# Full text of "Semileptonic D->pi/K and B->pi/D decays in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD"

## See other formats

Semileptonic D ^ tt / K and B ^ tt/D decays in 2+1 flavor lattice QCD M. Okamoto ^, C. Aubin'^, C. Bernard'^, C. DeTar^ M. Di Pierro'^, A. X. El-Khadra^ Steven Gottlieb^ E. B. Gregorys, U. M. Heller^, J. Hetrick', A. S. Kronfeld^, P. B. Mackenzie^, D. P. Menscher<=, M. NobesJ, M. B. Oktay<=, J. Osborn^ J. N. Simone^, R. Sugar'^, D. Toussaints, H. D. TrottierJ ^ Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.O. Box 500, Batavia, IL 60510 ^ Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130 Physics Department, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 School of Computer Science, Telecommunications and Information Systems, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois 60604 ° Department of Physics, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801 ^ Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405 s Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 ^ American Physical Society, One Research Road, Box 9000, Ridge, New York 11961-9000 ' University of the Pacific, Stockton, California 95211 J Physics Department, Simon Eraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada ^ Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106 We present results for form factors of semileptonic decays of D and B mesons in 2 + 1 flavor lattice QCD using the MILC gauge configurations. With an improved staggered action for light quarks, we successfully reduce the systematic error from the chiral extrapolation. The results for D decays are in agreement with experimental ones. The results for B decays are preliminary. Combining our results with experimental branching ratios, we then obtain the CKM matrix elements \Vcd\, \Vcs\, \Vcb\ and \Vub\- We also check CKM unitarity, for the first time, using only lattice QCD as the theoretical input. 1. INTRODUCTION Semileptonic decays of B and D mesons play crucial roles in CKM phenomenology. The B de- cays such as B Tilv and B —f Dlv determine \Vub\ and \Vcb\, which are essential to constrain the CKM unitarity triangle. On the other hand, the D decays such as D nlv and D Klv pro- vide a good test of lattice calculations because corresponding CKM matrix elements \Vcd\ and \Vcs I are relatively well determined. In this paper, we report lattice calculations of semileptonic de- cays in unquenched (n/ — 2 + 1) QCD. By using a staggered- type fermion, which is fast to simulate. / \Vud\ \Vus\ \Vub\ \ 3.0(4)(6)xl0-3 \Vcd\ \Vcs\ \Vcb\ 0.24(3)(2) 0.97(10)(2) 3.8(1)(6) x 10"^ \Vtd\ \Vts\ \Vtb\ V / Eigure 1. Result for CKM matrix. The first errors are theoretical, and the second experimental. for light quarks, we are able to reduce uncertain- ties from the "chiral" (m; mud) extrapolation. We calculate form factors for the above 4 different decays, from which the 4 CKM matrix elements are determined, as summarized in Eig. ^ The results for D decays are published in Ref. pp. 1 2 2. SIMULATION DETAILS We use Uf = 2 + 1 dynamical gauge configura- tions obtained with an improved staggered ( "Asq- tad") quark action on a lattice with « 1.6 GeV, generated by the MILC collaboration For the valence light quarks we use the same staggered quark action, with the valence light quark [u, d) mass m™' equal to the dynamical light quark mass m^°^. The light quark masses we simulate range ^ <'mi< |ms, where uis is the strange quark mass. For the valence charm(c) and bottom(6) quarks we use a tadpole-improved clover action with the Fermilab interpretation . The hopping parameter for the c{b) quark is fixed from the Ds{Bs) mass. To form the heavy-light bilinears from the staggered-type light quark and the Wilson-type heavy quark, we convert the staggered-type quark to the naive- type quark, as in Refs. |4I5| . Rele- vant 3-point functions are then computed in the initial state meson rest frame using local sources and local sinks. We typically accumulate about 500 configurations, and results at 2-4 source times are averaged to increase the statistics. For the matching factor of vector current Zy^ , we follow the method in Refs. jBu? , writing Zy — pv^iZy^ZyY^"^ . The flavor-conserving renormal- ization factors z'^^^^^ are determined nonpertur- batively from charge normalization conditions. For the remaining factor pv we use results in one-loop perturbation theory 3. RESULTS 3.1. D tt{K) and S -> tt The heavy-to-light decay amplitudes are pa- rameterized as {P\V^^\H) = f+{q^){pH +PP- AT + /o(g')A^ with q ~ ph — Pp, = (m|j — m^p)q'^/q^, V = Ph/itt-h, P± — Pp — Ev and E = Ep. The differential decay rate dT /dq^ is proportional to \ycKM\^\f+{q^)\^ ■ Below we briefly describe our analysis procedure; see Ref. ^ for details. We first extract the form factors f\\ and as in Ref. Q , and carry out the chiral extrapolation -1/2, ^ perp B->71 ■ (aE)'=0.25 ♦ (aE)'=0.4 A (aE)'=0.55 0.01 0.02 0.03 am. Figure 2. mj-dependence and chiral fits for ff^'^. in mi for them at fixed E. To this end, we inter- polate and extrapolate the results for /|| and f± to common values of E using the parametrization of Becirevic and Kaidalov (BK) (Qj . We perform the chiral extrapolation using the NLO correction in staggered chiral perturbation theory (SxPT) 10\ We try various fit forms pP, as shown in Fig. [SJ and the differences between the fits are taken as associated systematic errors. We then convert the results for f± and /|| at mi = ruud, to /+ and /q. To extend /+ and /o to functions of q^ , we again make a fit using BK parameterization [H], f+i'f') ~ T^ ^2^77 /o(9"') ^ "i — ^~=TTq^ (1 — q'^)(l — aq-^) 1 — g^/p where q^ = q'^/rrij^,. We obtain ff"" = 0.23(2), a^'' = 0.63(5), P^"" = 1.18(5), for the B ^ TT decay, and f^"" = 0.64(3), a^"" = 0.44(4), /3^^ = 1.41(6), Z^^"^' = 0.73(3), a^^" = 0.50(4), /3^^ = 1.31(7), for the D decays, where the errors are statistical only. To estimate the error from BK parame- terization, we also make an alternative analysis, where we perform a 2-dimensional polynomial fit in [mi , E). A comparison between the two anal- yses are shown in Fig. |21 Finally we determine the CKM matrix ele- ments (Fig. nj by integrating |/+((7^)p over and using experimental branching ratios jllll2 |. For \Vub\ we use the branching ratio for q"^ > 16 GeV^ in Ref. ^^I- The systematic errors are sum- marized in Table ^ The results for D decays agree with experimental results 3 [GeV'] Figure 3. B ^ tt form factors from BK-based (filled) and non-BK-based (open) analyses. 3.2. B- The B D D amplitude is parameterized as (DIVIB) = ^mBTUD X \h+{w){v + v'Y + h-(w)(v - v')% where v = vbI^ib-, v' = pd/tud and w = v ■ v' . The differential decay rate of i? ^ Dlv is pro- portional to the square of ^-'{w) , which is a linear combination of h+{w) and h-{w). We calculate the form factors at w = 1 by employing the dou- ble ratio method The light quark mass de- pendence for .^-"(1) is shown in Fig. 0] Extrapo- lating the result linearly to mi 0, we obtain 7^+^(1) = 1.074(18)(16), (1) where the first error is statistical, and the second is systematic summarized in Tabled The system- atic error associated with finite lattice spacing is estimated by doing quenched calculations at dif- ferent lattice spacings and using different quark actions, and found to be small. Using Eq. and an experimental result for \Vcb\^{i) [111, we obtain \Vcb\ as given in Fig.[l| Table 1 Systematic errors. decay D tt{K) B ^TT B D 3-pt function 3% 3% 1% BK fit 2% 4% mi extrap 3%(2%) 4% 1% matching <1% 1% 1% a uncertainty 1% 1% finite a error 9% 9% <1% total 10% 11% 2% am. Figure 4. mj-dependence for J-b^d{^)- Since we have all 3 elements of the second row of CKM matrix, we are able to check a CKM uni- tarity using only our results as theoretical inputs; (iKdP + \Vcs? + \Vcb?f'^ - 1.00(10)(2). Acknowledgments: We thank the Fermilab Computing Division, the SciDAC program, the Theoretical High Energy Physics Programs at the DOE and NSF, and URA for their support. REFERENCES 1. C. Aubin et al, arXiv:hep-ph/0408306 2. C. Bernard et a/., Phys. Rev. D 64, 054506 (2001) . 3. A. X. El-Khadra, A. S. Kronfeld and P. B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3933 (1997). 4. M. Wingate et al., Phys. Rev. D 67, 054505 (2003) . 5. M. Okamoto et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 129, 334 (2004). 6. A. X. El-Khadra et al, Phys. Rev. D 64, 014502 (2001). 7. J. Harada et al, Phys. Rev. D 65, 094514 (2002) ; ibid. 65, 094513 (2002). 8. M. Nobes et al, work in progress. 9. D. Becirevic and A. B. Kaidalov, Phys. Lett. B 478, 417 (2000). 10. C. Aubin and C. Bernard, |a rXiv:hep-lat / 0409027} and work in progress. 11. S. Eidelman et al, Phys. Lett. B 592, 1 (2004) . 12. S. B. Athar et al, Phys. Rev. D 68, 072003 (2003). (See also K. Abe et al., hep-ex/0408145 ) 13. S. Hashimoto et al, Phys. Rev. D 61, 014502 (2000); A. S. Kronfeld, 62, 014505 (2000). 14. K. Abe et al, Phys. Lett. B 526, 258 (2002).