arxiv:60.0093v [hep-lat] 4 Oct 06 Leptonic decay-constant ratio / rom clover-improved N = + QCD Universität Regensburg, Institut ür Theoretische Physik, D-93040 Regensburg, Germany E-mail: enno.scholz@physik.uni-regensburg.de Stephan Dürr Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 0, D-49 Wuppertal, Germany Jülich Supercomputing Centre, Forschungszentrum Jülich, D-545 Jülich, Germany E-mail: durr AT itp.unibe.ch The leptonic decay-constant ratio / is calculated rom lattice-qcd simulations using N = + dynamical ermion lavors in the clover-improved ormulation and -HEX smearing. The simulations were perormed or a range o mass-degenerate light quarks including the physical point and at various lattice couplings and volumes, allowing to quantiy all relevant sources o systematic uncertainties or our inal number o the decay-constant ratio. Utilizing input rom chiral perturbation theory, we also quote the charged decay-constant ratio ±/ ±. With urther input rom super-allowed nuclear β -decays, eventually we obtain an estimate or the CM-matrix element V us. 34th annual International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory 4-30 July 06 University o Southampton, U Speaker. c Copyright owned by the authors under the terms o the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. http://pos.sissa.it/
/ rom clover-improved N = + QCD. Introduction In order to determine the ratio V us /V ud o Cabibbo-obayashi-Maskawa CM matrix elements rom experimentally measured decay widths o the leptonic kaon and pion decays according to [] Γ ± lν l Γ ± lν l = V us V ud ± ± M ± M ± m l /M ± m l /M ± +δ em one needs to know besides the radiative correction δ em the ratio o the decay constants ±/ ±, i.e. the ratio o the hadronic orm actors or these decay channels. Here we will report on a calculation o this decay-constant ratio obtained in the isospin symmetric limit o three lavor QCD m up = m down m strange or short N = + QCD without taking into account QED eects. More details o this analysis already appeared in []. The report is organized in the ollowing way: in the next section we will present the data used in this analysis as well as the methods to obtain the decay-constant ratio / in the isospin symmetric limit without electromagnetic corrections. In Sec. 3 we then will convert our result to one or ±/ ± and discuss the implications or the CM-matrix elements V ud and V us... Decay-constant ratio at the physical point In this section we will irst introduce the ensembles used or our analysis o the leptonic decayconstant ratio. Next we will discuss the unctional orms used or the necessary inter- and extrapolations to physical quark masses and the continuum as well as the ininite-volume limits, respectively. Also the it ranges applied to our data will be discussed beore, eventually, our result or / is presented with all sources o uncertainties considered.. Ensembles used in the analysis In total, 47 ensembles o gauge conigurations generated by the Budapest-Marseille-Wuppertal collaboration BMW-c. with N = + lavors o tree-level clover-improved Wilson ermions and the tree-level Symanzik-improved gauge action were used. See [3, 4] or more details on the generation o these ensembles and other analyses carried out using them. The ensembles were generated at ive dierent values or the gauge coupling β, resulting in lattice scales /a in the range rom.7 to 3.7GeV using the Ω-baryon mass to set the scale. The degenerate light quark masses m ud were such that pion masses between 30 and 680MeV were obtained. In all but two cases the strange-quark mass was chosen close to its physical value. In Fig. we show the kaon mass M as a unction the pion mass M let panel as well as the product M L as a unction o M or the 47 ensembles used in our analysis. Here L is the spatial extent o the simulated lattice. More details and tables containing simulation parameters and measured quantities can be ound in []. For details on how the decay constants o the pion and the kaon, and, resp., were obtained, we reer to [5]. Here we adopt the convention, that the CM-matrix elements V ud and V us are real and the complex phase in the irst row only shows up in V ub.
/ rom clover-improved N = + QCD.0 0.9 β=3.3 β=3.50 β=3.6 β=3.70 β=3.80 8.0 7.0 β=3.3 β=3.50 β=3.6 β=3.70 β=3.80 0.8 6.0 M / GeV 0.7 M L 5.0 0.6 4.0 0.5 3.0 0.4 0 0. 0. 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 M / GeV.0 0 0. 0. 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 M / GeV Figure : Overview o the ensembles used in this analysis. The let panel shows the kaon mass M as unction o the pion mass M. To convert rom lattice units to GeV, the mass o the Ω-baryon has been used to determine the lattice scale /a or each set o ensembles at the same gauge coupling β mass-independent scale-setting. The right panel shows M L as unction o M. The vertical and horizontal dashed lines indicate the it ranges used as discussed in Sec... Functional it orms and it ranges We have to interpolate our data to the physical quark masses as well as to extrapolate to the continuum and ininite-volume limits. In order to be able to quantiy the systematic uncertainty associated with each o these inter- and extrapolations, we will always consider at least two dierent choices or the unctional orms used and apply various it ranges. Finally, we will take the variation o the results rom the various its as our systematic uncertainty. For the interpolation to the physical mass point, given by M phys = 34.80.3MeV and M phys = 494.0.4MeV ollowing the recommendation o the FLAG report [6] which corrects the experimentally measured values M ± and M ± or strong isospin breaking and electromagnetic eects, either we use a it orm based on SU3 chiral perturbation theory ChPT [8] = + c 0 { 5 4 M log M µ M log M µ 3 4 M η log M η µ + c [M M ] with two it parameters c 0, c and M η = 3 4M M and µ being an arbitrary scale or the renormalization o ChPT. Alternatively, one o the ollowing polynomial orms with either three, our, or six it parameters c n par. i are used. = + [M M ] c 3 par 0 + c 3 par [M M ] + c3 par M. = + [M M] c 4 par 0 + c 4 par [M M] + c 4 par M + c 4 par 3 M 4.3 At the time o writing the original article [] the latest FLAG report [7] was not yet available to us. But except or a marginally change in M phys = 494.0.3MeV the values used in this work or M phys and M phys are not aected. }.
/ rom clover-improved N = + QCD = + [M M ] c 6 par 0 + c 6 par [M M ] + c6 par M + c6 par 3 M 4 + c 6 par 4 M [M M ] + c6 par 5 [M M ].4 Note that all these it orms obey the lavor-symmetry constraint / mud =m s =. For the continuum limit extrapolation, we either assume scaling by a or αa, where α is the strong coupling parameter at the simulated gauge coupling β. In each ansatz, one it parameter appears, see [] or the explicit expressions we applied. In order to also take into account the systematic uncertainty rom setting the lattice scale, we adopted two dierent ansätze using the mass o the Ω-baryon taken rom [9]: a mass-independent one and an ansatz, were the scale was set per-ensemble, again or details we reer to [] where also the values used or α are tabulated. The two extrapolation ansätze or the ininite-volume limit are based on the ChPT-ormulae or the volume dependence [0,,, 3], where in each ansatz again one it parameters appears, see []. These dierent choices already result in 3 combinations o it orms with our, ive, six, or eight it parameters. The it ranges in the masses, lattice volumes, and lattice couplings were chosen as ollows: M 50MeV, 300MeV, 350MeV, no bound, M 500MeV, 550MeV, 600MeV, no bound, M L no bound, 3.85, 4.05, β 3.3, 3.50, 3.6. These are also indicated by the horizontal and vertical dashed lines in Fig.. Together with the 3 considered combinations o it orms and the requirement to only consider true its, i.e. only its with at least one degree o reedom, our data allowed or a total o 368 dierent its. For examples o speciic its, again, we reer to []. The combined results o these its will be discussed in the ollowing section..3 Results In Fig. we show the p-values obtained in dierent its, which were discussed in Sec.., plotted against the decay-constant ratio at the physical point physical masses, ininite-volume limit, continuum limit as obtained rom a speciic it. In order to quantiy the systematic uncertainty rom our extrapolation to the physical point, we look both at the p-value weighted average and its variance and at an unweighted lat average, inding =.73 stat 9 syst, =.908 stat 4 syst..5 p value lat In order to try to reduce any bias introduced by our choice our itting procedures etc. or our inal value o the decay-constant ratio we take the straight average o these two resulting in =.80 stat 6 syst =.88 comb..6 The implications o this result or the CM-matrix elements will be discussed in Sec. 3. 3
/ rom clover-improved N = + QCD p-value.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0. 0.0 SU3-ChPT 3-par. poly. 4-par. poly. 6-par. poly..05.0.5.0.5.30.35 / Figure : Scatter plot o the p-value obtained in each o the 368 perormed its against the extrapolated physical masses, ininite-volume and continuum limit decay-constant ratio / rom that particular it. The solid black line, dashed black lines, and the greyshaded area indicate the central value, statistical and combined error, resp., o our inal result, Eq..6. We also looked at dierent subsets o our its, sorted either by the it orm used or the mass interpolation, the continuum-limit extrapolation and so on or sorted by the it ranges in M, M etc. The results are shown in the two panels o Fig. 3 a detailed table o these results can be ound in []. While most subsets in each group show comparable results, the biggest variation seems to stem rom the variation in the cut to the lattice spacing a equivalent to the gauge coupling β group at the bottom o the right panel o Fig. 3. 3. Discussion Since in Eq.. the real-world ratio ±/ ± appears, which also includes electromagnetic and m up m down eects, we have to correct our result or /, Eq..6, to account or these eects. An analysis [8, 4] utilizing ChPT shows, that this correction can be obtained in the ollowing way ± = + δ ± SU, 3. where the correction term was estimated within ChPT [4] to have the value δ SU = 0.0043. The FLAG-report [6] 3 quotes very similar values rom lattice simulations with N = + lavors. Also, this correction was determined or N = lavors in [5] to be δ SU = 0.00787. Conservatively, we decided to use the average o these two values with a 00 per cent uncertainty: δ SU = 0.0066 in Eq. 3. to correct our result, Eq..6. We obtain ± ± =.780 stat 6 syst =.788 comb. 3. 3 The same holds true or the values reported in the latest FLAG report [7] which appeared recently as a preprint. 4
/ rom clover-improved N = + QCD it type / lat p-value it range all ranges / lat p-value all types M SU3-ChPT M 350 MeV 3-par. poly. M 300 MeV M 50 MeV 4-par. poly. M 6-par. poly. M 600 MeV ull FV leading FV M 550 MeV M 500 MeV M L 0 a -discret. M L 3.85 αa-discr. mass-indep. /a M L 4.05 β 3.3 β 3.50 per-ensemble /a β 3.6.0.5.0.5.0.5.0.5 Figure 3: Results obtained without weighting red symbols and with p-value weighting blue symbols rom various subsets o our its. The let panel shows subsets given by the choices o it orms, while the right panel shows subsets given by dierent it ranges. The solid black line, dashed black lines, and the grey-shaded area indicate the central value, statistical and combined error, resp., o our inal result, Eq..6. Now, we are able to use our value, Eq. 3., together with the experimental result [6, 7] V us ± V ud ± = 0.759994 = 0.759938 exp 3.3 to determine the ratio o CM-matrix elements V us V ud = 0.3430 stat 5 syst 03 exp = 0.34355 comb. 3.4 I one assumes irst-row unitarity V ud +V us + V ub = o the CM-matrix together with the result rom [7] that V ub = 4.3706 0 3 is very small compared to the other two matrix elements, we obtain rom our result, Eq. 3.4, V ud = 0.973604 stat syst 0 exp, V us = 0.88 stat 48 syst 03 exp. 3.5 Alternatively, one may use the high-precision result rom super-allowed nuclear β-decays [8] V ud = 0.9747 nuc to obtain rom Eq. 3.4 V us = 0.89 stat 5 syst 03 exp+nuc. 3.6 and use these two results together with the above V ub to check or irst-row unitarity V ud+v us+ V ub = 0.0009 stat 3 syst 05 exp+nuc = 0.005 comb, 3.7 5
/ rom clover-improved N = + QCD showing that within the errors the assumption o irst-row unitarity o the CM-matrix is ulilled. Comparing our result, Eq. 3., with the average rom the latest FLAG-report [7] or N = + lattice-qcd simulations: ±/ ± =.95, one observes that the two agree within our large uncertainty, although our result avors a smaller decay-constant ratio. Deinitely, our uncertainty needs to be reduced or one to be able to make a more robust statement. The same holds true i one compares our results or the CM-matrix elements, Eq. 3.5, with the latest N = + FLAGaverages [7]: V ud = 0.97453, V us = 0.430. For that reason, currently we are examining in which way dierent choices o it ranges, it orms might help to improve the precision o our result. Acknowledgment We thank our colleagues Zoltán Fodor, Christian Hölbling, Stean rieg, Laurent Lellouch, Thomas Lippert, Thomas Rae, Andreas Schäer, álmán. Szabó, and Lukas Varnhost or the collaboration on this project. Computations were carried out on the BG/Q supercomputer JUQUEEN at Forschungszentrum Jülich through a NIC grant, on Turing at IDRIS, France, under GENCI-IDRIS grant 575, and on a local cluster at the University o Wuppertal. This work was supported by the DFG through the SFB/TRR 55 Hadron Physics rom Lattice QCD, by the EU Framework Programme 7 grant FP7/007-03/ERC No 08740, by the OTA grant OTA-NF-04034, and by the projects OCEVU Labex ANR--LABX-0060 and A*MIDEX ANR--IDEX-000-0. In addition, E.E.S. acknowledges support rom the EU grant PIRG07-GA-00-68367. Reerences [] W. J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 3803 004, arxiv:hep-ph/04099. [] S. Dürr et al., 06, arxiv:60.05998. [3] S. Dürr et al., Phys. Lett. B70, 65 0, arxiv:0.403. [4] S. Dürr et al., JHEP 08, 48 0, arxiv:0.7. [5] S. Dürr et al., Phys. Rev. D90, 4504 04, arxiv:30.366. [6] S. Aoki et al., Eur. Phys. J. C74, 890 04, arxiv:30.8555. [7] S. Aoki et al., 06, arxiv:607.0099. [8] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Nucl. Phys. B50, 465 985. [9] Particle Data Group,. A. Olive et al., Chin. Phys. C38, 09000 04. [0] M. Lüscher, Commun. Math. Phys. 04, 77 986. [] J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, Phys. Lett. B84, 83 987. [] G. Colangelo and S. Dürr, Eur. Phys. J. C33, 543 004, arxiv:hep-lat/0303. [3] G. Colangelo, S. Dürr, and C. Haeeli, Nucl. Phys. B7, 36 005, arxiv:hep-lat/050304. [4] V. Cirigliano and H. Neueld, Phys. Lett. B700, 7 0, arxiv:0.0563. [5] G. M. de Divitiis et al., JHEP 04, 4 0, arxiv:0.694. [6] M. Moulson, 04, arxiv:4.55. [7] J. L. Rosner, S. Stone, and R. S. Van de Water, 05, arxiv:509.00. [8] J. C. Hardy and I. S. Towner, Phys. Rev. C9, 0550 05, arxiv:4.5987. 6