TY - JOUR
T1 - Controlling unwanted exponentials in lattice calculations of radiative leptonic decays
AU - Kane, Christopher
AU - Giusti, Davide
AU - Lehner, Christoph
AU - Meinel, Stefan
AU - Soni, Amarjit
N1 - Funding Information: We thank the RBC and UKQCD Collaborations for providing the gauge-field configurations. C.K. is supported by the DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellowship under award number DE-SC0020347. C.L. is supported in part by US DOE Contract DESC0012704(BNL). S.M. is supported by the U.S Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of High Energy Physics under Award Number DE-SC0009913. A.S is supported in part by the U.S. DOE contract #DESC0012704. We performed calculations using the QLUA software. We acknowledge NSF XSEDE, DOE Office of Science, and PRACE for awarding us access to TACC, NERSC, and GCS@LRZ, respectively. Publisher Copyright: © Copyright owned by the author(s) under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
PY - 2022/7/8
Y1 - 2022/7/8
N2 - Two important sources of systematic errors in lattice QCD calculations of radiative leptonic decays are unwanted exponentials in the sum over intermediate states and unwanted excited states created by the meson interpolating field. Performing the calculation using a 3d sequential propagator allows for better control over the systematic uncertainties from intermediate states, while using a 4d sequential propagator allows for better control over the systematic uncertainties from excited states. We calculate form factors using both methods and compare how reliably each controls these systematic errors. We also employ a hybrid approach involving global fits to data from both methods.
AB - Two important sources of systematic errors in lattice QCD calculations of radiative leptonic decays are unwanted exponentials in the sum over intermediate states and unwanted excited states created by the meson interpolating field. Performing the calculation using a 3d sequential propagator allows for better control over the systematic uncertainties from intermediate states, while using a 4d sequential propagator allows for better control over the systematic uncertainties from excited states. We calculate form factors using both methods and compare how reliably each controls these systematic errors. We also employ a hybrid approach involving global fits to data from both methods.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134432226&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85134432226&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Conference article
SN - 1824-8039
VL - 396
JO - Proceedings of Science
JF - Proceedings of Science
M1 - 162
T2 - 38th International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory, LATTICE 2021
Y2 - 26 July 2021 through 30 July 2021
ER -