1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{mypre}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
5:
6: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{2pt}
7: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.25in}
8: \setlength{\textheight}{9.00in}
9: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.125in} % for FNAL
10: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{\oddsidemargin} % for FNAL
11: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.625in} % for FNAL
12:
13: \newcommand{\case}[2]{{\ensuremath{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: % Definition of title page:
18: \title{
19: Remark on the Theoretical Uncertainty in $B^0$-$\bar{B}^0$ Mixing
20: }
21: \author{Andreas S. Kronfeld \\
22: {\em\small Theoretical Physics Department,
23: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, %} \\ {\em\small
24: Batavia, Illinois 60510}
25: \and
26: Sin\'ead M. Ryan \\
27: {\em\small School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin~2, Ireland}}
28: \date{June 5, 2002} % optional
29:
30: \preprint{FERMILAB-Pub-02/109-T \\ hep-ph/0206058}
31:
32: \maketitle
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We re-examine the theoretical uncertainty in the Standard Model
35: expression for $B^0$-$\bar{B}^0$ mixing.
36: We focus on lattice calculations of the ratio~$\xi$, needed
37: to relate the oscillation frequency of $B^0_s$-$\bar{B}^0_s$
38: mixing to the poorly known CKM element~$V_{td}$.
39: We replace the usual linear chiral extrapolation with one that
40: includes the logarithm that appears in chiral perturbation
41: theory.
42: We find a significant shift in the ratio~$\xi$, from the
43: conventional $1.15\pm0.05$ to $\xi=1.32\pm0.10$.
44: \end{abstract}
45:
46: It is anticipated that the oscillation frequency of
47: $B^0_s$-$\bar{B}^0_s$ mixing will be measured during Run~2 of the
48: Tevatron~\cite{Anikeev:2002bb}.
49: It is thus timely to assess the measurement's impact on tests of the
50: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) picture of flavor and $CP$ violation.
51: The CKM interpretation is limited by the poorly known hadronic
52: matrix elements for $B^0_s\leftrightarrow\bar{B}^0_s$ and
53: $B^0_d\leftrightarrow\bar{B}^0_d$ transitions.
54: In this paper we re-examine lattice calculations of these matrix
55: elements, focusing on the chiral extrapolation.
56: We find that the range usually quoted is probably incorrect.
57:
58: In the Standard Model, the theoretical expression for the oscillation
59: frequency is
60: \begin{equation}
61: \Delta m_q = \left(\frac{G_F^2m_W^2S_0}{16\pi^2m_{B_q}}\right)
62: |V_{tq}^*V_{tb}|^2 \eta_B {\cal M}_q ,
63: \label{eq:Delta}
64: \end{equation}
65: where $q\in\{d,\,s\}$, $S_0$ is an Inami-Lim function,
66: $\eta_B$ is a short-distance QCD correction, and
67: ${\cal M}_q$ is the hadronic matrix element for
68: $B^0_q\leftrightarrow\bar{B}^0_q$ transitions.
69: In Eq.~(\ref{eq:Delta}), the parentheses consists of
70: accurately known quantities, and $|V_{tq}^*V_{tb}|$ is the CKM factor.
71: The hadronic matrix element
72: \begin{equation}
73: {\cal M}_q=\langle\bar{B}_q^0| [\bar{b}\gamma^\mu (1-\gamma^5)q]
74: [\bar{b}\gamma_\mu (1-\gamma^5)q]|B_q^0\rangle
75: \end{equation}
76: and $\eta_B$ depend on the renormalization scheme, but the product
77: $\eta_B{\cal M}_q$ does not.
78: The renor\-malization-group invariant value of the short-distance factor
79: is $\hat{\eta}_B=0.55$.
80:
81: One should keep in mind that non-Standard physics at short distances
82: can modify Eq.~(\ref{eq:Delta}).
83: For convenience we shall couch the discussion as using $\Delta m_q$
84: and the hadronic matrix element to determine~$|V_{tq}|$.
85: The resulting value of~$|V_{tq}|$ can then be compared to other CKM
86: determinations to test for deviations from the Standard Model.
87:
88: ${\cal M}_q$ must be computed with a non-perturbative method,
89: such as lattice gauge theory.
90: For historical reasons one usually writes
91: \begin{equation}
92: {\cal M}_q = \frac{8}{3}m^2_{B_q}f^2_{B_q} B_{B_q}
93: \end{equation}
94: and focuses on the decay constants $f_{B_q}$ and
95: the bag parameters~$B_{B_q}$.
96: But lattice QCD gives ${\cal M}_q$ directly
97: (and $f_{B_q}$ separately from
98: $\langle 0|\bar{b}\gamma_\mu\gamma^5 q|B_q^0\rangle$).
99: The separation does, however, turn out to be useful, as we shall see
100: below, when considering the dependence of $f_{B_q}$ and $B_{B_q}$ on
101: the masses of the light quarks.
102:
103: At present the uncertainty in the matrix elements is large.
104: A~recent review~\cite{Ryan:2001ej} of lattice calculations quotes
105: \begin{eqnarray}
106: f_{B_s} = 230 \pm 30~\textrm{MeV} , & \quad &
107: \hat{B}_{B_s} = 1.34 \pm 0.10 , \label{eq:fBs} \\
108: f_{B_d} = 198 \pm 30~\textrm{MeV} , & \quad &
109: \hat{B}_{B_d} = 1.30 \pm 0.12 . \label{eq:fBd}
110: \end{eqnarray}
111: These estimates take into account the first (partially) unquenched
112: calculations of $f_{B_q}$ \cite{Collins:1999ff,AliKhan:2000eg,%
113: AliKhan:2001jg,Yamada:2001xp,Bernard:2001wy},
114: several quenched calculations of $B_{B_q}$ and preliminary results
115: suggesting that $B_{B_q}$ changes little when the quenched approximation
116: is removed~\cite{Yamada:2001xp}.
117: The raw Monte Carlo data in lattice calculations are generated with
118: the light quark mass~$m_q$ in the range 0.2--$0.5<m_q/m_s<1$,
119: and the physical matrix elements are obtained by extrapolating $m_q$
120: to the down quark's mass~$m_d$.
121: This method of reaching physically light quarks is called the chiral
122: extrapolation, and it plays an important role in our analysis below.
123:
124: The frequency for $B^0_d$-$\bar{B}^0_d$ mixing has been measured
125: precisely, $\Delta m_d=0.494\pm0.007~\textrm{ps}^{-1}$~\cite{mixing}.
126: With Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Delta}) and~(\ref{eq:fBd}) the uncertainty
127: on~$|V_{td}|$ is limited to~15\% by $f_{B_d}\sqrt{B_{B_d}}$.
128: The precision on $|V_{td}|$ will not improve until better (unquenched)
129: lattice calculations have been carried out.
130: The frequency for $B^0_s$-$\bar{B}^0_s$ mixing is known to be high,
131: $\Delta m_s>15~\textrm{ps}^{-1}$~\cite{mixing}.
132: But details of the way $\Delta m_s$ is extracted from the data mean
133: that the first measurement will immediately have a precision at the
134: percent level~\cite{Anikeev:2002bb}.
135: Thus, it is interesting to form the ratio
136: \begin{equation}
137: \frac{\Delta m_s}{\Delta m_d} =
138: \left|\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}\right|^2
139: \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}} \xi^2 ,
140: \label{eq:ratio}
141: \end{equation}
142: where
143: \begin{equation}
144: \xi^2 = \frac{f_{B_s}^2 B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2 B_{B_d}} ,
145: \end{equation}
146: and use Eq.~(\ref{eq:ratio}) to determine $|V_{td}|$.
147: The measurement uncertainties are (or soon will be) negligible.
148: By CKM unitarity $|V_{ts}|=|V_{cb}|$ to good approximation.
149: Thus, the error in $|V_{td}|$ is
150: \begin{equation}
151: \delta|V_{td}| = \sqrt{ (\delta|V_{cb}|)^2 + (\delta\xi)^2 }.
152: \end{equation}
153: The uncertainty in $|V_{cb}|$, determined from semileptonic $B$ decay,
154: is also dominated by QCD, but it is only 2--4\% and relatively well
155: understood~\cite{Cronin:2001fk,Hashimoto:2001nb,Briere:2002ew}.
156:
157: The conventional wisdom, coming from several reviews
158: of lattice $B$ physics, is that $\delta\xi$ is small.
159: Based on such endorsement, recent efforts to fit a wide range of
160: precisely measured flavor observables have used
161: $\xi=1.14 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.05$~\cite{Ciuchini:2000de} or
162: $\xi=1.16 \pm 0.03 \pm 0.05$~\cite{Hoecker:2001xe}.
163: The second error bar is meant to reflect the uncertainty from the
164: quenched approximation; the first covers all other sources of
165: uncertainty in lattice calculations.
166: Central values in this range are reproduced by many quenched, and
167: some unquenched, calculations.
168:
169: Such a small error is, however, not universally accepted in the
170: lattice community.
171: Booth~\cite{Booth:1994hx}, noting that chiral logarithms in the
172: quenched approximation differ strikingly from those of QCD, predicted
173: that $\xi$ in QCD would be 0.15--0.28 larger than in the quenched
174: approximation.
175: Sharpe and Zhang~\cite{Sharpe:1996qp}, with a similar point of view,
176: reckoned that $\delta(\xi-1)/(\xi-1)$ could be~100\%.
177: Bernard, Blum and Soni~\cite{Bernard:1998dg} studied two different
178: ways of carrying out the analysis.
179: Treating $f_{B_s}/f_{B_d}$ and $B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}$ separately (as usual),
180: they found $\xi=1.17 \pm 0.02^{+0.12}_{-0.06}$;
181: treating instead ${\cal M}_s/{\cal M}_d$ directly,
182: they found $\xi=1.30 \pm 0.04^{+0.21}_{-0.15}$.
183: (In Ref.~\cite{Bernard:1998dg} the second error comes from studying
184: the lattice spacing dependence; the difference is significant
185: source of concern~\cite{Soni:2002rm}.)
186: Finally, the JLQCD collaboration studied the effect of the
187: chiral log in lattice calculations with two light flavors,
188: finding that the extrapolated value of~$\xi$ could change
189: significantly~\cite{Yamada:2001xp}.
190:
191: At first glance, $\delta\xi/\xi$ could well be smaller than
192: $\delta f_{B_q}/f_{B_q}$.
193: $\xi$~is a ratio of similar quantities, so, in numerical lattice
194: calculations, most of the Monte Carlo statistical fluctuations
195: do cancel.
196: Similarly, the short-distance normalization factor of the lattice
197: operator also cancels.
198: But one is still left with a multi-scale problem, with
199: the heavy quark mass~$m_b$,
200: the QCD scale~$\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$
201: and the range of light quark masses from~$m_s$ down to~$m_d$.
202: Because the numerator and denominator of $\xi$ are the same, except
203: for the light quark, one may expect $\xi$ to be insensitive to the
204: heavy-quark and QCD scales, but not to scales between $m_s$ and~$m_d$.
205:
206: Let us examine the uncertainties associated with each scale in more
207: detail.
208: Heavy-quark corrections to $\xi$ are suppressed
209: by~$(m_s-m_d)/m_b\sim2\%$.
210: In lattice calculations, one should also worry about discretization
211: effects of the heavy quark, because $m_ba\sim1$.
212: There are several ways to handle this problem and some debate over
213: the best method~\cite{Kronfeld:2000id}.
214: But the various discretizations yield consistent results
215: for $f_{B_s}/f_{B_d}$ and~$B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}$.
216: Thus, we conclude that errors from the short distance scales are under
217: control.
218:
219: Next let us consider $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$.
220: Implicit in the quenched approximation (also called the valence
221: approximation) is that the omitted sea quarks are compensated by a
222: shift in the bare gauge coupling~\cite{Weingarten:1981jy}.
223: This treats light-quark vacuum polarization in a dielectric
224: approximation.
225: Such approximations can be accurate when looking at a narrow range
226: of scales.
227: In the case at hand, that means that ratios of decay constants or bag
228: parameters could be accurate as long as all quark masses are not too
229: different.
230: Thus, it is plausible that the quenched approximation accurately
231: determines the slope of $\xi$, viewed as a function of $r=m_q/m_s$,
232: when $r\sim 1$.
233: Unquenched calculations \cite{Collins:1999ff,AliKhan:2000eg,%
234: AliKhan:2001jg,Yamada:2001xp,Bernard:2001wy}
235: do not contradict this expectation.
236: These calculations, and the justification of the quenched
237: approximation~\cite{Weingarten:1981jy}, suggest that the scale
238: $\Lambda_{\mathrm{QCD}}$ is also under control.
239:
240: That leaves us with contributions to~$\xi$ from the long distances
241: between $1/m_s$ and $1/m_d$.
242: Here the quenched approximation is known to break
243: down~\cite{Booth:1994hx,Sharpe:1996qp}, and it is not obvious that
244: the quenching error could be as small as~5\%.
245: One must take a careful look at how the chiral extrapolation is done,
246: and consider what methods of extrapolation are reliable.
247:
248: The correct framework to discuss the long-distance behavior of QCD, and
249: the chiral extrapolation in particular, is chiral perturbation theory.
250: We neglect $1/m$ corrections and write
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: \sqrt{m_{B_q}} f_{B_q} & = & \Phi \left[1 + \Delta f_q \right],\\
253: B_{B_q} & = & B \left[1 + \Delta B_q \right],
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: where $\Phi$ and $B$ are independent of both heavy and light quark
256: masses, and $\Delta f_q$ and $\Delta B_q$ denote the (one-loop)
257: contribution of the light meson cloud.
258: The ``chiral logarithms'' reside in $\Delta f_q$ and~$\Delta B_q$.
259:
260: Neglecting isospin breaking,
261: the one-loop corrections to the decay constants
262: are~\cite{Grinstein:1992qt,Goity:1992tp,Booth:1994hx,Sharpe:1996qp}
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: \Delta f_s = - \frac{1+3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[
265: m_K^2 \ln\left(m_K^2/\mu^2\right)
266: \right. & + & \left.
267: \case{1}{3} m_\eta^2 \ln\left(m_\eta^2/\mu^2\right) \right]
268: \nonumber \\ & + &
269: \left(m_K^2 + \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2\right) f_1(\mu) +
270: \left(m_K^2 - \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2\right) f_2(\mu) ,
271: \label{eq:unquenchedfBs} \\
272: \Delta f_d = - \frac{1+3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[
273: \case{3}{4} m_\pi^2 \ln\left(m_\pi^2/\mu^2\right)
274: \right. & + & \left.
275: \case{1}{2} m_K^2 \ln\left(m_K^2/\mu^2\right) +
276: \case{1}{12} m_\eta^2 \ln\left(m_\eta^2/\mu^2\right) \right]
277: \nonumber \\ & + &
278: \left(m_K^2 + \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2\right) f_1(\mu) +
279: \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2 f_2(\mu) ,
280: \label{eq:unquenchedfBd}
281: \end{eqnarray}
282: and to the bag parameters
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: \Delta B_s = - \frac{1-3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2}
285: \case{2}{3} m_\eta^2 \ln\left(m_\eta^2/\mu^2\right) & + &
286: \left(m_K^2 + \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2\right) B_1(\mu) +
287: \left(m_K^2 - \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2\right) B_2(\mu) ,
288: \label{eq:unquenchedBBs} \\
289: \Delta B_d = - \frac{1-3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[
290: \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2 \ln\left(m_\pi^2/\mu^2\right)
291: \right. & + & \left.
292: \case{1}{6} m_\eta^2 \ln\left(m_\eta^2/\mu^2\right) \right]
293: \nonumber \\ & + &
294: \left(m_K^2 + \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2\right) B_1(\mu) +
295: \case{1}{2} m_\pi^2 B_2(\mu) ,
296: \label{eq:unquenchedBBd}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: where $f$ and $g$ are (the chiral limit of) the light pseudoscalar
299: decay constant and $B$-$B^*$-$\pi$ coupling.
300: The ``low-energy'' constants $f_i(\mu)$ and $B_i(\mu)$ encode QCD
301: dynamics from distances shorter than $\mu^{-1}$, whereas the logarithms
302: are long-distance properties of QCD, constrained by chiral symmetry.
303: The dependence on $\mu$ cancels in the total.
304:
305: It is convenient to look separately at the $f_B$ and $\sqrt{B_B}$
306: factors in $\xi$.
307: The chiral logarithm in the $\sqrt{B_B}$ factor could be small because
308: it is multiplied by $1-3g^2$.
309: On the other hand, the chiral logarithm in the $f_B$ factor could be
310: significant, because it is multiplied by $1+3g^2$.
311: Consequently, we focus on
312: \begin{equation}
313: \xi_f = f_{B_s}/f_{B_d}
314: \label{eq:xif}
315: \end{equation}
316: and study its chiral extrapolation.
317: Our strategy is to use lattice calculations as an (indirect) way of
318: determining the low-energy constants, and then we reconstitute~$\xi_f$.
319: Repeating our analysis for the chiral extrapolation of
320: $\xi_B=\sqrt{B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}}$ verifies that $\xi_B$ has a small effect.
321:
322: Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:unquenchedfBs}) and~(\ref{eq:unquenchedfBd}),
323: the first non-trivial order in the chiral expansion is
324: \begin{equation}
325: \xi_f - 1 = (m_K^2 - m_\pi^2) f_2(\mu) -
326: \frac{1+3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[
327: \case{1}{2} m_K^2 \ln(m_K^2/\mu^2) + % \right. & + & \left.
328: \case{1}{4} m_\eta^2 \ln(m_\eta^2/\mu^2) -
329: \case{3}{4} m_\pi^2 \ln(m_\pi^2/\mu^2) \right] .
330: \label{eq:xifchi}
331: \end{equation}
332: All lattice estimates of $\xi$ are obtained not at physical light
333: meson masses, but by chiral extrapolation.
334: Therefore, we use Gell-Mann--Okubo formulae to replace the meson
335: masses with
336: \begin{eqnarray}
337: m_\pi^2 & = & m_{qq}^2, \label{eq:mpiGMO} \\
338: m_K^2 & = & (m_{ss}^2 + m_{qq}^2)/2, \label{eq:mKGMO} \\
339: m_\eta^2 & = & (2m_{ss}^2 + m_{qq}^2)/3. \label{eq:metaGMO}
340: \end{eqnarray}
341: Varying the light quark mass changes $m_{qq}^2\propto m_q$.
342: Lattice calculations typically take $m_{qq}^2$ not too different from
343: $m_{ss}^2$, so we write $m_{qq}^2=rm_{ss}^2$.
344: Then
345: \begin{equation}
346: \xi_f(r) - 1 = m_{ss}^2(1 - r) \left\{\case{1}{2}f_2(\mu) -
347: \frac{1+3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[\frac{5}{12}
348: \ln(m_{ss}^2/\mu^2) + l(r) \right]\right\},
349: \label{eq:xifr}
350: \end{equation}
351: where
352: \begin{equation}
353: l(r) = \frac{1}{1-r}\left[
354: \frac{1+r}{4} \ln\left(\frac{1+r}{2}\right) +
355: \frac{2+r}{12} \ln\left(\frac{2+r}{3}\right) -
356: \frac{3r}{4} \ln(r) \right].
357: \label{eq:chilog}
358: \end{equation}
359: The function $\chi(r)=(1-r)l(r)$ contains the chiral logarithms.
360: It is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi}.
361: %
362: \begin{figure}[p]
363: \centering
364: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{log_combo.eps}
365: \caption[fig:chi]{Plot of the chiral logarithm $\chi(r)$
366: as the mass ratio $r=m_{qq}^2/m_{ss}^2=m_q/m_s$ is varied,
367: compared with a straight line fit for $0.5\le r\le 1.0$.
368: The difference between the curve and the fit is shown in
369: the inset.}
370: \label{fig:chi}
371: \end{figure}
372: %
373: The curvature over $0.5\le r\le 1.0$ is too small to be resolved when
374: there are percent-level statistical uncertainties on $\xi_f$.
375: But once $r\ll1$, which is appropriate for the down quark with
376: $r_d\approx1/25$, the curvature required by the chiral log has a
377: significant effect.
378: Fig.~\ref{fig:xi_from_f2} shows this effect,
379: %
380: \begin{figure}[p]
381: \centering
382: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{xi_from_f2.eps}
383: \caption[fig:xi_from_f2]{Plot of $\xi_f$ against $r$ for several
384: values of the low-energy constant:
385: $f_2(1~\textrm{GeV})=0.2,\,0.5,\,0.8~\textrm{GeV}^{-2}$.
386: Also shown is the linear extrapolation with $\xi_f(r_d)=1.15\pm0.05$.}
387: \label{fig:xi_from_f2}
388: \end{figure}
389: %
390: comparing the conventional linear chiral extrapolation with
391: Eq.~(\ref{eq:xifr}), for~$f_2(\mu)$ in the range coming from
392: Eq.~(\ref{eq:f2S}), below.
393:
394: When $\xi$ is calculated in lattice gauge theory, the range of $r$
395: is restricted to $r\lesssim1$ but $r\not\ll1$.
396: Usually, it is fit to a straight line
397: \begin{equation}
398: \xi_f(r) - 1 = (1-r)S_f
399: \label{eq:xifS}
400: \end{equation}
401: and similarly $\xi^2_B(r)-1=(1-r)S_B$.
402: Usually one assumes this linear extrapolation holds down to the chiral
403: limit, quoting $\xi=[1+(1-r_d)S_f][1+\case{1}{2}(1-r_d)S_B]$.
404: The chiral log says, however, that this procedure is not trustworthy.
405: It has been employed because there was, until recently, no independent
406: reliable estimate of the $B$-$B^*$-$\pi$ coupling~$g^2$ in the
407: coefficient of the chiral log.
408:
409: The CLEO collaboration has recently measured the width of
410: the $D^*$ meson, which yields a value for the $D$-$D^*$-$\pi$
411: coupling~\cite{Anastassov:2001cw}.
412: Heavy-quark symmetry suggests that the $B$-$B^*$-$\pi$ coupling is
413: nearly the same.
414: On this basis, we shall set $g^2=0.35$, although below we allow for
415: 20\% deviations.
416: With $g^2=0.35$, the chiral log in $\xi_B$ is truly small, because
417: $1-3g^2=-0.05$, but the chiral log in $\xi_f$ is multiplied with
418: $1+3g^2=+2.05$.
419:
420: With this handle on $g^2$, we can interpret the lattice results
421: for~$S_f$ as a calculation of~$f_2(\mu)$.
422: We assume the linear fit given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:xifS}) makes sense
423: around $r=r_0\sim 1$, even though we do not trust it when $r\ll1$.
424: So, at $r_0$ we set the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:xifr}) equal to
425: the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:xifS}) and find
426: \begin{equation}
427: m_{ss}^2 \case{1}{2} f_2(\mu) = S_f + m_{ss}^2
428: \frac{1+3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[\frac{5}{12}
429: \ln(m_{ss}^2/\mu^2) + l(r_0) \right].
430: \label{eq:f2S}
431: \end{equation}
432: Then, inserting this result into Eq.~(\ref{eq:xifr})
433: \begin{equation}
434: \xi_f(r) - 1 = (1 - r) \left\{S_f + m_{ss}^2
435: \frac{1+3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[ l(r_0) - l(r) \right] \right\}.
436: \label{eq:xiffinal}
437: \end{equation}
438: To evaluate the right-hand side, one needs estimates of $f$,
439: $g^2$ and~$S_f$.
440: We use $f=130$~MeV and $g^2=0.35$.
441: In addition, we take~\cite{Ryan:2001ej}
442: \begin{equation}
443: (1-r_d)S_f=0.15\pm0.05
444: \label{eq:latinput}
445: \end{equation}
446: which brackets many quenched calculations (for which there is a lot
447: of experience and reproducibility) as well as less well-developed
448: unquenched calculations.%
449: \footnote{In fact, some ``unquenched'' calculations only have $n_f=2$.}
450:
451: Once we have made the Ansatz to use the slope from lattice QCD to
452: determine the low-energy constant via Eq.~(\ref{eq:f2S}), another
453: source of uncertainty is the choice of~$r_0$.
454: Fig.~\ref{fig:xi} shows the result from Eq.~(\ref{eq:xiffinal})
455: for the physical value $\xi_f(r_d)$,
456: as a function of $r_0$ from 0~to~1.5.
457: (The lower end~0 is not natural, but recovers the conventional result;
458: the upper end~1.5 is where this order of chiral perturbation theory
459: is less trustworthy.)
460: %
461: \begin{figure}[btp]
462: \centering
463: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{xi_from_Sf.eps}
464: \caption[fig:xi]{Plot of $\xi_f$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:xiffinal}),
465: with $(1-r_d)S_f=0.15\pm0.05$, $m_{ss}^2=2(m_K^2-m_\pi^2)$,
466: and $r=r_d=m_\pi^2/m_{ss}^2$, as a function of $r_0$.}
467: \label{fig:xi}
468: \end{figure}
469: %
470: Since the typical range of fits leading to Eq.~(\ref{eq:latinput})
471: is $0.5<r<1.0$, we choose $r_0$ in this range and use Fig.~\ref{fig:xi}
472: to obtain
473: \begin{equation}
474: \xi_f = 1.32 \pm 0.08.
475: \label{eq:xifrange}
476: \end{equation}
477: With separation scale $\mu=1$~GeV, $\xi_f-1$ receives nearly equal
478: contributions from the low-energy constant (0.159) and the chiral
479: log~(0.165).%
480: \footnote{Loops with excited $B^{**}_q$ mesons are expected to
481: contribute significantly to~$\xi_f$~\cite{Falk:1993iu,Colangelo:1995ph},
482: but the ensuing $r$ dependence is well described by linear extrapolation,
483: so it is accurate to lump them into $(1-r)f_2(\mu)$.}
484:
485: We have carried out a similar analysis for $\xi_B$ and also allowed for
486: a $\pm20\%$ range on~$g^2$.
487: (See the appendix for details.)
488: The chiral logs in $\xi_f$ and $\xi_B$ pull in opposite directions, so
489: the resulting $\xi=\xi_f\xi_B$ is insensitive to~$g^2$:
490: \begin{equation}
491: \xi = 1.32 \pm 0.10,
492: \label{eq:xirange}
493: \end{equation}
494: which is quite different from the range usually used in CKM~fits,
495: although it agrees with qualitative discussions of chiral
496: logs~\cite{Booth:1994hx,Sharpe:1996qp}, a direct analysis of
497: ${\cal M}_s/{\cal M}_d$~\cite{Bernard:1998dg}, and chiral log fits to
498: preliminary unquenched calculations~\cite{Yamada:2001xp}.
499: The shift in central value from 1.15 to 1.32 can be thought of as a
500: correction to the quenched approximation: mature unquenched calculations
501: will certainly see the curvature required by the chiral log.
502:
503: Because our result is so different than the conventional one,
504: let us stress the differences in methodology.
505: Usually $\xi$ is obtained via a linear chiral extrapolation, although
506: chiral log fits have been tried in Ref.~\cite{Yamada:2001xp}.
507: We have relied completely on the functional form predicted by chiral
508: perturbation theory. %, including chiral logs.
509: It is difficult to determine the coefficient of the chiral logs directly
510: from the lattice calculation.
511: We have circumvented this obstacle by using the $D^*$
512: width~\cite{Anastassov:2001cw}, which, with heavy-quark symmetry,
513: implies $g^2=0.35$.
514: The uncertainty in Eq.~(\ref{eq:xirange}) is larger than in many other
515: papers, mostly because we have assigned $\pm0.05$ instead of $\pm0.03$
516: uncertainty to the lattice calculations.
517: On the other hand, we have also not done a complete error analysis:
518: for example, we have neglected uncertainties from higher orders in the
519: chiral expansion.
520:
521: One could easily reduce the theoretical uncertainty
522: in $B^0$-$\bar{B}^0$ mixing by carrying out lattice
523: calculations designed to determine the low-energy constants in
524: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:unquenchedfBs})--(\ref{eq:unquenchedBBd}).
525: If one takes closely-spaced values of the light quark mass, even if
526: close to the strange mass, one can compute the derivative~$d\xi/dr$.
527: If one is willing to take $g^2$ from experiment, these derivatives give
528: $f_2(\mu)$ and $B_2(\mu)$, and one can proceed to determine~$\xi$ for
529: physically light quark masses.
530: The same procedure could be applied to $f_{B_q}$ and $B_{B_q}$ although
531: now one must also compute $f_1(\mu)$ and $B_1(\mu)$, and also cope
532: with further low-energy constants in the $1/m_b$
533: corrections~\cite{Boyd:1994pa,Booth:1994rr}.
534: Chiral extrapolations with chiral logs may well change $f_{B_q}$ from
535: the estimates in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:fBs}) and~(\ref{eq:fBd}) in the same
536: way they changed $\xi_f$.
537:
538: From a (lattice) purist's point of view it may be unsatisfactory to
539: take $g^2$ from experiment.
540: In the long run it will, however, be possible to solidify our knowledge
541: of $g^2$ (in the $B$ system) through lattice calculations and other
542: applications of chiral perturbation theory to $B$~physics.
543: To relate the very precise measurements to the CKM matrix, the
544: combination of phenomenology for $g^2$ and lattice calculation for
545: the low-energy constant is very satisfactory, especially since we find
546: that $\xi$ varies by less than 2\% when $g^2$ is varied by 20\%.
547: Fig.~\ref{fig:ut} shows how the combination of $\sin 2\beta$ and
548: $\Delta m_s/\Delta m_d$ work together to constrain the apex of the
549: unitarity triangle.
550: %
551: \begin{figure}[b]
552: \centering
553: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{ut.eps}
554: \caption[fig:ut]{Sketch of constraints on the apex of the
555: unitarity triangle with $\sin 2\beta=0.79\pm0.10$,
556: $\Delta m_s=20~\textrm{ps}^{-1}$ and
557: $\xi=1.32\pm0.05$ or $1.15\pm0.05$.}
558: \label{fig:ut}
559: \end{figure}
560: %
561: We take $\sin 2\beta=0.79\pm0.10$ from averaging
562: CDF~\cite{Affolder:1999gg}, BaBar~\cite{Aubert:2002rg} and
563: Belle~\cite{Abe:2002wn} measurements.
564: For illustration we take $\Delta m_s = 20~\textrm{ps}^{-1}$,
565: and compare $\xi=1.15\pm0.05$ (conventional wisdom) with
566: $\xi=1.32\pm0.05$ [Eq.~(\ref{eq:xirange}) with error halved].
567: With a larger value of $\xi$ the mixing side is longer,
568: scaling like $\xi/\sqrt{\Delta m_s}$.
569: By the same token, our result suggests that the Standard-Model
570: prediction for~$\Delta m_s$ (16--19~ps$^{-1}$ \cite{Ciuchini:2000de})
571: should be increased, perhaps by 25--35\%.
572:
573: \vskip 2.0em
574: \noindent{\sl Acknowledgments:}
575: We would like to thank
576: Claude Bernard,
577: Gustavo Burdman,
578: Shoji Hashi\-moto,
579: Aida El-Khadra,
580: Zoltan Ligeti,
581: Vittorio Lubicz,
582: Ulrich Nierste,
583: and Norikazu Yamada
584: for discussions related to this work.
585:
586: \newpage
587: \noindent
588: {\sl Appendix: Analysis including $\xi_B$ and varying $g^2$}
589: \vskip 1.0em
590:
591: Let $\xi^2_B=B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}$, with linear chiral extrapolation
592: \begin{equation}
593: \xi^2_B(r) - 1 = (1-r)S_B.
594: \end{equation}
595: Then, eliminating $B_2(\mu)$ in the same way as $f_2(\mu)$ in $\xi_f$,
596: \begin{equation}
597: \xi^2_B(r) - 1 = (1 - r) \left\{S_B + m_{ss}^2
598: \frac{1-3g^2}{(4\pi f)^2} \left[ l_B(r_0) - l_B(r) \right] \right\},
599: \label{eq:xiBfinal}
600: \end{equation}
601: where
602: \begin{equation}
603: l_B(r) = \frac{1}{1-r}\left[
604: \frac{2+r}{6} \ln\left(\frac{2+r}{3}\right) -
605: \frac{r}{2} \ln(r) \right].
606: \label{eq:chilogB}
607: \end{equation}
608: To evaluate the right-hand side, we take~\cite{Ryan:2001ej}
609: \begin{equation}
610: S_B = 0.00 \pm 0.05.
611: \end{equation}
612: Then we find $\xi_B=0.998\pm0.025$.
613:
614: In the main analysis, we have used $g^2=0.35$, which assumes that the
615: $B$-$B^*$-$\pi$ and $D$-$D^*$-$\pi$ are the same.
616: Repeating the analysis with $g^2=0.20$ and $0.50$ we find the results in
617: Table~\ref{tab:g2}.
618: Although the chiral extrapolation of $\xi_B$ is no longer completely
619: insignificant, and $\xi_f$ changes a little,
620: the result for~$\xi$ is very stable.
621: %
622: \begin{table}[h]
623: \centering
624: \caption[tab:g2]{Comparison of chiral extrapolations for $\xi_f$,
625: $\xi_B$ and $\xi$ for three values of the $B$-$B^*$-$\pi$ coupling
626: $g^2=0.20$, 0.35, 0.50.}
627: \label{tab:g2}
628: \vskip 2pt
629: \begin{tabular}{cr@{$\pm$}lr@{$\pm$}lr@{$\pm$}l}
630: \hline \hline
631: $g^2$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\xi_f$} &
632: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\xi_B$} &
633: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\xi$} \\
634: \hline
635: 0.20 & 1.29&0.08 & 1.01&0.03 & 1.30&0.09 \\
636: 0.35 & 1.32&0.08 & 1.00&0.02 & 1.32&0.09 \\
637: 0.50 & 1.36&0.09 & 0.98&0.02 & 1.34&0.09 \\
638: \hline \hline
639: \end{tabular}
640: \end{table}
641:
642:
643: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
644: %
645: \bibitem{Anikeev:2002bb}
646: K. Anikeev \emph{et al.},
647: \emph{$B$ Physics at the Tevatron: Run~II and Beyond},
648: arXiv:hep-ph/0201071 [FERMILAB-PUB-01-197],
649: http://www-theory.lbl.gov/Brun2/report/.
650: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201071;%%
651: %
652: \bibitem{Ryan:2001ej}
653: S.~Ryan,
654: %``Heavy quark physics from lattice QCD,''
655: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106} (2002) 86
656: [arXiv:hep-lat/0111010].
657: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0111010;%%
658: %
659: \bibitem{Collins:1999ff}
660: S.~Collins {\em et al.},
661: %C.~T.~H.~Davies, U.~M.~Heller, A.~Ali Khan, J.~Shigemitsu,
662: %J.~H.~Sloan, C.~Morningstar,
663: %``Sea quark effects in B spectroscopy and decay constants,''
664: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 074504
665: [arXiv:hep-lat/9901001].
666: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9901001;%%
667: %
668: \bibitem{AliKhan:2000eg}
669: A.~Ali Khan {\em et al.} [CP-PACS Collaboration],
670: %``Decay constants of $B$ and $D$ mesons from improved relativistic
671: % lattice QCD with two flavors of sea quarks,''
672: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 034505
673: [arXiv:hep-lat/0010009].
674: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0010009;%%
675: %
676: \bibitem{AliKhan:2001jg}
677: A.~Ali Khan {\it et al.} [CP-PACS Collaboration],
678: %``B meson decay constant from two-flavor lattice QCD with
679: % non-relativistic heavy quarks,''
680: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 054504
681: [arXiv:hep-lat/0103020].
682: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0103020;%%
683: %
684: \bibitem{Yamada:2001xp}
685: N.~Yamada {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
686: %``$B$ meson $B$-parameters and the decay constant in two-flavor
687: % dynamical QCD,''
688: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106} (2002) 397
689: [arXiv:hep-lat/0110087];
690: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0110087;%%
691: talk at the CERN workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle,
692: http://ckm-workshop.web.cern.ch/.
693: %
694: \bibitem{Bernard:2001wy}
695: C.~Bernard {\it et al.},
696: %``Heavy-light decay constants with three dynamical flavors,''
697: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 106} (2002) 412
698: [arXiv:hep-lat/0110072].
699: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0110072;%%
700: %
701: \bibitem{mixing}
702: See, for example, the combined results of several experiments
703: from the Heavy Flavor Steering Group,
704: http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.
705: %
706: \bibitem{Cronin:2001fk}
707: D.~Cronin-Hennessy {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
708: %``Hadronic mass moments in inclusive semileptonic B meson decays,''
709: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251808
710: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108033].
711: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108033;%%
712: %
713: \bibitem{Hashimoto:2001nb}
714: S.~Hashimoto, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie, S.~M.~Ryan,
715: J.~N.~Simone,
716: %``Lattice calculation of the zero recoil form factor of
717: %$\bar{B}\to D^*l\bar\nu$:
718: %Toward a model independent determination of~$|V_{cb}|$,''
719: arXiv:hep-ph/0110253.
720: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110253;%%
721: %
722: \bibitem{Briere:2002ew}
723: R.~A.~Briere {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
724: %``Improved measurement of $|V_{cb}|$ using $\bar{B}\to D^*l\nu$
725: %decays,''
726: arXiv:hep-ex/0203032.
727: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0203032;%%
728: %
729: \bibitem{Ciuchini:2000de}
730: M.~Ciuchini {\it et al.},
731: %G.~D'Agostini, E.~Franco, V.~Lubicz, G.~Martinelli, F.~Parodi,
732: %P.~Roudeau, A.~Stocchi,
733: %``2000 CKM-triangle analysis: A critical review with updated
734: % experimental inputs and theoretical parameters,''
735: JHEP {\bf 0107} (2001) 013
736: [arXiv:hep-ph/0012308].
737: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012308;%%
738: %
739: \bibitem{Hoecker:2001xe}
740: A.~H\"ocker, H.~Lacker, S.~Laplace, F.~Le Diberder,
741: %``A new approach to a global fit of the CKM matrix,''
742: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21} (2001) 225
743: [arXiv:hep-ph/0104062].
744: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104062;%%
745: %
746: \bibitem{Booth:1994hx}
747: M.~J.~Booth,
748: %``Quenched chiral perturbation theory for heavy-light mesons,''
749: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 2338
750: [arXiv:hep-ph/9411433].
751: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411433;%%
752: %
753: \bibitem{Sharpe:1996qp}
754: S.~R. Sharpe, Y.~Zhang,
755: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 5125
756: [arXiv:hep-lat/9510037].
757: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9510037;%%
758: %
759: \bibitem{Bernard:1998dg}
760: C.~W.~Bernard, T.~Blum, A.~Soni,
761: %``SU(3) flavor breaking in hadronic matrix elements for $B$-$\bar{B}$
762: % oscillations,''
763: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 014501
764: [arXiv:hep-lat/9801039].
765: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9801039;%%
766: %
767: \bibitem{Soni:2002rm}
768: A.~Soni,
769: talk at the 2002 Rencontres de Moriond,
770: http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2002/.
771: %
772: \bibitem{Kronfeld:2000id}
773: For a review see
774: A.~S.~Kronfeld,
775: in \emph{30th International Conference on High-Energy Physics},
776: edited by C.~S. Lim and T.~Yamanaka (World Scientific, Singapore 2001)
777: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010074].
778: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010074;%%
779: %
780: \bibitem{Weingarten:1981jy}
781: D.~Weingarten,
782: %``Monte Carlo Evaluation Of Hadron Masses In Lattice Gauge Theories
783: %With Fermions,''
784: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf 109B} (1982) 57.
785: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B109,57;%%
786: %
787: \bibitem{Grinstein:1992qt}
788: B.~Grinstein, E.~Jenkins, A.~V.~Manohar, M.~J.~Savage, M.~B.~Wise,
789: %``Chiral perturbation theory for $f_{D_s}/f_D$ and $B_{B_s}/B_B$,''
790: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 380} (1992) 369
791: [arXiv:hep-ph/9204207].
792: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9204207;%%
793: %
794: \bibitem{Goity:1992tp}
795: J.~L.~Goity,
796: %``Chiral perturbation theory for SU(3) breaking in heavy meson
797: % systems,''
798: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46} (1992) 3929
799: [arXiv:hep-ph/9206230].
800: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9206230;%%
801: %
802: \bibitem{Anastassov:2001cw}
803: A.~Anastassov {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
804: %``First measurement of $\Gamma_{D^{*+}}$ and precision measurement of
805: % $m+{D^{*+}}-m_{D^0}$,''
806: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 032003
807: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108043].
808: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108043;%%
809: %
810: \bibitem{Falk:1993iu}
811: A.~F.~Falk,
812: %``Excited heavy mesons and kaon loops in chiral perturbation theory,''
813: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 305} (1993) 268
814: [arXiv:hep-ph/9302265].
815: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302265;%%
816: %
817: \bibitem{Colangelo:1995ph}
818: P.~Colangelo, F.~De Fazio, G.~Nardulli, N.~Di Bartolomeo, R.~Gatto,
819: %``Strong coupling of excited heavy mesons,''
820: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 6422
821: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506207].
822: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506207;%%
823: %
824: \bibitem{Boyd:1994pa}
825: C.~G.~Boyd, B.~Grinstein,
826: %``Chiral and heavy quark symmetry violation in B decays,''
827: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 442} (1995) 205
828: [arXiv:hep-ph/9402340].
829: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9402340;%%
830: %
831: \bibitem{Booth:1994rr}
832: M.~J.~Booth,
833: %``Quenched chiral corrections to heavy-light decay constants
834: % at order $1/M$,''
835: arXiv:hep-ph/9412228 (unpublished).
836: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412228;%%
837: %
838: \bibitem{Affolder:1999gg}
839: T.~Affolder {\it et al.} [CDF Collaboration],
840: %``A measurement of $\sin 2\beta$ from $B\to J/\psi K^0_S$
841: %with the CDF detector,''
842: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61} (2000) 072005
843: [arXiv:hep-ex/9909003].
844: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9909003;%%
845: %
846: \bibitem{Aubert:2002rg}
847: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
848: %``A study of time dependent $CP$-violating asymmetries and flavor
849: %oscillations in neutral $B$ decays at the $\Upsilon(4S)$,''
850: arXiv:hep-ex/0201020.
851: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0201020;%%
852: %
853: \bibitem{Abe:2002wn}
854: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
855: %``Observation of mixing-induced $CP$ violation in the
856: %neutral $B$ meson system,''
857: arXiv:hep-ex/0202027.
858: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0202027;%%
859: %
860: \end{thebibliography}
861:
862: \end{document}
863: