1: % \documentstyle[floats,prl,aps,epsf]{revtex}
2: \documentstyle[floats,tighten,preprint,prl,aps,aps10,epsf]{revtex}
3:
4: \flushbottom
5: % \renewcommand{\narrowtext}{\mediumtext}
6: \setlength{\marginparwidth}{0.5in}
7: % \setlength{\marginparwidth}{1.5in}
8: % \setlength{\marginparwidth}{3.0in}
9: %----------------------------------------------------------------------%
10: \begin{document}
11:
12: % \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname
13: % @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
14:
15: \preprint{\parbox[t]{15em}{\raggedleft
16: FERMILAB-Pub-00/148-T \\ hep-ph/0006345 \\[2.0em]}}
17: \draft
18:
19: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
20: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed}
21:
22: % declarations for front matter
23: \title{Computation of $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_1$
24: with Lattice QCD}
25:
26: \author{Andreas S. Kronfeld and James N. Simone}
27: \address{Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
28: P.O. Box 500, Batavia, Illinois}
29:
30: \date{July 31, 2000}
31:
32: \maketitle % typeset front matter (abstract goes after for REVTeX)
33:
34: % \narrowtext
35: % \widetext
36: \begin{abstract}
37: We pursue a new method, based on lattice QCD, for determining the
38: quantities $\bar{\Lambda}$, $\lambda_1$, and $\lambda_2$ of heavy-quark
39: effective theory.
40: We combine Monte Carlo data for the meson mass spectrum with
41: perturbative calculations of the short-distance behavior, to
42: extract~$\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_1$ from a formula from HQET.
43: Taking into account uncertainties from fitting the mass dependence
44: and from taking the continuum limit, we find
45: $\bar{\Lambda} = 0.68^{+0.02}_{-0.12}~\text{GeV}$
46: and $\lambda_1 = -(0.45 \pm 0.12)~\text{GeV}^2$
47: in the quenched approximation.
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: \pacs{PACS numbers: 12.38.Gc, 12.39.Hg, 13.20.-v}
51: % ]
52: % \narrowtext
53: \epsfverbosetrue
54: \twocolumn
55:
56: In the past decade or so, heavy-quark effective theory (HQET) has
57: become an indispensible tool for studying the physics of hadrons, such
58: as $B$ and $D$ mesons, containing a single heavy quark.
59: The main physical idea is simple: as the heavy-quark mass increases,
60: the wave function of a ``heavy-light'' hadron depends less and less on
61: the heavy-quark mass~\cite{Shuryak:1980pg,Eichten:1990zv,Isgur:1989vq}.
62: This is precisely as in atomic physics, where properties of hydrogen
63: and deuterium are almost the same.
64:
65: A central result from HQET is the heavy-quark expansion of a hadron's
66: mass.
67: Through order $1/m$, the mass~$M$ of a spin-$J$ meson ($J=0$, 1)
68: is~\cite{Falk:1993wt}
69: \begin{equation}
70: M = m + \bar{\Lambda}
71: - \frac{\lambda_1}{2m} - d_J\frac{z_{\cal B}\lambda_2}{2m}
72: + O(1/m^2),
73: \label{eq:M}
74: \end{equation}
75: where $d_0=3$ and $d_1=-1$ tracks the spin dependence.
76: Each term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:M}) has a simple physical interpretation:
77: $m$~is the heavy-quark mass, the definition of which is elaborated
78: below;
79: $\bar{\Lambda}$~is the energy of the light quark and gluons;
80: $-\lambda_1/2m$ is the kinetic energy of the heavy quark;
81: and $d_Jz_{\cal B}\lambda_2/2m$ is the hyperfine energy of the
82: heavy quark's spin interacting with the chromomagnetic field inside
83: the meson.
84: The quantities~$\bar{\Lambda}$, $\lambda_1$, and~$\lambda_2$ in
85: Eq.~(\ref{eq:M}) describe the long-distance part of the bound-state
86: problem.
87: At long distances QCD is intrinsically nonperturbative, so it is not
88: easy to calculate them from first principles.
89: This should be possible with lattice gauge theory, and the aim of this
90: Letter is to demonstrate a new method for computing~$\bar{\Lambda}$,
91: $\lambda_1$, and~$\lambda_2$.
92:
93: Part of the utility of HQET is that the lambdas---$\bar{\Lambda}$,
94: $\lambda_1$, and~$\lambda_2$---appear also in
95: the heavy-quark expansions of inclusive decay
96: spectra~\cite{Chay:1990da,Bigi:1993fe,Blok:1994va,Falk:1994dh}.
97: Thus, they enter into the determination of the
98: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements
99: $|V_{cb}|$~\cite{Luke:1994za,Ball:1994je}, and
100: $|V_{ub}|$~\cite{Falk:1997gj,Bauer:2000xf}.
101: The spin splitting $M_{B^*}-M_B$ gives a simple way to
102: estimate~$\lambda_2$, but meson masses alone are not
103: enough to deduce~$\bar{\Lambda}$ and~$\lambda_1$.
104: Moments of inclusive decay
105: distributions~\cite{Gremm:1996yn,Gremm:1997gg,Falk:1998jq}
106: do offer a way to relate experimental data to~$\bar{\Lambda}$
107: and~$\lambda_1$, but, nevertheless, an \emph{ab initio} QCD
108: calculation should be of interest.
109:
110: Before explaining our method for computing the lambdas, it is useful
111: to recall how they are defined.
112: HQET is an effective field theory, so it introduces an energy
113: scale~$\mu$ to separate long- and short-distance physics.
114: All quantities (except~$d_J$) on the right-hand side of
115: Eq.~(\ref{eq:M}) depend on~$\mu$ and the renormalization scheme used
116: to define it.
117: (Meson masses remain independent of~$\mu$.)
118: Physics from distances shorter than~$\mu^{-1}$ is lumped into
119: Wilson coefficients, such as $m$, $1/2m$ and $z_{\cal B}/2m$ in
120: Eq.~(\ref{eq:M}).
121: Physics from distances longer than~$\mu^{-1}$ is described by operators
122: in the Lagrangian of HQET.
123: The lambdas are matrix elements of these operators.
124: When computing them one should renormalize the operators so that the
125: lambdas are portable to the phenomenology of inclusive decays.
126: Because those analyses compute the Wilson coefficients in perturbative
127: QCD, it is most common to renormalize HQET in a mass-independent scheme.
128: Then the quark mass~$m$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:M}) is the pole mass of the
129: underlying theory, i.e.,~QCD.
130: This choice of scheme obscures the $\mu$-dependent character of~$m$
131: and, thus, $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_1$, but one should still think
132: of the pole mass as a special choice of perturbative short-distance mass.
133: The scheme is easily portable, because the pole mass is infrared
134: finite and gauge independent at every order in perturbative
135: QCD~\cite{Kronfeld:1998di}, and the relation between the pole and
136: $\overline{\rm MS}$ masses in QCD is known through order
137: $\alpha_s^3$~\cite{Melnikov:2000qh}.
138:
139: Another property of the lambdas is that they are independent of the
140: heavy-quark mass (if, as we do, one distinguishes $\mu$ from~$m$).
141: HQET starts with the infinite-mass limit, or static effective
142: theory~\cite{Eichten:1990zv,Grinstein:1990mj,Georgi:1990um}.
143: The eigenstates of this theory are independent of~$m$.
144: One can then develop the expansion in~$1/m$ of the underlying theory
145: (QCD) around the infinite-mass limit, so that matrix elements are
146: taken in the infinite-mass
147: eigenstates~\cite{Eichten:1990vp,Luke:1990eg,Falk:1993wt}.
148:
149: Our lattice method retains the logic and structure of the usual
150: application of HQET.
151: Lattice gauge theory with Wilson fermions has a stable heavy-quark
152: limit~\cite{El-Khadra:1997mp}, in which the Isgur-Wise heavy-quark
153: symmetries are prominent.
154: Indeed, the static limit is the same as for continuum~QCD.
155: Consequently, one may apply HQET directly to lattice gauge theory, to
156: separate long- from short-distance physics~\cite{Kronfeld:2000ck}.
157: The key difference is that there are now \emph{two} short distances,
158: $1/m$ and the lattice spacing~$a$.
159: That does not run afoul of the assumptions of HQET; it means merely
160: that the short-distance coefficients must be modified to depend on~$a$
161: as well as~$m$.
162: Then one may use HQET to develop heavy-quark expansions for lattice
163: observables.
164: The expansion for the rest mass~$M_1$ of a spin-$J$ meson
165: is~\cite{Kronfeld:2000ck}
166: \begin{equation}
167: M_1 = m_1 + \bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}
168: - \frac{{\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}}{2m_2}
169: - d_J \frac{{\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}}}{2m_{\cal B}}
170: + O(1/m^2),
171: \label{eq:M1}
172: \end{equation}
173: where $m_1$, $1/2m_2$, and $1/2m_{\cal B}={z_{\cal B}}_{\text{lat}}/2m_2$
174: are the modified short-distance coefficients.
175: The rest mass and kinetic mass~$M_2$ are defined through the energy
176: \begin{equation}
177: E(\bbox{p}) = M_1 + \frac{\bbox{p}^2}{2M_2} + \cdots
178: \label{eq:E(p)}
179: \end{equation}
180: of a state with small momentum~$\bbox{p}$.
181: Because the lattice breaks Lorentz invariance, $M_2$ need not equal
182: $M_1$, except asymptotically as $Ma\to 0$.
183: For quarks $m_1$ and $m_2$ are defined similarly in matching
184: calculations.
185:
186: As $ma\to0$ lattice QCD becomes continuum QCD, so then $m_{1,2}\to m$
187: and~${z_{\cal B}}_{\text{lat}}\to z_{\cal B}$.
188: Owing to limitations in computer resources there are, however, no
189: lattice data available with $ma\ll 1$ and $m\gg\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}$.
190: The advantage of Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1}) is that it holds for general~$ma$,
191: as long as~$m_{2,\cal B}\gg\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}$.
192: One may, therefore, apply Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1}) to published data for~$M_1$.
193:
194: Like their continuum-QCD counterparts, the
195: quantities~$\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$, ${\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}$,
196: and ${\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}}$ do not depend on the heavy-quark mass.
197: They are labeled with the subscript ``lat'' because the gluons and light
198: quarks are also on the lattice.
199: Their lattice-spacing dependence can be separated from continuum QCD
200: with Symanzik's formalism~\cite{Symanzik:1979ph}, which implies, for
201: example,
202: \begin{equation}
203: \bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}} = \bar{\Lambda} + a C_1 {\cal M}_1 +
204: a^2 C_2 {\cal M}_2 + \cdots,
205: \label{eq:Symanzik}
206: \end{equation}
207: where the $C_i$ represent short-distance coefficients and the
208: ${\cal M}_i$ long-distance matrix elements in Symanzik's effective
209: Lagrangian.
210: Equation~(\ref{eq:Symanzik}) is a good guide for extrapolating
211: $a\to 0$ as soon as $\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}a\ll 1$.
212: Because lattice-spacing effects of the heavy quark are isolated in
213: Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1}), it does not matter if $ma$ is not small.
214:
215: Our method is to take Monte Carlo data for $M_1$ over a wide range of
216: heavy quark masses, combine them with separate calculations of the
217: short-distance coefficients, and perform fits to Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1}).
218: This is very simple for~${\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}}$:
219: \begin{equation}
220: \case{1}{2}m_{\cal B}(M_{1B^*}-M_{1B}) =
221: {\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}},
222: \label{eq:l2}
223: \end{equation}
224: with quark masses $m_2\gg\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}$
225: and with fixed $\mu$ (and~$a$).
226: For~$\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$ and~${\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}$ we
227: consider the spin-averaged rest mass
228: $\bar{M}_1 := \case{1}{4}(3M_{1B^*}+M_{1B})$.
229: Then~${\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}}$ drops out, and Eq.~(\ref{eq:M1})
230: becomes
231: \begin{equation}
232: \bar{M}_1 - m_1 = \bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}
233: - \frac{{\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}}{2m_2}.
234: \label{eq:fit}
235: \end{equation}
236: Equation~(\ref{eq:fit}) is the crux of our analysis: we plot the
237: combination on the left-hand side against~$(2m_2)^{-1}$, and a fit
238: to the mass dependence yields $\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$
239: and~$-{\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}$.
240: We repeat this procedure for several lattice spacings to take the
241: continuum limit, guided by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Symanzik}).
242:
243: To carry out the analysis one must calculate~$M_1$, for vector and
244: pseudoscalar mesons, and the short-distance coefficients $m_1$, $m_2$
245: and~$m_{\cal B}$.
246: For the coefficients we shall use perturbative QCD.
247: In lattice gauge theory
248: \begin{equation}
249: m_X = m_X^{[0]} + \sum_{l=1}^\infty g_0^{2l}(1/a) m_X^{[l]},
250: \label{eq:PT}
251: \end{equation}
252: where $g_0^2(1/a)$ is the bare coupling for a lattice with spacing~$a$.
253: For $m_1$ and $m_2$, Ref.~\cite{Mertens:1998wx} derived formulas to
254: relate the higher-order terms to the self energy and gave
255: the one-loop terms~$m_X^{[1]}$ for the lattice action used below.
256: For $m_{\cal B}$ only the tree-level term~$m_{\cal B}^{[0]}$
257: is known, so, for now, we cannot obtain a meaningful result
258: for~${\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}}$.
259:
260: It is well-known that perturbation theory in~$g_0^2(1/a)$ converges
261: poorly.
262: Therefore, we re-express Eq.~(\ref{eq:PT}) in a renormalized
263: coupling, chosen with the Brodsky-Lepage-Mackenzie (BLM)
264: prescription~\cite{Brodsky:1983gc}.
265: For a coupling in scheme~$S$, we denote the BLM expansion
266: parameter~$g_S^2(q^*_S)$.
267: The BLM scale~$q^*_S$ is given by
268: \begin{equation}
269: \log q^*_S = - \case{1}{2} b_S^{(1)} +
270: \frac{\int d^4k\,\log k\,f(k)}{\int d^4k\,f(k)},
271: \label{eq:qstar}
272: \end{equation}
273: where $k$ is the gluon momentum, and $f(k)$ is the integrand of the
274: quantity of interest, e.g., $\int d^4k\,f(k)=m_1$.
275: The constant $b_S^{(1)}$ is the $\beta_0$-dependent part of the
276: one-loop conversion from the arbitary scheme~$S$ to the ``$V$~scheme'',
277: namely
278: \begin{equation}
279: \frac{(4\pi)^2}{g^2_S(q)} = \frac{(4\pi)^2}{g^2_V(q)} +
280: \beta_0 b_S^{(1)} + b_S^{(0)} + O(g^2),
281: \label{eq:bS}
282: \end{equation}
283: where for $n_f$ light quarks $\beta_0=11-2n_f/3$,
284: and $b_S^{(0)}$ is independent of~$n_f$.
285: The $V$-scheme coupling $g^2_V(q)$ is defined so that the Fourier
286: transform of the heavy-quark potential reads $V(q)=-C_Fg^2_V(q)/q^2$.
287: Equation~(\ref{eq:qstar}) shows that the definitions of~$q^*$ in
288: Refs.~\cite{Brodsky:1983gc} and~\cite{Lepage:1993xa} are equivalent in
289: the $V$~scheme.%
290: \footnote{For convenience, we list some of the~$b_S^{(i)}$ here.
291: In the $V$~scheme $b_V^{(1)}=b_V^{(0)}=0$, by definition;
292: in the $\overline{\rm MS}$~scheme
293: $b_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(1)}=5/3$,
294: $b_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(0)}=-8$;
295: for the bare gauge coupling~\cite{Bode:2000sm}
296: $b_0^{(1)}=b_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(1)}-6\pi K_1(1)=9.12637$,
297: $b_0^{(0)}=b_{\overline{\rm MS}}^{(0)}+2\pi[2d_{10}+33K_1(1)]=-16.1213$.
298: }
299:
300: The purpose of the logarithmically weighted integral in
301: Eq.~(\ref{eq:qstar}) is to sum up into $g_S^2$ higher-order terms of
302: order~$g^2(\beta_0g^2)^{l-1}$, $l>1$, which with a foolish choice
303: of scale would be large.
304: The purpose of the constant is to make $g_S^2(q^*_S)$ independent of~$S$,
305: apart from contributions of order~$g^4(\beta_0g^2)^{l-2}$.
306: This is an advantage in matching calculations: it makes little
307: numerical difference whether one re-expands Eq.~(\ref{eq:PT})
308: in $g_0^2(q^*_0)$ or~$g_V^2(q^*_V)$.
309:
310: In practice, we use $g_V^2(q^*_V)$, computed from the $1\times1$
311: Wilson loop and $g^2_V(3.40/a)$ as in Ref.~\cite{Lepage:1993xa}.
312: For~$m_1$ the BLM scale $q^*_V=q^*_1$ is now
313: available~\cite{Mertens:2000}.
314: Most of the loop correction to $m_2$ can be attributed
315: to~$m_1$, leaving an additional renormalization
316: factor~$Z_{m_2}$~\cite{Mertens:1998wx}.
317: The one-loop term is small~\cite{Mertens:1998wx}, but the BLM
318: scale~$q^*_2$ is not yet available.
319: So, for $Z_{m_2}$ we simply use $q^*_2=q^*_1\pm 20\%$, fully
320: correlated, and tolerate an extra uncertainty.
321:
322: For lattice meson masses $M_1$ we select numerical data from recent
323: work on heavy-light pseudoscalar and vector
324: mesons~\cite{Aoki:1998ji,El-Khadra:1998hq,Becirevic:1999ua}.
325: The data are tabulated in Table~\ref{tab:data}.
326: %
327: \begin{table}[tp]
328: % \centering
329: \caption[tab:data]{Numerical and perturbative results used in this
330: paper.
331: The first column cites the source of the numerical data.
332: The second column includes the plotting symbol used in all figures.
333: Statistical errors are given for $a^{-1}$ and $\bar{M}_1$;
334: systematic (perturbative) errors for~$m_2$.
335: Perturbative results are from input data to the numerical calculations
336: and Refs.~\cite{Mertens:1998wx,Mertens:2000}.}
337: \begin{tabular}{ccllll}
338: Ref.\ & $a^{-1}$~(GeV)
339: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\bar{M}_1a$}
340: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_1a$}
341: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$m_2a$}
342: & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$q^*_1a$} \\
343: \hline
344: \input data.ltx
345: \end{tabular}
346: \label{tab:data}
347: \end{table}
348: %
349: For uniformity, the value in physical units of the lattice spacing~$a$
350: is defined according to the suggestion of Sommer~\cite{Sommer:1994ce}.
351: (It gives the same numerical result as the 1P-1S splitting of
352: charmonium.)
353: The lattice spacing varies by a factor of nearly~3, allowing us the
354: take the continuum limit as guided by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Symanzik}).
355: All data sets are in the quenched approximation, which omits the
356: back-reaction of light quarks on the gluons and partly compensates
357: the omission by implicit shifts in the bare couplings.
358: Light quarks have the Sheikholeslami-Wohlert
359: action~\cite{Sheikholeslami:1985ij},
360: to minimize discretization effects on the light quark.
361: In most data sets, the (physical) quark mass spans a range from near
362: charm to slightly above beauty, allowing us to examine the mass
363: dependence of Eq.~(\ref{eq:fit}).
364:
365: Figure~\ref{fig:data} plots $\bar{M}_1-m_1$ vs.\ $(2m_2)^{-1}$.
366: %
367: \begin{figure}[tbp]
368: \centering
369: \epsfxsize=0.48\textwidth \epsfbox{plot-HQET-params-quad-cut0.eps}
370: \caption[fig:data]{Plot of $\bar{M}_1-m_1$ vs.\ $(2m_2)^{-1}$.
371: The key for the plotting symbols is given in Table~\ref{tab:data}.
372: For clarity the error envelopes for the crosses and fancy diamonds
373: are not shown.}
374: \label{fig:data}
375: \end{figure}
376: %
377: The vertical error bars reflect statistical uncertainties only,
378: and the horizontal error bars reflect these and the variation
379: in~$q^*_2$.
380: There is noticeable curvature, which is not surprising because the
381: data reach masses below the charmed quark mass.
382: We handle the curvature in two ways.
383: First, we fit linearly the subset of data with $m_2\ge2.5$~GeV.
384: Second, we extend Eq.~(\ref{eq:fit}) to
385: order~$1/m^2$~\cite{Kronfeld:2000ck}:
386: \begin{equation}
387: \bar{M}_1 - m_1 = \bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}
388: - \frac{{\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}}{2m_2}
389: + \frac{{\rho_1}_{\text{lat}}}{4m_D^2}
390: - \frac{{{\cal T}_1}_{\text{lat}}
391: + {{\cal T}_3}_{\text{lat}}}{(2m_2)^2},
392: \label{eq:barM1rhoT}
393: \end{equation}
394: where $1/4m_D^2$ is the short-distance coefficient of the Darwin term,
395: and ${\rho_1}_{\text{lat}}$, ${{\cal T}_1}_{\text{lat}}$, and
396: ${{\cal T}_3}_{\text{lat}}$ are matrix elements of higher-dimension
397: terms~\cite{Mannel:1994kv,Bigi:1995ga,Gremm:1997df}, with the notation
398: of Ref.~\cite{Gremm:1997df}, for gluons and light quarks on a lattice.
399: The~$1/m^2$ terms are important for smaller masses, where
400: $m_D\approx m_2$ within the precision available.
401: Thus, only one unknown is needed to model the curvature.
402:
403: We take the second method as our standard and use the first
404: for comparison.
405: The solid curves in Fig.~\ref{fig:data} are the best fit to
406: Eq.~(\ref{eq:barM1rhoT}).
407: We use the bootstrap method to propagate the
408: underlying uncertainties through the fit.
409: In this way we account fully (partially) for correlations in the data
410: from Ref.~\cite{El-Khadra:1998hq}
411: (Refs.~\cite{Aoki:1998ji,Becirevic:1999ua}).
412: The dotted lines show the error envelopes of the fits;
413: they hug the best fit in the region of interpolation and
414: flare out in the region of extrapolation.
415:
416: As expected, $\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$ and~${\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}$
417: depend on the lattice spacing~$a$.
418: For the data sets used, the coefficient $C_1$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Symanzik})
419: is of order~$\alpha_s$ and the coefficient $C_2$ is of order~1.
420: Asymptotically, the former dominates, so we fit
421: $\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$ linearly in $a$
422: to take the continuum limit.
423: The slope, $C_1{\cal M}_1$, is somewhat large for a quantity of order
424: $\alpha_s\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}^2$, so we also consider fits linear
425: in~$a^2$.
426: The~$\chi^2/$dof is smaller for the fit linear in~$a$, so we take it
427: for our central value and take the other to quote a systematic error.
428: In future work, one should tune the light quark action so that $C_1$
429: is of order~$a$~\cite{Luscher:1997ug}; then the extrapolation
430: Ansatz would be unambiguous.
431:
432: Figure~\ref{fig:clL} plots $\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$ vs.~$a$.
433: %
434: \begin{figure}[tbp]
435: \centering
436: \epsfxsize=0.48\textwidth \epsfbox{plot-Lambda-quad-cut0-a-linear.eps}
437: \caption[fig:clL]{Continuum limit of~$\bar{\Lambda}$.}
438: \label{fig:clL}
439: \end{figure}
440: %
441: The error bars are from the bootstrap of the fit described above.
442: From now on we discard the data sets denoted in Fig.~\ref{fig:data}
443: by crosses and fancy diamonds.
444: Their error bars are very large: the crosses have too few points and
445: the mass range of the fancy diamonds is too small.
446: $\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$~exhibits significant dependence on~$a$;
447: in this case, it would have been misleading to determine
448: $\bar{\Lambda}$ with data at only one lattice spacing.
449:
450: Figure~\ref{fig:cl1} plots ${\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}$ vs.~$a$.
451: %
452: \begin{figure}[tbp]
453: \centering
454: \epsfxsize=0.48\textwidth \epsfbox{plot-lambda1-quad-cut0-a-linear.eps}
455: \caption[fig:cl1]{Continuum limit of~$\lambda_1$.}
456: \label{fig:cl1}
457: \end{figure}
458: %
459: The error bars are again from the bootstrap of the mass fit.
460: In this case, lattice spacing effects are smaller than other
461: uncertainties, and it does not matter whether we take the continuum
462: limit with a fit to $a$ or to~$a^2$.
463:
464: The results exhibit a strong correlation in the
465: $\bar{\Lambda}$-$\lambda_1$ plane, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cor}.
466: %
467: \begin{figure}[tbp]
468: \centering
469: \epsfxsize=0.48\textwidth \epsfbox{plot-joint-errors.eps}
470: \caption[fig:cor]{Correlation of our results for~$\bar{\Lambda}$
471: and~$\lambda_1$ from two analyses of the continuum limit.
472: Dark grey (red) points are the standard analysis, quadratic in $1/2m_2$
473: and linear in~$a$.
474: Light grey (blue) points are quadratic in $1/2m_2$ and linear
475: in~$a^2$, yielding smaller~$\bar{\Lambda}$.
476: The ellipse in the upper left is the result of
477: Ref.~\cite{Gremm:1996yn}.}
478: \label{fig:cor}
479: \end{figure}
480: %
481: The points show the scatter from the bootstrap method.
482: The ellipses surround 68\% of the points.
483: Dark grey (red) points show the standard analysis, with fits
484: quadratic in $1/2m_2$ and linear in~$a$.
485: Light grey (blue) points show the analysis with continuum
486: extrapolation linear in~$a^2$, yielding smaller~$\bar{\Lambda}$.
487: The results from four different Ans\"atze for fitting are tabulated in
488: Table~\ref{tab:fit}.
489: %
490: \begin{table}[tp]
491: % \centering
492: \caption[tab:fit]{Numerical results for four different fit Ans\"atze.
493: The column labeled $\rho$ gives the normalized coefficient of
494: correlation.}
495: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
496: \multicolumn{1}{c}{fit} &
497: $\bar{\Lambda}$ (GeV) & $-\lambda_1$ (GeV$^2$) & $\rho$ \\
498: \hline
499: Eq.~(\ref{eq:barM1rhoT}), $a$ &
500: $0.68 \pm 0.02$ & $0.45 \pm 0.12$ & 0.869 \\
501: Eq.~(\ref{eq:fit}), $a$ &
502: $0.67^{+0.01}_{-0.02}$ & $0.44 \pm 0.11$ & 0.852 \\
503: Eq.~(\ref{eq:barM1rhoT}), $a^2$ &
504: $0.57 \pm 0.01$ & $0.40 \pm 0.07$ & 0.860 \\
505: Eq.~(\ref{eq:fit}), $a^2$ &
506: $0.57 \pm 0.01$ & $0.41 \pm 0.08$ & 0.871 \\
507: \end{tabular}
508: \label{tab:fit}
509: \end{table}
510:
511: Clearly the choice of lattice-spacing extrapolation dominates the
512: uncertainties of Monte Carlo statistics and~$q^*_2$,
513: which are propagated carefully through the fits.
514: To account for this, we take central value for $\bar{\Lambda}$ from
515: the standard analysis, but we extend the error bar to encompass the
516: full range suggested by the $a^2$ fit.
517: On the other hand, the standard fit gives an error bar for~$-\lambda_1$
518: that covers the range of the other fits, so we simply use it.
519: With these considerations we find,
520: \begin{eqnarray}
521: \bar{\Lambda} & = &
522: 0.68^{+0.02}_{-0.12}~\text{GeV},
523: \label{eq:Lambda_lin} \\
524: \lambda_1 & = &
525: -(0.45 \pm 0.12)~\text{GeV}^2.
526: \label{eq:lambda1_lin}
527: \end{eqnarray}
528: The standard fit also yields an estimate of dimension-three combination
529: ${\cal T}_1+{\cal T}_3-\rho_1=0.51\pm 0.22~\text{GeV}^3$.
530:
531: The orientation of the ellipses from our method is
532: roughly orthogonal to that found from moments of the lepton energy
533: spectrum~\cite{Gremm:1996yn,Gremm:1997gg} or the hadronic invariant
534: mass spectrum~\cite{Falk:1998jq} of inclusive~$B$ decay.
535: For illustration, the former is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cor} as well.
536:
537: There are two uncertainties that we cannot yet address fully.
538: One is the effect of finite volume on~$M_1$.
539: Studies of the volume dependence of heavy-light
540: systems~\cite{Alexandrou:1994ti,Duncan:1995uq} suggest that
541: finite-volume effects are negligible compared to our other
542: uncertainties.
543: A~more serious uncertainty arises because the numerical data were
544: generated in the quenched approximation.
545: One may expect that the shift in~$\bar{\Lambda}$ owing to quenching is
546: small, for the same reason that the shift in the heavy-quark mass is
547: small~\cite{Davies:1994pz}.
548: A~qualitative way of estimating the effect of quenching is to check
549: other, similar observables.
550: With Sommer's definition of~$a$ one finds discrepancies in~$m_\rho$
551: of around $-10$ percent, suggesting that $\bar{\Lambda}$ could be 10
552: percent smaller, and~$\lambda_1$ 20 percent larger, than quoted here.
553:
554: We do not quote an uncertainty from the perturbative calculation of
555: the short-distance effects.
556: Because HQET, as customarily applied, is defined with a perturbative
557: renormalization scheme, any application suffers from such
558: uncertainties.
559: Our results for $\bar{\Lambda}$ and $\lambda_1$ can be used
560: consistently with the pole mass in next-to-leading order, BLM-improved
561: phenomenology.
562: In such an application a single uncertainty from truncating
563: perturbative QCD should be quoted.
564: Indeed, because the pole mass has large higher-order contributions,
565: so does~$\bar{\Lambda}$, but in a physical application the large
566: terms cancel.
567: If next-to-next-to-leading accuracy is required, then the analysis
568: presented here must be repeated with (as yet uncalculated) two-loop
569: short-distance coefficients.
570:
571: Our central value for $\bar{\Lambda}$ is somewhat larger than
572: those from QCD sum rules~\cite{Bagan:1992sg}, but taking the
573: uncertainties into account, there is no inconsistency.
574: Our result for $\lambda_1$ agrees with some sum-rule estimates,
575: but not others~\cite{Ball:1994xv}.
576: It is not clear what to make of the discrepancies in sum rules.
577: Our uncertainties are reducible, and below we identify ways to improve
578: the numerical data that go into our analysis.
579:
580: In the past, there have been attempts to calculate the lambdas in a
581: discretization of the infinite-mass limit~\cite{Crisafulli:1995pg}.
582: This method faces two difficulties.
583: First, it yields the lambdas in a lattice renormalization scheme, and
584: the results must be converted to the continuum schemes in common use.
585: The conversion must deal with power-law
586: divergences~\cite{Maiani:1992az}.
587: Second, it identifies the HQET separation scale~$\mu$ with the
588: ultraviolet cutoff $\pi/a$ of the gluons, so it is hard to take the
589: continuum limit.
590: Our method circumvents these obstacles by formulating HQET as an
591: effective field theory to describe sets of (lattice) data.
592: In this way HQET obtains its own scale~$\mu$ and the second problem
593: does not arise.
594: The first problem arises from taking $m\to\infty$ with $a$ fixed.
595: Our method sidesteps it by fitting the mass dependence in the
596: regime $m_1a\lesssim2$, and, since $m\gg\Lambda_{\text{QCD}}$, HQET
597: identifies the fit parameters with~$\bar{\Lambda}_{\text{lat}}$,
598: ${\lambda_1}_{\text{lat}}$, and ${\lambda_2}_{\text{lat}}$.
599:
600: In this paper, we have presented a new way to determine
601: $\bar{\Lambda}$, $\lambda_1$, and $\lambda_2$.
602: Using numerical data in the literature, we have shown that it is
603: feasible to carry out the necessary fit in quark mass and extrapolation
604: in lattice spacing to obtain encouraging results.
605: Systematic uncertainties in the mass extrapolation might be improved
606: using the hopping-parameter expansion~\cite{Henty:1992cw}, to create
607: a continuous range of heavy-quark mass.
608: With small enough statistical errors and a wide enough range of data,
609: it might be possible also to extract the dimension-three quantities
610: $\rho_i$ and~${\cal T}_i$, although that task requires the calculation
611: of several additional short-distance coefficients.
612: Similarly, systematic uncertainties in the lattice-spacing extrapolation
613: could be improved by adjusting the light quarks' action so that $C_1$ in
614: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Symanzik}) is rendered of order $a$~\cite{Luscher:1997ug}.
615: Finally, our methods could be applied to full QCD, once such data sets
616: have been generated, to obtain truly \emph{ab initio} results.
617:
618: % \acknowledgments
619: We thank Shoji Hashimoto for sending us data used, but not tabulated,
620: in Ref.~\cite{Aoki:1998ji}.
621: Fermilab is operated by Universities Research Association Inc.,
622: under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.
623:
624: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
625: %
626: %
627: \bibitem{Shuryak:1980pg}
628: E.~V.~Shuryak,
629: % ``The Structure of Hadrons Containing a Heavy Quark,''
630: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B93}, 134 (1980).
631: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B93,134;%%
632: %
633: \bibitem{Eichten:1990zv}
634: E. Eichten, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. {\bf 4}, 170 (1987);
635: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,4,170;%%
636: E.~Eichten and B. Hill,
637: % ``An Effective Field Theory for the Calculation of Matrix Elements
638: % Involving Heavy Quarks,''
639: Phys. Lett. {\bf B234}, 511 (1990).
640: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B234,511;%%
641: %
642: \bibitem{Isgur:1989vq}
643: N. Isgur and M.B. Wise,
644: % ``Weak Decays of Heavy Mesons in the Static Quark Approximation,''
645: Phys. Lett. {\bf B232}, 113 (1989);
646: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B232,113;%%
647: % ``Weak Transition Form-Factors between Heavy Mesons,''
648: % Phys. Lett. {\bf B237}, 527 (1990).
649: {\bf B237}, 527 (1990).
650: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B237,527;%%
651: %
652: \bibitem{Falk:1993wt}
653: A. F. Falk and M. Neubert,
654: % ``Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory:
655: % 1. Formalism and meson form-factors,''
656: Phys. Rev. {\bf D47}, 2965 (1993).
657: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D47,2965;%%
658: %
659: \bibitem{Chay:1990da}
660: M.~B.~Voloshin and M.~A.~Shifman,
661: % ``Preasymptotic Effects In Inclusive Weak Decays Of Charmed
662: % Particles,''
663: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41}, 120 (1985);
664: %%CITATION = SJNCA,41,120;%%
665: J.~Chay, H.~Georgi and B.~Grinstein,
666: %``Lepton Energy Distributions in Heavy Meson Decays from QCD,''
667: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B247}, 399 (1990).
668: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B247,399;%%
669: %
670: \bibitem{Bigi:1993fe}
671: I.~I.~Bigi, N.~G.~Uraltsev and A.~I.~Vainshtein,
672: %``Nonperturbative corrections to inclusive beauty and charm decays: QCD
673: %versus phenomenological models,''
674: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B293}, 430 (1992), {\bf B297}, 477(E) (1993);
675: % [hep-ph/9207214].
676: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9207214;%%
677: I.~I.~Bigi, M.~Shifman, N.~G.~Uraltsev and A.~Vainshtein,
678: %``QCD predictions for lepton spectra in inclusive heavy flavor
679: %decays,''
680: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 496 (1993).
681: % [hep-ph/9304225].
682: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9304225;%%
683: %
684: \bibitem{Blok:1994va}
685: B.~Blok, L.~Koyrakh, M.~Shifman and A.~I.~Vainshtein,
686: %``Differential distributions in semileptonic decays of the heavy
687: %flavors in QCD,''
688: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 3356 (1994), {\bf D50}, 3572(E) (1994);
689: % [hep-ph/9307247].
690: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307247;%%
691: A.~V.~Manohar and M.~B.~Wise,
692: %``Inclusive semileptonic B and polarized Lambda(b) decays from QCD,''
693: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 1310 (1994);
694: % [hep-ph/9308246].
695: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308246;%%
696: T.~Mannel,
697: %``Operator product expansion for inclusive semileptonic decays in heavy
698: %quark effective field theory,''
699: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B413}, 396 (1994).
700: % [hep-ph/9308262].
701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308262;%%
702: %
703: \bibitem{Falk:1994dh}
704: A. F. Falk, M. Luke, and M. J. Savage,
705: % ``Non-perturbative contributions to the inclusive rare decays
706: % $B\to X_s\gamma$ and $B\to X_sl^+l^-$,''
707: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 3367 (1994).
708: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,3367;%%
709: %
710: \bibitem{Luke:1994za}
711: M.~Luke and M.~J.~Savage,
712: %``Extracting V(bc), m(c) and m(b) from inclusive D and B decays,''
713: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B321}, 88 (1994);
714: % [hep-ph/9308287].
715: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308287;%%
716: I.~I.~Bigi and N.~G.~Uraltsev,
717: %``D(s) Lifetime, m(b), m(c) and $|$V(cb)$|$ in the heavy quark
718: %expansion,''
719: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C62}, 623 (1994).
720: % [hep-ph/9311243].
721: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311243;%%
722: %
723: \bibitem{Ball:1994je}
724: P.~Ball and U.~Nierste,
725: %``The Mass definition in HQET and a new determination of V(cb),''
726: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D50}, 5841 (1994).
727: % [hep-ph/9403407].
728: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403407;%%
729: %
730: \bibitem{Falk:1997gj}
731: A.~F.~Falk, Z.~Ligeti and M.~B.~Wise,
732: %``V(ub) from the hadronic invariant mass spectrum in semileptonic B
733: %decay,''
734: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B406}, 225 (1997).
735: % [hep-ph/9705235].
736: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705235;%%
737: %
738: \bibitem{Bauer:2000xf}
739: C.~W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti and M. Luke,
740: % ``A model independent determination of $|V_{ub}|$,''
741: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B479}, 395 (2000).
742: % [hep-ph/0002161].
743: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002161;%%
744: %
745: \bibitem{Gremm:1996yn}
746: M.~Gremm, A.~Kapustin, Z.~Ligeti and M.~B. Wise,
747: % ``Implications of the $B\to Xl\bar{\nu}_l$ lepton spectrum for
748: % heavy quark theory,''
749: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 77}, 20 (1996).
750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603314;%%
751: %
752: \bibitem{Gremm:1997gg}
753: M.~Gremm and I.~Stewart,
754: %``Order alpha(s)**2 beta(0) correction to the charged lepton spectrum
755: %in b ---> c l anti-nu/l decays,''
756: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D55}, 1226 (1997).
757: % [hep-ph/9609341].
758: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609341;%%
759: %
760: \bibitem{Falk:1998jq}
761: A.~F.~Falk and M.~Luke,
762: % ``Hadronic spectral moments in semileptonic B decays with a lepton
763: % energy cut,''
764: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D57}, 424 (1998).
765: % [hep-ph/9708327].
766: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708327;%%
767: %
768: \bibitem{Kronfeld:1998di}
769: A.~S.~Kronfeld,
770: % ``The perturbative pole mass in {QCD},''
771: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58}, 051501 (1998).
772: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805215;%%
773: %
774: \bibitem{Melnikov:2000qh}
775: K.~Melnikov and T.~van~Ritbergen,
776: %``The three-loop relation between the MS-bar and the pole quark
777: %masses,''
778: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B482}, 99 (2000);
779: % [hep-ph/9912391].
780: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912391;%%
781: %\bibitem{Chetyrkin:2000qi}
782: K.~G.~Chetyrkin and M.~Steinhauser,
783: %``The relation between the MS-bar and the on-shell quark mass at order
784: %alpha(s)**3,''
785: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B573}, 617 (2000).
786: % [hep-ph/9911434].
787: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911434;%%
788: %
789: \bibitem{Grinstein:1990mj}
790: B.~Grinstein,
791: % ``The Static Quark Effective Theory,''
792: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B339}, 253 (1990).
793: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B339,253;%%
794: %
795: \bibitem{Georgi:1990um}
796: H.~Georgi,
797: % ``An Effective Field Theory for Heavy Quarks at Low Energies,''
798: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B240}, 447 (1990).
799: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B240,447;%%
800: %
801: \bibitem{Eichten:1990vp}
802: E.~Eichten and B.~Hill,
803: % ``Static Effective Field Theory: $1/M$ Corrections,''
804: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B243}, 427 (1990).
805: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B243,427;%%
806: %
807: \bibitem{Luke:1990eg}
808: M. E. Luke,
809: % ``Effects of Subleading Operators in the Heavy Quark Effective
810: % Theory,''
811: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B252}, 447 (1990).
812: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B252,447;%%
813: %
814: \bibitem{El-Khadra:1997mp}
815: A. X. El-Khadra, A. S. Kronfeld, and P.~B. Mackenzie,
816: % ``Massive fermions in lattice gauge theory,''
817: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 3933 (1997).
818: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,3933;%%
819: %
820: \bibitem{Kronfeld:2000ck}
821: A.~S. Kronfeld,
822: % ``Application of heavy-quark effective theory to lattice QCD I:
823: % Power corrections,''
824: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 014595 (2000).
825: % hep-lat/0002008 [FERMILAB-PUB-00/031-T].
826: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0002008;%%
827: %
828: \bibitem{Symanzik:1979ph}
829: K. Symanzik,
830: % ``Cutoff Dependence in Lattice $\phi^4$ in Four-Dimensions Theory,''
831: in \emph{Recent Developments in Gauge Theories},
832: edited by G. 't~Hooft \emph{et al}.\ (Plenum, New York, 1980);
833: % ``Some Topics In Quantum Field Theory,''
834: in \emph{Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics},
835: edited by R. Schrader \emph{et al}.\ (Springer, New York, 1982);
836: % ``Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories:
837: % 1. Principles and $\phi^4$ Theory,''
838: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B226}, 187, 205 (1983).
839: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B226,187;%%
840: % ``Continuum Limit and Improved Action in Lattice Theories:
841: % 2. $O(N)$ Nonlinear Sigma Model in Perturbation Theory,''
842: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B226,205;%%
843: %
844: \bibitem{Mertens:1998wx}
845: B. P. G. Mertens, A. S. Kronfeld, and A.~X. El-Khadra,
846: % ``Self energy of massive lattice fermions,''
847: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 034505 (1998).
848: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,034505;%%
849: %
850: \bibitem{Brodsky:1983gc}
851: S.~J.~Brodsky, G.~P.~Lepage and P.~B.~Mackenzie,
852: % ``On The Elimination Of Scale Ambiguities In Perturbative Quantum
853: % Chromodynamics,''
854: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D28}, 228 (1983).
855: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D28,228;%%
856: %
857: \bibitem{Lepage:1993xa}
858: G.~P.~Lepage and P.~B.~Mackenzie,
859: %``On the viability of lattice perturbation theory,''
860: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D48}, 2250 (1993).
861: % [hep-lat/9209022].
862: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9209022;%%
863: %
864: \bibitem{Bode:2000sm}
865: The values for $b_0^{(1)}$ and $b_0^{(0)}$ are derived from unpublished
866: results of S. Sint (1996), reported in
867: A.~Bode, P.~Weisz, and U.~Wolff,
868: % ``Two loop computation of the Schroedinger functional in lattice QCD,''
869: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B576}, 517 (2000).
870: % [hep-lat/9911018].
871: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9911018;%%
872: The polynomial $K_1(c_{\text{SW}})$ was published first by
873: G.~Martinelli and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
874: % ``Computation of the b-quark mass with perturbative matching at the
875: % next-to-next-to-leading order,''
876: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B559}, 429 (1999).
877: % [hep-lat/9812001].
878: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9812001;%%
879: %
880: \bibitem{Mertens:2000}
881: B. P. G. Mertens and A. S. Kronfeld, in preparation.
882: % ``Scale of the self energy of massive lattice fermions,''
883: % hep-lat/0009nnn [FERMILAB-PUB-00/nnn-T].
884: Tables for obtaining $q_1^*$ are on the World\-Wide\-Web at
885: http://www-theory.fnal.gov/people/ask/self-energy/.
886: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0009nnn;%%
887: %
888: \bibitem{Aoki:1998ji}
889: S. Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration],
890: % ``Heavy meson decay constants from quenched lattice QCD,''
891: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 80}, 5711 (1998).
892: %%CITATION = PRLTA,80,5711;%%
893: %
894: \bibitem{El-Khadra:1998hq}
895: A.~X. El-Khadra {\it et al.},
896: % A.~S. Kronfeld, P.~B. Mackenzie, S.~M. Ryan, and J.~N. Simone,
897: % ``B and D meson decay constants in lattice QCD,''
898: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D58}, 014506 (1998).
899: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D58,014506;%%
900: %
901: \bibitem{Becirevic:1999ua}
902: D.~Becirevic \emph{et al.},
903: % ``Non-perturbatively improved heavy-light mesons:
904: % Masses and decay constants,''
905: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D60}, 074501 (1999).
906: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9811003;%%
907: %
908: \bibitem{Sheikholeslami:1985ij}
909: B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert,
910: % ``Improved Continuum Limit Lattice Action for QCD with Wilson Fermions,''
911: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B259}, 572 (1985).
912: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B259,572;%%
913: %
914: \bibitem{Sommer:1994ce}
915: R.~Sommer,
916: %``A New way to set the energy scale in lattice gauge theories and its
917: %applications to the static force and alpha-s in SU(2) Yang-Mills
918: %theory,''
919: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B411}, 839 (1994).
920: % [hep-lat/9310022].
921: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9310022;%%
922: %
923: \bibitem{Mannel:1994kv}
924: T. Mannel,
925: % ``Higher order $1/m$ corrections at zero recoil,''
926: Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, 428 (1994).
927: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D50,428;%%
928: %
929: \bibitem{Bigi:1995ga}
930: I. I. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N.~G. Uraltsev, and A.~I. Vainshtein,
931: % ``Sum rules for heavy flavor transitions in the SV limit,''
932: Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 196 (1995).
933: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D52,196;%%
934: %
935: \bibitem{Gremm:1997df}
936: M. Gremm and A. Kapustin,
937: % ``Order $1/m_b^3$ corrections to inclusive semileptonic $B$ decay,''
938: Phys. Rev. {\bf D55}, 6924 (1997).
939: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D55,6924;%%
940: %
941: \bibitem{Luscher:1997ug}
942: M.~L\"uscher \emph{et al.},
943: % S.~Sint, R.~Sommer, P.~Weisz and U.~Wolff,
944: %``Non-perturbative O(a) improvement of lattice QCD,''
945: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B491}, 323 (1997).
946: % [hep-lat/9609035].
947: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9609035;%%
948: %
949: \bibitem{Alexandrou:1994ti}
950: C.~Alexandrou \emph{et al.},
951: % S.~Gusken, F.~Jegerlehner, K.~Schilling and R.~Sommer,
952: %``The Static approximation of heavy - light quark systems: A Systematic
953: %lattice study,''
954: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B414}, 815 (1994).
955: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9211042;%%.
956: %
957: \bibitem{Duncan:1995uq}
958: A.~Duncan \emph{et al.},
959: % E.~Eichten, J.~Flynn, B.~Hill, G.~Hockney and H.~Thacker,
960: % ``Properties of B mesons in lattice QCD,''
961: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D51}, 5101 (1995).
962: % [hep-lat/9407025].
963: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9407025;%%
964: %
965: \bibitem{Davies:1994pz}
966: C.~T.~H. Davies {\it et al.},
967: %``A New determination of $M_b$ using lattice QCD,''
968: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73}, 2654 (1994).
969: % [hep-lat/9404012].
970: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9404012;%%
971: %
972: \bibitem{Bagan:1992sg}
973: E.~Bagan, P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and H.~G.~Dosch,
974: %``QCD sum rules in the effective heavy quark theory,''
975: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B278}, 457 (1992);
976: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B278,457;%%
977: M.~Neubert,
978: %``Heavy meson form-factors from QCD sum rules,''
979: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D45}, 2451 (1992).
980: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D45,2451;%%
981: %
982: \bibitem{Ball:1994xv}
983: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
984: %``Next-to-leading order corrections to meson masses in the heavy quark
985: %effective theory,''
986: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D49}, 2472 (1994);
987: % [hep-ph/9307291].
988: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307291;%%
989: M.~Neubert,
990: %``QCD sum-rule calculation of the kinetic energy and chromo-interaction
991: %of heavy quarks inside mesons,''
992: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B389}, 727 (1996).
993: % [hep-ph/9608211].
994: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9608211;%%
995: %
996: \bibitem{Crisafulli:1995pg}
997: M.~Crisafulli, V.~Gim\'enez, G.~Martinelli and C.~T. Sachrajda,
998: %``First lattice calculation of the B meson binding and kinetic
999: %energies,''
1000: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B457}, 594 (1995);
1001: % [hep-ph/9506210].
1002: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506210;%%
1003: V.~Gim\'enez, G.~Martinelli and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
1004: %``A high-statistics lattice calculation of lambda(1) and lambda(2) in
1005: %the B-meson,''
1006: \emph{ibid.}\ {\bf B486}, 227 (1997);
1007: % [hep-lat/9607055].
1008: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9607055;%%
1009: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B393}, 124 (1997).
1010: % [hep-lat/9607018].
1011: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9607018;%%
1012: %
1013: \bibitem{Maiani:1992az}
1014: L. Maiani, G. Martinelli and C.~T. Sachrajda,
1015: % ``Nonperturbative subtractions in the heavy quark effective field
1016: % theory,''
1017: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B368}, 281 (1992).
1018: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B368,281;%%
1019: %
1020: \bibitem{Henty:1992cw}
1021: D.~S.~Henty and R.~D.~Kenway,
1022: %``Hopping parameter expansion for heavy - light systems,''
1023: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B289}, 109 (1992).
1024: % [hep-lat/9206009].
1025: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9206009;%%
1026: %
1027: \end{thebibliography}
1028:
1029: \end{document}
1030: