Skip to main content

Full text of "Heavy-light meson decay constants with N_f=3"

See other formats


Heavy-light meson decay constants with Nf = 3 

MILC Collaboration: C. Bernard? T. Burch b S. Dattaf C. DeTar, d Steven Gottlieb?* E. Gregory, 6 
Urs M. Heller f R. Sugar 8 and D. Toussaint b 

a 

Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA 
b Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA 
c Department of Physics, Universitat Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany 
d Physics Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA 
°Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA 
f CSIT, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4130, USA 
g Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA 

During the past year the MILC Collaboration has continued its study of heavy-light meson decay constants 
with three dynamical quarks. Calculations have been extended to a second lattice spacing of about 0.09 fm. At 
this lattice spacing, there are results in the quenched approximation and for three sets of dynamical quark mass: 
mi = m s ; mi = 0Am s and m; = 0.2m s , where mi is the light mass for the u and d quarks and m s is the strange 
quark mass. At the coarser lattice spacing, for which results were presented at Lattice 2001, statistics have been 
increased for two sets of quark masses and three additional sets of quark masses have been studied, giving a total 
of eight combinations used to interpolate between the quenched and chiral limits. When these calculations are 
completed, we can study the decay constants taking into account both chiral and continuum extrapolations. 



1. INTRODUCTION 

We are extending a calculation of heavy-light 
meson decay constants with three flavors of dy- 
namical quarks that was begun last year fjl]. In 
addition to increasing statistics on some runs, we 
have additional mass combinations for a = 0.13 
fm and new dynamical quark runs with a = 0.09 
fm. Runs for the coarser lattice spacing are com- 
pleted, but running will continue for the finer lat- 
tice spacing, so that we can begin to understand 
the continuum limit. 

Dynamical gauge configurations are generated 
using the Asqtad action pi. For the heavy- light 
mesons, we use tadpole-improved clover valence 
quarks and operators that are improved accord- 
ing to the Fermilab formalism For each en- 
semble of dynamical quark configurations, we use 
five light and five heavy valence quark masses. 

* presented by S. Gottlieb 



The masses and decay constants are interpolated 
or extrapolated as explained below to get physi- 
cally relevant values with the overall scale set by 
the p mass. 

2. PROGRESS SINCE LATTICE 01 

Last year we had completed running for a — 
0.13 fm on quenched configurations, on a two fla- 
vor ensemble, and for four combinations of light 
and strange quark dynamical masses. A fraction 
of another set was run. We have now completed 
eight sets of dynamical masses with a — 0.13 fm. 
Our quenched run for a = 0.09 fm included about 
15% of the configurations there, and we were gen- 
erating configurations with two sets of dynamical 
masses. We soon completed analysis of every- 
other quenched lattice and have made substan- 
tial progress on three dynamical ensembles. The 
table below contains a summary of our running. 



2 



dynamical (3 configs. configs. 
am Ut d/ am s generated analyzed 



ft — 


0.13 fin; 20 3 x 64 




oo/oo 


8.00 


408 


290 


0.02/oo 


7.20 


411 


411 


0.40/0.40 


7.35 


332 


324 


0.20/0.20 


7.15 


341 


341 


0.10/0.10 


6.96 


340 


340 


0.05/0.05 


6.85 


425 


425 


0.04/0.05 


6.83 


351 


347 


0.03/0.05 


6.81 


564 


563 


0.02/0.05 


6.79 


486 


486 


0.01/0.05 


6.76 


407 


399 


a = 


0.09 fm; 28 3 x 96 




oo/oo 


8.40 


417 


200 


0.031/0.031 


7.18 


336 


163 


0.0124/0.031 


7.11 


370 


120 


0.0062/0.031 


7.09 


176 


48 



o data 






- lin. fit, CL=0 


11 




quad, fit, CL 


= 0.95 J? 




- extrap to m ud 


or m s 











-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 
valence am q 

Figure 1. Crural extrapolation of fs showing 

both linear and non-linear fits for (3 — 6.79, 
kq = 0.08. 



3. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS 

The analysis of the heavy-light decay constants 
involves a number of steps: 

1. fit light pseudoscalar masses 

2. perform chiral fit of pseudoscalar masses to 
determine k c 

3. fit light vector meson masses 

4. perform chiral fit of vector meson masses and 
determine m u ^ and a to get physical jm p and 
m p 

5. determine m s from mass of ss pseudoscalar 
state assuming linear chiral mass relation 

6. fit heavy-light channels to determine masses 
and decay amplitudes 

7. extrapolate or interpolate results in light 
quark mass to m uc i or m s , respectively (see 
Fig. 1). One can see that the confidence level 
of the nonlinear fit is much better than that of 
the linear fit. The curvature of the former has 
the same sign as that expected from chiral log- 
arithms as recently suggested 0; however, our 
data has considerably less curvature than the low- 
est order chiral logarithms would predict, requir- 
ing higher-order terms and, perhaps, a modifica- 



tion of the logarithms due to 'taste' breaking or 
partial quenching. 

8. after removal of perturbative logarithms, fit 
fQq\Z m Qq to a power series in l/rriQ q and inter- 
polate to B, B s , D and D s meson masses 

9. put the perturbative logarithm back and 
use the heavy-light axial- vector current renormal- 
ization constant to get the renormalized decay- 
constant 

Unfortunately, the axial- vector renormalization 
constant has not yet been calculated either per- 
turbatively or nonpcrturbatively. We assume 
that in the quenched approximation our current 
results at a — 0.13 fm with an improved action 
agree with the continuum limit of our previous 
calculation using Wilson and clover quarks and 
the Wilson gauge action. This was explained in 
more detail in Ref. ||. 

After the above procedure is done on each en- 
semble, we have a partially quenched result at a 
particular value of dynamical m^/mp. We then 
plot these results as a function of (m v /m p ) 2 to 
perform a chiral extrapolation. This is demon- 
strated for Jb in Fig. 2. 

It is worthwhile to plot the ratio of B s and B 
meson decay constants since many of the system- 
atic errors are common, and a good deal of the 



3 



240 



220 



> 

S 200 



180 



160 




0.0 



□ N F =3, a=0.13 fm - 
w N F =3, a=0.09 fm - 
X extraps. of □ ~_ 
o N F =2, a=0.13 fm y 
o quench, a = 0.13 fm- 
* quench, a = 0.09 fm- 



[] 



[] 



0.5 



1.0 



dynamical (m^/m )' 
Figure 2. f B as a function of (m^/mp) 2 



1.30 



1.25 — 



1.20 



1.15 — 



[] 



□ N F =3, a = 0.13 fm 
k N F =3, a = 0.09 fm ~ 
N F =2, a = 0.13 fm - 
o quench, a = 0.13 fm— 
* quench, a = 0.09 fm" 
— const fit, CL=0.40 " 
5!s extrap. value 



□ □ 



1.10 







0.5 



1.0 



dynamical (m /m ) 2 
Figure 3. JbJ fs as a function of (mj]m p y 



uncertainty from the renormalization constants 




r i /.quench 
JBl J B 


Sb 


IbJIb 


drops out. Figure 3 shows the ratio along with 


prelim, result 


1.23 




1.18 


a constant chiral extrapolation in the dynamical 


stat. error 


3% 


3% 


1% 


mass. 


val. x Bxtr. err. 


3% 


3% 


_ /o 




dyn. x extr. err. 


2% 


2% 


< 1% 


4. CONCLUSIONS 


perturb, err. 


2% 


?? 


«1% 




discret. err. 


<3% 


3%? 


<1% 



Our preliminary three flavor results and er- 
ror estimates are slightly changed from last year. 
With higher statistics the quenched results at the 
finer lattice spacing are in good agreement with 
the coarser spacing for the B mesons. We find: 



W/B UenCh [ m p scale ] 



1.23(4)(6), 



/ s .// fl = 1.18(1X1?). 

If we take the MILC continuum quenched value 
(m p scale) for Jb (169 MeV) as given, our value 
/s//s UCnch = 1-23 gives f B « 207 MeV with 
2+1 flavors. An independent determination of fg 
awaits the calculation of the axial current renor- 
malization factor. The errors are detailed in the 
table below. 

Better understanding of the chiral logs is neces- 
sary and may change the fg chiral extrapolation 
beyond the error estimated here. 



REFERENCES 

1. C. Bernard, et at, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 
106, 412 (2002). 

2. T. Blum, et al, Phys. Rev. D55, R1133 
(1997); J. Lagae and D. Sinclair, Phys. Rev. 
D59, 104511 (1998); G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. 
D59, 074502 (1999); K. Orginos, D. Tou- 
ssaint and R.L. Sugar, Phys. Rev. D60, 
054503 (1999); C. Bernard, et al, Phys. Rev. 
D61, 111502(R) (2000). 

3. A. El-Khadra, A. Kronfeld and P. Mackenzie, 
Phys. Rev. D55, 3933 (1997). 

4. N. Yamada, et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 
106, 3 97 (2002); A.S Kronfeld and S.M. 
Ryan, |hep-ph/0206058| ; N. Yamada, these 



proceedings.