1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,citesort,rsfs,amsbsy]{revtex}
2: %\usepackage{rsfs}
3: \textwidth=17cm
4: \textheight=24cm
5: \hoffset=0.4cm
6: \voffset=0cm
7: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \def\dsl#1{\mathchoice
12: {\dslaux\displaystyle{#1}} {\dslaux\textstyle{#1}} {\dslaux\scriptstyle{#1}}
13: {\dslaux\scriptscriptstyle{#1}} }
14: \def\dslaux#1#2{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1{#2}$}
15: \rlap{\hbox to \wd0{\hss$#1/$\hss}}\box0}
16: \let\sla=\dsl
17: \begin{document}
18:
19: %\setcounter{page}{1}
20:
21: \title{One Interesting New Sum Rule \\ Extending Bjorken's to order
22: $\boldsymbol{1/m_Q}$ \\
23: }
24: \author{A. Le Yaouanc$^{a}$, D. Melikhov$^{b}$\footnote{
25: Alexander-von-Humboldt fellow}, V. Mor\'enas$^{c}$, L. Oliver$^{a}$,
26: O. P\`ene$^{a}$, and J.-C. Raynal$^{a}$}
27: \address{
28: ${}^a$ Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique, Universit\'e de Paris XI,
29: B\^atiment 211, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France\footnote{
30: Laboratoire associ\'e au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique -
31: URA D00063}\\
32: $^b$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Heidelberg,
33: Philosophenweg 16, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany\\
34: $^c$ Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire\\
35: Universit\'e Blaise Pascal - CNRS/IN2P3
36: F-63177 Aubi\`ere Cedex, France}
37: \maketitle
38:
39:
40: \begin{abstract}
41:
42: We explicitly check quark-hadron duality to order $(m_b-m_c)\Lambda/m_b^2$ for
43: $b \to c l\nu$ decays in the limit $m_b-m_c \ll m_b$ including ground state and
44: orbitally excited hadrons. Duality occurs thanks to a new sum rule which
45: expresses the subleading HQET form factor $\xi_3$ or, in other notations,
46: $a_+^{(1)}$ in
47: terms of the infinite mass limit form factors and some level splittings. We also
48: demonstrate the sum rule, which is not restricted to the condition $m_b-m_c \ll
49: m_b$, applying OPE to the longitudinal axial component of the hadronic tensor
50: without neglecting the $1/m_b$ subleading contributions to the form factors. We
51: argue that this method should produce a new class of sum rules, depending
52: on the current, beyond Bjorken,
53: Voloshin and the known tower of higher moments. Applying OPE to the vector
54: currents we find another derivation of the Voloshin sum rule. From independent
55: results on $\xi_3$ we derive a sum rule which involves only the
56: $\tau_{1/2}^{(n)}$ and $\tau_{3/2}^{(n)}$ form factors and the corresponding
57: level splittings. The latter strongly supports a theoretical evidence that the
58: $B$ semileptonic decay into narrow orbitally-excited resonances dominates over
59: the decay into the broad ones, in apparent contradiction with
60: some recent experiments. We discuss this issue.
61:
62:
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \begin{flushright}
66: LPT-ORSAY 00/27\\
67: HD-THEP-00-12\\
68: PCCF RI 0005\\
69: \end{flushright}
70: %\newpage
71: \section{Introduction}
72:
73: It is well known \cite{ac2m2} that
74: quark-hadron duality is valid to a good accuracy in
75: $b$-quark decay and particularly in semileptonic decay.
76: A systematic study of the corrections to duality
77: \cite{cgg,bsuv93,mw,fls,shifman} using the powerful tools of Operator Product
78: Expansion (OPE) \cite{wilson} and Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET), in
79: particular Luke's theorem \cite{luke}, has demonstrated that the first
80: corrections to duality only appear at second order, namely $O(\Lambda^2/m_Q^2)$
81: where $\Lambda$ is for the QCD scale and $m_Q$ is one of the heavy quark masses
82: ($m_b$ or $m_c$). For simplicity we leave aside in this letter the
83: $O(\alpha_s)$ radiative corrections notwithstanding their manifest practical
84: relevance.
85:
86: The OPE based proof is very elegant and circumvents the detailed calculation of
87: the relevant channels. Precisely this feature has generated some doubts or at least
88: some worries. First of all there is the experimental problem of the $\Lambda_b$
89: life time which has not yet been understood within OPE framework. Second it has
90: been asked if OPE could not miss some subtle kinematical effects related with the
91: delay in the opening of different decay channels \cite{isgur}. We have shown
92: \cite{nous} in a non-relativistic model that the latter effect does not affect
93: the validity of duality.
94:
95: A numerical calculation of the sum over exclusive channels in the 't Hooft two
96: dimensional QCD model \cite{thooft} reported a presence of a duality-violating
97: $1/m_Q$ correction in the total width \cite{gl}. Later the summation was
98: performed analytically in the case of the massless light quark \cite{b-thooft}.
99: Agreement between the OPE and the exact result was found in this case through
100: $1/m_Q^4$ order.
101:
102: The ``miraculous'' conspiracy of exclusive decay channels to add up to the
103: partonic result and its OPE corrections may be expressed in terms of sum rules
104: which the hadronic matrix elements must satisfy in QCD
105: \cite{bjorken,iw,voloshin,greg}. OPE was first explicitly used to
106: derive Bjorken sum rule in \cite{iw}.
107:
108: To leading order in $\Lambda/m_b$ Bjorken sum rule straightforwardly implies
109: quark hadron duality for the semileptonic widths (the differential and the total
110: widths). The suppression of the $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ corrections is not so direct.
111: The authors of \cite{bgm} have done a thorough study of the exclusive
112: contributions of the ground state $D$ and $D^\ast$ mesons up to order
113: $O(\Lambda^2/m_b^2)$. They have chosen the Shifman Voloshin (SV) \cite{sv} limit,
114: $\Lambda \ll m_b-m_c \ll m_b$, which drastically simplifies the calculation, but
115: did not consider the orbitally excited states, and
116: therefore could not check the matching between the sum of exclusive channels and
117: the OPE prediction to the order $O(\Lambda (m_b-m_c)/m_b^2)$.
118:
119: Our first motivation was precisely to complete this part and add
120: the $L=1$ excited states in the sum of exclusive channels.
121: We will discuss in section \ref{sec:OPE} why we neglect other
122: excitations.
123:
124: While performing this task we had a surprise. We found that a {\it new sum rule},
125: eq.~(\ref{new}), was needed beyond Bjorken, Voloshin, and the known tower of
126: higher moment sum rules \cite{bjorken,iw,voloshin,greg} and we found that this
127: new sum rule could be demonstrated from OPE.
128:
129: We believe that other new sum rules can be derived
130: along the same line. When the form factors are
131: taken at leading order in $1/m_b$, OPE applied to different components of
132: the hadronic tensor, or to different operators, always provides
133: the unique series: Bjorken sum rule, Voloshin sum rule
134: and higher moments. But when the next to leading contribution to the form factors
135: is considered, no such unicity holds anymore. Changing the current operators
136: in the OPE might lead to several other sum rules at order $1/m_b$.
137:
138:
139: In the following we will simplify our task as much as possible. We will neglect
140: radiative corrections. We will also leave aside terms of order
141: $O(\Lambda^2/m_b^2)$, which implies that operators with higher dimension than
142: identity may be neglected in the OPE and consequently that the inclusive results
143: may be computed only via the partonic contribution.
144:
145: In the next section we will show how the equality of partonic and inclusive
146: widths to the desired order demands for a new sum rule. In section \ref{sec:OPE}
147: we will derive the latter sum rule from OPE applied to the T-product
148: of currents. Finally in section \ref{sec:tau} we show interesting
149: phenomenological consequences of the sum rule. We then conclude.
150:
151:
152: \section{Inclusive semileptonic widths}
153: \label{largeurs}
154:
155: We work in the SV limit \cite{sv}, i.e. we assume the following
156: hierarchy
157:
158: \beq
159: \Lambda \ll \delta m \ll m_b \eeq
160: where $\delta m \equiv m_b-m_c$ and $\Lambda$ is any energy scale stemming
161: from QCD, for example the hadron-quark mass difference $\overline \Lambda
162: \equiv m_B-m_b = m_D-m_c + O(1/m_b)$ or the excitation energy.
163:
164: From OPE \cite{bsuv93} one expects quark-hadron duality to be valid up to
165: $O(\Lambda^2/m_b^2)$
166: corrections, i.e. in terms of the double expansion in
167: $\delta m/m_b$ and $\Lambda/m_b$, it should be valid to
168: all orders $(\delta m/m_b)^n$ and $(\delta m/m_b)^n\Lambda/m_b$.
169: In fact we will restrict ourselves to check duality up to order
170: $(\delta m/m_b)^2$ and $\delta m \Lambda/m_b^2$. The terms
171: of order $\delta m \Lambda/m_b^2$ will turn out to be the trickiest.
172: Of course, in the preceding sentences we mean orders as compared
173: to the leading contribution. For example the inclusive semileptonic
174: width is of order $(\delta m)^5$, which implies that we will compute
175: it up to order $\overline \Lambda (\delta m)^6/m_b^2$.
176: In this letter the symbol $\simeq$ will always refer to neglecting
177: higher orders than those just mentioned.
178: From OPE the partonic semileptonic
179: decay width should equate the explicit sum of the corresponding
180: exclusive decay widths up to $O(\Lambda^2/m_b^2)$ terms, i.e.
181: \cite{bgm}:
182: \beq
183: \Gamma(\overline B \to X_c l \nu) = \Gamma(b\to c l \nu)
184: + O(\Lambda^2/m_b^2)
185: \label{inclu}
186: \eeq
187: with the semileptonic partonic width
188: \beq
189: \Gamma(b\to c l \nu)
190: = 32 \,K \,(\delta m)^5\left[
191: \frac 2 5 - \frac 3 5 \frac{\delta m}{m_b} + \frac 9 {35}
192: \frac{(\delta m)^2}{m_b^2}\right]
193: \label{partonic}
194: \eeq
195: where
196: \beq
197: K = \frac {G_F^2}{192 \pi^3} |V_{cb}|^2
198: \eeq
199: Using $M_B\simeq m_b+\overline \Lambda$ and $\delta M
200: \equiv M_B-M_D \simeq \delta m$ we get
201: \beq
202: \Gamma(\overline B \to X_c l \nu) \simeq 32\, K \,(\delta M)^5\left[
203: \frac 2 5 - \frac 3 5 \frac{\delta M}{M_B} + \frac 9 {35}
204: \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2} - \frac{21}{35} \frac {\overline \Lambda
205: \delta M}{M_B^2}\right]
206: \label{inclu2}
207: \eeq
208: The ground state contribution is
209: \cite{bgm}
210: \beq
211: \Gamma(\overline B \to (D+D^\ast)\, l \nu) \simeq 32\, K\, (\delta M)^5\left[
212: \frac 2 5 - \frac 3 5 \frac{\delta M}{M_B} + \frac {11-8 \rho^2} {35}
213: \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2} - \frac{1}{10} \frac { a_+^{(1)}
214: \delta M}{M_B^2}\right]
215: \label{ground}
216: \eeq
217: Strictly speaking nothing compels $a_+^{(1)}$ to be real and we must
218: read $\Re[a_+^{(1)}]$ everywhere in this letter instead of $a_+^{(1)}$ and
219: $\Re[\xi_3]$ instead of $\xi_3$.
220: The contribution of the first orbitally excited states may be computed using
221: results in \cite{llsw}. We get
222: \beq
223: \Gamma(\overline B \to (D_1+D^\ast_2)\, l \nu) \simeq 32\, K\,
224: |\tau_{3/2}(1)|^2\left[\frac {16}{35}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}
225: -\frac{56}{35}\frac { \Delta_{3/2}
226: \delta M}{M_B^2}\right]
227: \label{3demis}
228: \eeq
229: for the states with total angular momentum of the light
230: quanta $j=3/2$ and
231: $\tau_{j}(w)$ are the infinite
232: mass limit form factors $B\to D^{\ast\ast}$ as defined in \cite{iw}.
233: In all this letter we use for any state $n$ the notation
234: \beq
235: \Delta_n = M_n- M_0, \label{Delta}
236: \eeq
237: where 0 refers to the ground state.
238: \beq
239: \Gamma(\overline B \to (D^{\ast}_{1}+D^\ast_0)\, l \nu) \simeq 32\, K\,
240: |\tau_{1/2}(1)|^2\left[\frac {8}{35}\frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2}
241: -\frac{49}{35}\frac {\Delta_{1/2}
242: \delta M}{M_B^2}\right]
243: \label{1demi}
244: \eeq
245: for the lowest $j=1/2$ states.
246:
247: To the order considered, quark-hadron duality of the semileptonic
248: decay widths implies the equality of the r.h.s. of eq. (\ref{inclu2})
249: with the sum of the r.h.s's of eqs (\ref{ground}), (\ref{3demis}) and
250: (\ref{1demi}) to which
251: we need to add the $L=1$ radially excited states. Their contributions
252: are identical to eqs.~(\ref{3demis}) and (\ref{1demi}) with the replacement
253: $\tau_j \to \tau_j^{(n)}$ and $\Delta_j\to \Delta_j^{(n)}$.
254: The terms proportional to $(\delta M/M_B)^2$ match thanks to Bjorken sum
255: rule \cite{bjorken,iw}:
256: \beq
257: \rho^2-\frac 1 4 = \sum_n \left[|\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2 + 2 |\tau^{(n)}_{3/2}|^2
258: \right]\label{bjorken}
259: \eeq
260: From now on,
261: unless specified, it is understood that the form factors are taken at $w=1$.
262: Taking into account Voloshin sum rule \cite{voloshin}
263: \beq
264: \overline \Lambda = \sum_n \left[2\, \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2} \,|\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2
265: + 4\,\Delta^{(n)}_{3/2}\, |\tau^{(n)}_{3/2}|^2\right],
266: \label{voloshin}
267: \eeq
268: the matching of the terms of order $\Lambda \delta M/M_B^2$ leads to
269: the requirement
270: \beq
271: a_+^{(1)}= 4\,\sum_n \left[\Delta^{(n)}_{1/2}\,|\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2
272: - \Delta^{(n)}_{3/2}\, |\tau^{(n)}_{3/2}|^2\right]
273: \label{new}
274: \eeq
275:
276:
277: The sum rule (\ref{new}) is the main result of this paper. The
278: preceding lines can be taken as a derivation of the sum rule, since we
279: simply have made explicit the result from OPE, eq. (\ref{inclu2}).
280: However, one might feel uncomfortable in view of the peculiarity
281: of the SV kinematics, one might fear that some exception to OPE could
282: happen there. Furthermore, as recalled in the introduction, OPE has
283: been repeatedly submitted to various interrogations. Therefore, we will
284: rederive in the next section the sum rule (\ref{new}) in a less
285: questionable manner.
286:
287:
288: Let us note that in the {\it vector current case}, we do not need the $a_{+}$
289: form factor. In that case, matching of the $(\delta M/M_B)^2$ and
290: $\Lambda \delta M/M_B^2$ terms occurs thanks to Bjorken and Voloshin sum rule
291: only - or conversely we can invoke duality to demonstrate these sum rules. In
292: particular, it gives a demonstration of Voloshin sum rule just from the same
293: duality requirement invoked by Isgur and Wise to derive Bjorken sum rule:
294: the Voloshin sum rule comes from the matching of $\Lambda \delta M/M_B^2$
295: terms. \par It is in the axial case or in the $V-A$ case (which corresponds to
296: the sum of vector and axial contribution) that we need the new sum rule. More
297: precisely, we can separate also the contributions with definite helicity of the
298: lepton pair. In the transverse helicity case, there is still matching from just
299: Bjorken and Voloshin sum rule. In fact the need for a new sum rule occurs in the
300: axial current and for {\it longitudinal} helicity. We obtain indeed for
301: the $\lambda=0$ helicity of the axial current:
302: \beq
303: \Gamma(b \to c l \nu)_{A,\lambda=0}\simeq 4\, K \,(\delta M)^5\left[
304: \frac 4 3 - 2~ \frac{\delta M}{M_B} + \frac 4 {5}
305: \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2} - 2~ \frac {\overline \Lambda
306: \delta M}{M_B^2}\right]
307: \eeq
308:
309:
310: \begin{eqnarray}
311: \Gamma(\overline B \to D^* l \nu)_{A,\lambda=0} \simeq 4\, K \,(\delta M)^5 &&\left[
312: \frac 4 3 - 2~ \frac{\delta M}{M_B} + (1-\frac 4 {5}~\rho^2)
313: \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2} -\frac{4}{5} \frac { a_+^{(1)}
314: \delta M}{M_B^2}\right]
315: \\
316: \Gamma(\overline B \to D^{**} l \nu)_{A,\lambda=0} \simeq 4\, K \,(\delta M)^5
317: &&\left[
318: \frac 4 5 \sum_n \left[|\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2 + 2 |\tau^{(n)}_{3/2}|^2
319: \right] \frac{(\delta M)^2}{M_B^2} \right. \nonumber\\
320: &&
321: -\frac {28} 5 \sum_n \left[ \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2} \,|\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2
322: + 2\,\Delta^{(n)}_{3/2}\, |\tau^{(n)}_{3/2}|^2\right] \frac {\delta M}{M_B^2}
323: \nonumber\\
324: &&\left.+\frac {24} 5 \sum_n \left[ \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2} \,|\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2 \right]
325: \frac {\delta M} {M_B^2}\right]
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: whence we get the eq.~(\ref{new}) from the matching of ${\delta M}\over {M_B^2}$
328: terms.
329:
330:
331: \section{Derivation of the sum rule from OPE}
332: \label{sec:OPE}
333:
334: The authors of \cite{blrw} have derived corrections to Bjorken and Voloshin sum
335: rules and to the resulting {\it inequalities} on $\rho^2$. We will follow the
336: same philosophy but including the orbitally excited states in order to derive
337: $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ corrections, within our approximations, to the {\it equalities}
338: resulting from the sum rules. We will use the differential semileptonic
339: distributions \cite{blok}.
340:
341: Defining two currents which at present we take arbitrary:
342: \beq
343: J(x) \equiv \left(\overline b \Gamma c\right)(x),\quad J'(y) \equiv
344: \left(\overline c \Gamma' b\right)(y).
345: \label{currents}
346: \eeq
347: Their T product is
348: \beq
349: T(q) \equiv i \int d^4x e^{-i qx} <\overline B |T( J(x) J'(0))
350: |\overline B>
351: \label{Tdef}
352: \eeq
353: where the states are normalised according to
354: $<p | p'>= (2\pi)^3 \delta_3(\vec p'-\vec p)$.
355:
356: Neglecting heavy quarks in the ``sea'', it is clear that $x<0$ receives
357: contributions from intermediate states with one $c$ quark and light quanta,
358: usually referred to as the direct channel, while $x>0$ receives contributions from
359: intermediate states with $b \overline c b$ quarks plus light quanta. This will be
360: referred to as the crossed channel, or $Z$ diagrams. Expanding the r.h.s of
361: (\ref{Tdef}) on intermediate states $X$ in the $B$ rest frame,
362: \beq
363: T= (2\pi)^3 \left [\sum_X \delta_3(\vec p_X+ \vec q)\frac
364: {<\overline B |J(0)|X><X|J'(0)|\overline B>}{M_B-q_0-E_X}
365: -\sum_{X'} \delta_3(\vec p_{X'}- \vec q)\frac{<\overline B \overline X'|J(0)|0>
366: <0|J'(0)|\overline X'\overline B>}
367: {M_B+q_0-(E_{X'}+2M_B)}\right]
368: \label{Texp}
369: \eeq
370: where $X, X'$ are charmed states. Let us call ${\cal V}$ the typical
371: virtuality of the direct channels, $M_B-q_0-E_X\simeq {\cal V}$, we will
372: take $q_0$ such that $\Lambda \ll {\cal V} \ll M_B$. While the direct
373: channels ($X$) contribute like $1/{\cal V}$ to (\ref{Texp}), the crossed
374: channels ($X'$) contribute like $1/(m_D + {\cal V})$. In both cases the
375: denominator is $\gg \Lambda$, which allows to use the leading contribution to
376: OPE:
377: \beq
378: T=i \int d^4x e^{-i qx} <\overline B|\overline b(x) \Gamma S_c(x,0)
379: \Gamma' b(0) |\overline B> + \,O(1/m_c^2)
380: \label{OPE}
381: \eeq
382: where $S_c(x,0)$ is the free charmed quark propagator as long as $O(\alpha_s)$
383: corrections are neglected. Assuming as usual that the $b$ quark has a momentum
384: $p_b=m_b v + k$ with $k_\mu = O(\Lambda)$, the charmed quark propagator in
385: (\ref{OPE}) has two terms, the positive energy pole with a denominator $m_b v_0
386: + k_0 -q_0 -E_c \simeq {\cal V}$ and the negative energy one with a
387: denominator $m_b v_0 + k_0 -q_0 +E_c \simeq m_c + {\cal V}$. Varying
388: ${\cal V}$ independently of $m_b\simeq m_c$ one can check
389: that the direct channels sum up to the contribution of the positive
390: energy pole of the charmed quark propagator.
391:
392: As a result, considering now only resonances among the states $X$
393: and fixing $\vec q$ in the following, one gets equating the residues
394: \beq
395: \sum_n <\overline B |J(0)|n><n|J'(0)|\overline B>=
396: <\overline B |\overline b \Gamma \frac {\sla v'_q + 1}
397: {2 v_0'}\Gamma'b|\overline B>\label{residus}
398: \eeq
399: where all the three-momenta are equal to $-\vec q$ in the $B$ rest frame
400: and
401: \beq
402: v'_q=\frac 1 {m_c} (-\vec q, \sqrt{\vec q^{\,2} + m_c^2})\label{vprime}
403: \eeq
404:
405: It is well known \cite{iw} that to leading order this leads to Bjorken
406: sum rule. Considering successive moments, i.e.
407: multiplying $T$ in (\ref{Tdef}) by $(q_0-E_0)^n$ ($E_0$
408: being the ground state energy) leads to a
409: tower of sum rules \cite{greg}, Voloshin sum rule when $n=1$, etc.
410:
411: In the following {\it we will stick to the $n=0$ moment}, but include the $1/m_b$
412: correction to the residues. Let us insist on this point. One may discover a tower
413: of sum rules by keeping the form factors to leading order but considering
414: successive moments \cite{greg}. One may also discover new sum rules by sticking
415: to the lowest moment but considering the higher orders in the form factors. This
416: is not equivalent and leads to different sum rules, the first moment yields
417: Voloshin sum rule eq~(\ref{voloshin}), the second adds at least one new sum
418: rule, (\ref{new}), as we shall demonstrate now. The distinction is important
419: since in practice both sum rules apply to the same order in $1/m_b$. A
420: significant difference between the two types of subleading sum rules is the
421: following: All the currents provide via OPE the same Voloshin sum rule because
422: the form factors are all related by the heavy quark symmetry. On the contrary,
423: when
424: the form factors are taken at subleading order in $1/m_b$, different currents
425: have different corrective terms depending on several independent form factors,
426: and OPE should yield different subleading sum rules.
427: In this letter we only consider
428: eq.~(\ref{new}) for its physical relevance, leaving other sum rules for a
429: forthcoming study.
430:
431: We now apply eq.~(\ref{residus}) with $J, J'$ substituted by the vector current
432: $V^\mu$ and the axial one $A^\mu$. One may check that eq.~(\ref{residus})
433: applied to currents projected perpendicularly to the $v,v'$ plane is trivially
434: satisfied, including the $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ order, by Bjorken sum rule. Let us now
435: consider the vector current projected on the $B$ meson four velocity: $V\cdot
436: v$. Among the orbitally excited states only the $J=1$ states contribute to the
437: wanted order. Dividing both sides of eq~(\ref{residus}) by $(1+w)/(2v_0 v'_0)$
438: one gets using the results of \cite{llsw} and \cite{fn}
439: \beq
440: \frac {1+w}2 |\xi(w)|^2 + \sum_n (w-1)\left \{ 2 |\tau_{1/2}^{(n)}|^2
441: \left[1+\frac {\Delta^{(n)}_{1/2}}{m_b}\right] + (w+1)^2 |\tau_{3/2}^{(n)}|^2
442: \left[1+\frac {\Delta_{3/2}^{(n)}}{m_b}\right]\right\}
443: \simeq 1+(w-1)\frac {\overline \Lambda}{m_b}
444: \label{vector}
445: \eeq
446: where we have neglected higher powers of $(w-1)$ and of $\Lambda/m_b$ than
447: the first\footnote{Remember that we take $\overline \Lambda \sim \Delta_j
448: \sim \Lambda$}. The l.h.s is found by a straightforward application of
449: \cite{fn} for the ground state and of \cite{llsw} for the excited ones.
450: The r.h.s yields $(1+w_q)/(1+w)$ which has been transformed according to:
451: \beq
452: w_q\equiv v.v'_q \simeq w + \vec q^{\,2} \left [\frac 1 {2m_c^2}-\frac
453: 1 {2M_D^2}\right] \simeq w+ \frac {(w^2-1) \overline \Lambda}{m_b}.
454: \label{wq}\eeq
455:
456: The leading terms in eq.~(\ref{vector}) simply reproduce Bjorken sum rule as
457: expected \cite{iw}, while the $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ terms provide Voloshin sum rule.
458: This is {\it another derivation of Voloshin sum rule} which does not use higher
459: momenta.
460:
461: Analogously the axial current projected on the $D$ meson velocity $v'$, $A\cdot
462: v'$ gives, inserted in eq.~(\ref{residus}) and after dividing both sides by
463: $(w-1)/(2v_0v'_0)$,
464:
465: \[
466: \frac {1+w}2 |\xi(w)|^2 - \frac 4 {m_b} \xi_3(w)\xi(w)
467: + \sum_n \Bigg \{ \left[2(w-1)-\frac {6(w+1)\Delta^{(n)}_{1/2}}{m_b}
468: \right]|\tau_{1/2}^{(n)}|^2 \]\beq
469: + (w-1)(w+1)^2 |\tau_{3/2}^{(n)}|^2\Bigg\}
470: \simeq 1-(w+1)\frac {\overline \Lambda}{m_b}
471: \label{axialv}
472: \eeq
473: where $\xi_3$ in the notations of \cite{fn} is equal to $- a_+^{(1)}/2$
474: used in \cite{bgm}. The matching of the $1/m_b$ terms in eq. (\ref{axialv})
475: leads to the sum rule
476: \beq
477: \overline \Lambda + a_+^{(1)}= L_4(1) = + 6 \sum_n \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2}
478: |\tau_{1/2}^{(n)}|^2
479: \label{sr2}\eeq
480: $L_4$ being defined according to \cite{fn}.
481: Eliminating $\overline \Lambda$ from eqs.~(\ref{sr2}) and (\ref{voloshin})
482: we are left with eq.~(\ref{new}).
483:
484: We can check
485: this result by using the method for sum rules developed earlier by Bigi and the
486: Minnesota group \cite{bigi}, which relies on a systematic $1/m_Q$ expansion of
487: the moments of the Lorentz invariants of the imaginary part of the hadronic
488: tensor, $w_i$. From their equation (131), we read :
489:
490: \beq \int dq^0 w_2^{AA}(q^0,\vec q^{\,2})\simeq \frac {m_b}{E_c} \label{lw2}
491: \eeq
492: the terms left over being the power corrections due to higher dimension
493: operators. Computing from \cite{bgm} and \cite{llsw} the hadronic contribution to
494: the same integral at $\vec q=0$ i.e. $w=1$, we get the equation (with
495: $r_0=M_D^*/M_B$, $r_{1/2,3/2}=M_{D_{1/2,3/2}^{**}}/M_B$):
496:
497:
498: \bea \int dq^0 w_2^{AA}(q^0, \vec{q}^{\,2}=0)={1 \over r_0} \left\lbrace {f^2 \over 4
499: M_B^2 r_0^2} +{(1-r_0) f a_+ \over r_0 } \right\rbrace \nonumber \\ +
500: \left\lbrace
501: {(1-r_{3/2})^2 \over r_{3/2}^2}\left({k_{A_1}^2 \over 24}-{f_A^2 \over 4}
502: \right)+{1 \over 4
503: r_{1/2}^2} (\lbrack (1+r_{1/2}) g_+-(1-r_{1/2}) g_- \rbrack ^2-g_A^2)
504: \right\rbrace \label{rw2}
505: \eea
506: with all form factors taken at $w=1$, and with notations for the $L=1$ form
507: factors $g_+,g_-,g_A,f_A,k_{A_1}$ to be found in \cite{llsw}.
508: A sum over the $L=1$ excitations is unedrstood. If we now work in
509: the SV limit, we see that we need $g_-,f_A,g_A,k_{A_1}$ only in the HQET limit,
510: i.e. $\tau_{1/2,3/2}$, except for some algebraic factors; as for
511: $g_+$, it is subleading, but at $w=1$, it is expressible in terms of
512: $\tau_{1/2}$ and we do not need to know any of the new subleading form
513: factors. In the $L=1$ contributions, only the $g_+ g_-$ term remains. We finally
514: end with the equation :
515:
516: \beq \frac {M_B}{M_D} - \frac {\delta M}{M_B^2} a_+^{(1)} + 6
517: \frac {\delta M }{M_B^2}\sum_n \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2} | \tau_{1/2}^{(n)}|^2
518: \simeq \frac
519: {m_b}{m_c} \label{w2} \eeq
520: which leads directly to eq.~(\ref{sr2}).
521:
522: In the preceding calculations we have systematically neglected the contributions
523: from higher orbital excitations or $L=0$ radial excitations. This can be
524: justified as follows. The leading $B$ transition to radially excited $L=0$ final
525: states or to $L=2$ final states are suppressed by a factor $\vec q^{\,2}/m_b^2$
526: due to three facts: first, the current operator is proportional at
527: leading order to the identity
528: operator or to $\vec \sigma_b$\footnote{
529: The heavy quark spin may be factorised out thanks to HQS.}, second, the orthogonality of the wave functions implies vanishing
530: at $\vec q=0$ in the $B$ rest frame and, third, parity implies an even power in
531: $\vec q$. This suppression leads to the well known fact that these terms appear
532: in the Bjorken sum rule or in the differential widths with a $(w-1)^2$ factor as
533: compared to the ground state contribution. On the contrary the
534: $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ contributions to the axial form factors for the same type of
535: transitions are not suppressed as compared to the ground state because the
536: current operator is no more proportional to identity neither to $\vec \sigma_b$.
537: For example the transition
538: to radially or orbitally excited $J^P=1^-$ states other than the $D^\ast$ are
539: in principle of the same order of magnitude than the $\propto a_+^{(1)}$ terms
540: mentioned above. However, in this letter we have only considered the terms
541: $\propto a_+^{(1)}$ via crossed terms, i.e. via cross products of the leading
542: order terms with the $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ ones, because we have neglected all
543: $O(\Lambda^2/m_b^2)$ contributions. Hence we are left with a suppression of a
544: factor $\vec q^{\,2}/m_b^2$ in the hadronic tensors or the differential widths,
545: i.e. a factor $(w-1)$ as compared to the corresponding ground state contribution
546: and we can consequently neglect the $L=0$ radial excitations and the $L=2$
547: orbital ones. $L=3$ contributions are negligible simply because the total
548: angular momentum $J\ge 2$ again leads to $(w-1)$ factors resulting from angular
549: momentum conservation (D-waves). All other operators which are already
550: negligible for the ground state and the $L=1$ states are even more so for higher
551: excitations.
552:
553: Turning now to a comparison of our different demonstrations,
554: we should note that it is not really unexpected
555: that we find consistent results according to three approaches: imposing duality
556: to the widths (section \ref{largeurs}), imposing duality to the tensors
557: as in eqs.~(\ref{vector}) and (\ref{axialv}) and finally to the invariant tensors
558: eqs.~(\ref{lw2}) and (\ref{rw2}). Indeed, at fixed $q^0$ and $\vec q$ there
559: is a linear relation
560: between the tensor components and the invariant tensors. It is as well true that
561: the formula for the decay widths before integrating on the $q^0$ variable is,
562: for fixed $q^0$ and $\vec q$, linear in the tensor components.
563:
564: We might worry about what happens when we apply duality to the sum of the
565: residues. Integration over $q^0$ leads to a sum of residues multiplied by
566: $\delta$ functions and the position of the poles is different for each term in
567: the sum and still different for the quark contribution. As a consequence the
568: projector which projects out $w_2$ from the tensor residues is different for
569: each term since it depends on $q^0$. Still this difference does not lead to a
570: collapse of the sum rule thanks to Voloshin sum rule and the tower of higher
571: momenta sum rules: one can expand the difference between the intervening projectors in
572: powers of $q^0$ and the resulting alteration to the sum rule vanishes. Exactly
573: the same happens when one computes the decay widths with the real kinematics on
574: each term.
575:
576:
577:
578:
579:
580: \section{Phenomenological consequences}
581: \label{sec:tau}
582:
583: Eq.~(\ref{sr2}) is phenomenologically relevant as it
584: expresses the dominant correction to the
585: zero recoil differential $B\to D l\nu$ decay width as a function
586: of leading form factors and level spacings. Indeed
587: \beq
588: \frac {d\Gamma(B\to D l \nu)}{dw} \propto (w^2-1)^{3/2}
589: \left[1-2 \left(\frac 1{2m_b}+\frac 1{2m_c}\right)\frac{M_B-M_D}{M_B+M_D}
590: L_4(1)\right].
591: \eeq
592:
593: On the other hand, we may combine our result with an independent estimate of
594: the form factor $\xi_3$ \cite{xi3} from QCD sum rules\footnote{The definitions of $\xi_3$ differ by a factor $\overline
595: \Lambda$ in \cite{fn} and \cite{xi3}. We use the notations of \cite{fn}.}:
596: \beq
597: \frac{\xi_3(1)}{\overline \Lambda } = \frac 1 3 + O(\alpha_s) = 0.6 \pm 0.2,\quad
598: \frac{a_+^{(1)}}{\overline \Lambda } = -\frac 2 3 - O(\alpha_s) = - 1.2 \pm 0.4.
599: \label{xi_3}
600: \eeq
601: The dispersion formulation of the constituent quark model \cite{dmitri}
602: finds that $\xi_3(1)$ is 1/3 the average kinetic energy of the light quark.
603: For a light constituent mass of $m_u=0.25$ GeV it gives
604: \beq
605: \xi_3(1)= 0.17 \;{\rm GeV}, \qquad \overline \Lambda = 0.5\; {\rm GeV}
606: \label{dm}
607: \eeq
608: in perfect agreement with eq.~(\ref{xi_3}) for $\alpha_s=0$.
609:
610: Combining (\ref{voloshin}), (\ref{new}) and (\ref{xi_3}), assuming
611: $\alpha_s=0$ since we have neglected radiative corrections all
612: along this letter, we get
613:
614: \beq
615: {\sum_n \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2}\,|\tau_{1/2}^{(n)}|^2 \over
616: \sum_n\Delta^{(n)}_{3/2}\,|\tau_{3/2}^{(n)}|^2}={1\over 4},
617: \quad {\rm for} \quad \alpha_s=0
618: \label{taus}
619: \eeq
620: and
621: \beq
622: \sum_n \Delta^{(n)}_{1/2}\,|\tau_{1/2}^{(n)}|^2 = \frac 1{18}\, \overline
623: \Lambda,\qquad
624: \sum_n \Delta^{(n)}_{3/2}\,|\tau_{3/2}^{(n)}|^2 = \frac 2{9}\, \overline
625: \Lambda
626: \eeq
627: Notice that if we had, somehow inconsistently,
628: taken $ \xi_3(1)/\overline \Lambda = 0.6$ the result would not be qualitatively
629: different.
630:
631: Since in all spectroscopic models the mass differences between the $j=1/2$ and
632: $j=3/2$ states turn out to be not so large, we conclude that the
633: {\it $\sum_n |\tau^{(n)}_{1/2}|^2$
634: are significantly smaller than the $\sum_n |\tau^{(n)}_{3/2}|^2$} .
635:
636: Interestingly enough, this hierarchy $|\tau^{(0)}_{1/2}|^2 <
637: |\tau^{(0)}_{3/2}|^2$ was a clear outcome of a class of covariant quark models
638: \cite{vincent}. In \cite{vincent} four different potentials had been used within
639: the Bakamjian-Thomas covariant quark model framework. The potentials labeled ISGW,
640: VD, CCCN, and GI potentials in \cite{vincent} give respectively for the ratio
641: $|\tau^{(0)}_{1/2}|^2/|\tau^{(0)}_{3/2}|^2$ the values 0.33, 0.09, 0.01 and
642: 0.17. As a result these models predict a dominance of the $B\to D_{j=3/2} l\nu$
643: semileptonic decay widths by one order of magnitude over the $B\to D_{j=1/2}
644: l\nu$. We will comment this prediction later. The same models \cite{vincent}
645: give for the l.h.s of eq.~(\ref{taus}) 0.39, 0.166, 0.151 and 0.247 respectively
646: for the ISGW, VD, CCCN, and GI potentials, in reasonable agreement with 1/4. It
647: might not be mere luck if the GI model, which fits the spectrum in the most
648: elaborate way, yields an almost too good agreement with the expectation
649: (\ref{taus})\footnote{ We should nevertheless remember that the potentials used
650: in \cite{vincent} contain a Coulombic part which implies that some part of the
651: $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections might be implicit in these models.}. From
652: eq.~(\ref{xi_3}) we expect the r.h.s. of eq.~(\ref{new}) divided by that of
653: eq.~(\ref{voloshin}) to be close to $-2/3$. We have tested this with the numerical
654: calculations of
655: \cite{vincent}. In all cases we find that the sums in the r.h.s of
656: eqs.~(\ref{voloshin})-(\ref{new}) saturate very fast to their symptotic values.
657: At $n=3$ they are at less than 3\% in all cases. For the ratios
658: $a_+^{(1)}/\Lambda$ computed from the r.h.s of eqs.~(\ref{voloshin})-(\ref{new})
659: one finds -0.51, -0.77, -0.79, -0.67 respectively for the ISGW, VD, CCCN, and GI
660: models. This agreement with (\ref{xi_3}) is quite striking, and again GI is
661: embarrassingly good.
662:
663:
664: In more general terms, the prediction \cite{vincent} that the $B$ meson decays
665: dominantly into the narrow resonances $j=3/2$ was comforted by a study within
666: a constituent quark-meson model \cite{deandrea} as well as by a
667: semi-relativistic study \cite{ebert}. A QCD sum rule analysis \cite{col}
668: predicted rather a rough equality between these form factors contrarily to
669: another one \cite{yuan} which concluded to an overwhelming dominance of the
670: $j=3/2$ semileptonic decay over the $j=1/2$.
671:
672: It is fair to say that the general trend of theoretical models is
673: to predict $3/2$ dominance and a total semileptonic branching
674: ratio into the orbitally excited states exceeding hardly 1 \%.
675: It is well known that the $j=3/2$ are expected to be relatively
676: narrow and are identified with the observed narrow resonances
677: $D_1(2422)$ and $D_2^\ast(2459)$. As far as the decay widths
678: into the latter narrow resonances is considered,
679: experimental results \cite{aleph} are in rough agreement with
680: \cite{vincent} for the $B\to D_1(2422) l \nu$ and rather below
681: \cite{vincent} for $B\to D_2^\ast(2422) l \nu$. In brief, experiment
682: is rather below the theoretical models for $B\to D_{3/2} l \nu$.
683: The $j=1/2$ states are not easy to isolate, being very broad.
684: But thorough studies have been done of the channels $B\to D^{(\ast)} \pi
685: l \nu$ and the resulting branching fraction is very large: $3.4 \pm 0.52
686: \pm 0.32 \%$ by DELPHI \cite{delphi} and $2.26 \pm 0.29 \pm 0.33 \%$ by
687: ALEPH.
688:
689: These experimental results are both welcome and puzzling. Welcome
690: because these $B\to D^{(\ast)} \pi
691: l \nu$ fill the gap between the inclusive semileptonic decay branching fraction
692: of 10 - 11 \% and the sum $B\to (D + D^\ast) \,l \nu \simeq 7 \%$. They are
693: puzzling when one tries to understand which channels contribute to them.
694: As we have just said, the $j=3/2$ channels provide no more than 1 \%.
695: The remaining
696: 2 \% can come from the $j=1/2$, from higher excitations or from a non-resonant
697: continuum. Higher excitations are unlikely to contribute very much, being
698: suppressed both by dynamics and phase space. In \cite{delphi} the
699: quoted $b\to D^{\ast\ast} l \nu$ branching fractions are very large, exceeding
700: by far what is expected for example in \cite{vincent}.
701:
702: The results presented in this letter are doubly relevant in the above
703: discussion. First eq.~(\ref{taus}) seems to confirm the models which find a
704: dominance of the $3/2$ channels. Of course it is mathematically possible that
705: that eq.~(\ref{taus}) is satisfied while $|\tau_{1/2}^{(0)}| >
706: |\tau_{3/2}^{(0)}|$, the higher excitations compensating for the sum rule.
707: Admittedly such a situation would look rather queer, and as mentioned above ,
708: the models \cite{vincent}, which agree rather well with the new sum rule
709: eq.~(\ref{new}), also yield $|\tau_{1/2}^{(0)}|^2 < 0.35 |\tau_{3/2}^{(0)}|^2$.
710:
711: It is then hard to understand how
712: the $b\to D^{\ast\ast} l \nu$ branching fractions can be as large as quoted
713: in \cite{delphi} in view of the smallness of the experimental $B\to D_{3/2}
714: l\nu$ branching fractions.
715: However, the second lesson from our study
716: is that $1/m_c$ corrections may play an important role, and a further study
717: of their effect is wanted.
718:
719: The most serious caveat to our present derivation of a narrow resonance
720: dominance comes from the fact that we have neglected radiative
721: corrections. A priori we expect radiative corrections to provide only corrections
722: and our present estimate to yield the general trend. This is unhappily not always
723: true. As a counterexample see the discussion which follows eq.~(7.8) in
724: \cite{bgm}. It is argued that some radiative corrections to the parameter $K$ are
725: parametrically larger than the $\alpha_s=0$ estimate. A careful study of
726: radiative corrections to our present sum rule and its consequences would be
727: welcome.
728:
729: It is not excluded that an important
730: fraction of the $B\to D^{(\ast)} \pi
731: l \nu$ decays observed at LEP are non-resonant. Unluckily
732: theoretical works addressing non-resonant decays are rare, \cite{gr}
733: find in the soft-pion domain a resonance dominance while Isgur \cite{isgur2}
734: predicts that no more than 5 \% of the semileptonic decay is non-resonant.
735: Furthermore, if such a
736: continuum contributes significantly, it should also be included in
737: the sum rules \cite{isgur2} and we might fear that at the end
738: of the day the paradox would still be there.
739:
740: Finally another experimental result \cite{CLEO} seems to contradict
741: our theoretical expectation: the branching ratio for
742: $B\to D_1(j=1/2)\pi^-$ is found to be $\simeq 1.5$ times larger than that of
743: $B\to D_1(2420)\pi^-$. Of course the experimental error is still large, and the
744: relation between nonleptonic decays and the semileptonic ones assumes
745: factorisation.
746:
747: But still {\it there is a puzzle}: on one side an increasing amount of
748: theoretical evidence in favor of the narrow resonances dominance, and
749: on the other side an increasing amount of experimental evidence
750: in the opposite direction!
751:
752:
753:
754: \section{Conclusion and outlook}
755:
756: We have explicitly checked quark-hadron duality in the SV limit
757: to order $\delta m \Lambda/m_b^2$ including ground state final hadrons and $L=1$
758: orbitally excited states. We have shown that this duality implied a new sum rule
759: eq.~(\ref{new}) which we have also demonstrated from OPE applied to T-product of
760: axial currents.
761:
762: We have shown that this sum rule combined with some theoretical estimates of
763: $\xi_3$ lead to the conclusion that very probably the $B$ decay into narrow
764: $L=1$ resonances was dominant over the one into broad
765: resonances. This remark seems to contradict recent experimental claims that
766: the broad resonances dominate. We have discussed this situation which
767: needs urgently further theoretical and experimental work.
768:
769: Beyond understanding this experimental puzzle, further theoretical work is needed.
770: For example we might wonder if some proof of the new sum rule
771: along the line of \cite{bjorken} is possible. Some progress has been done in
772: this direction. The effect of radiative corrections should also be studied.
773:
774: Last but not least, other new sum rules derived
775: along the same line with other currents or other components of the currents
776: should be considered.
777:
778: \acknowledgements
779: We thank Patrick Roudeau for many stimulating discussions which have triggered
780: this study.
781:
782: \begin{thebibliography}{30}
783: \bibitem{ac2m2}G. Altarelli, N. Cabibbo, G. Corbo, L. Maiani and G. Martinelli,
784: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B208} (1982) 365.
785: \bibitem{cgg} J. Chay, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein,
786: Phys. Lett. {\bf B247} (1990) 399.
787: \bibitem{bsuv93} I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, A. Vainshtein,
788: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71} (1993) 496.
789: \bibitem{mw} A. Manohar and M. Wise, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 1310.
790: \bibitem{fls} A. Falk, M. Luke, and M. Savage, Phys. Rev.
791: {\bf D49} (1994) 3367.
792: \bibitem{shifman} A comprehensive discussion of duality in heavy meson
793: decays can be found in
794: B. Chibisov, R. Dikeman, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys.
795: A {\bf 12} (1997) 2075;
796: B. Blok, M. Shifman, D.-X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57} (1998) 2691.
797: \bibitem{wilson} K.G. Wilson, Phys. Rev. {\bf 179} (1969) 1499;
798: Phys. Rept. {\bf 12} (1974) 75.
799: \bibitem{luke} M. Luke, Phys. Lett. {\bf B252} (1990) 447.
800: \bibitem{isgur} N. Isgur, Phys. Lett. {\bf B448} (1999) 111.
801: \bibitem{nous} A. Le Yaouanc, D. Melikhov,
802: V. Morenas, L. Oliver, O. P\`ene and J.-C. Raynal, in preparation.
803: \bibitem{thooft} G. 't Hooft, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B75} (1974) 461.
804: \bibitem{gl} B. Grinstein and R. Lebed,
805: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 1366.
806: \bibitem{b-thooft} I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein,
807: Phys. Rev. {\bf D59} (1999) 054011.
808: \bibitem{bjorken} J. D. Bjorken, Talk at Les Rencontres de Physique de la
809: Valee d'Aoste, La Thuile, Italy, Report No. SLAC-PUB-5278 (1990),
810: unpublished;
811: J.D. Bjorken, I. Dunietz and J. Taron, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B371} (1992) 111.
812: \bibitem{iw}N. Isgur and M. Wise, Phys. Rev. {\bf D43}, 819 (1991).
813: \bibitem{voloshin} M. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46} (1992) 3062.
814: \bibitem{greg} A.G. Grozin and G.P. Korchemsky,
815: Phys. Rev. {\bf D53} (1996) 1378.
816: \bibitem{bgm} G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and A. Manohar,
817: Phys. Rev. {\bf D54} (1996) 2081.
818: \bibitem{sv} M. B. Voloshin and M. A. Shifman,
819: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 47} (1988) 511.
820: \bibitem{llsw}A.K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I.W. Stewart and M.B. Wise,
821: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57} (1998) 308.
822: \bibitem{blrw} C.G. Boyd, Z. Ligeti, I.Z. Rothstein and M.B. Wise,
823: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55} (1997) 3027.
824: \bibitem{blok}B. Blok, l. Koyrakh, M. Shifman and A.I. Vainshtein
825: Phys. Rev {\bf D49} (1994) 3356.
826: \bibitem{fn} A.F. Falk and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47} (1993) 2965.
827: \bibitem{bigi} I. Bigi, M. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev and A. Vainshtein
828: Phys.Rev. {\bf D52} (1995) 196.
829: \bibitem{xi3}M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46} (1992) 3914;
830: Z. Ligeti, Y Nir and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. {\bf D49} (1994) 1302.
831: \bibitem{dmitri}D. Melikhov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 7089.
832: \bibitem{vincent}V. Mor\'enas, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. P\`ene, J.-C. Raynal
833: Phys. Rev. {\bf D56} (1997) 5668; V. Morenas, th\`ese \`a
834: l'Universit\'e Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, (1997).
835: \bibitem{deandrea} A. Deandrea
836: Presented at 29th International Conference on High-Energy Physics
837: (ICHEP 98), Vancouver, Canada,
838: 23-29 Jul 1998. In Vancouver 1998, High energy physics, vol. 2, 1179.
839: \bibitem{ebert}D. Ebert, R.N. Faustov and V.O. Galkin,
840: Talk given at 10th International Seminar on High-Energy Physics
841: (Quarks 98), Suzdal, Russia, 18-24, May 1998.
842: \bibitem{col}P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio and N. Paver,
843: Talk given at International Euroconference on Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD98),
844: Montpellier, France, 2 - 8 Jul 1998, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 74} (1999) 222.
845: \bibitem{yuan} Yuan-ben Dai and Ming-qiu Huang, Phys. Rev. {\bf D59}
846: (1999) 034018.
847: \bibitem{aleph} D. Buskulic et al., ALEPH, Z. Phys. {\bf C73} (1997) 601.
848: \bibitem{delphi}P. Abreu et al., DELPHI, CERN-EP/99-174.
849: \bibitem{gr} J. L. Goity and W. Roberts, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51} (1995) 3459.
850: \bibitem{isgur2}N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60} (1999) 074030.
851: \bibitem{CLEO} S. Anderson et al, CLEO Collaboration, hep-ex/9908009.
852: \end{thebibliography}
853: \end{document}
854:
855: