1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2:
3: \documentstyle[preprint, aps, epsfig]{revtex}
4: \begin{document}
5: \textwidth=162mm
6: \textheight=235mm\def\baselinestretch{1.2}
7: \global\arraycolsep=2pt
8: \makeatletter
9: %-------this is a fine fermion slash------------------------------
10: \def\fmslash{\@ifnextchar[{\fmsl@sh}{\fmsl@sh[0mu]}}
11: \def\fmsl@sh[#1]#2{%
12: \mathchoice
13: {\@fmsl@sh\displaystyle{#1}{#2}}%
14: {\@fmsl@sh\textstyle{#1}{#2}}%
15: {\@fmsl@sh\scriptstyle{#1}{#2}}%
16: {\@fmsl@sh\scriptscriptstyle{#1}{#2}}}
17: \def\@fmsl@sh#1#2#3{\m@th\ooalign{$\hfil#1\mkern#2/\hfil$\crcr$#1#3$}}
18: \makeatother
19: %------------------------------------------------------------------
20: \preprint{\vbox{\baselineskip 16pt
21: \hbox{ASITP-2000-011}
22: \hbox{SNUTP 00-027}
23: }}
24: \title{
25: Leading Isgur-Wise form factor of $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_{c1}$
26: transition using QCD sum rules
27: }
28: \author{
29: Ming-Qiu Huang$^{a,b,d}$\footnote{E-mail address:~mqhuang@nudt.edu.cn},
30: Jong-Phil Lee$^c$\footnote{E-mail address:~jplee@phya.snu.ac.kr},
31: Chun Liu$^d$\footnote{E-mail address:~liuc@itp.ac.cn},
32: H. S. Song$^c$\footnote{E-mail address:~hssong@physs.snu.ac.kr}}
33: \address{$^a$CCAST, World Lab., Beijing, 100080, China}
34: \address{
35: $^b$Department of Applied Physics, Changsha Institute of Technology,
36: Hunan 410073, China}
37: \address{$^c$School of Physics, Seoul National University,
38: Seoul, 151-742, Korea}
39: \address{
40: $^d$Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
41: P.O. Box 2735,\\ Beijing 100080, China}
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: \maketitle
44: \begin{abstract}
45: The leading Isgur-Wise form factor $\xi(y)$ parametrizing the semileptonic
46: transitions $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda^{1/2}_{c1}\ell\bar\nu$ and
47: $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda^{3/2}_{c1}\ell\bar\nu$ is calculated by using the QCD
48: sum rules in the framework of heavy quark effective theory, where
49: $\Lambda^{1/2}_{c1}$ and $\Lambda^{3/2}_{c1}$ is the orbitally excited charmed
50: baryon doublet with $J^P=(1^-/2,3^-/2)$. The interpolating currents with
51: transverse covariant derivative are adopted for $\Lambda^{1/2}_{c1}$ and
52: $\Lambda^{3/2}_{c1}$ in the analysis. The slope parameter $\rho^2$ in linear
53: approximation of the Isgur-Wise function is obtained to be $\rho^2=2.01$, and
54: the interception to be $\xi(1)=0.29$. The decay branching ratios are estimated.
55: \end{abstract}
56: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
57: \pagebreak
58:
59: %===============================
60: \section{Introduction}
61: %===============================
62:
63: The ground state bottom baryon $\Lambda_b$ weak decays \cite{PDG} provide a
64: testing ground for the standard model (SM). They reveal some important
65: features of the physics of bottom quark. The experimental data on them are
66: accumulating, and waiting for reliable theoretical calculations. The main
67: difficulties in the SM calculations, however, are due to the poor understanding
68: of the nonperturbative aspects of the strong interaction (QCD). The heavy
69: quark effective theory (HQET) based on the heavy quark symmetry provides a
70: model-independent method for analyzing heavy hadrons containing a single heavy
71: quark \cite{HQET}. It allows us to expand the physical quantity in powers of
72: $1/m_Q$ systematically, where $m_Q$ is the heavy quark mass. Within this
73: framework, the classification of the $\Lambda_b$ exclusive weak decay form
74: factors has been simplified greatly. The decays
75: $\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_c l{\bar\nu}$ \cite{IW},
76: $\Lambda_b\to\Sigma_c^{(*)}l{\bar\nu}$ \cite{Mannel},
77: $\Lambda_b\to\Sigma_c^{(*)} \pi l{\bar\nu}$ \cite{Cho},
78: $\Lambda_b\to p(\Lambda)$ \cite{Qiao} have been studied.
79:
80: With the discovery of the orbitally excited charmed baryons $\Lambda_c(2593)$
81: and $\Lambda_c(2625)$ \cite{CLEO}, it would be interesting to investigate the
82: $\Lambda_b$ semileptonic decays into these baryons. From the phenomenological
83: point of view, these semileptonic transitions are interesting, since in
84: principle they may account for a sizeable fraction of the inclusive
85: semileptonic rate of $\Lambda_b$ decay.
86:
87: The properties of excited baryons have attracted attention in recent years.
88: Investigation on them will extend our ability in the application of QCD. It
89: can also help us foresee other excited heavy baryons undiscovered yet. The
90: heavy quark symmetry \cite{HQET} is a useful tool to classify the hadronic
91: spectroscopy containing a heavy quark $Q$. In the infinite mass limit, the
92: spin and parity of the heavy quark and that of the light degrees of freedom are
93: separately conserved. Coupling the spin of light degrees of freedom $j_\ell$
94: with the spin of heavy quark $s_Q=1/2$ yields a doublet with total spin
95: $J=j_\ell\pm 1/2$ (or a singlet if $j_\ell=0$). This classification can be
96: applied to the $\Lambda_Q$-type baryons. For the charmed baryons the ground
97: state $\Lambda_c$ contains light degrees of freedom with spin-parity
98: $j_\ell^{P}=0^+$, being a singlet. The excited states with $j_\ell^P=1^-$ are
99: spin symmetry doublet with $J^P$($1^-/2$,$3^-/2$). The lowest states of such
100: excited charmed states, $\Lambda^{1/2}_{c1}$ and $\Lambda^{3/2}_{c1}$, have
101: been observed and are identified with $\Lambda_c(2593)$ and $\Lambda_c(2625)$
102: respectively \cite{CLEO}.
103:
104: The semileptonic $\Lambda_b$ decay rate to the excited charmed baryon is
105: determined by corresponding hadronic matrix elements of the weak axial-vector
106: and vector currents. The matrix elements of the vector and axial currents
107: ($V_\mu={\bar c}\gamma_\mu b$ and $A_\mu={\bar c}\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 b$) between
108: the $\Lambda_b$ and $\Lambda^{1/2}_{c1}$ or $\Lambda^{3/2}_{c1}$ can be
109: parametrized in terms of fourteen form factors:
110: \begin{mathletters}\label{formfactor}
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: \frac{\langle\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2}(v^\prime,s^\prime)|V_\mu|\Lambda_b(v,s)\rangle}
113: {\sqrt{4M_{\Lambda_{c1}(1/2)}M_{\Lambda_b}}}&=&
114: {\bar u}_{\Lambda_{c1}}(v^\prime,s^\prime)
115: \Big[F_1\gamma_\mu+F_2 v_\mu+F_3 v^\prime_\mu\Big]
116: \gamma_5 u_{\Lambda_b}(v,s)~,\\
117: \frac{\langle\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2}(v^\prime,s^\prime)|A_\mu|\Lambda_b(v,s)\rangle}
118: {\sqrt{4M_{\Lambda_{c1}(1/2)}M_{\Lambda_b}}}&=&
119: {\bar u}_{\Lambda_{c1}}(v^\prime,s^\prime)
120: \Big[G_1\gamma_\mu+G_2 v_\mu+G_3 v^\prime_\mu\Big]
121: u_{\Lambda_b}(v,s)~,\\
122: \frac{\langle\Lambda_{c1}^{3/2}(v^\prime,s^\prime)|V_\mu|\Lambda_b(v,s)\rangle}
123: {\sqrt{4M_{\Lambda_{c1}(3/2)}M_{\Lambda_b}}}&=&
124: {\bar u}^\alpha_{\Lambda_{c1}}(v^\prime,s^\prime)\Big[
125: v_\alpha(K_1\gamma_\mu+K_2 v_\mu+K_3 v^\prime_\mu)+K_4 g_{\alpha\mu}\Big]
126: u_{\Lambda_b}(v,s)~,\\
127: \frac{\langle\Lambda_{c1}^{3/2}(v^\prime,s^\prime)|A_\mu|\Lambda_b(v,s)\rangle}
128: {\sqrt{4M_{\Lambda_{c1}(3/2)}M_{\Lambda_b}}}&=&
129: {\bar u}^\alpha_{\Lambda_{c1}}(v^\prime,s^\prime)\Big[
130: v_\alpha(N_1\gamma_\mu+N_2 v_\mu+N_3 v^\prime_\mu)+N_4 g_{\alpha\mu}\Big]
131: \gamma_5 u_{\Lambda_b}(v,s)~,
132: \end{eqnarray}
133: \end{mathletters}
134: where $v(v')$ and $s(s')$ are the four-velocity and spin of
135: $\Lambda_b(\Lambda_{c1})$, respectively. And the form factors $F_i$, $G_i$,
136: $K_i$ and $N_i$ are functions of $y=v\cdot v'$. In the limit $m_Q\to\infty$,
137: all the form factors are related to one independent universal form factor
138: $\xi(y)$ called Isgur-Wise (IW) function \cite{Choi}. Extensive investigation
139: in \cite{Leibovich} further shows that the leading $1/m_Q$ correction of the
140: form factors at zero recoil can be calculated in a model-independent way in
141: terms of the masses of charmed baryon states. A convenient way to evaluate
142: hadronic matrix elements is by introducing interpolating fields in HQET
143: developed in Ref.~\cite{Falk} to parametrize the matrix elements in
144: Eqs. (\ref{formfactor}). With the aid of this method the matrix element can be
145: written as \cite{Leibovich}
146: \begin{equation}
147: {\bar c}\Gamma b={\bar h}^{(c)}_{v^\prime}\Gamma h^{(b)}_v
148: =\xi(y)v_\alpha{\bar\psi}^\alpha_{v^\prime}\Gamma\psi_v~
149: \label{current}
150: \end{equation}
151: at leading order in $1/m_Q$ and $\alpha_s$, where $\Gamma$ is any collection of
152: $\gamma$-matrices. The ground state field, $\psi_v$, destroys the $\Lambda_b$
153: baryon with four-velocity $v$; the spinor field $\psi^\alpha_v$ is given by
154: \begin{equation}
155: \psi^\alpha_v=\psi^{3/2\alpha}_v
156: +\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(\gamma^\alpha+v^\alpha)\gamma_5\psi^{1/2}_v~,
157: \end{equation}
158: where $\psi^{1/2}_v$ is the ordinary Dirac spinor and $\psi^{3/2\alpha}_v$ is
159: the spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger spinor, they destroy $\Lambda^{1/2}_{c1}$ and
160: $\Lambda^{3/2}_{c1}$ baryons with four-velocity $v$, respectively. To be
161: explicit,
162: \begin{eqnarray}
163: F_1&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(y-1)~\xi(y)~,~~~
164: G_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(y+1)~\xi(y)~,\nonumber\\
165: F_2&=&G_2=-\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}~\xi(y)~,~~~~~
166: K_1=N_1=\xi(y)~,\nonumber\\
167: &&~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~({\rm others})=0~.
168: \label{formfactors}
169: \end{eqnarray}
170: In general, the IW form factor is a decreasing function of the four velocity
171: transfer $y$. Since the kinematically allowed region of $y$ for heavy to
172: heavy transition is very narrow around unity,
173: \begin{equation}
174: 1\le y\le
175: \frac{M_{\Lambda_b}^2+M_{\Lambda_{c1}}^2}{2M_{\Lambda_b}M_{\Lambda_{c1}}}
176: \simeq 1.2~,
177: \end{equation}
178: it is convenient to approximate the IW function linearly
179: \begin{equation}
180: \xi(y)=\xi(1)(1-\rho^2(y-1))~,
181: \label{rho}
182: \end{equation}
183: where $\rho^2$ is the slope parameter which characterizes the shape of the
184: IW function.
185:
186: To obtain detailed predictions for the hadrons, however, some nonperturbative
187: QCD methods are required. We adopt QCD sum rules \cite{sumrule0} in this work.
188: QCD sum rule is a powerful nonperturbative method based on QCD \cite{sumrule0}.
189: It takes into account the nontrivial QCD vacuum, parametrized by various
190: vacuum condensates, to describe the nonperturbative nature. In QCD sum rule,
191: hadronic observables are calculable by evaluating two- or three-point
192: correlation functions. The hadronic currents for constructing the correlation
193: functions are expressed by the interpolating fields. The static properties of
194: $\Lambda_b$ and $\Lambda_{c1}$ ($\Lambda_{c1}$ denotes the generic
195: $j_\ell^{P}=1^-$ charmed state) have been studied with QCD sum rules in the
196: HQET in \cite{sumrule} and \cite{PLB476,Zhu}, respectively. The aim of this
197: work is to calculate the leading IW function $\xi(y)$ using the QCD sum rules.
198:
199: In the next Section, the QCD sum rule calculations for $\xi(y)$ are given.
200: Numerical results and discussions are in Sec.\ III. Summary of this work
201: is in Sec.\ IV.
202:
203: %=========================================================================
204: \section{The QCD Sum Rule Calculations}
205: %=========================================================================
206:
207: As a starting point, consider the interpolating field of heavy baryons. The
208: heavy baryon current is generally expressed as
209: \begin{equation}
210: j^v_{J,P}(x)=\epsilon_{ijk}
211: [q^{iT}(x)C\Gamma_{J,P}\tau q^j(x)]\Gamma^\prime_{J,P} h^k_v(x)~,
212: \end{equation}
213: where $i,~j,~k$ are the color indices, $C$ is the charge conjugation matrix,
214: and $\tau$ is the isospin matrix while $q(x)$ is a light quark field.
215: $\Gamma_{J,P}$ and $\Gamma^\prime_{J,P}$ are some gamma matrices which
216: describe the structure of the baryon with spin-parity $J^P$. Usually $\Gamma$
217: and $\Gamma^\prime$ with least number of derivatives are used in the QCD sum
218: rule method. The sum rules then have better convergence in the high energy
219: region and often have better stability. For the ground state heavy baryon, we
220: use $\Gamma_{1/2,+}=\gamma_5$, $\Gamma^\prime_{1/2,+}=1$. In the previous
221: work \cite{PLB476}, two kinds of interpolating fields are introduced to
222: represent the excited heavy baryon. In this work, we find that only the
223: interpolating field of transverse derivative is adequate for the analysis.
224: Nonderivative interpolating field results in a vanishing perturbative
225: contribution. The choice of $\Gamma$ and $\Gamma^\prime$ with derivatives for
226: the $\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2}$ and $\Lambda_{c1}^{3/2}$ is then
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: \Gamma_{1/2,-}=(a+b\fmslash v)\gamma_5~,~~~~~
229: &&\Gamma^\prime_{1/2,-}=
230: \frac{i{\overleftarrow {\fmslash D}_t}}{M}\gamma_5~,\nonumber\\
231: \Gamma_{3/2,-}=(a+bv\hspace{-1.7mm}/)\gamma_5~,~~~~~
232: &&\Gamma^\prime_{3/2,-}=\frac{1}{3M}(i{\overleftarrow D}^\mu_t
233: +i{\overleftarrow {\fmslash D}_t}\;\gamma^\mu_t)~,
234: \label{deriv}
235: \end{eqnarray}
236: where a transverse vector $A^\mu_t$ is defined to be
237: $A^\mu_t\equiv A^\mu-v^\mu v\cdot A$, and $M$ in Eq. (\ref{deriv}) is some
238: hadronic mass scale. $a$, $b$ are arbitrary numbers between 0 and 1.
239:
240: The baryonic decay constants in the HQET are defined as follows,
241: \begin{mathletters}
242: \begin{eqnarray}
243: \langle 0|j^v_{1/2,+}|\Lambda_{b}\rangle &=&f_{\Lambda_b}\psi_v~,\\
244: \langle 0|j^{v}_{1/2,-}|\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2}\rangle &=&f_{1/2}
245: \psi^{1/2}_{v}~,\\
246: \langle 0|j^{v\mu}_{3/2,-}|\Lambda_{c1}^{3/2}\rangle &=&
247: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}f_{3/2}\psi^{3/2\mu}_{v}\;,
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: \end{mathletters}
250: where $f_{1/2}$ and $f_{3/2}$ are equivalent since $\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2}$ and
251: $\Lambda_{c1}^{3/2}$ belong to the same doublet with $j_\ell^P=1^-$. The
252: QCD sum rule calculations give \cite{sumrule}
253: \begin{equation}
254: f_{\Lambda_b}^2 e^{-{\bar\Lambda}/T}=\frac{1}{20\pi^4}
255: \int_0^{\omega_c}d\omega \omega^5 e^{-\omega/T}
256: +\frac{1}{6}\langle{\bar q}q\rangle^2 e^{-m_0^2/8T^2}
257: +\frac{\langle\alpha_s GG\rangle}{32\pi^3}T^2~,
258: \end{equation}
259: and \cite{PLB476}
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: f_{1/2}^2 e^{-{\bar\Lambda}^\prime/T^\prime}&=&
262: \int_0^{\omega_c^\prime} d\omega \frac{3N_c!}{4\pi^4\cdot 7!}\omega^7
263: (24a^2+40b^2)e^{-\omega/T^\prime}+\frac{\langle\alpha_s GG\rangle}{32\pi^3}
264: T^{\prime 4}(-a^2+b^2)\nonumber\\
265: &&+\frac{N_c!}{2\pi^2}\Big[\langle{\bar q}q\rangle T^{\prime 5}(16ab)
266: -\langle{\bar q}g\sigma\cdot G q\rangle T^{\prime 3}ab\Big]
267: -\frac{\langle{\bar q}g\sigma\cdot G q\rangle}{4\pi^2}T^{\prime 3}(3ab)~.
268: \end{eqnarray}
269: In the above equations, $T^{(\prime)}$ are the Borel parameters and
270: $\omega_c^{(\prime)}$ are the continuum thresholds, and $N_c=3$ is the
271: color number. In the heavy quark limit, the mass parameters $\bar\Lambda$
272: and $\bar\Lambda^\prime$ are defined as
273: \begin{equation}
274: {\bar\Lambda}^\prime=M_{\Lambda_{Q1}}-m_Q~,~~~~~
275: {\bar\Lambda}=M_{\Lambda_Q}-m_Q~.
276: \end{equation}
277:
278: In order to get the QCD sum rule for the IW function, one studies the
279: analytic properties of the three-point correlators
280: \begin{mathletters}\label{3-correlator}
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: \Xi^\mu(\omega,\omega',y)&=&i^2\int d^4x d^4z~e^{i(k^\prime\cdot x-k\cdot z)}
283: \langle 0|{\cal T}~j^{v^\prime}_{1/2,-}(x)~
284: {\bar h}^{(c)}_{v^\prime}(0)\Gamma^\mu h^{(b)}_v(0)
285: ~{\bar j}^v_{1/2,+}(z)|0\rangle\nonumber\\&& \quad%\mbox{}
286: =\Xi(\omega,\omega',y)\;(\fmslash v+y)\gamma_5\;\frac{1+\fmslash v'}
287: {2}\Gamma^\mu\frac{1+\fmslash v}{2}\;,\\
288: \Xi^{\alpha\mu}(\omega,\omega',y)&=&i^2\int d^4x d^4z~
289: e^{i(k^\prime\cdot x-k\cdot z)}
290: \langle 0|{\cal T}~j^{v^\prime\alpha}_{3/2,-}(x)~
291: {\bar h}^{(c)}_{v^\prime}(0)\Gamma^\mu h^{(b)}_v(0)
292: ~{\bar j}^v_{1/2,+}(z)|0\rangle\nonumber\\&& \quad%\mbox{}
293: =\Xi(\omega,\omega',y)\;[(-v^\alpha+yv^{'\alpha}
294: +\frac{1}{3}(\gamma^\alpha+v^{'\alpha})
295: \;(\fmslash v-y)]\;\frac{1+\fmslash v'}{2}\Gamma^\mu\frac{1+\fmslash v}{2}\;,
296: \end{eqnarray}
297: \end{mathletters}
298: where $\Gamma^\mu=\gamma^\mu$ or $\gamma^\mu\gamma_5$. The variables $k$,
299: $k'$ denote residual ``off-shell" momenta which are related to the momenta
300: $P$ of the heavy quark in the initial state and $P'$ in the final state by
301: $k=P-m_Qv$, $k'=P'-m_{Q'}v'$, respectively.
302:
303: The coefficient $\Xi(\omega,\omega',y)$ in (\ref{3-correlator}) is an
304: analytic function in the ``off-shell energies" $\omega=v\cdot k$ and
305: $\omega'=v'\cdot k'$ with discontinuities for positive values of these
306: variables. It furthermore depends on the velocity transfer $y=v\cdot v'$,
307: which is fixed at its physical region for the process under consideration. By
308: saturating with physical intermediate states in HQET, one finds the hadronic
309: representation of the correlators as following
310: \begin{equation}
311: \Xi_{\rm hadron}(\omega,\omega',y)=\frac{f_{1/2}f^*_{\Lambda_b}\xi(y)}
312: {\sqrt{3}({\bar\Lambda}^\prime-\omega^\prime)({\bar\Lambda}-\omega)}
313: +\mbox{higher resonances} \;.
314: \label{hadronic}
315: \end{equation}
316: In obtaining above expression the Dirac and Rartia-Schwinger spinor sums
317: \begin{eqnarray}
318: && \Lambda_+=\sum_{s=1}^2u(v,s)\bar u(v,s)={1+\fmslash v\over 2}\nonumber\\
319: && \Lambda_{+}^{\mu\nu}=\sum_{s=1}^4u^\mu(v,s)\bar u^\nu(v,s)=(-g_t^{\mu\nu}+
320: \frac{1}{3}\gamma_t^\mu\gamma_t^\nu){1+\fmslash v\over 2}\;
321: \end{eqnarray}
322: have been used, where $g^{\mu\nu}_t=g^{\mu\nu}-v^\mu v^\nu$.
323:
324: In the quark-gluon language, $\Xi(\omega,\omega',y)$ in
325: Eq. (\ref{3-correlator}) is written as
326: \begin{eqnarray}
327: \Xi(\omega,\omega',y)=\int^\infty_0 d\nu d\nu^\prime
328: \frac{\rho^{\rm pert}(\nu,\nu^\prime,y)}
329: {(\nu-\omega)(\nu^\prime-\omega^\prime)}+({\rm subtraction})
330: +\Xi^{\rm cond}(\omega,\omega',y)\;,
331: \label{quarkgluon}
332: \end{eqnarray}
333: where the perturbative spectral density function
334: $\rho^{\rm pert}(\nu,\nu^\prime,y)$ and the condensate contribution
335: $\Xi^{\rm cond}$ are related to the calculation of the Feynman diagrams
336: depicted in Fig. 1.
337:
338: The QCD sum rule is obtained by equating the phenomenological and
339: theoretical expressions for $\Xi$. In doing this the quark-hadron duality
340: needs to be assumed to model the contributions of higher resonance part of
341: Eq. (\ref{hadronic}). Generally speaking, the duality is to simulate the
342: resonance contribution by the perturbative part above some thresholds
343: $\omega_c$ and $\omega'_c$, that is
344: \begin{equation}
345: {\rm res.}=\int^\infty_{\omega_c}\int^\infty_{\omega^\prime_c}d\nu
346: d\nu^\prime~\frac{\rho^{\rm pert}(\nu,\nu^\prime,y)}
347: {(\nu-\omega)(\nu^\prime-\omega^\prime)}~.
348: \label{res}
349: \end{equation}
350: In the QCD sum rule analysis for $B$ semileptonic decays into ground state
351: $D$ mesons, it was argued by Neubert in \cite{Neubert}, and Blok and Shifman
352: in \cite{Shifman} that the perturbative and the hadronic spectral densities
353: can not be locally dual to each other, the necessary way to restore duality
354: is to integrate the spectral densities over the ``off-diagonal'' variable
355: $\nu_-=\sqrt{\frac{y+1}{y-1}}(\nu-\nu')/2$, keeping the ``diagonal'' variable
356: $\nu_+=(\nu+\nu')/2$ fixed. It is in $\nu_+$ that the quark-hadron duality is
357: assumed for the integrated spectral densities. The same prescription shall be
358: adopted in the following analysis. On the other hand, in order to suppress the
359: contributions of higher resonance states a double Borel transformation in
360: $\omega$ and $\omega'$ is performed to both sides of the sum rule, which
361: introduces two Borel parameters $T_1$ and $T_2$. For simplicity we shall take
362: the two Borel parameters equal: $T_1 = T_2 =2T$.
363:
364: Combining Eqs. (\ref{hadronic}), (\ref{quarkgluon}), our duality assumption
365: and making the double Borel transformation, one obtains the sum rule for
366: $\xi(y)$ as follows
367: \begin{equation}
368: {f_{1/2}f^*_{\Lambda_b}\xi(y)\over\sqrt 3}
369: e^{-({\bar\Lambda}^\prime+{\bar\Lambda})/2T}=
370: 2\;\Bigg(\frac{y-1}{y+1}\Bigg)^{1/2}\int^{\omega_c(y)}_0 d\nu_+e^{-\nu_+/T}
371: \int^{\nu_+}_{-\nu_+}d\nu_-\rho(\nu_+,\nu_-;y)
372: +{\hat B}^{\omega^\prime}_{2T}{\hat B}^\omega_{2T}\Xi^{\rm cond}~,
373: \label{sumrule}
374: \end{equation}
375: where $\nu=\nu_++\sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\nu_-$,
376: $\nu^\prime=\nu_+-\sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\nu_-$.
377:
378: Confining us to the leading order of perturbation and the operators with
379: dimension $D\leq 6$ in OPE, the spectral density
380: $\rho^{\rm pert}(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)$ and
381: ${\hat B}^{\omega^\prime}_{2T}{\hat B}^\omega_{2T}\Xi^{\rm cond}$ are
382: \begin{eqnarray}
383: \rho(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)&=&
384: \frac{36a}{\pi^4}\frac{1}{2!3!}\Bigg(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{y^2-1}}\Bigg)^7
385: \nonumber\\
386: &&\times \Big[A(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)^3B(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)^2
387: -A(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)^2B(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)^3\Big]\nonumber\\
388: {\hat B}^{\omega^\prime}_{2T}{\hat B}^\omega_{2T}\Xi_{(b)}&=&0~,\nonumber\\
389: {\hat B}^{\omega^\prime}_{2T}{\hat B}^\omega_{2T}\Xi_{(d)}&=&
390: -\frac{b}{48\pi^2}\langle{\bar q}g\sigma\cdot Gq\rangle(2T)^2
391: \frac{2y+1}{(1+y)^2}~,\nonumber\\
392: {\hat B}^{\omega^\prime}_{2T}{\hat B}^\omega_{2T}
393: \big\{\Xi_{(c)}+\Xi_{(e)}\big\}
394: &=&\frac{b}{2\pi^2}\frac{1}{(1+y)^2}\Bigg[
395: 2\langle{\bar q}q\rangle(2T)^4
396: -\langle{\bar q}g\sigma\cdot G q\rangle(2T)^2\frac{4y+5}{48}\Bigg]~,
397: \nonumber\\
398: {\hat B}^{\omega^\prime}_{2T}{\hat B}^\omega_{2T}
399: \big\{\Xi_{(f)}+\Xi_{(g)}+\Xi_{(h)}\big\}&=&
400: -\frac{a}{192\pi^3}\langle\alpha_s GG\rangle T^3\frac{-20y+67}{(1+y)^3}~,
401: \label{result}
402: \end{eqnarray}
403: where
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: A(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)&=&
406: \Bigg(\nu_+ -\sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\nu_-\Bigg)e^\theta
407: -\Bigg(\nu_+ +\sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\nu_-\Bigg)~,\nonumber\\
408: B(\nu,\nu^\prime;y)&=&
409: \Bigg(\nu_+ +\sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\nu_-\Bigg)
410: -\Bigg(\nu_+ -\sqrt{\frac{y-1}{y+1}}\nu_-\Bigg)e^{-\theta}~,\nonumber\\
411: \sinh\theta&=&\sqrt{y^2-1}~.
412: \end{eqnarray}
413: Here the dimensionful parameter $M$ in Eq. (\ref{deriv}) is dropped since
414: it cancels out in (\ref{sumrule}).
415:
416: %We use the following two possibilities in the analysis,
417: %\begin{equation}
418: %\omega_c(y)=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
419: % \Big(\frac{1+y}{2y}\Big)\omega_0~,&~~{\rm or}\\
420: % \omega_0~,
421: %\end{array}\right.
422: %\label{w_c}
423: %\end{equation}
424: %where $\omega_0$ is a constant threshold.
425:
426: %===============================
427: \section{Results and discussion}
428: %===============================
429:
430: For the numerical analysis, the standard values of the condensates are used;
431: \begin{eqnarray}
432: \langle{\bar q}q\rangle&=&-(0.23~{\rm GeV})^3~,\nonumber\\
433: \langle\alpha GG\rangle&=&0.04~{\rm GeV}^4~,\nonumber\\
434: \langle \bar{q}g\sigma\cdot G q\rangle&\equiv&m_0^2\langle{\bar q}q
435: \rangle~,~~~~~m_0^2=0.8~{\rm GeV}^2~.
436: \end{eqnarray}
437: In dealing with the variables, some remarks should be noticed. First, the
438: continuum threshold $\omega_c^\prime$ in $f_{\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2})}$
439: (${\bar\Lambda}^\prime$) can differ from that in $f_{\Lambda_b}$
440: (${\bar\Lambda}$). However, it is expected that the values of $\omega_c$ and
441: $\omega_c'$ have no significant difference. This is because the mass
442: difference ${\bar\Lambda}^\prime-{\bar\Lambda}$ is not large \cite{PLB476},
443: ${\bar\Lambda}^\prime-{\bar\Lambda}\simeq 0.2~{\rm GeV}$. Indeed the central
444: values of them were close to each other in the sum rules analysis for
445: $f_{\frac{1}{2}(\frac{3}{2})}$ (${\bar\Lambda}^\prime$) and $f_{\Lambda_b}$
446: (${\bar\Lambda}$). In addtion, the continuum threshold $\omega_c(y)$ in
447: Eq. (\ref{sumrule}) in general can be a function of $y$. We take it to be a
448: constant $\omega_c(y)=\omega_c=\omega_c'=\omega_0$ in the numerical analysis.
449: In this sense, we use only one continuum threshold throughout the analysis.
450: Second, there are input parameters of $a$ and $b$ in the interpolating fields
451: (\ref{deriv}). In \cite{PLB476}, the choice of $(a,b)=(1,0)$ shows the best
452: stability for the mass parameter ${\bar\Lambda}^\prime$. We adopt the same
453: set of $(a,b)=(1,0)$ in this analysis. Third, there are two Borel parameters
454: $T_1$ and $T_2$ in general, corresponding to $\omega$ and $\omega^\prime$ in
455: $\Xi(\omega, \omega',y)$, respectively. We have taken $T_1=T_2$ in the
456: analysis. In \cite{Huang} for $B$ into excited charmed meson transition,
457: the authors got a $10\%$ increase of the leading IW function at zero recoil
458: when $T_2/T_1=1.5$ compared to the value when $T_1=T_2$. It seems quite
459: reasonable to expect that in the heavy baryon case, the numerical results are
460: similar for small variations around $T_2/T_1=1$.
461:
462: The leading IW function $\xi(y)$ is plotted in Figs.\ \ref{3dplot},\ref{IW}.
463: In Fig.\ \ref{3dplot}, we give a three-dimensional plot of $\xi=\xi(y,T)$.
464: The best stability is shown within the sum rule window,
465: \begin{equation}
466: 0.16\le T\le 0.6~({\rm GeV})~.
467: \end{equation}
468: The upper and lower bounds are fixed such that the condensate contribution
469: amounts to at most $30\%$ while the pole contribution to $50\%$. Note that
470: this range has overlaps with the sum rule windows in \cite{PLB476} and
471: \cite{sumrule}. This reflects the self-consistence of the sum rule analysis.
472: In Fig.\ \ref{IW}, the band corresponds to the variation of $\xi(y)$ from
473: $\omega_0=1.2$ to $\omega_0=1.6$ GeV. In addition, we have found that there
474: is almost no numerical difference if the threshold $\omega_c(y)$ is instead
475: taken to be $(1+y)\omega_0/2y$ which was suggested in \cite{Neubert}. This
476: is because the allowed kinematical region is very narrow around $y\simeq 1$.
477: At zero recoil, $\xi(1)$ is
478: \begin{equation}
479: \xi(1)=0.29_{-0.035}^{+0.038}~,~~~{\rm for}~~~\omega_0=1.4\pm 0.1~{\rm GeV}~,
480: \end{equation}
481: %0.484317;1.98534 wc=1.2
482: %0.505083;1.98895 wc=1.3
483: %0.530483;1.99149 wc=1.4
484: %0.558478;1.9933 wc=1.5
485: %0.587797;1.9946 wc=1.6
486: and the slope parameter $\rho^2$ in (\ref{rho}) for different $\omega_0$ is
487: \begin{equation}
488: \rho^2=2.01^{+0.003}_{-0.005}~,~~~{\rm for}~~~\omega_0=1.4\pm 0.1~{\rm GeV}~.
489: \end{equation}
490: This value is somewhat larger than the large $N_c$ HQET prediction in
491: \cite{Leibovich}.
492:
493: %===============================
494: \section{Summary}
495: %===============================
496:
497: For the weak decays of the $\Lambda_b$ baryon to the excited charmed
498: baryons $\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2,3/2}$, by using QCD sum rules, we have obtained
499: the information of the leading IW function which has been defined in Eqs.
500: (\ref{formfactor}) and (\ref{formfactors}), within the framework of HQET,
501: \begin{equation}
502: \xi(y)=0.29[1-2.01(y-1)]~.
503: \end{equation}
504: The sum rule uncertainty of $\xi(y)$ can be found in Eqs. (23) and (24).
505: Compared to the result of the large $N_c$ HQET \cite{Leibovich}, the main
506: difference here lies in the value of $\xi(1)$. The branching ratios are
507: therefore estimated to be smaller than those given in \cite{Leibovich},
508: \begin{equation}
509: {\rm Br}.(\Lambda_b\to\Lambda_{c1}^{1/2,3/2}e\bar{\nu}_e)
510: \simeq 0.21-0.28\%~.
511: \end{equation}
512: The future experiments will check this prediction.
513:
514:
515: \begin{center}
516: {\large\bf Acknowledgment}
517: \end{center}
518:
519: We would like to thank I. W. Stewart for helpful communication.
520: This work was supported in part by the BK21 program of Korea, and the
521: National Natural Science Foundation of China.
522:
523: %=================================================
524: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
525: %=================================================
526:
527: \bibitem{PDG}
528: D. E.\ Groom {\it et al}. (Particle Data Group),
529: Eur. Phys. J {\bf C 15}, 1 (2000).
530:
531: \bibitem{HQET}
532: N.\ Isgur and M. B.\ Wise, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 232}, 113 (1989);
533: {\it ibid.} {\bf 237}, 527 (1990);\\
534: E. V.\ Shuryak, {\it ibid.} {\bf 93B}, 134 (1980);\\
535: H.\ Georgi, {\it ibid.} {\bf B 240}, 447 (1990);\\
536: E.\ Eichten and B.\ Hill, {\it ibid.} {\bf B 234}, 511 (1990);\\
537: M. B.\ Voloshin and M. A.\ Shifman,
538: Yad. Fiz. {\bf 45}, 463 (1987); {\it ibid.} {\bf 47}, 801 (1988);\\
539: S.\ Nussinov and W.\ Wetzel, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 36}, 130 (1987);\\
540: A. F.\ Falk, H.\ Georgi, B.\ Grinstein and M. B.\ Wise,
541: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 343}, 1 (1990).
542:
543: \bibitem{IW}
544: N.\ Isgur and M. B.\ Wise, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 348}, 276 (1991);
545: H.\ Georgi, {\it ibid.}, 293 (1991);
546: J.-P.\ Lee, C.\ Liu, and H. S.\ Song,
547: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 58}, 014013 (1998).
548:
549: \bibitem{Mannel}
550: T.\ Mannel, W.\ Roberts, and Z.\ Ryzak,
551: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 271}, 421 (1991);
552: Y.-B.\ Dai, X.-H.\ Guo, and C.-S.\ Huang,
553: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 421}, 277 (1994).
554:
555: \bibitem{Cho}
556: P.\ Cho, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 285}, 145 (1992);
557: J.-P.\ Lee, C.\ Liu, and H.S.\ Song,
558: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61}, 014006 (1999).
559:
560: \bibitem{Qiao}
561: C.-S.\ Huang, C.-F.\ Qiao, and H.-G.\ Yan,
562: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 437}, 403 (1998);
563: C.-S.\ Huang and H.-G.\ Yan, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 59}, 114022 (1999).
564:
565: \bibitem{CLEO}
566: H.\ Albrecht {\it et al.} (ARGUS Collaboration),
567: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 317}, 227 (1993);
568: P. L.\ Frabetti {\it et al.} (E687 Collaboration),
569: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 961 (1994);
570: K. W.\ Edwards {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
571: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 3331 (1995);
572: J.P.\ Alexander {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
573: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3390 (1999).
574:
575: \bibitem{Choi}
576: S. Y.\ Choi, T.\ Lee, and H. S.\ Song, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 40}, 2477 (1989);
577: N.\ Isgur, M. B.\ Wise, and M.\ Youssefmir,
578: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 254}, 215 (1991);
579: W.\ Roberts, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 389}, 549 (1993).
580:
581: \bibitem{Leibovich}
582: A. K.\ Leibovich and I.W.\ Stewart, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 57}, 5620 (1998).
583:
584: \bibitem{Falk}
585: A. F.\ Falk, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B378}, 79 (1992).
586:
587: \bibitem{sumrule0}
588: M.\ Shifman, A.\ Vainshtein and V.\ Zakharov,
589: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B147}, 385, 488, 519 (1979).
590:
591: \bibitem{sumrule}
592: A. G.\ Grozin and O. I.\ Zakovlev, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 285}, 254 (1992);
593: E. V.\ Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 198}, 83 (1982);
594: B.\ Bagan, M.\ Chabab, H. G.\ Dosch, and S.\ Narison,
595: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 301}, 243 (1993);
596: Y.-B.\ Dai, C.-S.\ Huang, C.\ Liu, and C.-D.\ L\"u,
597: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 371}, 99 (1996);
598: Y.-B.\ Dai, C.-S.\ Huang, M.-Q.\ Huang, and C.\ Liu,
599: {\it ibid.},{\bf 387}, 379 (1996);
600: S.\ Groote, J. G.\ K\"orner, and O. I.\ Yakovlev,
601: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 55}, 3016 (1997); {\bf D 56}, 3943 (1997).
602:
603: \bibitem{PLB476}
604: J.-P.\ Lee, C.\ Liu, and H. S.\ Song, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 476} 303 (2000).
605:
606: \bibitem{Zhu}
607: S.-L.\ Zhu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61}, 114019 (2000);\\
608: C.-S. Huang, A. Zhang and S.-L. Zhu,
609: hep-ph/0007330, to appear in Phys. Lett. {\bf B}.
610:
611: \bibitem{Neubert}
612: M.\ Neubert, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 45}, 2451 (1992).
613:
614: \bibitem{Shifman}
615: B.\ Blok and M.\ Shifman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D47} 2949 (1993).
616:
617: \bibitem{Huang}
618: M.-Q.\ Huang and Y.-B.\ Dai, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 59}, 034018 (1999).
619:
620: \end{thebibliography}
621: \newpage
622:
623: %=================================================
624: \begin{center}{\large\bf FIGURE CAPTIONS}\end{center}
625: %=================================================
626:
627: \noindent
628: %==============
629: Fig.~1
630: %==============
631: \\
632: Feynman diagrams for the three-point function with derivative
633: interpolating fields. Double line denotes the heavy quark.
634: \vskip .3cm
635: \par
636: \noindent
637: %==============
638: Fig.~2
639: %==============
640: \\
641: Three-dimensional plot of IW function for $1\le y\le 1.2$ and
642: $0\le T\le 1$ (GeV). The continuum threshold is chosen to be
643: $\omega_c(y)=1.4$ GeV.
644: \vskip .3cm
645: \par
646: \noindent
647: %==============
648: Fig.~3
649: %==============
650: \\
651: IW function as a function of $y$ for various $\omega_0$ at fixed
652: $T=0.38$ GeV.
653: The lowest line corresponds to $\omega_0=1.2$ GeV while the highest to
654: $\omega_0=1.6$ GeV, with the increment $0.1$ GeV.
655:
656: %========================== FIGURE 1 ====================================
657:
658: \begin{figure}
659: \vskip 2cm
660: \begin{center}
661: \epsfig{file=diagram.eps, height=15cm}
662: \end{center}
663: \caption{}
664: \label{diagram}
665: \end{figure}
666:
667: %==========================================================================
668: \pagebreak
669: %========================== FIGURE 2 ====================================
670:
671: \begin{figure}
672: \begin{center}
673: \epsfig{file=3d.epsi, height=7cm}
674: %\epsfig{file=3d14.epsi, height=7cm}
675: \end{center}
676: \caption{}
677: \label{3dplot}
678: \end{figure}
679: %==========================================================================
680: \pagebreak
681: %========================== FIGURE 3 ====================================
682: \begin{figure}
683: \begin{center}
684: \epsfig{file=y-w2.eps, height=7cm}
685: \end{center}
686: \caption{}
687: \label{IW}
688: \end{figure}
689:
690:
691:
692: %==========================================================================
693: \end{document}
694:
695:
696:
697: