Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using $N_f=2+1$ PACS10 configurations

Ken-Ichi Ishikawa; Naoya Ukita for PACS Collaboration; Naruhito Ishizuka; Takeshi Yamazaki; Yoshinobu Kuramashi; Yusuke Namekawa; Yusuke Taniguchi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using $N_f=2+1$ PACS10 configurations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using near-physical, huge-volume ensembles at three lattice spacings, this paper produces a preliminary continuum-limit value of the kaon semileptonic form factor $f_+(0)$ and a $|V_{us}|$ that is consistent with other kaon routes but…

desk verdict Straightforward, honest update of a mature lattice program; the new third lattice spacing is real but the result is explicitly preliminary and the continuum limit still rests on three points. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05778 v1 pith:BX442JZG submitted 2024-12-08 hep-lat

Takeshi Yamazaki , Ken-ichi Ishikawa , Naruhito Ishizuka , Yoshinobu Kuramashi , Yusuke Namekawa , Yusuke Taniguchi , Naoya Ukita for PACS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-lat

keywords kaonsemileptonicdecayK_l3formfactorlatticeQCDPACS10configurationscontinuumextrapolationCKMunitarityV_uschiralperturbationtheory

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to establish a controlled, continuum-limit value of the kaon semileptonic form factor $f_+(0)$ from the PACS10 ensembles, whose volumes exceed $(10\,\mathrm{fm})^4$ at pion and kaon masses very close to the physical point. The goal is a value complete with a systematic error, from which the CKM matrix element $|V_{us}|$ can be extracted through the $K_{\ell3}$ decay. This matters because first-row CKM unitarity currently fails by about $2.2\sigma$, and an independent lattice determination of $|V_{us}|$ helps decide whether that tension is real or a methodological artifact. The preliminary result agrees with other lattice $f_+(0)$ values and with the $K_{\ell2}$ route to $|V_{us}|$, but sits about $2\sigma$ away from the value implied by CKM unitarity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the simultaneous fit of $f_+(q^2)$ and $f_0(q^2)$ at all three lattice spacings. Its fit form is anchored by the next-to-leading-order chiral perturbation theory expressions of Gasser and Leutwyler, supplemented by $(m_K^2-m_\pi^2)^2$, $q^2$, and discretization terms; the continuum extrapolation uses a quadratic-in-$a$ ansatz with a linear-in-$a$ variant as a consistency check. The fit interpolates the data to $q^2=0$, extrapolates to $a=0$, and tunes the simulated meson masses to the physical point in one step, which is what lets the paper separate the chiral correction, largest at the finest spacing, from the continuum extrapolation. The systematic error on $f_+(0)$ is built by repeating the fit under different analysis choices and taking the maximum deviation.

What would settle it

A fourth lattice spacing below $0.041$ fm, or a full-statistics reanalysis of the current finest ensemble, that moves the continuum-extrapolated $f_+(0)$ outside the quoted total error would show the systematic error estimate to be too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using $N_f=2+1$ PACS10 configurations at three lattice spacings ($a=0.085$, $0.063$, and $0.041$ fm) with physical volumes above $(10\,\mathrm{fm})^4$, the paper performs a simultaneous fit that interpolates the form factors in $q^2$, extrapolates to the continuum limit, and makes a short chiral extrapolation to physical $m_\pi$ and $m_K$. The fit is based on next-to-leading-order chiral perturbation theory formulas with added corrections in $(m_K^2-m_\pi^2)^2$, $q^2$, and lattice-spacing effects, and it uses both the local and conserved vector currents. The central output is a preliminary continuum-limit $f_+(0)$ with a systematic error estimated from alternative analyses, such as linear versus quadratic dependence on $a$ and different renormalization choices for the local current. Combining this $f_+(0)$ with the experimental product $|V_{us}|f_+(0)=0.21635(39)$ yields a $K_{\ell3}$ determination of $|V_{us}|$ that is consistent with other lattice results and with the $K_{\ell2}$ determination, while differing by about $2\sigma$ from CKM unitarity.

Load-bearing premise

The continuum extrapolation to $a=0$ rests on fitting $f_+(0)$ as a quadratic function of the lattice spacing, with a linear-in-$a$ check, using only three spacings, the finest of which is still preliminary with 20 configurations; if residual $O(a^3)$ discretization effects exceed the spread between the two fit forms, the central value shifts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The $K_{\ell3}$ route to $|V_{us}|$ gains an independent, near-physical-mass lattice value with an explicit continuum extrapolation and a systematic error estimate.
The $|V_{us}|$ from this $f_+(0)$ agrees with the $K_{\ell2}$ determination from $F_K/F_\pi$, supporting the current kaon-decay picture of first-row CKM elements.
A phase-space-integral determination of $|V_{us}|$ using the same $q^2$-dependent form factors agrees with the $f_+(0)$ route, making the $K_{\ell3}$ result internally consistent.
The about-$2\sigma$ gap between this $K_{\ell3}$ result and the CKM-unitarity value persists, keeping open the possibility of beyond-Standard-Model physics or underestimated errors in the inputs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next test is to repeat the analysis on the already-started $N_f=2+1+1$ PACS10$c$ ensembles at the two smaller spacings; if the dynamical-charm result shifts $f_+(0)$ by more than the current systematic error, the charm-quark effect is bigger than the present error budget assumes.
The same simultaneous-fit machinery could be applied to other semileptonic decays, such as $D\to K\ell\nu$, where near-physical, huge-volume ensembles would give similarly controlled continuum extrapolations.
The boundary-condition averaging used to suppress wrapping-around effects near $q^2=0$ is a transferable technique for any large-volume lattice calculation that needs small momentum transfers.
If the central value is confirmed, the combined lattice $K_{\ell3}$ determinations may eventually drive the world-average $|V_{us}|$ down, sharpening the first-row unitarity deficit into a more definitive tension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a proceedings write-up that does what it says. The PACS group adds their a=0.041 fm ensemble to the previous two-spacing K_l3 analysis and now has three lattice spacings for a simultaneous continuum and chiral extrapolation. That is the new piece, and it is a legitimate extension of their own established program, not a new method. The paper is also careful: it uses both local and conserved currents, checks different Z_V choices, and labels everything at the finest spacing as preliminary. I think the central value is fine, but the paper deliberately quotes no final number with a full error budget, so the reader's conditional verdict is fair.

What is good: the huge physical volumes give data close to q^2=0 without twisted boundary conditions; the cross-checks are shown; the comparison plot with other lattice results is standard and the result is consistent within 2 sigma. The systematic error estimate from the spread of analyses is honest, and the paper explicitly flags the dynamical charm omission as future work. No circularity: f_+(0) is measured, not imposed; self-citations to [12,13] are methodological and appropriate.

The soft spots are the ones the stress-test note names, and they are real but not fatal, partly because the paper does not overclaim. With only three spacings, the a^2 (or linear-a) continuum fit is close to an interpolation; the finest spacing is also the point with the largest chiral correction (m_K differs by 3%) and only 20 configurations. The systematic error is estimated from a family of analyses that share the same polynomial-in-a and NLO ChPT forms, so a common O(a^3) or NNLO log error might not be captured. That is a genuine limitation, and I would put it in a referee report as the main thing to sharpen before a journal version. But it is not a hidden flaw; the paper says preliminary.

Bottom line: this is a useful, honest update for the lattice and CKM community, not a breakthrough. A serious referee should engage with it, especially because the final version with the full error budget will matter for the CKM unitarity tension. I would bring it to a reading group as a good example of a mature systematic-error analysis in progress.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an updated lattice QCD calculation of the kaon semileptonic decay form factors f_+(q^2) and f_0(q^2) using N_f=2+1 PACS10 configurations at three lattice spacings (a=0.085, 0.063, 0.041 fm) with volumes larger than (10 fm)^4 near the physical point. A simultaneous fit is used for the q^2 interpolation, the continuum extrapolation, and a short chiral extrapolation based on next-to-leading-order chiral perturbation theory with additional polynomial corrections. The systematic error on f_+(0) is estimated from the spread of alternative analyses using different vector-current renormalizations and different continuum fit forms, and |V_us| is derived from the experimental product |V_us| f_+(0). All results at the finest lattice spacing are explicitly labeled preliminary, and no numerical value for f_+(0) is quoted in the text.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides an independent continuum-limit lattice determination of f_+(0) from ensembles with physical volumes and near-physical quark masses, and a |V_us| that can be compared with other K_l3 determinations, with the K_l2 route, and with CKM unitarity. The main strengths are the physical-volume setup, the use of both local and conserved vector currents, the check with different Z_V choices, and the honest labeling of the results as preliminary. The weakness is that the central quantitative result is not actually given as a number, and the systematic error estimate rests on a family of fits that share the same chiral and continuum ans"atze, so a common model error may be missed. The manuscript is a proceedings-style contribution, and its preliminary status is appropriate, but as a published paper the central claim needs to be stated numerically and the continuum-limit systematics need more support.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.2, Fig. 2 (left)] The continuum extrapolation is the main quantitative assumption of the paper, but it uses only three lattice spacings and the systematic error is estimated as the maximum difference between analyses that all share the same NLO ChPT form and polynomial-in-a ansatz. An O(a^3) discretization error or an NNLO chiral effect common to all fits would not appear in this spread. Please add an explicit estimate of such a common model error, for example by including an O(a^3) term, varying the chiral fit form, or demonstrating stability when the coarsest or finest spacing is dropped. The fact that all three ensembles have only 20 configurations (Table 1) makes this check particularly important.
[Abstract and Sections 3.2, 3.3] The central result of the paper, namely the preliminary value of f_+(0) and the resulting |V_us|, is never quoted numerically in the text; both appear only in figures. Since the paper's purpose is to present an updated value with an estimated systematic error, please give the numbers explicitly, with statistical and systematic errors separated, and state the resulting |V_us| with the lattice and experimental errors. Without these numbers it is not possible for the reader to compare with previous determinations or to assess the error budget.
[Section 3.2, left panel of Fig. 2] The largest chiral extrapolation occurs at the finest lattice spacing, where m_K=514 MeV differs from the physical m_K0=497.6 MeV by about 3% (Table 1), and this same ensemble also anchors the a=0 continuum limit. The text states this fact but does not quantify how the simultaneous fit separates the chiral and continuum effects. Please add a sensitivity check, such as repeating the fit without the a=0.041 fm data, or using an alternative chiral ansatz, to show that the central value is stable under this correlation.
[Section 3.2] The systematic error is defined as the maximum difference of the central value of the black cross result from those in the different analyses, but the paper does not tabulate the central values and errors of the individual analyses, and it is unclear whether this is intended as a one-sided or two-sided error. Please provide a table of the analyses (local with Z_V^pi, local with Z_V^K, local with sqrt(Z_V^pi Z_V^K), conserved current, linear and quadratic a fits) with their central values and statistical errors, and explain how the quoted total systematic error is constructed from them.

minor comments (5)

[Section 2, Eq. (3)] The definition Z_V = sqrt(Z_V^pi Z_V^K) should be justified or referenced more explicitly, and the statistical correlation between the two factors should be discussed if it contributes to the error budget.
[Section 3.1] The explicit form of the simultaneous fit function is not given in this paper. Since the manuscript refers to Refs. [12,13] for method details, at least write the fit form used here, including the q^2 dependence, the chiral correction terms, and the treatment of the local and conserved current data in the continuum limit.
[Fig. 2 caption] The text refers to a "black cross symbol" that is not described in the figure caption; please clarify which symbol represents the central result in each panel and what its error bars denote.
[Table 1] The column labeled t_sep gives values in fm, but the header says "the range of the timeslice separation"; please state that the values are converted from lattice units.
[Abstract] The phrase "short chiral extrapolation" is slightly unusual; consider "small" or "mild" chiral extrapolation for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: f_+(0) is measured from lattice correlation functions, with self-citations only to methodology; remaining concerns are continuum-extrapolation systematics, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation of f_+(0) is self-contained: the form factors are extracted from two- and three-point correlation functions via Eq. (1), with the renormalized local current calibrated through Z_V from the bare electromagnetic form factor at q^2=0. The central simultaneous fit combines q^2 interpolation, continuum extrapolation, and a short chiral extrapolation using an NLO ChPT-based ansatz with correction terms in (m_K^2 - m_pi^2)^2, q^2, and lattice-spacing effects; this is a theory-motivated fit form, not a fitted restatement of the target. The systematic error is estimated from the spread of alternative analyses (different renormalization factors, local versus conserved currents, linear versus quadratic in a), which is an uncertainty estimate rather than a construction of the result. Self-citations to Refs. [12,13] provide method details and previous PACS results, but the new data at a=0.041 fm are new measurements, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on an unverified self-citation. Finally, |V_us| is obtained by dividing the external experimental product |V_us| f_+(0)=0.21635(39) by the lattice value, so the only circularity risk would be if f_+(0) itself were tuned; it is not. Possible concerns about continuum-limit control with three lattice spacings and a preliminary finest-spacing ensemble are genuine systematic-error risks but are not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard lattice QCD framework and on the assumed fit forms for chiral, momentum, and continuum extrapolation. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The main untested burden is the assumed extrapolation ansatz with only three lattice spacings.

free parameters (2)

Simultaneous-fit coefficients for q^2 interpolation and chiral corrections = not tabulated
The fit form is based on NLO ChPT plus correction terms in (m_K^2 - m_pi^2)^2, q^2, and lattice spacing; the coefficients are fitted to the lattice data (Section 3.1).
Continuum extrapolation coefficients (linear and quadratic in a) = not tabulated
The continuum extrapolation in Section 3.2 uses functions of a and a^2 whose coefficients are fit parameters, with a systematic error estimated from the spread of fit variants.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Lattice QCD with the Iwasaki gauge action and N_f=2+1 nonperturbatively O(a)-improved Wilson quarks has a well-defined continuum limit.
Invoked throughout Section 2 and used for the continuum extrapolation reported in Section 3.2.
domain assumption The NLO ChPT fit form, supplemented by polynomial correction terms, is a valid approximant for the q^2 and quark-mass dependence over the fitted ranges.
Stated in Section 3.1 as the basis for simultaneous interpolation and extrapolation.
domain assumption Finite-volume effects are negligible at physical volumes larger than (10 fm)^4.
Used in Section 1 and Section 2 to justify treating the near-physical-point PACS10 ensembles as free of significant finite-volume contamination.
domain assumption Excited-state contamination in the three-point functions is controlled by the combined analysis of multiple source operators and multiple t_sep values.
Described in Section 2 without a demonstrated convergence test in this proceedings.
domain assumption The local vector current renormalization factor Z_V = sqrt(Z_pi^V Z_K^V), computed from bare electromagnetic form factors at q^2=0, is correct.
Introduced in Section 2 and varied in Section 3.2 as part of the systematic-error estimate.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using $N_f=2+1$ PACS10 configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BX442JZG

@misc{pith2026241205778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using $N_f=2+1$ PACS10 configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BX442JZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05778}
}

abstract

We calculate the form factors for the kaon semileptonic decay process using the PACS10 configurations, whose physical volume is more than (10 fm)$^4$ very close to the physical point. The configurations were generated with the Iwasaki gauge action and $N_f=2+1$ stout-smeared nonperturbatively $O(a)$-improved Wilson quark action at the three lattice spacings, 0.085, 0.063, and 0.041 fm. We present updated results for the form factors, and discuss their continuum extrapolations, momentum transfer interpolation, and short chiral extrapolation to tune the simulated pion and kaon masses to the physical ones. From the results with various analyses, the systematic error of the form factor at the zero momentum transfer is estimated. The value of $|V_{us}|$ is determined using our result, and is compared with those using the previous calculations and also those determined through the kaon leptonic decay process.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05778 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Lattice spacing dependences for 𝑓+(𝑞 2 ) (left) and 𝑓0 (𝑞 2 ) (right) as a function of 𝑞 2 with the renormalized local vector current. The different symbols represent data at the different lattice spacings. The data at 𝑎 = 0.041 fm are preliminary, while the other two data are presented in Ref. [13]. The dashed curves express the result of the simultaneous fit described in the text. The magenta curves correspond to … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Left : Preliminary results of 𝑓+(0) at the physical point with the local (conserved) vector current denoted by black circle (red square) symbol as a function of 𝑎. The open circle and square symbols represent the results at the simulated meson masses. The dashed-dot and dashed curves express continuum extrapolations with quadratic and linear functions of 𝑎, respectively. The blue diamond and violet up triangle symbo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The same figure as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Comparison of our preliminary result of 𝑓+(0) with the previous results [2–13]. The inner and outer errors express the statistical and total errors. The total error is evaluated by adding the statistical and systematic errors in quadrature. The closed (open) symbols re…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Comparison of |𝑉𝑢𝑠 | using our preliminary result of 𝑓+(0) with the previous results [6, 8–13]. |𝑉𝑢𝑠 | determined from the 𝐾ℓ2 decay are also plotted using 𝐹𝐾 /𝐹𝜋 of our preliminary result and PDG22 [1] together with the one obtained from the phase space integral with …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

[1]

Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics,PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

2022
[2]

Vector form factor in K_l3 semileptonic decay with two flavors of dynamical domain-wall quarks

C. Dawson, T. Izubuchi, T. Kaneko, S. Sasaki and A. Soni,Vector form factor in K(l3) semileptonic decay with two flavors of dynamical domain-wall quarks, Phys. Rev.D74 (2006) 114502 [hep-ph/0607162]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006
[3]

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, K(l3) semileptonic form-factor from 2+1 flavour lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008) 141601 [0710.5136]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[4]

Rev.D80 (2009) 111502 [0906.4728]

ETM collaboration,𝐾→𝜋𝑙𝜈 Semileptonic Form Factors from Two-Flavor Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev.D80 (2009) 111502 [0906.4728]

arXiv 2009
[5]

Rev.D87 (2013) 073012 [1212.4993]

Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaboration, Kaon semileptonic vector form factor and determination of|𝑉𝑢𝑠| using staggered fermions,Phys. Rev.D87 (2013) 073012 [1212.4993]

arXiv 2013
[6]

The kaon semileptonic form factor with near physical domain wall quarks

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, The kaon semileptonic form factor with near physical domain wall quarks,JHEP 08 (2013) 132 [1305.7217]. 1http://luscher.web.cern.ch/luscher/openQCD/ 8 Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using𝑁𝑓 = 2+ 1 PACS10 configurations Takeshi Yamazaki

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[7]

Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaboration, Determination of|𝑉𝑢𝑠| from a lattice-QCD calculation of the𝐾→𝜋ℓ𝜈 semileptonic form factor with physical quark masses,Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 112001 [1312.1228]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014
[8]

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, The kaon semileptonic form factor in N𝑓 = 2 + 1 domain wall lattice QCD with physical light quark masses, JHEP 06(2015) 164 [1504.01692]

arXiv 2015

Show all 24 references

[9]

Rev.D93(2016) 114512 [1602.04113]

ETM collaboration,𝐾→𝜋 semileptonic form factors with𝑁𝑓 = 2+ 1+ 1 twisted mass fermions, Phys. Rev.D93(2016) 114512 [1602.04113]

2016 arXiv
[10]

Rev.D96 (2017) 034501 [1705.00884]

JLQCD collaboration,Chiral behavior of𝐾→𝜋𝑙𝜈 decay form factors in lattice QCD with exact chiral symmetry,Phys. Rev.D96 (2017) 034501 [1705.00884]

2017 arXiv
[11]

Rev.D99 (2019) 114509 [1809.02827]

Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaboration,|𝑉𝑢𝑠| from𝐾ℓ3 decay and four-flavor lattice QCD, Phys. Rev.D99 (2019) 114509 [1809.02827]

2019 arXiv
[12]

PACScollaboration,𝐾𝑙3 form factors at the physical point on a(10.9𝑓𝑚)3 volume,Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 094504 [1912.13127]

2020 arXiv
[13]

PACScollaboration,𝐾ℓ3 form factors at the physical point: Toward the continuum limit, Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 094501 [2206.08654]

2022 arXiv
[14]

PACScollaboration,|𝑉𝑢𝑠| from kaon semileptonic form factor in𝑁𝑓 = 2+ 1 QCD at the physical point on (10 fm)4,PoS LATTICE2023(2024) 276 [2311.16755]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Iwasaki,Renormalization Group Analysis of Lattice Theories and Improved Lattice Action

Y. Iwasaki,Renormalization Group Analysis of Lattice Theories and Improved Lattice Action. II – four-dimensional non-abelian SU(N) gauge model, 1111.7054

arXiv
[16]

Morningstar and M.J

C. Morningstar and M.J. Peardon,Analytic smearing of SU(3) link variables in lattice QCD, Phys. Rev.D69 (2004) 054501 [hep-lat/0311018]

2004 arXiv
[17]

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, The Pion’s electromagnetic form-factor at small momentum transfer in full lattice QCD,JHEP 07(2008) 112 [0804.3971]

2008 arXiv
[18]

PACScollaboration, Electromagnetic pion form factor near physical point in𝑁𝑓 = 2+ 1 lattice QCD, PoS LATTICE2016(2017) 160

2017
[19]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Low-Energy Expansion of Meson Form-Factors,Nucl. Phys. B250(1985) 517

1985
[20]

Gasser and H

J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler,Chiral Perturbation Theory: Expansions in the Mass of the Strange Quark, Nucl. Phys.B250 (1985) 465

1985
[21]

C.-Y. Seng, D. Galviz, W.J. Marciano and U.-G. Meißner,Update on |Vus| and |Vus/Vud| from semileptonic kaon and pion decays, Phys. Rev. D105 (2022) 013005 [2107.14708]

2022 arXiv
[22]

Di Carlo, D

M. Di Carlo, D. Giusti, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, C.T. Sachrajda, F. Sanfilippo et al., Light-meson leptonic decay rates in lattice QCD+QED,Phys. Rev.D100(2019) 034514 [1904.08731]. 9 Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using𝑁𝑓 = 2+ 1 PACS10 configurations Takeshi Yamazaki

2019 arXiv
[23]

Leutwyler and M

H. Leutwyler and M. Roos,Determination of the Elements V(us) and V(ud) of the Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix,Z. Phys.C25(1984) 91

1984
[24]

Hardy and I.S

J.C. Hardy and I.S. Towner,Superallowed 0+→ 0+ nuclear𝛽 decays: 2020 critical survey, with implications for V𝑢𝑑 and CKM unitarity,Phys. Rev. C102(2020) 045501. 10

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of Particle Physics,PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

2022

[2] [2]

Vector form factor in K_l3 semileptonic decay with two flavors of dynamical domain-wall quarks

C. Dawson, T. Izubuchi, T. Kaneko, S. Sasaki and A. Soni,Vector form factor in K(l3) semileptonic decay with two flavors of dynamical domain-wall quarks, Phys. Rev.D74 (2006) 114502 [hep-ph/0607162]

work page Pith review arXiv 2006

[3] [3]

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, K(l3) semileptonic form-factor from 2+1 flavour lattice QCD, Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008) 141601 [0710.5136]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[4] [4]

Rev.D80 (2009) 111502 [0906.4728]

ETM collaboration,𝐾→𝜋𝑙𝜈 Semileptonic Form Factors from Two-Flavor Lattice QCD, Phys. Rev.D80 (2009) 111502 [0906.4728]

arXiv 2009

[5] [5]

Rev.D87 (2013) 073012 [1212.4993]

Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaboration, Kaon semileptonic vector form factor and determination of|𝑉𝑢𝑠| using staggered fermions,Phys. Rev.D87 (2013) 073012 [1212.4993]

arXiv 2013

[6] [6]

The kaon semileptonic form factor with near physical domain wall quarks

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, The kaon semileptonic form factor with near physical domain wall quarks,JHEP 08 (2013) 132 [1305.7217]. 1http://luscher.web.cern.ch/luscher/openQCD/ 8 Update of kaon semileptonic form factor using𝑁𝑓 = 2+ 1 PACS10 configurations Takeshi Yamazaki

work page Pith review arXiv 2013

[7] [7]

Fermilab Lattice, MILC collaboration, Determination of|𝑉𝑢𝑠| from a lattice-QCD calculation of the𝐾→𝜋ℓ𝜈 semileptonic form factor with physical quark masses,Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 112001 [1312.1228]

work page Pith review arXiv 2014

[8] [8]

RBC-UKQCD collaboration, The kaon semileptonic form factor in N𝑓 = 2 + 1 domain wall lattice QCD with physical light quark masses, JHEP 06(2015) 164 [1504.01692]

arXiv 2015