Physical Results from 2+1 Flavor Domain Wall QCD and SU(2) Chiral Perturbation Theory
C. Allton, D.J. Antonio, Y. Aoki, T. Blum, P.A. Boyle, N.H. Christ,, S.D. Cohen, M.A. Clark, C. Dawson, M.A. Donnellan, J.M. Flynn, A. Hart, T., Izubuchi, A. Juttner, C. Jung, A.D. Kennedy, R.D. Kenway, M. Li, S. Li, M.F., Lin, R.D. Mawhinney, C.M. Maynard, S. Ohta

TL;DR
This study uses 2+1 flavor domain wall QCD simulations and SU(2) chiral perturbation theory to accurately determine light quark masses and decay constants, highlighting the limitations of SU(3) chiral fits near the physical strange quark mass.
Contribution
It demonstrates the effectiveness of SU(2) chiral perturbation theory over SU(3) for extrapolating lattice QCD data near physical quark masses.
Findings
Accurate determination of $f_$, $f_K$, and their ratio.
Precise quark mass estimates in the $ar{ m MS}$ scheme.
Identification of large higher-order corrections in SU(3) chiral fits.
Abstract
We have simulated QCD using 2+1 flavors of domain wall quarks on a volume with an inverse lattice scale of GeV. The up and down (light) quarks are degenerate in our calculations and we have used four values for the ratio of light quark masses to the strange (heavy) quark mass in our simulations: 0.217, 0.350, 0.617 and 0.884. We have measured pseudoscalar meson masses and decay constants, the kaon bag parameter and vector meson couplings. We have used SU(2) chiral perturbation theory, which assumes only the up and down quark masses are small, and SU(3) chiral perturbation theory to extrapolate to the physical values for the light quark masses. While next-to-leading order formulae from both approaches fit our data for light quarks, we find the higher order corrections for SU(3) very large, making such fits unreliable. We also find that SU(3)…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
