1013: lower than the nonrelativistic (but unquenched) calculation of~\cite{wingate2004}.
1014: The fit to the standard model gives a value with a
1015: relatively small error in between these two numbers.
1016:
1017: {\rm For $f_D$ and $f_B$, the values obtained from lattice calculations
1018: are consistent with the experimental results.
1019: Since the experimental errors are still large,
1020: this comparison is not conclusive, however.}
1021:
1022: %it is difficult to
1023: %comment in more detail on those results.
1024:
1025: \vspace*{0.2cm}
1026:
1027: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1028: %\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
1029: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1030: {\noindent \bf 6.}
1031: Let us summarize our main findings.
1032: We have calculated decay constants of heavy-light pseudoscalar mesons
1033: on a very fine quenched lattice using clover fermions.
1034: Our extrapolations to the $b$ quark mass appear reasonable. Nevertheless,
1035: from a comparison of the results at the charm mass to
1036: data obtained on coarser lattices
1037: we obtain the impression that discretization errors with the relativistic
1038: formalism adopted here are still significant for the $b$ sector, unless the
1039: inverse lattice spacing becomes larger than
1040: $\sim10$ GeV.
1041:
1042: Our results and those of Ref.~\cite{juettner2005} for $f_{D_s}$
1043: are $10-15\%$ smaller than the central values quoted for other
1044: recent lattice calculations, and roughly $20\%$ smaller
1045: than recent experimental values. {\rm Eventually} one would like to determine the decay constants
1046: to an accuracy of a few percent. {\rm Our} work and the result of Ref.~\cite{juettner2005}
1047: indicate that
1048: discretization errors for the clover results on lattices with
1049: $a^{-1} \leq 2-3$ GeV are too large to reach this precision,
1050: and that even a continuum extrapolation from a set of coarser lattices has a large uncertainty
1051: for heavy quarks. {\rm On the other hand, we do not find any source of large systematic errors,
1052: other than quenching, that could affect our calculation.}
1053: %find no reason to believe
1054: %that systematic errors other than quenching could be large in our calculation.
1055: It seems, therefore, that
1056: %We would therefore like to conclude that
1057: the new lattice results on fine lattices (this work and~\cite{juettner2005})
1058: indicate a relatively small value for $f_{D_s}$ from lattice QCD.
1059: Quenching effects are notoriously difficult
1060: to estimate. However, since in previous calculations with $a^{-1} \approx 2$
1061: GeV~\cite{maynard2002} it was found that the quenching error is insignificant
1062: with our choice of lattice parameters, we expect that they will not be too
1063: large.
1064:
1065: The systematic uncertainties on our results are larger for the $B$ system than
1066: for the $D$ system and more difficult to estimate reliably.
1067: Our results are in agreement with several other recent lattice calculations,
1068: but smaller than the values from recent
1069: unquenched calculations using nonrelativistic methods.
1070:
1071: We find a rather small $SU(3)$
1072: symmetry breaking ratio of the heavy-light and
1073: light decay constants compared to experiment and also to several recent
1074: unquenched lattice calculations. The difference between our numbers and the
1075: unquenched results may be partially
1076: due to the use (see e.g.~\cite{aubinfd2005}) of a chiral
1077: extrapolation formula for the unquenched data which is
1078: inspired by chiral perturbation theory and predicts a particularly
1079: strong decrease of
1080: the decay constant at lighter quark mass values than are accessible in the
1081: simulation. This is in contrast to the use of a simple linear extrapolation
1082: in our calculation.
1083: %For the flavor breaking ratios of the heavy-light and the light
1084: %decay constants we find rather small values compared
1085: %
1086: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1087: %
1088: We would like to thank R. Sommer and A. J\"uttner for discussions.
1089:
1090: The numerical calculations have been performed on the Hitachi SR8000
1091: at LRZ (Munich). We are grateful to the LRZ for their support.
1092: We thank H. St\"uben for help with the inverter and its parallelization,
1093: and D. Pleiter for help with the analysis program.
1094:
1095: The work is supported in part by the DFG (Forschergruppe
1096: Gitter-Hadronen-Ph\"anomenolo\-gie).
1097: A.A. thanks the DFG and ``Berliner Programm zur F\"orderung der
1098: Chancengleichheit f\"ur Frauen in Forschung und Lehre''
1099: for financial support.
1100:
1101: %\newpage
1102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1103: %\appendix
1104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1105:
1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1107: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1108: \begin{thebibliography} {99}
1109: \bibitem{Bellefb2006}
1110: K. Ikado et al., Belle Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1111: {\bf 97} 251802 (2006), hep-ex/0604018.
1112: \bibitem{CLEOfd2005}
1113: M. Artuso et al., CLEO Collaboration,
1114: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 251801 (2005), hep-ex/0508057.
1115: \bibitem{CLEOfds2006}
1116: S. Stone, talk at ICHEP 06, Moscow, Russia, 26 July -
1117: 2 Aug 2006, hep-ex/0610026.
1118: \bibitem{Babarfds2006}
1119: M. Aubert et al., Babar Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 98}
1120: 141801 (2007), hep-ex/0607094.
1121: \bibitem{eichten1989}
1122: E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. {\bf B234}, 511 (1990).
1123: \bibitem{lepage1994}
1124: G.P. Lepage et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 46}, 4052 (1992), hep-lat/9205007.
1125: \bibitem{elkhadra1997}
1126: A.X. El-Khadra, A.S. Kronfeld, P.B. Mackenzie,
1127: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 3933 (1997), hep-lat/9604004.
1128: \bibitem{aoki2003}
1129: S. Aoki, Y. Kuramashi and S. Tominaga, Prog. Theor. Phys. 109, 383 (2003),
1130: hep-lat/0107009.
1131: \bibitem{kayaba2006}
1132: Y. Kayaba et al, CP-PACS Collaboration, JHEP 0702, 019 (2007), hep-lat/0611033.
1133: \bibitem{lin2006}
1134: H.-W. Lin, N.H. Christ, hep-lat/0608005; \\
1135: N.H. Christ, M. Li, H.-W. Lin, hep-lat/0608006.
1136: \bibitem{dellamorte2006}
1137: J. Heitger, M. Kurth and R. Sommer, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B669}, 173 (2003),
1138: hep-lat/0302019; \\
1139: M. Della Morte, P. Fritzsch and J. Heitger, JHEP 0701, 007 (2007),
1140: hep-lat/0611036.
1141: \bibitem{wingate2004}
1142: M. Wingate et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 162001, hep-ph/0311130.
1143: \bibitem{gray2005}
1144: A. Gray et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 212001, hep-lat/0507015.
1145: \bibitem{milccode}
1146: MILC Collaboration,
1147: http://www.physics.utah.edu/{\~{}}detar/milc/.
1148: \bibitem{maynard2002}
1149: C.M. Maynard, UKQCD Collaboration,
1150: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 388, hep-lat/0109026.
1151: \bibitem{necco01}
1152: S. Necco and R. Sommer, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B622}, 328 (2002), hep-lat/0108008.
1153: \bibitem{SW1985}
1154: B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B259}, 572 (1985).
1155: \bibitem{luscher1997a}
1156: M. L\"uscher et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B491}, 323 (1997), hep-lat/9609035.
1157: \bibitem{gockeler1998}
1158: M. G\"ockeler et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 5562 (1998), hep-lat/9707021.
1159: \bibitem{guagnelli2001}
1160: M. Guagnelli et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B595}, 44 (2001), hep-lat/0009021.
1161: \bibitem{pleiter_diss}
1162: D. Pleiter, Ph.D. thesis.
1163: \bibitem{gattr2004}
1164: C. Gattringer et al., BGR Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B677}, 3 (2004),
1165: hep-lat/0307013.
1166: \bibitem{galletly2006}
1167: D. Galletly et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 75}, 073015 (2007), hep-lat/0607024.
1168: \bibitem{bietenholz2006}
1169: W. Bietenholz, S. Shcheredin, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B754}, 17 (2006),
1170: hep-lat/0605013.
1171: \bibitem{chiu2005}
1172: T.W. Chiu et al., Phys. Lett. {\bf B624} 31 (2005), hep-ph/0506266.
1173: \bibitem{luscher1997b}
1174: M. L\"uscher et al., Nucl. Phys. B491, 344 (1997), hep-lat/9611015.
1175: \bibitem{sint1996}
1176: S. Sint and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B502}, 251 (1997), hep-lat/9704001.
1177: \bibitem{bhattacharya2001}
1178: T. Bhattacharya et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 074505 (2001),
1179: hep-lat/0009038.
1180: \bibitem{bhattacharya2006}
1181: T. Bhattacharya et al., Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 114507 (2006), hep-lat/0509160.
1182: \bibitem{babich2006}
1183: R. Babich et al., JHEP 0601, 086 (2006), hep-lat/0509027.
1184: \bibitem{davies2004}
1185: C. Davies et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 022001 (2004), hep-lat/0304004.
1186: \bibitem{neubert1993}
1187: M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245, 259 (1993).
1188: \bibitem{arndt2004}
1189: D. Arndt and C.J.D. Lin, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 70}, 014503 (2004), hep-lat/0403012.
1190: \bibitem{giuseppe2000}
1191: K.C. Bowler et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B619}, 507 (2001), hep-lat/0007020.
1192: \bibitem{rolf2003} %ALPHA FDS paper
1193: A. J\"uttner and J. Rolf, Phys. Lett. {\bf B560} 59 (2003), hep-lat/0302016.
1194: \bibitem{juettner2005} %ALPHA FDS paper
1195: A. J\"uttner, Ph.D. thesis, hep-lat/0503040.
1196: \bibitem{bhattacharya2002}
1197: T. Bhattacharya et al., Nucl. Phys. {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 106}, 789
1198: (2002), hep-lat/0111001.
1199: \bibitem{dellamorte2005} %ALPHA FBS paper
1200: M. Della Morte et al.,
1201: Phys. Lett. {\bf B581} 93 (2004); Erratum-ibid. {\bf B612}, 313 (2005),
1202: hep-lat/0307021.
1203: \bibitem{guazzini2006}
1204: D. Guazzini, R. Sommer, N. Tantalo, talk at Lattice 2006, Tucson, Arizona,
1205: USA, July 23-28, 2006, to be published
1206: in Proceedings of Science as POS(LAT2006)084, hep-lat/0609065.
1207: \bibitem{pdg2006}
1208: W.-M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).
1209: \bibitem{utfit2006}
1210: M. Bona et al., UTfit Collaboration, JHEP 0610, 081 (2006), hep-ph/0606167.
1211: \bibitem{aubinfd2005}
1212: C. Aubin et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122002 (2005), hep-lat/0506030.
1213: \end{thebibliography}
1214:
1215: \end{document}
1216:
1217: