1: %%%\documentstyle[12pt,semidraft,epsfig]{article}

2: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig,cite]{article}

3: 

4: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

5: \textwidth 16.0 true cm

6: \textheight 22.0 true cm

7: \headheight 0 cm

8: \headsep 0 cm

9: \topmargin -0.05 true in

10: %%% \topmargin .4 true in

11: \oddsidemargin 0.05 true in

12: 

13: \newcommand {\s}{\vspace{.25in}}

14: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

15: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

18: 

19: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

20: 

21: \newcommand{\gsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$

22: \;\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}\;$}}

23: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$

24: \;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}

25: 

26: 

27: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower3pt\hbox{\hskip0pt$\sim$}}

28:     \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}}         %less than or approx. symbol

29: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}

30:     \raise1pt\hbox{$>$}}}         %greater than or approx. symbol

31: 

32: \renewcommand{\Im}{{\rm Im}\,}

33: 

34: %%%\newcommand{\bibit}[1]{\bibitem{#1} \marginpar{\vspace*{.4cm}~~\tiny[#1]}}

35: \newcommand{\bibit}[1]{\bibitem{#1}}

36: 

37: 

38: \newcommand{\aver}[1]{\langle #1\rangle}

39: 

40: \newcommand{\La}{\overline{\Lambda}}

41: \newcommand{\Si}{\overline{\Sigma}}

42: \newcommand{\Lam}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}

43: \newcommand{\mhad}{\mu_{\rm hadr}}

44: 

45: \newcommand{\sigp}{\vec\sigma \vec\pi}

46: 

47: 

48: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}

49: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}

50: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

51: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,\mbox{GeV}}

52: \newcommand{\MeV}{\,\mbox{MeV}}

53: \newcommand{\matel}[3]{\langle #1|#2|#3\rangle}

54: \newcommand{\state}[1]{|#1\rangle}

55: \newcommand{\ve}[1]{\vec{\bf #1}}

56: 

57: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}

58: \newcommand{\gsl}{\Gamma_{\rm sl}(b\!\to\!c)}

59: \newcommand{\asMS}{\alpha_s^{\overline{\rm MS}}}

60: 

61: 

62: \newcommand{\msp}[1]{\mbox{\hspace*{#1mm}~}}

63: 

64: %%% \newcommand{\note}[1]{\marginpar{\tiny #1}}

65: %\newcommand{\note}[1]{\marginpar{#1}}

66: %%% \newcommand{\note}[1]{}

67: %%% \newcommand{\od}{\marginpar{**}}

68: 

69: 

70: \begin{document}

71: \thispagestyle{empty}

72: \vspace*{-10mm}

73: 

74: \begin{flushright}

75: Bicocca-FT-04-2\\

76: UND-HEP-04-BIG\hspace*{.08em}03\\

77: hep-ph/0403166

78: \end{flushright}

79: \vspace*{8mm}

80: 

81: 

82: \begin{center}

83: {\LARGE{\bf

84: Perturbative corrections to the semileptonic  \\

85: \boldmath $b\,$-decay moments:\vspace*{4mm} \\

86: {\Large{\bf $E^\ell_{\rm cut}$ dependence and running-$\alpha_s$

87: effects \vspace*{1.5mm}\\ in the

88: OPE approach}}

89: }}

90: \vspace*{10mm} 

91: 

92: \end{center}

93: 

94: \begin{center}

95: {\LARGE Nikolai~Uraltsev}\hspace*{1.5pt}\raisebox{5.5pt}{*} \vspace*{5mm} \\

96: {\sl INFN, Sezione di Milano,  Milano, Italy}\vspace*{.5mm}\\

97: {\small {\sf and}}\vspace*{.5mm} \\

98: {\sl Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame du Lac,

99: Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA}

100: \vspace*{10mm}

101: 

102: {\bf Abstract}\vspace*{-.9mm}\\

103: \end{center}

104: 

105: \noindent

106: We have calculated the perturbative corrections to all the structure

107: functions in the semileptonic decays of a heavy quark. Assuming an

108: arbitrary gluon mass as a technical tool allowed to obtain

109: in parallel all the BLM corrections. We report the basic applications,

110: viz.\ perturbative corrections to the hadronic mass and energy moments

111: with full dependence on the charge lepton energy cut. In the adopted

112: scheme with the OPE momentum scale separation around $1\GeV$ the

113: perturbative corrections to $\aver{M_X^2}$ are small and practically

114: independent of $E_{\rm cut}$; the BLM corrections are small, too. The

115: corrections to the second mass squared moment show some decrease with 

116: $E_{\rm cut}$ consistent with the effect of the Darwin operator,

117: within the previously estimated theoretical uncertainty. Perturbative

118: corrections in the pole-type schemes appear significant and vary with

119: $E_\ell$, decreasing the moments at higher cuts. The hardness of

120: hadronic moments is quantitatively illustrated for different cuts on $E_\ell$.

121: 

122: 

123: \setcounter{page}{0}

124: 

125: \vfill

126: 

127: ~\hspace*{-12.5mm}\hrulefill \hspace*{-1.2mm} \\

128: \footnotesize{

129: \hspace*{-5mm}$^*$On leave of absence from 

130: St.\,Petersburg Nuclear Physics 

131: Institute, Gatchina, St.\,Petersburg  188300, Russia}

132: \normalsize 

133: 

134: 

135: \newpage

136: 

137: 

138: \section{Introduction}

139: 

140: 

141: Inclusive decays of the heavy flavor hadrons are one of the most developed

142: dynamic uses of the fundamental QCD in the short-distance

143: regime. Application of the OPE allowed to address them at the

144: nonperturbative level through the expansion in the inverse mass of the

145: decaying quark: absence of the potentially largest 

146: ${\cal O}(\frac{\Lam}{m_Q})$ corrections to the decay rates 

147: was established \cite{buv} and the

148: leading power corrections to inclusive decay distributions were obtained

149: through the expectation values of the local heavy quark operators in the

150: decaying hadron \cite{dpf,prl,koy}. As it has been known from the early

151: days of QCD \cite{banda}, the nonperturbative treatment is best

152: applied where usual perturbative corrections are comparable, or

153: subdominant to the leading nonperturbative effects. This environment

154: is often realized in the beauty decays once the OPE in the Wilsonian

155: implementation is applied, isolating effects of large distances even

156: from the traditional `perturbative' corrections. 

157: 

158: High precision checks of theory and practical use of the 

159: inclusive decay distributions are now performed with new data of better

160: reliability and of qualitatively different  statistics. Matching this

161: progress requires refinement of the theoretical

162: predictions. Perturbative corrections to a number of decay

163: distributions, first of all charge lepton spectrum in semileptonic

164: decays of  $b$ quarks, have been calculated long ago \cite{czarj},

165: along with many other characteristics \cite{gremst,fls95,flcut}. Most 

166: of the perturbative

167: calculations, although often rather sophisticated, however aimed at a

168: particular observable (total width, semileptonic spectrum or its

169: moments, angular asymmetries, etc.). As a result, in spite of the significant

170: intellectual effort invested, they often remained highly specialized,

171: without the possibility to be applied to only slightly modified 

172: observables.

173: 

174: The hadronic mass and energy distributions of the final state in the 

175: semileptonic decays appeared very promising for scrutinizing

176: nonperturbative QCD in the heavy quark system. In practice, experiments

177: typically have to apply lower cuts on the energy of the charged lepton, to

178: suppress backgrounds; this complicates the kinematics. Since, following

179: the first papers on the dynamic heavy quark expansion, the

180: power corrections were obtained directly for the semileptonic decay

181: structure functions \cite{koy,grekap}, calculating nonperturbative

182: effects for any inclusive moment became straightforward, more or less 

183: regardless of the lepton energy cut.

184: 

185: The perturbative effects, on the other hand, appeared in the role

186: of the weak link -- the perturbative corrections fully incorporating

187: the cut in the lepton energy have generally been unknown for hadronic

188: moments. 

189: 

190: To eliminate such an obstacle once and forever, we have calculated the

191: perturbative corrections directly to the semileptonic decay structure

192: functions. This allows straightforward evaluation of the perturbative

193: correction to all possible inclusive semileptonic

194: distributions. Moreover, we allowed for an arbitrary fictitious gluon

195: mass in the calculations; this opens the possibility to calculate

196: BLM corrections to an arbitrary order, or even to perform complete BLM

197: resummation similar to the one accomplished in

198: Refs.~\cite{blmvcb,imprec}, on the parallel footing. To be most 

199: universal for possible

200: applications, following Ref.~\cite{koy} we compute separately 

201: the structure functions induced by the vector and the axial-vector weak

202: current, as well as their interference ($w_3$). Likewise all five

203: structure functions are calculated, so the results can be readily 

204: applied to the semileptonic decays into $\tau$-leptons, etc. 

205: The explicit structure functions can also be used for computing

206: possible averages with the weight varying depending on the lepton

207: energy cut. This is one of the possibilities to optimize the trade-off

208: between the sensitivity to the heavy quark parameters and suppressing 

209: experimental backgrounds.

210: 

211: When this study was in the completing phase, the preprint by M.~Trott

212: \cite{trott} appeared, where the first results on the perturbative

213: structure functions proper were presented. This is clearly an important step 

214: in completing the 

215: theoretical toolbox required for precision analysis of $B$ decays. 

216: While addressing in general closely related subjects, we differ with

217: Ref.~\cite{trott} in a number of points calculation-wise, and also in

218: our applications. Aiming for ultimate flexibility in future

219: applications, we have calculated all five structure functions

220: separately for the vector and the axial-vector currents. Moreover, our

221: results are equally applicable to the first-order perturbative

222: corrections and to all BLM corrections.

223: 

224: Although having independent analytic calculations is

225: important for cross-checks, at this point we have not attempted to

226: compare our results with those reported in Ref.~\cite{trott}, even

227: for the pure one-loop limit. 

228: %%% The preprint originally contained a number of typos \cite{gamb};

229: %%% tracing them down is a potentially involved work for a non-author. 

230: Programming alternative expressions anew for numerical evaluation

231: would represents a time-consuming process; it is not easily

232: safeguarded against possible typos at this technical, yet

233: unavoidable step.

234: To check our calculations we had used other opportunities mentioned

235: in Sect.~5, made available through our previous studies of

236: perturbative and power corrections in the semileptonic decays of heavy

237: flavors, or provided by the OPE applied to perturbation theory.

238: 

239: This paper reports a certain progress in the project presently carried

240: out together with Paolo Gambino, dedicated to the precision analysis

241: of the inclusive $B$ decays. It uses the Wilsonian implementation of the

242: OPE to combine perturbative and power-suppressed effects. In this

243: paper we mostly address the qualitative features and report only the

244: basic applications important for the ongoing experimental

245: analyses, which complement our recent publication \cite{slcm}.\footnote{Our

246: notations follow that paper; for the nonperturbative operators we

247: consistently use notations of Ref.~\cite{optical}.}

248: The comprehensive presentation is planned for the forthcoming 

249: paper \cite{future}. 

250: 

251: 

252: 

253: \section{Inclusive \boldmath $B$ decays in the perturbative expansion}

254: 

255: The semileptonic structure functions are defined as the absorptive part of the

256: covariant structures appearing in the decomposition of the forward

257: scattering amplitude of the two weak currents off the $B$ meson:

258: \beq

259: h_{\mu\nu}(q^2\!, q_0) = \frac{1}{2M_B}

260: \matel{B}{\int {\rm d}^4 x \:{\rm e}^{-iqx}\:

261: iT\left\{J_\mu(x),J_\nu^\dagger(0)\right\} } {B}\;,

262: \label{10}

263: \eeq

264: where $J_\mu$ is generally the $\bar{c}\gamma_\mu b\,$ or/and 

265: $\,\bar{c}\gamma_\mu \gamma_5b$ current ($b\!\to \!u$ decay simply

266: corresponds to $m_c\!\to\!0$). Following the standard notations of

267: Ref.~\cite{koy} we put

268: \beq

269: h_{\mu \nu} = - h_1 g_{\mu \nu} + h_2 v_{\mu}v_{\nu} -

270: i h_3\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} v^{\alpha}q^{\beta}

271: +  h_4 q_{\mu}q_{\nu} +  h_5 (q_{\mu}v_{\nu} + v_{\mu}q_{\nu})\;,

272: \label{12}

273: \eeq

274: and 

275: \beq

276: w_i(q^2\!, q_0) = 2 \, \Im h_i(q^2\!, q_0) \;,

277: \label{q4}

278: \eeq

279: with $v_\mu$ denoting the 4-velocity of the decaying meson (or quark,

280: for perturbative calculations); $q^2$ and $q_0$ have the meaning of

281: the invariant mass squared and combined energy of the lepton pair, respectively.

282: All the decay distributions with light leptons are expressed, for

283: example in terms of the first three structure functions \cite{koy}:

284: \bea

285: \nonumber

286: \frac{{\rm d}^3 \Gamma}{{\rm d}E_{\ell\,}  {\rm d}q^{2\,} {\rm d}q_0 }

287: &\msp{-4}= \msp{-4}& \frac{G_F^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{32\pi^4}\,

288: \vartheta\!\left(q_0\!-\!E_\ell\!-\!\mbox{$\frac{q^2}{4E_\ell}$}\right)

289: \vartheta(E_\ell) 

290: \,\vartheta(q^2) \;\times \\ 

291: & & \msp{20} \left\{

292: 2 q^2 w_1+[4E_\ell (q_0\!-\!E_\ell)\!-\!q^2]w_2 +

293: 2q^2(2E_\ell\!-\!q_0) w_3

294: \right\} ;

295: \label{18}

296: \eea

297: the total integrated width without cuts on lepton energy depends only

298: on $w_1$ and $w_2$:

299: \beq

300: \Gamma_{\rm sl} \!=\! \frac{G_F^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{16\pi^4}

301: \int_{0}^{m_b^2} \!{\rm d}q^2   \int_{q_0>\sqrt{q^2}}^{m_b} {\rm d}q_0

302: \sqrt{q_0^2\!-\!q^2} \left(q^2 w_1(q^2\!,q_0) 

303: +\frac{1}{3}(q_0^2\!-\!q^2) w_2(q^2\!,q_0) \right)\;.

304: \label{20}

305: \eeq

306: 

307: Perturbative structure functions to order $\alpha_s^1$ consist of

308: virtual corrections $\propto

309: \delta(q_0-\frac{m_b^2+q^2-m_c^2}{2m_b})$, and bremsstrahlung

310: contributions with

311: $q_0<\frac{m_b^2+q^2-(m_c+\lambda)^2}{2m_b}$, where

312: $\lambda$ is the gluon mass. In the limit $\lambda^2 \!\to\!

313: 0$ virtual corrections logarithmically diverge. The divergent part is

314: given precisely by the tree-level (free quark) structure functions, see

315: Ref.~\cite{koy}, Eqs.~(A1--A11), with the universal coefficient depending on

316: $q^2$. The real emission part at small $\lambda^2$ has a singularity

317: near the free quark kinematics, 

318: \beq

319: w_i(q^2, q_0) \propto \frac{1}{q_0-\frac{m_b^2+q^2-m_c^2}{2m_b}} \,,

320: \label{22}

321: \eeq

322: with the commensurate coefficient, so that the divergence cancels 

323: once integration over $q_0$ is

324: performed. At $q^2$ approaching $(m_b\!-\!m_c)^2$ the coefficient

325: vanishes, therefore shrinking domain of integration over $q_0$ does

326: not affect the cancellation of divergences. 

327: 

328: Perturbative structure functions themselves are strongly

329: infrared-sensitive in the dominant domain close to the free quark decay

330: kinematics. However, the integrals entering the experimentally

331: measured inclusive moments are not. Moreover, their infrared sensitivity is

332: governed by the OPE, and it is greatly reduced when using the

333: Wilsonian separation between perturbative and power corrections based

334: on the momentum scale a particular contribution originates

335: from. This separation is in practice done directly for the moments 

336: rather than for the structure functions themselves.

337: 

338: 

339: The analytic expressions for the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ bremsstrahlung 

340: structure functions $w_k(q^2\!,q_0)$ are relatively simple containing at

341: worst $\log$s of the kinematics-related square roots, even at arbitrary

342: gluon mass. Yet they are lengthy for separate structure functions,

343: consisting of many terms at $\lambda^2\!\ne\! 0$. They simplify

344: significantly at $\lambda^2\!=\!0$. Virtual corrections at

345: $\lambda^2\!\to\! 0$ are well known one loop renormalization of quark

346: currents containing dilogs at worst. At arbitrary $\lambda^2$, however

347: the one-loop vertices with three different internal masses and a general

348: momentum transfer are too special functions. In practice, we represent

349: them as one-dimensional integrals over a single Feynman parameter $u$,

350: with $0\!\le\! u \!\le\! 1$.

351: 

352: Obtaining a general moment with the lower cut on lepton energy we, therefore

353: integrate the explicit structure functions over $q_0$ and $q^2$ (for

354: bremsstrahlung), or over $u$ and $q^2$ (for virtual corrections), with

355: the weight which generally is a polynomial in $(m_b \!-\!q_0)$ and

356: $(m_b^2+q^2-2m_b q_0-m_c^2)$. The lepton cut enters through the

357: concrete weight following from Eq.~(\ref{18}): it is obtained by

358: integrating the coefficients from $E^\ell_1$ to  $E^\ell_+$, where

359: \beq

360: E^\ell_{\pm}= \frac{q_0 \pm \sqrt{q_0^2\!-\!q^2}}{2}\;, \qquad 

361: E^\ell_1= \mbox{max}\{E_{\rm cut},\, E_-\}\;;

362: \label{24}

363: \eeq

364: the weights are simple polynomials in  $E^\ell_1$ or $E^\ell_+$. 

365: 

366: 

367: \section{Applications}

368: 

369: Recent experiments at $B$ factories provide data of impressive

370: precision and quality, which allows for stringent tests of the heavy

371: quark expansion for inclusive decays, direct experimental extraction

372: of many heavy quark parameters and for robust defendable extraction of

373: $V_{cb}$ and $V_{ub}$ from the integrated decays rates. The current

374: precision requires to fully implement the applied cut on the charge lepton

375: energy in the theoretical calculations. In the recent publication

376: \cite{slcm} the

377: OPE-based predictions were given for various moments with cuts, in the

378: framework which

379: does not rely on assuming charm to be a heavy quark, but only expanding in

380: $1/m_b$. Perturbation theory-wise we used the Wilsonian approach which

381: assumes excluding soft gluon contributions from the coefficient functions. This

382: rendered the perturbative corrections small in size and presumably

383: stable against higher-order corrections.

384: 

385: For hadronic mass moments Ref.~\cite{slcm} evaluated 

386: the perturbative corrections

387: without the cut on lepton energy, since the full perturbative corrections

388: with cuts had not been known. Although some simpler parts of the

389: corrections had been calculated, including them would not be consistent:

390: in hadronic moments the terms proportional to different powers of

391: $M_B\!-\!m_b$ essentially mix under renormalization. In particular,

392: for the average hadronic mass square,

393: \beq

394: \aver{M_X^2}= m_c^2 + (M_B\!-\!m_b)^2 +  

395: 2(M_B\!-\!m_b)\aver{E_x} + \aver{m_x^2\!-\!m_c^2} 

396: \label{28}

397: \eeq

398: the last term having the

399: meaning of the excess of the combined parton invariant mass at the

400: quark level over $m_c^2$, is

401: fed under renormalization by the preceding term driven by $\aver{E_x}$,

402: the average hadron energy at the parton level \cite{slcm}. 

403: 

404: The justification for approximation neglecting $E^\ell$-cut 

405: in the perturbative

406: corrections was, again, using the Wilsonian version of the

407: OPE. The absolute size of the perturbative corrections is

408: suppressed here, so even their noticeable variation with the cut was

409: not expected to produce a significant bias. Moreover, it is the soft

410: parton processes that are most sensitive to the particular

411: kinematics. The truly hard gluon effects contributing the perturbative

412: corrections in our approach, are expected to be less dependent on the

413: details of the kinematics as long as the process in question remains

414: sufficiently `hard'. 

415: 

416: \thispagestyle{plain}

417: \begin{figure}[hhh]\vspace*{-3.4mm}

418: \begin{center}

419: %%% \mbox{\epsfig{file=mx2vsel.eps,width=80mm

420: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig1.eps,width=90mm

421: }}

422: \end{center}

423: \vspace*{-6.0mm}

424: \caption{ \small

425: Dependence of the perturbative corrections to $\aver{M_X^2}$ on  $E_{\rm

426: cut}$, for $\mu\!=\!1\GeV$ (red curve). Long-dashed and short-dashed curves show

427: the separate contributions of $\Delta_c$ and $E_x$, respectively. Blue

428: line (top) gives the perturbative correction in the pole-type scheme.

429: }

430: \end{figure}

431: 

432: With full perturbative expressions available, we can check validity

433: of those temporary assumptions. We indeed found that in our scheme

434: the perturbative corrections to $\aver{M_X^2}$ are practically

435: independent of $E_{\rm cut}$ in the whole domain $E_{\rm cut}\lsim 1.4

436: \GeV$. A more noticeable -- yet still not very significant --

437: variation with $E_{\rm cut}$ is observed for the second hadronic

438: moment with respect to average, $\aver{(M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2})^2}$. This

439: is expected, since this higher moment is more sensitive to the Darwin

440: operator, for which we did not actually remove the corresponding soft 

441: contributions from the leading-order coefficient function. The observed

442:  $E_{\rm cut}$-dependence, in particular the sign and the size are

443: compatible with such a contribution from the Darwin expectation value:

444: its coefficient function is negative and increases in magnitude

445: for larger $E_{\rm cut}$ \cite{slcm}, see, e.g.\ Table~6 of Ref.~\cite{slcm}.

446: 

447: The full  corrections are illustrated in Figs.~1 and 2 as functions of

448: $E_{\rm cut}$. For comparison we also show the corresponding effect in

449: the `usual' (pole-type) perturbative corrections without Wilsonian

450: separation. It is evident that for the first moment the effect is

451: dramatically different. 

452: 

453: \thispagestyle{plain}

454: \begin{figure}[hhh]\vspace*{-3.4mm}

455: \begin{center}

456: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig2.eps,width=90mm

457: %%\mbox{\epsfig{file=mx4darw09.eps,width=80mm

458: }}

459: \end{center}

460: \vspace*{-6.0mm}

461: \caption{ \small

462: Perturbative corrections to

463: $\aver{[M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2}]^2}$, 

464: for $\mu\!=\!1\GeV$ (red curve), and their breakdown showing 

465: the separate contributions  $\propto (M_B\!-\!m_b)^k$, 

466: $k\!=\!0,\,1,\,2$ (dashed curves). 

467: Blue line (top) refers to the pole

468: scheme. Orange dashed-dotted line shows subtracting the soft piece  of

469: $0.062\GeV^3$ of the Darwin expectation value; it would correspond to Wilsonian

470: $\rho_D^3$ normalized at $0.9\GeV$.

471: }

472: \end{figure}

473: 

474: 

475: \thispagestyle{plain}

476: \begin{figure}[hhh]\vspace*{-3.4mm}

477: \begin{center}

478: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig3.eps,width=90mm

479: %%\mbox{\epsfig{file=mx4darw09.eps,width=80mm

480: }}

481: \end{center}

482: \vspace*{-6.0mm}

483: \caption{ \small

484: Similar plot for the third invariant mass moment 

485: $\aver{[M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2}]^3}$. Total perturbative corrections are

486: reduced (orange dashed-dotted line) using $\rho_D^3(0.9\GeV)$ 

487: compared to the case of $\tilde\rho_D^3$ (red solid line). Blue solid

488: line corresponds to the pole scheme.

489: }

490: \end{figure}

491: 

492: 

493: 

494: The third moment of the hadronic invariant

495: mass squared  places, for the perturbative corrections, most weight on harder

496: gluons. In its soft part it

497: is mostly sensitive to the $D\!=\!6$ Darwin operator. Therefore, using the

498: Wilsonian prescription only for the effects scaling like $1/m_b$ and

499: $1/m_b^2$ does not make a noticeable difference, Fig.~3. The formal

500: perturbative contribution is then significantly dependent 

501: on the cut;\footnote{Ref.~\cite{slcm} evaluating the third hadronic

502: mass moment did not include the perturbative corrections to the terms

503: $\propto \!(M_B\!-\!m_b)^k$ with $k\ge 1$, even at zero cut. We have

504: computed them, and  numerically they turned out to be about $1\GeV^6$

505: (the dashed lines excluding the highest one),

506: decreasing fast from $E_{\rm cut}\gsim 500\MeV$.}

507: one should keep in mind, though that 

508: a significant fraction of it still comes from gluon momenta below

509: $1\GeV$. (For illustration we show the result of subtracting the 

510: contribution of the Darwin

511: expectation value of $0.062\GeV^3$ corresponding to $\mu\!=\!0.9\GeV$

512: in fixed-order perturbation theory). In practice,  the third moment

513: so far is important mainly as an estimate of the scale of $\tilde

514: \rho_D^3$; as had been pointed out \cite{amst,fpcp03} other unaccounted

515: effects introduce theoretical uncertainties of the same

516: magnitude.

517: 

518: 

519: \section{Running \boldmath $\alpha_s$ and BLM corrections}

520: 

521: We are also in the position to calculate 

522: the so-called BLM corrections -- the effects

523: accounting for running of the strong coupling $\alpha_s$ in one-loop

524: perturbative diagrams. Such effects are typically quite significant 

525: where the perturbative calculations do not eliminate explicitly the

526: low-momentum domain; however, they are moderate, or even small in size

527: in the appropriate Wilsonian scheme. A dedicated discussion for the

528: case of the total semileptonic width was given in

529: Refs.~\cite{blmvcb,imprec}. We leave a detailed implementation of this

530: method for the future publication \cite{future}, and here place the emphasis

531: on the qualitative features. They allow to assess the possible

532: accuracy of the theoretical predictions without much numerology.

533: 

534: \thispagestyle{plain}

535: \begin{figure}[hhh]\vspace*{-3.4mm}

536: \begin{center}

537: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig4.eps,width=224pt

538: }}

539: \end{center}

540: \vspace*{-6.0mm}

541: \caption{ \small

542: Distribution over the gluon momentum for the total width without a cut

543: (blue) and for $E_{\rm cut}\!=\!1.5\GeV$ (red). Solid lines correspond to

544: the cutoff scale $\mu\!=\!1\GeV$, dashed lines show the unsuppressed 

545: contributions in the pole-type schemes. The area bounded by a curve

546: yields the overall first-order perturbative coefficient.

547: }

548: \end{figure}

549: 

550: The technique for the BLM summation in the Wilsonian approach was first

551: discussed in Ref.~\cite{blmope}; it is concisely presented in recent

552: Refs.~\cite{blmvcb,imprec}, and we do not describe it here. Neither we

553: detail numerical predictions or address all experimentally

554: interesting observables. We also largely leave aside more subtle 

555: theoretical aspects related to

556: full BLM resummation for higher moments with only a few lowest

557: nonperturbative operators included. 

558: Our main interest lies in the most sensitive case for theory,

559: viz.\ the width and the first hadronic moment $\aver{M_X^2}$ with the

560: lepton energy cut. 

561: 

562: 

563: 

564: 

565: We start with the decay width itself when the lepton energy cut is

566: imposed. A convenient way to visualize the contribution of various

567: momentum scales $Q^2$ in one-loop perturbation theory for an observable $A$ 

568: is provide by the distribution

569: \beq

570: \frac{{\rm d} A^{\rm pert}}{{\rm d}\ln{Q^2}} = 

571: -\frac{{\rm d} A^{(1)}(\lambda^2)}{{\rm

572: d}\ln{\lambda^2}}\,\rule[-14pt]{.5pt}{30pt}\,

573: \raisebox{-10pt}{$_{\lambda^2=Q^2}$}\;,

574: \label{32}

575: \eeq

576: where $A^{(1)}(\lambda^2)$ is the first-order perturbative

577: coefficient calculated with the fictitious non-zero gluon mass

578: \cite{bbb6,dmw}. This representation has some limitations, yet is

579: quite suitable for qualitative purposes and in adopted in the

580: plots presented below.

581: 

582: 

583: Fig.~4 shows the distribution over the gluon virtualities for

584: the two extreme cases, $E_{\rm cut}\!=\!0$ (no cut) and $E_{\rm

585: cut}\!=\!1.5 \GeV$. Without the scale separation, dashed lines, the

586: perturbative corrections are clearly not too well behaved, since the

587: major contribution comes from the gluon momenta noticeably below

588: $1\GeV$. This is an artefact brought in by the pole masses

589: \cite{pole,bbz} used by conventional perturbative diagrams. Fig.~4 shows

590: that applying Wilsonian procedure quite effectively eliminates this

591: domain (solid line).

592: 

593: At first glance, there is no much difference between the perturbative

594: corrections for $E_{\rm cut}\!=\!1.5 \GeV$ compared to the total 

595: width without kinematic restrictions.  However, the low-momentum tail is

596: much higher for $\Gamma_{\rm sl}(E^\ell\!>\!1.5\GeV)$. This leads to a far

597: more significant impact of the soft physics, the fact deduced

598: independently from the growth of the Wilson coefficient for the

599: higher-dimension nonperturbative operators (e.g., Darwin). As

600: anticipated, the effect is more significant for moments of

601: the distributions. We will now look closer at the average hadron invariant

602: mass squared $\aver{M_X^2}$.

603: 

604: \thispagestyle{plain}

605: \vspace*{.3mm}

606: \begin{figure}[hhh]

607: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig5.eps,width=7.4cm}}

608: \hfill

609: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig6.eps,width=7.4cm}}\vspace*{-4.5mm}\\

610: \begin{minipage}[t]{7.4cm}

611: \caption{ \small

612: Similar distribution for the dominant perturbative contribution

613: $\Delta_c$ to

614: $\aver{M_X^2}$, without lepton energy cut. Solid line is for

615: $\mu\!=\!0.9\GeV$, dashed for $\mu\!=\!0$ (pole scheme).

616: }

617: \end{minipage} \hfill

618: \begin{minipage}[t]{7.4cm}

619: \caption{ \small

620: The case of $E_{\rm cut}\!=\!1.5\GeV$. Dotted line refers to the same

621: separation scale $\mu\!=\!0.9\GeV$; solid line shows the 

622: choice of $\mu\!=\!0.55\GeV$.

623: }

624: \end{minipage} %% \vspace*{-3mm}

625: \end{figure}

626: 

627: In the OPE, $M_X^2$ consists of two distinct dynamic pieces (they 

628: mix under the renormalization of the effective low-scale QCD

629: for heavy quark):

630: \beq

631: \aver{M_X^2}=m_c^2+(M_B\!-\!m_b)^2+ (M_B\!-\!m_b)\aver{2E_x} +

632: (m_x^2\!-\!m_c^2)

633: \label{40}

634: \eeq

635: \vspace*{-8mm}

636: $$

637: E_x\equiv m_b\!-\!q_0\;, \qquad \Delta_c=m_x^2\!-\!m_c^2 

638: \equiv m_b^2+q^2\!-\!2m_b q_0\!-\!m_c^2\;.

639: $$

640: The first one, $(M_B\!-\!m_b)\aver{2E_x}$ dominates corrections

641: to $\aver{M_X^2}$ \cite{WA}. However, among the perturbative corrections those to

642: $\aver{\Delta_c}$ appear most significant. Therefore, we start with

643: the second piece, $\aver{\Delta_c}$.

644: 

645: At zero lepton cut, $\Delta_c$ which in the conventional perturbative

646: diagrams is described by real gluon emission, is very soft,

647: see Fig.~5: the four-body phase space for $b\!\to\!cg+\ell\nu$ is very

648: sensitive to the gluon mass even when the latter is only a few hundred

649: $\MeV$. Presence of such corrections would be a

650: disaster for precision calculations. However, in QCD the phase 

651: space-unsuppressed {\sf soft}

652: gluon emissions feeding $m_x^2$ are related by gauge symmetry to the

653: Coulomb self-energy of the heavy quark \cite{optical}. The Wilsonian

654: treatment then effectively eliminates the infrared domain, as

655: illustrated by the solid curve corresponding to the separation

656: scale $\mu\!=\!0.9\GeV$.

657: 

658: The similar distribution for the cut at $1.5\GeV$ is shown in

659: Fig.~6. Applying the same Wilsonian cutoff at $0.9\GeV$ we eliminate

660: the deep infrared domain as well, yet paying the price of quite

661: unphysical spike in the contribution of gluons at the scale around

662: $1\GeV$. It disappears only when $\mu$ is lowered down to $0.55\GeV$. 

663: This behavior does not mean that the masses and

664: higher-dimension operators normalized at, say $1\GeV$ cannot be used

665: for perturbative calculations. The perturbative result can be

666: expressed in terms of any short-distance masses, for instance $\bar{m}_b(m_b)$

667: and $\bar{m}_c(m_b)$ corresponding to $\mu$ in a few $\GeV$

668: range. It rather demonstrates that the effect of the domain of momenta

669: between $600\MeV$ and $1\GeV$ is not fairly described by only the

670: leading $1/m_b$ and $1/m_b^2$ contributions -- the terms scaling like

671: higher powers of $1/m_b$ are comparable, or even dominate them. This

672: is a direct consequence of the deteriorating hardness of the inclusive

673: width with the high cut, which effectively introduces another, much

674: lower than $m_b$ mass scale parameter in the OPE \cite{amst,fpcp03,

675: misuse}.

676: 

677: \thispagestyle{plain}

678: \begin{figure}[hhh]\vspace*{-3.4mm}

679: \begin{center}

680: %%% \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig7.eps,width=74mm

681: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig7.eps,width=74mm

682: }}

683: \end{center}

684: \vspace*{-6.0mm}

685: \caption{ \small

686: The case of a mild cut at $E^\ell\!=\!0.9\GeV$, using $\mu\!=\!0.8\GeV$.

687: }

688: \end{figure}

689: 

690: 

691: 

692: For milder cuts with lower cutoff energy the convergence of the power

693: expansion improves; for instance, Fig.~7 shows the similar

694: distribution at $E_{\rm cut}\!=\!0.9\GeV$ where it still

695: looks perfect at $\mu\!=\!0.8\GeV$.

696: 

697: 

698: \thispagestyle{plain}

699: \vspace*{.3mm}

700: \begin{figure}[hhh]

701: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig8.eps,width=7.4cm}}

702: \hfill

703: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig9.eps,width=7.4cm}}\vspace*{-4.5mm}\\

704: \begin{minipage}[t]{7.4cm}

705: \caption{ \small

706: The gluon virtuality distribution for $\aver{E_x}$ without lepton

707: energy cut; separation scale $\mu\!=\!0.7\GeV$. 

708: }

709: \end{minipage} \hfill

710: \begin{minipage}[t]{7.4cm}

711: \caption{ \small

712: The same for $E_{\rm cut}\!=\!1.5\GeV$, applying  $\mu\!=\!0.45\GeV$.

713: }

714: \end{minipage} %% \vspace*{-3mm}

715: \end{figure}

716: 

717: 

718: 

719: 

720: 

721: The similar scrutiny can be applied to another short-distance component

722: of $\aver{M_X^2}$, the perturbative corrections to $\aver{2E_x}$. Its

723: naive ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ evaluation turns out quite small and might be

724: thought to be of no practical interest. However, we see from Figs.~8 and 9 

725: that this is a result of cancellations between softer and harder

726: gluons; as such it is vitiated already when running of $\alpha_s$ is

727: accounted for. The effect of the higher-order corrections, taken at

728: face value appears dramatic here. However, in the Wilsonian

729: approach all these corrections can be readily accounted for, and lead

730: only to minute changes in $\aver{M_X^2}$ for reasonably placed

731: cuts on $E^\ell$. 

732: 

733: 

734: 

735: Similar in spirit and technically anatomy can, in principle, be applied

736: to higher hadronic moments with cuts as well, where the terms

737: accompanying different powers of $(M_B\!-\!m_b(\mu))$ should be analyzed

738: separately (say, for the second mass squared moment there are three

739: terms with the power from $0$ to $2$). We have to bear in mind, 

740: however that the higher

741: moments more seriously depend on the Darwin operator. Therefore,

742: accounting for running of $\alpha_s$ would not be too meaningful

743: without extending the Wilsonian treatment to higher-dimension

744: operators, first of all to the Darwin operator. We will present 

745: the corresponding results in the 

746: forthcoming publication \cite{future}.

747: 

748: \thispagestyle{plain}

749: \begin{figure}[hhh]\vspace*{-3.4mm}

750: \begin{center}

751: \mbox{\epsfig{file=slsffig10.eps,width=80mm

752: }}

753: \end{center}

754: \vspace*{-6.0mm}

755: \caption{ \small

756: Effect of the BLM corrections on $\aver{M_X^2}$. Upper curves show

757: the combined contribution: solid for the fixed-order $\alpha_s\!=\!0.3$

758: evaluation, dashed line for order ${\cal O}(\beta_0\alpha_s^2)$ and

759: dotted line at ${\cal O}(\beta_0^2\alpha_s^3)$. Lower curves are

760: similar effects for the contribution $\propto(M_B\!-\!m_b)$ alone.

761: }

762: \end{figure}

763: 

764: 

765: Here we illustrate the numerical results for $\aver{M_X^2}$. Fig.~10

766: shows the breakdown of the predictions for the perturbative

767: corrections to $\aver{M_X^2}$ as a function of the cut on lepton

768: energy, using the fixed-order perturbative estimates with

769: $\alpha_s\!=\!0.3$ \cite{slcm}, a generally appropriate choice for

770: beauty decays. For comparison we show also the predictions obtained by

771: combining the first-order ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ term evaluated with

772: admittedly too low a value $\alpha_s^{\overline{\rm MS}}\!=\!0.22$,

773: with the second-order BLM correction,  ${\cal O}(\beta_0\alpha^2_s)$:

774: \bea

775: \nonumber

776: \aver{M_X^2}= \msp{-4}&&\msp{-8} m_c^2(\mu) + (M_B\!-\!m_b(\mu))^2 \\

777: \nonumber

778: \msp{-4}&+&\msp{-4} 

779: (M_B\!-\!m_b(\mu))

780: m_b\left\{E_1^{(0)}+ C_F\left[ \mbox{$\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} E_1^{(1)} + 

781: \frac{\beta_0}{2}\!

782: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2\!  E_1^{(2)} + 

783: \left(\frac{\beta_0}{2}\right)^2\!

784: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3\!  E_1^{(3)}+ ...$}

785: \right]\right\}\\

786: &+&\msp{-4} m_b^2\, C_F\left[\mbox{$ 

787: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \Delta_1^{(1)} + \frac{\beta_0}{2}\,

788: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2  \Delta_1^{(2)} + 

789: \left(\frac{\beta_0}{2}\right)^2\,

790: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3  \Delta_1^{(3)}+ ...$}

791: \right]\;,\\

792: \nonumber

793: &&\msp{30} 

794: \alpha_s\!\equiv\!\alpha_s^{\overline{\mbox{{\tiny{\rm MS}}}\!}\,}(m_b)\,,

795: \qquad   \mbox{$C_F=\frac{4}{3}, \qquad 

796: \beta_0=\frac{11}{3}N_c-\frac{2}{3}n_f=9$} \;.

797: \label{50}

798: \eea

799: Such an approximation is routinely applied in lieu of a more

800: thoughtful choice of $\alpha_s$ where the corresponding BLM

801: correction is known. We can even add the higher-order BLM terms

802: (dotted lines in Fig.~10).

803: 

804: It is clear that the higher-order corrections are under good control

805: here. Taking the results literally, the effective value of $\alpha_s$

806: to be used in the fixed-order calculations is only slightly larger

807: than $0.3$ slowly increasing at higher cuts, and does not exceed

808: $0.38$, well within the interval allowed for in Ref.~\cite{slcm}.

809: 

810: To have an unbiased comparison, however one should recall that the part of the

811: shift when using the BLM-improved form is actually offset by the

812: change in the commensurate value of the effective Darwin

813: expectation value:

814: \beq

815: \tilde\rho_D^3 \:\simeq \:\left\{ \begin{array}{lll} 

816: \rho_D^3(1\GeV)-0.085\GeV^3 & \mbox{~fixed order, }    & \alpha_s\!=\!0.3 \\ 

817: \rho_D^3(1\GeV)-0.12\GeV^3  & \;\;\,{\cal O}(\beta_0\alpha_s^2), &

818: \alpha_s\!=\!0.22 \rule[-8pt]{0mm}{8mm}\\

819: \rho_D^3(1\GeV)-0.16\GeV^3  & \;\;\,{\cal O}(\beta_0^2\alpha_s^3), &

820: \alpha_s\!=\!0.22 

821: \end{array} \right.

822: \label{60}

823: \eeq

824: For the first-order BLM improvement this shift lies below 

825: theoretical accuracy and we usually neglect it, but it is relevant

826: when assessing the net effect of the BLM improvement. For higher orders

827: it becomes significant. 

828: \vspace*{3mm}

829: 

830: \noindent

831: %%~\hfill 

832: \hspace*{.2em}Table 1.~~{\small Perturbative coefficients for

833: $\aver{M_X^2}$ at $m_c\!=\!1.16\GeV$, $m_b\!=\!4.6\GeV$, $\mu\!=\!1\GeV$}

834: \vspace*{1mm}\\

835: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline

836: $\! E_{\rm cut}, \GeV \! $& ~\hfill $ \Delta_1^{(1)} $\hfill~ & \hfill~

837: $\Delta_1^{(2)}$ \hfill~ & ~\hfill

838: $ \Delta_1^{(3)} $ \hfill~

839: & ~\hfill $\Delta_1^{(4)}$ \hfill~&~\hfill $E_1^{(0)}$ \hfill~&~\hfill $E_1^{(1)}$ 

840: \hfill~&\hfill~ $E_1^{(2)} $ \hfill~~&~\hfill $E_1^{(3)} $ \hfill~ &

841: ~\hfill $\!\!E_1^{(4)}\!\!$ \hfill~ \\ \hline

842: $0\;\;\, $&$ 0.021 $&$ 0.036 $&$ 0.065 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 

843: 0.846 $&$ 0.0098 $&$ 0.061 $&$ 0.097 $&$ 0.49 $  \\  \hline  

844: $0.6 $&$ 0.02 $&$ 0.035 $&$ 0.064 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 

845: 0.839 $&$ 0.0085 $&$ 0.058 $&$ 0.095 $&$ 0.49 $   \\  \hline  

846: $0.9 $&$ 0.019 $&$ 0.034 $&$ 0.063 $&$ 0.3 $&$ 

847: 0.827 $&$ 0.0069 $&$ 0.056 $&$ 0.095 $&$ 0.51 $   \\  \hline  

848: $1.2 $&$ 0.018 $&$ 0.036 $&$ 0.067 $&$ 0.33 $&$ 

849: 0.811 $&$ 0.0069 $&$ 0.06 $&$ 0.11 $&$ 0.58 $  \\  \hline  

850: 1.5 $ $&$ 0.023 $&$ 0.046 $&$ 0.087 $&$ 0.44 $&$ 

851: 0.796 $&$ 0.015 $&$ 0.088 $&$ 0.15 $&$ 0.8 $  \\  \hline  

852: \end{tabular}\\

853: \vspace*{7mm}

854: 

855: 

856: Relegating the detailed analysis of other inclusive

857: semileptonic averages including higher hadronic moments, to the

858: dedicated publication \cite{future}, here we give a few

859: perturbative coefficients, including BLM corrections, for the first,

860: Table~1, and second, Tables~2a and 2b, hadronic mass square moments,

861: at different lepton energy cut. 

862: The coefficients for the second moment are defined in analogy to the

863: case of the first hadronic moment, Eq.~(\ref{50}), however they

864: proliferate:

865: \bea

866: \nonumber

867: \aver{[M_X^2-\aver{M_X^2}]^2}= \msp{-4}&&\msp{-4} (M_B\!-\!m_b)^2

868: m_b^2 \left\{E_2^{(0)}+ C_F\left[ \mbox{$\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} E_2^{(1)} + 

869: \frac{\beta_0}{2}\! \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2\!  E_2^{(2)} 

870: %%% + \left(\frac{\beta_0}{2}\right)^2\!

871: %%% \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3\!  E_2^{(3)}

872: + ...$}

873: \right]\right\}

874: \\

875: \nonumber

876: &\msp{-8}+&\msp{-4} (M_B\!-\!m_b)\,m_b\: C_F\left[\mbox{$ 

877: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \Delta_{11}^{(1)} + \frac{\beta_0}{2}\,

878: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2  \Delta_{11}^{(2)} + 

879: \left(\frac{\beta_0}{2}\right)^2\,

880: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3  \Delta_{11}^{(3)}+ ...$}

881: \right]\\

882: &\msp{-8}+&\msp{-3} m_b^4 \;C_F\left[\mbox{$ 

883: \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \Delta_{2}^{(1)} + \frac{\beta_0}{2}\,

884: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^2  \Delta_{2}^{(2)} + 

885: \left(\frac{\beta_0}{2}\right)^2\,

886: \left(\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\right)^3  \Delta_{2}^{(3)}+ ...$}\right]

887:  \;.

888: \label{56}

889: \eea

890: It should be stressed that higher-order coefficients are quoted only

891: for illustration, and should not really be added to the corrections

892: without carefully adjusting for the effect of the residual infrared piece.

893: 

894: The estimated perturbative corrections to the second

895: $\aver{(M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2})^2}$ and to the third

896: $\aver{(M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2})^3}$  hadronic mass moments depending on

897: the lepton cut, and their breakdown into separate terms are shown in

898: Figs.~2 and 3,  both in fixed-order perturbation theory.  We also 

899: show the results in the pole scheme ($\mu\!=\!0$) assuming, however,

900: the same values of the quark masses.

901: For numerical evaluations to order $\alpha_s^1$ we commonly use

902: $\alpha_s\!=\!0.3$, and assume the values of the short-distance heavy quark

903: masses 

904: $$

905: m_c(1\GeV)=1.16\GeV\,, \qquad m_b(1\GeV)=4.60\GeV

906: $$

907: preferred by experiment. 

908: \vspace*{3mm}

909: 

910: 

911: \noindent

912: %%~\hfill 

913: \hspace*{.2em}Table 2a.~~{\small Perturbative coefficients for

914: $\aver{[M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2}]^2}$, in the same setting}

915: %%% $m_c\!=\!1.16\GeV$, $m_b\!=\!4.6\GeV$, $\mu\!=\!1\GeV$}

916: \vspace*{1mm}\\

917: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline

918: $E_{\rm cut}$& ~\hfill $ \Delta_2^{(1)} $\hfill~ & \hfill~

919: $\Delta_2^{(2)}$ \hfill~ & ~\hfill

920: $ \Delta_2^{(3)} $ \hfill~

921: & ~\hfill $\Delta_2^{(4)}$ \hfill~&~\hfill $\Delta_{11}^{(1)}$ 

922: \hfill~&\hfill~ $\Delta_{11}^{(2)} $ \hfill~~&~\hfill 

923: $\Delta_{11}^{(3)} $ \hfill~ & ~\hfill $\Delta_{11}^{(4)}$ 

924: \hfill~ \\ \hline

925: $0\;\;\, $&$ -0.00082 $&$ -0.0035 $&$ -0.0077 $&$ -0.046 $&$ 

926: -0.0023 $&$ -0.01 $&$ -0.023 $&$ -0.14 $  \\  \hline  

927: $0.6 $&$ -0.0016 $&$ -0.0044 $&$ -0.0091 $&$ -0.052 $&$ 

928: -0.0043 $&$ -0.013 $&$ -0.027 $&$ -0.16 $  \\  \hline  

929: $0.9 $&$ -0.0026 $&$ -0.0057 $&$ -0.011 $&$ -0.06 $&$ 

930: -0.007 $&$ -0.016 $&$ -0.033 $&$ -0.18 $  \\  \hline  

931: $1.2 $&$ -0.0036 $&$ -0.0073 $&$ -0.014 $&$ -0.073 $&$ 

932: -0.0099 $&$ -0.02 $&$ -0.039 $&$ -0.21 $  \\  \hline  

933: $1.5 $&$ -0.0046 $&$ -0.0091 $&$ -0.017 $&$ -0.089 $&$ 

934: -0.012 $&$ -0.024 $&$ -0.046 $&$ -0.24 $  \\  \hline  

935: \end{tabular}\\

936: \vspace*{7mm}

937: 

938: 

939: \noindent

940: %%~\hfill 

941: \hspace*{.2em}Table 2b.~~{\small The coefficients for the term

942: $\propto (M_B\!-\!m_b)^2$}

943: \vspace*{1mm}\\

944: \begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline

945: $E_{\rm cut}  $& ~\hfill $ E_2^{(0)}$ \hfill~&~\hfill $E_2^{(1)}$ 

946: \hfill~&\hfill~ $E_2^{(2)} $ \hfill~~&~\hfill $E_2^{(3)} $ \hfill~ &

947: ~\hfill $E_2^{(4)}$ \hfill~ \\ \hline

948: $0\;\;\, $&$ 0.194 $&$ -0.0038 $&$ -0.017 $&$ -0.029 $&$ -0.17 $  \\  \hline  

949: $0.6 $&$ 0.2 $&$ -0.0054 $&$ -0.02 $&$ -0.032 $&$ -0.17 $  \\  \hline  

950: $0.9 $&$ 0.208 $&$ -0.0076 $&$ -0.024 $&$ -0.035 $&$ -0.18 $  \\  \hline  

951: $1.2 $&$ 0.218 $&$ -0.01 $&$ -0.03 $&$ -0.041 $&$ -0.2 $  \\  \hline  

952: $1.5 $&$ 0.226 $&$ -0.013 $&$ -0.035 $&$ -0.047 $&$ -0.23 $  \\  \hline  

953: \end{tabular}\\

954: \vspace*{7mm}

955: 

956: The first-order perturbative corrections to the

957: second mass squared moment happen to be rather suppressed  near zero cut on

958: $E^\ell$. To some extent this is accidental and takes place just for our

959: choice of $\mu$ around $1\GeV$: it would be nearly complete for a

960: somewhat smaller $\mu$, and softer for a larger separation scale. The

961: BLM corrections at small $E_{\rm cut}$ then seem to have a large 

962: {\sf relative}

963: impact, nearly doubling the perturbative correction. However, as seen

964: from Fig.~2, the cancellation fades out at a relatively low cut,

965: and the significance of the BLM corrections becomes moderate already

966: at $E_{\rm cut}\!\gsim \!600\MeV$. Above $0.9\GeV$ the face value of

967: the effective $\alpha_s$ for the one-loop contribution is about $0.35$

968: -- even discarding the possible effect of redefining the appropriate

969: Darwin expectation value $\tilde\rho_D^3$. Therefore, it seems

970: likely that the actual perturbative corrections to the second moment

971: is even flatter than follows from Fig.~2.

972: 

973: It has been pointed out in Ref.~\cite{slcm} that, in view of possible

974: cancellations in the first-order perturbative coefficients, it is

975: unsafe to estimate the uncertainty associated with uncalculated

976: perturbative corrections simply as a fixed fraction of the one-loop

977: result. This may particularly apply to the schemes other than 

978: the pole one. Ref.~\cite{slcm} suggested that an additional

979: uncertainty should be added obtained examining certain `perturbative' 

980: variations of the nonperturbative expectation values, to evade such

981: special cases. We see that this

982: recipe works well here: while even a $50\%$ variation in the

983: perturbative corrections to the second mass moment near zero cut might

984: easily underestimate their actual uncertainty, considering the effect of

985: the Darwin operator gives the right estimate of the size, in fact 

986: on the safer side.

987: 

988: 

989: 

990: \section{Discussions}

991: 

992: We have calculated the one-loop perturbative corrections to all the

993: semileptonic decay structure functions of the heavy quarks, in the

994: form allowing to obtain all BLM corrections on the same footing. This

995: parallels the work done in Ref.~\cite{bbbsl} almost a decade ago which,

996: however was applicable only to the total semileptonic width. 

997: With the complete expressions for the power corrections to the

998: structure functions through order $1/m_Q^3$

999: available \cite{koy,grekap}, there remain no practical 

1000: obstacles in calculating all

1001: sufficiently inclusive semileptonic distributions with significant

1002: precision.  As has been emphasized

1003: in Ref.~\cite{imprec} in respect to precision determination of

1004: $|V_{cb}|$,  now the real limitation in many cases becomes 

1005: perturbative corrections to the Wilson coefficients of the  

1006: power-suppressed nonperturbative operators; sometimes the effects of

1007: the nonperturbative four-fermion averages with charm fields (called `intrinsic

1008: charm' in Ref.~\cite{imprec}) may be noticeable.

1009: 

1010: We think that the program of precision extraction of higher nonperturbative heavy

1011: quark parameters of $B$ mesons will be on agenda regardless of

1012: calculation the perturbative corrections with all kinematic

1013: constraints -- in many instances already power corrections proper lead

1014: to significant uncertainties. In this respect studying at

1015: $B$-factories the modified

1016: higher hadronic mass-energy moments ${\cal N}_X^k$ detailed in

1017: Ref.~\cite{slcm} looks promising. From the perturbative point of view 

1018: they are similar, or even simpler than the standard moments of

1019: $M_X^2$, and our analysis applies to them in full. 

1020: 

1021: 

1022: 

1023: We plan to present both perturbative and

1024: nonperturbative corrections in an (possibly cumbersome) analytic form in

1025: the forthcoming publication \cite{future}, and to simultaneously 

1026: provide ready-to-use computer programs making numerical evaluations an

1027: automated procedure. 

1028: 

1029: Calculation of the perturbative $b$-decay structure functions to order

1030: $\alpha_s^1$ is rather straightforward if only lengthy. The main

1031: problem is to control possible typos, in particular in the computer

1032: program which would evaluate the corrections. A single omission can both

1033: radically change the emerging numerical result, or to be nearly

1034: invisible numerically in a particular kinematic setting. To safeguard

1035: our results against such complications, we have applied a number of

1036: checks.

1037: 

1038: Firstly, a regular limit for a massless gluon was verified for all the

1039: moments, and the logarithmic dependence of separately the virtual and

1040: the bremsstrahlung contributions at given $q^2$ was checked to match the

1041: known classical bremsstrahlung radiation divergence. Furthermore, the

1042: limit $\lambda^2\!\to\! 0$ in the sum of the contributions for a

1043: particular moment, is slow containing the terms $\propto \!\sqrt{\lambda^2}$,

1044: rather than only those scaling like $\lambda^2$. These terms, however

1045: are controlled by the OPE -- they reside solely in the corresponding

1046: dependence of the pole quark masses on $\lambda^2$. Moreover, the OPE

1047: ensures that in the first-loop corrections terms $\propto \!\lambda^2

1048: \ln{\lambda^2}$ do not appear. This provided the serious test for the

1049: moments -- once passing to the Wilsonian scheme at a given gluon mass

1050: (and such a translation involves coefficients with a nontrivial

1051: kinematic dependence), we observed a straight linear in $\lambda^2$

1052: behavior at the small gluon mass.

1053: 

1054: At arbitrary gluon mass of order $m_c$ or below we observed

1055: that the total width we numerically calculate precisely coincides 

1056: with the same width we used in

1057: Refs.~\cite{blmvcb,imprec}; those expressions were derived in

1058: Ref.~\cite{bbbsl} using, generally, the different set of integration

1059: variables. The total width, however depends only on $w_1$ and $w_2$,

1060: see Eq.~(\ref{20}). We also compared the numerical results of the perturbative

1061: corrections to the width with an arbitrary lepton energy cut

1062: at $\lambda^2 \!\to\!0$ with the computations used previously \cite{slcm}

1063: based on the well-established analytic expressions of Ref.~\cite{czarj}; this

1064: verified $w_3$ as well. Together with a number of more technical cross

1065: checks, a confidence has been gained that possible typos in the program for

1066: evaluating moments were all eliminated. 

1067: \vspace*{2mm}

1068: 

1069: 

1070: Although perturbative effects are 

1071: conceptually simple, getting accurate predictions requires 

1072: thoughtful combining perturbative and nonperturbative corrections in

1073: the optimal way. Our experience commencing with an early paper \cite{upset} 

1074: suggests that using the literal

1075: Wilsonian prescription which separates various contributions based on

1076: their intrinsic momentum scale, is the way to get reliable

1077: predictions. In return, applying it often yields accurate results 

1078: even with minimal computational efforts, or using simplifying

1079: approximations. 

1080: 

1081: In the present paper we have reported some results for the dependence

1082: of the perturbative corrections to the hadronic mass moments, on the charge

1083: lepton energy cut; an extensive analysis is in preparation

1084: \cite{future}. 

1085: In accord with the  expectations which

1086: considered peculiarity of the adopted OPE implementation, we found

1087: weak variations, for the safe intervals in $E_{\rm cut}$, well within

1088: our estimates of the overall accuracy theory in its present

1089: form can realistically provide \cite{slcm}. The perturbative corrections to

1090: $\aver{M_X^2}$ actually turned out nearly constant, varying even much less

1091: than could be anticipated. The $E_{\rm cut}$-variation in the

1092: second mass moment, $\aver{(M_X^2\!-\!\aver{M_X^2})^2}$ is more

1093: noticeable, consistent in sign and magnitude with the 

1094: cut-dependent contribution from the Darwin operator. We actually found

1095: indications that they may be further flatten when the BLM corrections are

1096: incorporated: the latter eliminate a somewhat accidental cancellation

1097: at very low $E_{\rm cut}$. 

1098: 

1099: It should be emphasized that such a moderate

1100: sensitivity resulted from eliminating soft gluon effects from

1101: the perturbative diagrams; in the schemes without such a separation (we

1102: generically refer to them as {\tt pole}-type) the variation, as a rule,

1103: is far more pronounced. We also find that sensible BLM improvement of

1104: the one-loop estimates is possible within the Wilsonian approach,

1105: although it does not seem to have dramatic impact on the a priori

1106: safe moments. Nevertheless, we point out that there are strong

1107: cancellations in the perturbative corrections to the hadron energy

1108: $\aver{E_x}$ between different domains of integration. They are

1109: vitiated once running of $\alpha_s$ is accounted for, which strongly

1110: enhances their effect. Their significance have often been

1111: underestimated. 

1112: 

1113: Our predictions \cite{slcm,misuse} both for the absolute values of the hadronic

1114: moments, and for their cut-dependence were in a qualitatively good

1115: agreement with the preliminary data reported by BaBar and CLEO. Having

1116: calculated the full perturbative corrections, we did not find effects

1117: which would be unexpectedly large or would show a surprising behavior;

1118: therefore, we expect the agreement to persist, or possibly even

1119: strengthen.  More precise verifications of the theory including fits

1120: to many measured observables, is to follow from the dedicated

1121: experimental analyses.

1122: 

1123: \vspace*{4mm}

1124: 

1125: 

1126: \noindent

1127: {\bf Acknowledgments:} This study would be impossible without close

1128: collaboration with P.~Gambino, including joint work directly on the subjects

1129: addressed here. I am especially grateful to him for his share in

1130: obtaining a number of numerical theory predictions long awaited by

1131: experiment, presented above. I am indebted to many experimental

1132: colleagues from BaBar, in particular to Oliver Buchmueller, Vera Luth

1133: and Urs Langenegger for important discussions and communications which

1134: initiated this study, and for encouraging exchanges. It is my

1135: pleasure to thank Ikaros Bigi for collaboration on closely related

1136: issues and for important suggestions. I would like to thank R.~Zwicky

1137: and G.~Uraltsev

1138: for their help with Mathematica.

1139: This work was supported in part by the NSF under grant number

1140: PHY-0087419.

1141: 

1142: 

1143: 

1144: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1145: 

1146: \bibit{buv}

1147: I.\,Bigi, N.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein, {\it Phys.~Lett.}\ {\bf B293}

1148: (1992) 430;\\

1149: B.\,Blok and M.\,Shifman, {\it  Nucl.\,Phys.}\ {\bf B399} (1993) 441 and 459.

1150: 

1151: \bibit{dpf}

1152: I.I.\,Bigi, B.\,Blok, M.\,Shifman, N.G.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein, DPF

1153: Conf.\,1992:610-613; hep-ph/9212227.

1154: 

1155: \bibit{prl}

1156: I.\,Bigi, M.\,Shifman, N.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein, 

1157: {\it Phys.\,Rev.\,Lett.}\ {\bf 71} (1993) 496.

1158: 

1159: 

1160: \bibit{koy}

1161: B.\,Blok, L.\,Koyrakh, M.\,Shifman and A.\,Vainshtein,

1162: {\it Phys.\,Rev.}\ {\bf D49} (1994) 3356.

1163: 

1164: \bibit{banda}

1165: M.\,Shifman, A.\,Vainshtein and V.\,Zakharov, {\it Phys.\,Lett.\ }

1166: {\bf 78B} (1978) 443 [Reprinted in {\it The Standard Model Higgs

1167: Boson}, Ed.\ M.~Einhorn (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991), p.\,84].

1168: 

1169: \bibit{czarj}

1170: M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~Kuhn,

1171: %``Lepton Spectra From Heavy Quark Decay,''

1172: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 320} (1989) 20;\\ 

1173: A.~Czarnecki, M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~Kuhn,

1174: %``Hadron Spectra From Semileptonic Decays Of Heavy Quarks,''

1175: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 20} (1989) 961;\\

1176: A.~Czarnecki and M.~Jezabek,

1177: %``Distributions of leptons in decays of polarized heavy quarks,''

1178: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 427} (1994) 3.

1179: 

1180: \bibit{gremst}

1181: M.~Gremm and I.~Stewart,

1182: % ``Order alpha(s)**2 beta(0) correction to the charged lepton 

1183: % spectrum in  b $\to$ c l anti-nu/l decays,''

1184: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D55} (1997) 1226.

1185: 

1186: \bibit{fls95}

1187: A.~F.~Falk, M.~E.~Luke and M.~J.~Savage,

1188: %``Hadron spectra for semileptonic heavy quark decay,''

1189: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\  {\bf D53} (1996) 2491.

1190: 

1191: 

1192: \bibit{flcut} 

1193: A.~F.~Falk and  M.~E.~Luke, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\  {\bf D57} (1998) 424.

1194: 

1195: \bibit{grekap}

1196: M.~Gremm and A.~Kapustin,  {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D55} (1997) 6924.

1197: 

1198: 

1199: \bibit{blmvcb}

1200: N.\,Uraltsev, {\it Int.\,Journ.\,Mod.\,Phys.\,Lett.}\ {\bf A17} (2002) 2317.

1201: 

1202: 

1203: \bibit{imprec}

1204: D.\,Benson, I.\,Bigi, Th.\,Mannel and N.\,Uraltsev, 

1205: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B665} (2003) 367.

1206: 

1207: \bibit{trott}

1208: M.~Trott, hep-ph/0402120.

1209: 

1210: \bibit{slcm}

1211: P.~Gambino and M.~Uraltsev, {\it Europ.\,Phys.\ Journal} {\bf C}, to appear; 

1212: hep-ph/0401063. 

1213: 

1214: \bibit{optical}

1215: I.I.~Bigi,

1216: M.~Shifman, N.G.~Uraltsev and A.~Vainshtein,

1217: {\it Phys.\,Rev.\ }{\bf D52} (1995) 196.

1218: 

1219: 

1220: \bibit{future}

1221: P.~Gambino and N.~Uraltsev, paper in progress.

1222: 

1223: \bibit{amst}

1224: N.\,Uraltsev, Proc.\ of the 31st International Conference 

1225: on High  Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 

1226: 25-31 July 2002 (North-Holland -- Elsevier, The Netherlands, 2003), 

1227: S.~Bentvelsen, P.~de~Jong, J.~Koch and 

1228: E.~Laenen Eds., p.\,554; hep-ph/0210044. 

1229: 

1230: \bibit{fpcp03}

1231: N.\,Uraltsev, hep-ph/0308165;  talk at  

1232: Int.\ Conference ``Flavor Physics \& CP Violation 2003'' , June 3-6

1233: 2003, Paris. To appear in the Proceedings.

1234: 

1235: \bibit{blmope}

1236: N.G.~Uraltsev, {\it Nucl.~Phys.}\  {\bf B491} (1997) 303.

1237: 

1238: 

1239: \bibit{bbb6}

1240: P.~Ball, M.~Beneke  and V.M.~Braun,

1241: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B452} (1995) 563.

1242: 

1243: \bibit{dmw}

1244: Yu.L.\,Dokshitzer, G.\,Marchesini and B.R.\,Webber, 

1245: {\it Nucl.~Phys.}\ {\bf B469} (1996) 93.

1246: 

1247: \bibit{pole}

1248: I.\,Bigi, M.\,Shifman, N.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein,

1249: {\it Phys.\,Rev.}\  {\bf D50} (1994) 2234.

1250: 

1251: \bibit{bbz}

1252: M. Beneke, V.M. Braun and  V.I. Zakharov, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}

1253: {\bf 73} (1994) 3058.

1254: 

1255: \bibit{WA}

1256: I.\,Bigi and N.\,Uraltsev, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B423} (1994) 33.

1257: 

1258: 

1259: \bibit{misuse}

1260: I.I.\,Bigi and N.\,Uraltsev,

1261: {\it  Phys.\,Lett.}\ {\bf B579} (2004) 340.

1262: 

1263: \bibit{bbbsl}

1264: P.~Ball, M.~Beneke and V.~Braun, {\it Phys.\,Rev.}\ {\bf D52} (1995) 3929.

1265: 

1266: \bibit{upset}

1267: N.G.\,Uraltsev, {\it Int.\,J.\,Mod.\.Phys.}\ {\bf A11} (1996)  515.

1268: 

1269: \end{thebibliography}

1270: 

1271: 

1272: \end{document}

1273: 

1274: 

1275: \bibit{buv}

1276: I.\,Bigi, N.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein, {\it Phys.~Lett.}\ {\bf B293}

1277: (1992) 430;\\

1278: B.\,Blok and M.\,Shifman, {\it  Nucl.\,Phys.}\ {\bf B399} (1993) 441 and 459.

1279: 

1280: \bibit{banda}

1281: M.\,Shifman, A.\,Vainshtein and V.\,Zakharov, {\it Phys.\,Lett.\ }

1282: {\bf 78B} (1978) 443 [Reprinted in {\it The Standard Model Higgs

1283: Boson}, Ed.\ M.~Einhorn (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991), p.\,84].

1284: 

1285: \bibit{dpf}

1286: I.I.\,Bigi, B.\,Blok, M.\,Shifman, N.G.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein, DPF

1287: Conf.\,1992:610-613; hep-ph/9212227.

1288: 

1289: \bibit{prl}

1290: I.\,Bigi, M.\,Shifman, N.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein, 

1291: {\it Phys.\,Rev.\,Lett.}\ {\bf 71} (1993) 496.

1292: 

1293: 

1294: \bibit{koy}

1295: B.\,Blok, L.\,Koyrakh, M.\,Shifman and A.\,Vainshtein,

1296: {\it Phys.\,Rev.}\ {\bf D49} (1994) 3356.

1297: 

1298: \bibit{gremst}

1299: M.~Gremm and I.~Stewart,

1300: % ``Order alpha(s)**2 beta(0) correction to the charged lepton 

1301: % spectrum in  b $\to$ c l anti-nu/l decays,''

1302: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D55} (1997) 1226.

1303: 

1304: \bibit{fls95}

1305: A.~F.~Falk, M.~E.~Luke and M.~J.~Savage,

1306: %``Hadron spectra for semileptonic heavy quark decay,''

1307: {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\  {\bf D53} (1996) 2491.

1308: 

1309: 

1310: \bibit{flcut} 

1311: A.~F.~Falk and  M.~E.~Luke, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\  {\bf D57} (1998) 424.

1312: 

1313: \bibit{blmvcb}

1314: N.\,Uraltsev, {\it Int.\,Journ.\,Mod.\,Phys.\,Lett.}\ {\bf A17} (2002) 2317.

1315: 

1316: 

1317: \bibit{trott}

1318: M.~Trott, hep-ph/0402120.

1319: 

1320: \bibit{grekap}

1321: M.~Gremm and A.~Kapustin,  {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ {\bf D55} (1997) 6924.

1322: 

1323: 

1324: \bibit{vsope}

1325: M.\,Voloshin and M.\,Shifman, {\em Yad.\,Phys.\ } {\bf 45} (1987) 463 

1326: [{\em Sov.\,J.\,Nucl.\,Phys.\ } {\bf 45} (1987) 292];

1327: {\it ZhETF} {\bf 91} (1986) 1180 [{\it JETP} {\bf 64} (1986) 698].

1328: 

1329: 

1330: \bibit{ioffe}

1331: N.~Uraltsev, in {\it Boris Ioffe Festschrift} 

1332: ``{\tt At the Frontier of Particle Physics -- Handbook 

1333: of QCD}'', Ed.\ M.\ Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 

1334: 2001), Vol.\,3, p.\,1577; hep-ph/0010328.

1335: 

1336: \bibit{optical}

1337: I.I.~Bigi,

1338: M.~Shifman, N.G.~Uraltsev and A.~Vainshtein,

1339: {\it Phys.\,Rev.\ }{\bf D52} (1995) 196.

1340: 

1341: 

1342: \bibit{czarj}

1343: M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~Kuhn,

1344: %``Lepton Spectra From Heavy Quark Decay,''

1345: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 320} (1989) 20;\\ 

1346: A.~Czarnecki, M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~Kuhn,

1347: %``Hadron Spectra From Semileptonic Decays Of Heavy Quarks,''

1348: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 20} (1989) 961;\\

1349: A.~Czarnecki and M.~Jezabek,

1350: %``Distributions of leptons in decays of polarized heavy quarks,''

1351: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 427} (1994) 3.

1352: 

1353: \bibit{slcm}

1354: P.~Gambino and M.~Uraltsev, {\it Europ.\,Phys.\ Journal} {\bf C}, to appear; 

1355: hep-ph/0401063. 

1356: 

1357: \bibit{blmope}

1358: N.G.~Uraltsev, {\it Nucl.~Phys.}\  {\bf B491} (1997) 303.

1359: 

1360: 

1361: \bibit{dmw}

1362: Yu.L.\,Dokshitzer, G.\,Marchesini and B.R.\,Webber, 

1363: {\it Nucl.~Phys.}\ {\bf B469} (1996) 93.

1364: 

1365: \bibit{bbb6}

1366: P.~Ball, M.~Beneke  and V.M.~Braun,

1367: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B452} (1995) 563.

1368: 

1369: \bibit{bbbsl}

1370: P.~Ball, M.~Beneke and V.~Braun, {\it Phys.\,Rev.}\ {\bf D52} (1995) 3929.

1371: 

1372: 

1373: \bibit{WA}

1374: I.\,Bigi and N.\,Uraltsev, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B423} (1994) 33.

1375: 

1376: 

1377: 

1378: 

1379: \bibit{amst}

1380: N.\,Uraltsev, Proc.\ of the 31st International Conference 

1381: on High  Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 

1382: 25-31 July 2002 (North-Holland -- Elsevier, The Netherlands, 2003), 

1383: S.~Bentvelsen, P.~de~Jong, J.~Koch and 

1384: E.~Laenen Eds., p.\,554; hep-ph/0210044. 

1385: 

1386: \bibit{imprec}

1387: D.\,Benson, I.\,Bigi, Th.\,Mannel and N.\,Uraltsev, 

1388: {\it Nucl.\ Phys.}\ {\bf B665} (2003) 367.

1389: 

1390: \bibit{ckm03}

1391: N.\,Uraltsev, Proc.\ of the 2nd Workshop on the CKM

1392: Unitarity Triangle, IPPP Durham, April 2003, P.~Ball, J.M.~Flynn,

1393: P.~Kluit and A.~Stocchi, eds.\ (Electronic Proceedings

1394: Archive eConf C0304052, 2003); hep-ph/0306290.

1395: 

1396: \bibit{fpcp03}

1397: N.\,Uraltsev, hep-ph/0308165;  talk at  

1398: Int.\ Conference ``Flavor Physics \& CP Violation 2003'' , June 3-6

1399: 2003, Paris. To appear in the Proceedings.

1400: 

1401: \bibit{future}

1402: P.~Gambino and N.~Uraltsev, paper in progress.

1403: 

1404: \bibit{misuse}

1405: I.I.\,Bigi and N.\,Uraltsev,

1406: {\it  Phys.\,Lett.}\ {\bf B579} (2004) 340.

1407: 

1408: 

1409: \bibit{pole}

1410: I.\,Bigi, M.\,Shifman, N.\,Uraltsev and A.\,Vainshtein,

1411: {\it Phys.\,Rev.}\  {\bf D50} (1994) 2234.

1412: 

1413: \bibit{bbz}

1414: M. Beneke, V.M. Braun and  V.I. Zakharov, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}

1415: {\bf 73} (1994) 3058.

1416: 

1417: \bibit{upset}

1418: N.G.\,Uraltsev, {\it Int.\,J.\,Mod.\.Phys.}\ {\bf A11} (1996)  515.

1419: 

1420: \end{thebibliography}

1421: 

1422: 

1423: \end{document}

1424: 

1425: 

1426: