4.7 Article

Decay constants of B-mesons from non-perturbative HQET with two light dynamical quarks

Journal

PHYSICS LETTERS B
Volume 735, Issue -, Pages 349-356

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.06.051

Keywords

Lattice QCD; Heavy Quark Effective Theory; Bottom quarks; Meson decay

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB/TR 9, HE 4517/2-1, HE 4517/3-1]
  2. European Community through EU FLAVIAnet [MRTN-CT-2006-035482]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Education and Science projects [RyC-2011-08557]
  4. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
  5. German State Ministries for Research of Baden-Wurttemberg (MWK)
  6. Bayern (StMWFK)
  7. Nordrhein-Westfalen (MIWF)
  8. Distributed European Computing Initiative [PRACE-2IP]
  9. European Community's Seventh Framework Programme [RI-283493]
  10. Grand Equipement National de Calcul Intensif at CINES in Montpellier [2012-056808]
  11. HLRN in Berlin
  12. NIC at DESY, Zeuthen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We present a computation of B-meson decay constants from lattice QCD simulations within the framework of Heavy Quark Effective Theory for the b-quark. The next-to-leading order corrections in the HQET expansion are included non-perturbatively. Based on N-f = 2 gauge field ensembles, covering three lattice spacings a approximate to (0.08-0.05) fm and pion masses down to 190 MeV, a variational method for extracting hadronic matrix elements is used to keep systematic errors under control. In addition we perform a careful autocorrelation analysis in the extrapolation to the continuum and to the physical pion mass limits. Our final results read f(B) = 186(13) MeV, f(Bs) = 224(14) MeV and f(Bs)/f(B) = 1.203(65). A comparison with other results in the literature does not reveal a dependence on the number of dynamical quarks, and effects from truncating HQET appear to be negligible. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available