Skip to main content

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. 


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\ \ 


\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. 




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 


3.1. 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 

^ perp 


■ (aE)'=0.25 
♦ (aE)'=0.4 
A (aE)'=0.55 

0.01 0.02 0.03 


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 



Figure 3. B ^ tt form factors from BK-based 
(filled) and non-BK-based (open) analyses. 

3.2. B- 

The B 


D amplitude is parameterized as 


\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. 


D tt{K) 

B ^TT 

B D 

3-pt function 




BK fit 



mi extrap 








a uncertainty 



finite a error 









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. 


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).