1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{array}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{amsmath} % roman hinzugefuegt
7: \usepackage{graphics,graphpap}
8:
9:
10: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-0.2cm}
11: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}
12: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.65in}
13: \setlength{\textheight}{23.5cm}
14: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
15:
16:
17: \addtolength{\jot}{10pt}
18: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
19: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
20: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
21: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
22:
23: % some stupid concersion commands
24: \newcommand{\rmega}{\omega}
25: \newcommand{\rhi}{\phi}
26: \newcommand{\rar}{\bar}
27: \newcommand{\relta}{\delta}
28: \newcommand{\rline}{\hline}
29:
30: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon^*}
31: \newcommand{\Kperp}{K^*_\perp}
32: \newcommand{\Kpar}{K^*_\parallel}
33: \newcommand{\qz}{(q\cdot z)}
34: \newcommand{\ms}{\overline{m}_s(\mu)}
35: \newcommand{\db}{\bar{d}}
36: \newcommand{\ub}{\bar{u}}
37: \newcommand{\quark}{\langle \bar q q\rangle}
38: \newcommand{\mixed}{\langle \bar q \sigma gG q\rangle}
39: \newcommand{\squark}{\langle \bar s s\rangle}
40: \newcommand{\smixed}{\langle \bar s \sigma gG s\rangle}
41: \newcommand{\gluon}{\left\langle \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\,G^2\right\rangle}
42: \newcommand{\bra}{\langle}
43: \newcommand{\ket}{\rangle}
44: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
45: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}
46:
47: \def\s#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}%
48: \rlap{\ifdim\wd0>.7em\kern.22\wd0\else\kern.1\wd0\fi /}#1}
49: \newcommand{\matel}[3]{\langle #1|#2|#3\rangle}
50: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
51: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
52: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}
53:
54: \def\pslash{\rlap/{\mkern-1mu p}}
55: \def\zslash{\rlap/{\mkern-1mu z}}
56: \makeatletter
57: \def\slash#1{{\mathpalette\c@ncel{#1}}} % TeXbook, bottom of p360
58: \makeatother
59:
60: \begin{document}
61:
62: %%%%%%%%%% Title page
63: \begin{titlepage}
64: \begin{flushright}
65: \begin{tabular}{l}
66: IPPP/04/74\\
67: DCPT/04/48\\
68: TPI-MINN-04/39\\
69: \end{tabular}
70: \end{flushright}
71: \vskip1.5cm
72: \begin{center}
73: {\Large \bf \boldmath
74: $B_{d,s}\to\rho,\omega,
75: K^*,\phi$ Decay Form Factors\\[5pt] from
76: \text{Li}ght-Cone Sum Rules Revisited}
77: \vskip1.3cm {\sc
78: Patricia Ball\footnote{Patricia.Ball@durham.ac.uk}$^{,1}$ and
79: Roman Zwicky\footnote{zwicky@physics.umn.edu}}$^{,2}$
80: \vskip0.5cm
81: $^1$ IPPP, Department of Physics,
82: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK \\
83: \vskip0.4cm
84: $^2$ William I. Fine Theoretical Physics Institute, \\ University of
85: Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
86: \vskip2cm
87:
88: %{\em Version of \today}
89:
90: \vskip3cm
91:
92: {\large\bf Abstract:\\[10pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{
93: We present an improved calculation of $B\to$ light vector
94: form factors from light-cone sum rules, including one-loop radiative
95: corrections to twist-2 and twist-3 contributions, and leading order
96: twist-4 corrections. The total theoretical uncertainty of our
97: results at zero momentum transfer is typically 10\% and can be improved,
98: at least in part, by
99: reducing the uncertainty of hadronic input parameters.
100: We present our results in a way which details the
101: dependence of the form factors on these parameters and facilitates the
102: incorporation of future updates of their values from
103: e.g.\ lattice calculations. We also give simple and
104: easy-to-inplement parametrizations of the $q^2$-dependence of the
105: form factors which are valid in the full kinematical regime of $q^2$.
106: }
107:
108: \vfill
109:
110: {\em submitted to Physical Review D}
111: \end{center}
112: \end{titlepage}
113:
114: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
115: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
116:
117: \newpage
118:
119: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
120:
121: This paper aims to give
122: a new and more precise determination of the
123: decay form factors of $B_{d,u,s}$ mesons into light vector mesons, i.e.\
124: $\rho$, $\omega$, $K^*$ and $\phi$; it is a continuation of of our
125: previous study of $B$ decays into pseudoscalar mesons \cite{BZ}.
126: The calculation uses the method of QCD sum
127: rules on the light-cone, which in the past has been rather
128: successfully applied to various problems in heavy-meson physics,
129: cf.~Refs.~\cite{protz};\footnote{See also
130: Ref.~\cite{LCSRs:reviews} for reviews.}
131: an outline of the method will be given below. Our
132: calculation improves on our previous paper \cite{BB98} by
133: \begin{itemize}
134: \item including $B\to\omega$ form factors;
135: \item including radiative corrections to 2-particle twist-3 contributions to
136: one-loop accuracy;
137: \item a new parametrization of the dominant hadronic contributions
138: (twist-2 distribution amplitudes);
139: \item detailing the dependence of form factors on distribution
140: amplitudes;
141: \item a new parametrization of the dependence of the form factors on
142: momentum transfer;
143: \item a careful analysis of the theoretical uncertainties.
144: \end{itemize}
145: Like in Ref.~\cite{BZ},
146: the motivation for this study is twofold and relates to the overall
147: aim of $B$ physics to provide precision determinations of quark flavor
148: mixing parameters in the Standard Model. Quark flavor mixing is
149: governed by the unitary CKM matrix which depends on four parameters: three
150: angles and one phase. The constraints from unitarity can be visualized
151: by the so-called unitarity triangles (UT); the one that is relevant
152: for $B$ physics is under intense experimental study.
153: The over-determination of the sides
154: and angles of this triangle from a multitude of processes will answer
155: the question whether there is new physics in flavor-changing
156: processes and where it manifests itself. One of the sides of the UT is
157: given by the ratio of CKM matrix elements $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$.
158: $|V_{cb}|$ is known to about 2\% accuracy from both inclusive and
159: exclusive $b\to c\ell \nu$ transitions \cite{CKMWS}, whereas the
160: present error
161: on $|V_{ub}|$ is much larger and around $15\%$. Its reduction requires
162: an improvement of experimental statistics, which is under way at the $B$
163: factories BaBar and Belle, but also and in particular an improvement
164: of the theoretical prediction for associated semileptonic spectra and
165: decay rates. This is one motivation for our study of the
166: $B\to\rho$ semileptonic decay form factors $A_1$, $A_2$, $V$,
167: which, in conjunction with
168: alternative calculations, hopefully from lattice,
169: will help to reduce the uncertainty from exclusive semileptonic
170: determinations of $|V_{ub}|$. Secondly, form factors of general
171: $B\to\,$light meson transitions are also needed as ingredients in the
172: analysis of nonleptonic two-body $B$ decays, e.g.\ $B\to \rho\pi$,
173: in the framework of QCD factorization
174: \cite{QCDfac}, again with the objective to extract CKM parameters.
175: One issue calling for particular attention in this context
176: is the effect of SU(3) breaking, which enters
177: both the form factors and the $K^*$ and $\phi$ meson distribution
178: amplitudes figuring in the factorization analysis. We would like to
179: point out that the implementation of SU(3) breaking in the
180: light-cone sum rules approach to form factors is {\em precisely} the
181: same as in QCD factorization and is encoded in the difference between
182: $\rho$, $\omega$, $K^*$ and $\phi$ distribution amplitudes, so that the use of
183: form factors calculated from light-cone sum rules together with the
184: corresponding meson distribution amplitudes in factorization
185: formulas allows a unified
186: and controlled approach to the assessment of SU(3) breaking effects in
187: nonleptonic $B$ decays.
188:
189: As we shall detail below,
190: QCD sum rules on the light-cone allow the calculation of form factors
191: in a kinematic regime where the final state meson has large energy in
192: the rest-system of the decaying $B$,
193: $E\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$.
194: The physics underlying $B$ decays into light mesons at large momentum
195: transfer can be understood qualitatively in the framework of hard
196: exclusive QCD processes, pioneered by Brodsky and Lepage et al.\
197: \cite{pQCD}. The hard scale in $B$ decays is $m_b$ and one can show
198: that to leading order in $1/m_b$ the decay is described by two
199: different parton configurations: one
200: where all quarks have large momenta and the momentum transfer
201: happens via the exchange of a hard gluon, the so-called hard-gluon
202: exchange, and a second one where one quark is soft and does
203: interact with the other partons only via soft-gluon exchange, the
204: so-called soft or Feynman-mechanism. The consistent treatment of both
205: effects in a framework based on factorization, i.e.\ the clean separation of
206: perturbatively calculable hard contributions from nonperturbative
207: ``wave functions'', is highly nontrivial and has spurred the
208: development of SCET, an effective field theory which aims to separate
209: the two relevant large mass scales $m_b$ and $\sqrt{m_b\Lambda_{\rm
210: QCD}}$ in a systematic way \cite{SCET}.
211: In this approach form factors can indeed be split into
212: a calculable factorizable part which roughly corresponds to the hard-gluon
213: exchange contributions, and a nonfactorizable one, which includes the soft
214: contributions and cannot be calculated within the SCET
215: framework \cite{fuck,hill}.
216: Predictions obtained in this approach then typically aim to eliminate the soft
217: part and take the form of relations
218: between two or more form factors whose difference is expressed in terms
219: of factorizable contributions.
220:
221: The above discussion highlights the need for a calculational
222: method that allows numerical predictions while treating both
223: hard and soft contributions on the same footing. It is precisely QCD
224: sum rules on the light-cone (LCSRs) that accomplish this task.
225: LCSRs can be viewed as an extension of the original
226: method of QCD sum rules devised by
227: Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov (SVZ) \cite{SVZ}, which was
228: designed to determine properties of
229: ground-state hadrons at
230: zero or low momentum transfer, to the regime of large
231: momentum transfer. QCD sum rules combine the
232: concepts of operator product expansion, dispersive representations of
233: correlation functions and quark-hadron duality in an ingenious way
234: that allows the calculation of the properties of non-excited
235: hadron-states with a very reasonable theoretical uncertainty.
236: In the context of weak-decay form factors, the basic quantity is the
237: correlation function of the weak current and a
238: current with
239: the quantum numbers of the $B$ meson, evaluated between the vacuum and
240: a light meson.
241: For large (negative) virtualities of these currents, the
242: correlation function is, in coordinate-space, dominated by distances
243: close to the light-cone and can be discussed in the framework of
244: light-cone expansion. In contrast to the short-distance expansion
245: employed by conventional QCD sum rules \`a la SVZ where
246: nonperturbative effects are encoded in vacuum expectation values
247: of local operators with
248: vacuum quantum numbers, the condensates, LCSRs
249: rely on the factorization of the underlying correlation function into
250: genuinely nonperturbative and universal hadron distribution amplitudes (DAs)
251: $\phi$ which are convoluted with process-dependent amplitudes $T$.
252: The latter are the analogues of Wilson-coefficients in the
253: short-distance expansion and can be
254: calculated in perturbation theory. The light-cone expansion then reads,
255: schematically:
256: \begin{equation}\label{eq:schemat}
257: \mbox{correlation function~}\sim \sum_n T^{(n)}\otimes \phi^{(n)}.
258: \end{equation}
259: The sum runs over contributions with increasing twist, labelled by
260: $n$, which are suppressed by
261: increasing powers of, roughly speaking, the virtualities of the
262: involved currents.
263: The same correlation function can, on the other hand, be written as a
264: dispersion-relation, in the virtuality of the current coupling to the
265: $B$ meson. Equating dispersion-representation and the
266: light-cone expansion, and separating the $B$ meson contribution from
267: that of higher one- and multi-particle states using quark-hadron
268: duality, one obtains a relation
269: for the form factor describing the decay $B\to\,$light meson.
270:
271: A crucial question is the accuracy of light-cone sum
272: rules. Like with most other methods, there are
273: uncertainties induced by external parameters like quark masses and
274: hadronic parameters and intrinsic uncertainties
275: induced by the approximations inherent in
276: the method. As we shall discuss in Sec.~4, the total theoretical
277: uncertainty for the form factors at $q^2=0$ is presently around 10\%,
278: including a 7\% irreducible systematic uncertainty.
279:
280: Our paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~2 we define all relevant
281: quantities, in particular the meson distribution
282: amplitudes. In Sec.~3 we outline the calculation.
283: In Sec.~4 we derive the sum rules and present numerical
284: results which are summarized in Tabs.~\ref{tab:basic} and
285: \ref{tab:fits}. Section~5 contains a summary and conclusions. Detailed
286: expressions for distribution amplitudes, a break-down of the
287: light-cone sum rule results into different contributions and explicit
288: formulas for the contributions of 3-particle states
289: are given in the appendices.
290:
291: \section{Definitions}\label{sec:2}
292:
293: $B\to V$ transitions, where $V$ stands for the vector mesons $\rho$,
294: $\omega$, $K^*$ and $\phi$, can manifest themselves as
295: semileptonic decays $B\to V \ell \bar \nu_\ell$ or rare
296: flavor-changing neutral current (FCNC) penguin-induced decays $B\to V\gamma$ and
297: $B\to V \ell^+ \ell^-$. All these decays are described by a
298: total of seven independent form factors which usually are defined as
299: ($q=p_B-p$)
300: \begin{eqnarray}
301: \lefteqn{c_V
302: \langle V(p) | \bar q\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5) b | B(p_B)\rangle =
303: -i e^*_\mu (m_B+m_V)
304: A_1(q^2) + i (p_B+p)_\mu (e^* q)\,
305: \frac{A_2(q^2)}{m_B+m_V}}\hspace*{2.8cm}\nonumber\\
306: && {}+ i
307: q_\mu (e^* q) \,\frac{2m_V}{q^2}\,
308: \left(A_3(q^2)-A_0(q^2)\right) +
309: \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^{*\nu} p_B^\rho p^\sigma\,
310: \frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_V}\hspace*{0.5cm}\label{eq:SLFF}\\
311: {\rm with\ }A_3(q^2) & = & \frac{m_B+m_V}{2m_V}\, A_1(q^2) -
312: \frac{m_B-m_V}{2m_V}\, A_2(q^2)\mbox{~~and~~}
313: A_0(0) = A_3(0);\label{eq:A30}\\[-1cm]\nonumber
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: \lefteqn{c_V\langle V(p) | \bar q \sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu (1+\gamma_5) b |
317: B(p_B)\rangle = i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \epsilon^{*\nu}
318: p_B^\rho p^\sigma \, 2 T_1(q^2)}\nonumber\\
319: & & {} + T_2(q^2) \left\{ e^*_\mu
320: (m_B^2-m_{V}^2) - (e^* q) \,(p_B+p)_\mu \right\} + T_3(q^2)
321: (e^* q) \left\{ q_\mu - \frac{q^2}{m_B^2-m_{V}^2}\, (p_B+p)_\mu
322: \right\}\hspace*{0.4cm}\label{eq:pengFF}\\
323: \lefteqn{{\rm with\ } T_1(0) = T_2(0). \label{eq:T1T2}}
324: \end{eqnarray}
325: $A_0$ is also the form factor of the pseudoscalar current:
326: \begin{equation}\label{eq:A0}
327: c_V\langle V |\partial_\mu A^\mu | B\rangle = c_V(m_b+m_q)
328: \langle V |\bar q i\gamma_5 b | B\rangle = 2 m_V
329: (e^* q) A_0(q^2).
330: \end{equation}
331: $\bar q$ in the above formulas stands for $\bar u$, $\bar d$ and $\bar s$
332: in (\ref{eq:SLFF}) and (\ref{eq:A0})
333: and $\bar d$, $\bar s$ in (\ref{eq:pengFF}); the
334: actual assignment of different decay channels to underlying $b\to
335: q$ transitions is made explicit in Tab.~\ref{tab:0}. In our
336: calculation, we assume isospin symmetry throughout, which implies
337: that there are five different
338: sets of form factors: $B_q\to\rho$, $B_q\to\omega$, $B_q\to K^*$,
339: $B_s\to K^*$ and $B_s\to \phi$ (with $q=u,d$).
340: The factor $c_V$ accounts for the flavor content of
341: particles: $c_V=\sqrt{2}$ for $\rho^0$,
342: $\omega$ and $c_V=1$ otherwise.\footnote{To be
343: precise, $c_V$ is $\sqrt{2}$ for $\rho^0$ in
344: $b\to u$ and for $\omega$, and $-\sqrt{2}$ for $\rho^0$ in
345: $b\to d$, with the flavor wave functions $\rho^0\sim (\bar u u -
346: \bar d d)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\omega \sim (\bar u u +
347: \bar d d)/\sqrt{2}$. We assume that $\phi$ is a pure $s\bar s$ state.}
348:
349:
350: The currents in (\ref{eq:SLFF}) and (\ref{eq:pengFF}) contain
351: both vector and axialvector components. $V$ and $T_1$
352: correspond to the vector components of the currents, and, as the $B$
353: meson is a pseudoscalar, to
354: the axialvector components of the matrix elements.
355: $A_{1,2}$ clearly correspond to the axialvector component of the $V-A$
356: current; the term in $A_3-A_0$ arises as the contraction of
357: (\ref{eq:SLFF}) with $-iq^\mu$ must agree with (\ref{eq:A0}). As for
358: the penguin current, $T_{2,3}$ correspond to the
359: axialvector components of the current; there is no analogon to $A_0$,
360: as the current vanishes upon contraction with $q^\mu$.
361: As we shall see in Sec.~\ref{sec:4}, for analysing the dependence of
362: each form factor on $q^2$, it is best to choose $A_{0,1,2}$ as
363: independent form factors for the $A$ current, and define $A_3$ by
364: (\ref{eq:A30}), but for the penguin
365: current it will turn out more appropriate to choose a different set
366: of independent form factors: $T_1$,
367: $T_2$ and $\widetilde{T}_3$ with
368: \begin{eqnarray}
369: \lefteqn{c_V\langle V(p) | \bar q \sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu (1+\gamma_5) b |
370: B(p_B)\rangle = i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \epsilon^{*\nu}
371: p_B^\rho p^\sigma \, 2 T_1(q^2)}\nonumber\\
372: & & {} + e^*_\mu (m_B^2-m_{V}^2) T_2(q^2) -(p_B+p)_\mu (e^* q)
373: \widetilde{T}_3(q^2) + q_\mu (e^* q) T_3(q^2)\label{eq:pengFF2}
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: and $T_3$ defined as
376: \begin{equation}
377: T_3(q^2) =\frac{m_B^2-m_V^2}{q^2}\left(
378: \widetilde{T}_3(q^2) - T_2(q^2)\right).\label{eq:T3tilde}
379: \end{equation}
380:
381: As the actual calculation is done using an off-shell momentum $p_B$
382: with $p_B^2\neq m_B^2$, it is
383: crucial to avoid any ambiguity in the interpretation of scalar
384: products like $2pq=p_B^2-q^2-p^2\neq m_B^2-q^2-m_V^2$ that occur at
385: intermediate steps of
386: the calculation. This is particularly relevant for the penguin form
387: factors which are defined in terms of a matrix element over the tensor
388: current which is
389: contracted with the physical momentum $q^\nu$. The problem can be
390: avoided by extracting
391: $T_i$ and $\widetilde{T}_3$ from sum
392: rules for a matrix element with no contractions:
393: \begin{eqnarray}
394: \langle V(p)|\bar q \sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5 b | B(p_B)\rangle & = &
395: A(q^2) \left\{e^*_\mu (p_B+p)_\nu - (p_B+p)_\mu e^*_\nu\right\} - B(q^2)
396: \left\{e^*_\mu q_\nu - q_\mu e^*_\nu\right\}\nonumber\\
397: & & {} - 2C(q^2) \,\frac{e^*
398: q}{m_B^2-m_{V}^2} \,\left\{ p_\mu q_\nu - q_\mu
399: p_\nu \right\}.\label{6}
400: \end{eqnarray}
401: $A$, $B$ and $C$ are related to $T_i$ and $\widetilde{T}_3$
402: defined in (\ref{eq:pengFF}) and (\ref{eq:pengFF2}) as
403: \begin{equation}\label{eq:eq}
404: T_1 = A,\quad T_2 = A-\frac{q^2}{m_B^2-m_{V}^2}\, B,\quad
405: T_3 = B+C,\quad \widetilde{T}_3 = A + \frac{q^2}{m_B^2-m_{V}^2}\, C,
406: \end{equation}
407: which implies
408: \begin{equation}
409: T_1(0)=T_2(0)=\widetilde{T}_3(0).
410: \end{equation}
411:
412: \begin{table}[tb]
413: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
414: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
415: $$
416: \begin{array}{|l|cccccccc|}
417: \hline
418: & \rho^+ & \rho^0,\omega & \rho^- & K^{*+} & K^{*0}(d\bar s) & K^{*-} &
419: \bar{K}^{*0}(s\bar d) & \phi\\\hline
420: B_u^- & - & b\to u & b\to d & - & - & b\to s & - & -\\
421: \bar{B}_d & b\to u & b\to d & - & - & - & - & b\to s & -\\
422: \bar{B}_s & - & - & - & b\to u & b\to d & - & - & b\to s\\\hline
423: \end{array}
424: $$
425: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
426: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
427: \caption[]{Allowed decay channels in terms of underlying quark
428: transitions. We assume isospin-symmetry and hence have five different
429: sets of form factors: $B_q\to\rho$, $B_q\to\omega$, $B_q\to K^*$,
430: $B_s\to K^*$ and $B_s\to \phi$ (with $q=u,d$).}\label{tab:0}
431: \end{table}
432:
433:
434: Relevant for semileptonic decays are, in the limit of vanishing lepton
435: mass, the form factors $A_{1,2}$ and $V$ with $q^2$, the invariant
436: mass of the lepton-pair, in the range $0\leq q^2\leq
437: (m_B-m_V)^2$. $B\to V\gamma$ depends on $T_1(0)$, whereas $B\to V
438: \ell^+\ell^-$ depends on all seven form factors (see Ref.~\cite{Hiller} for
439: an explicit formula). The motivation for studying $B\to\rho \ell \bar
440: \nu_\ell$ and $B\to\omega \ell \bar
441: \nu_\ell$ is to extract information on the CKM matrix element
442: $|V_{ub}|$, whereas the FCNC transitions $B\to(K^*,\rho,\omega)\gamma$
443: and $B\to(K^*,\rho,\omega)\ell^+\ell^-$ serve to constrain new
444: physics or, in the absence thereof, the ratio
445: $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ \cite{parkho}, which would complement the
446: determination of $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ from $B$-mixing.
447:
448: In the LCSR approach the form factors are extracted from the
449: correlation function of the relevant weak current $J_W$, i.e.\ either
450: the semileptonic $V-A$ current or the penguin current of
451: (\ref{eq:T3tilde}), and an interpolating
452: field for the $B$ meson, in the presence of the vector meson:
453: \begin{equation}\label{eq:corr}
454: \Gamma(q^2,p_B^2) =
455: i\int d^4x e^{iqx} \langle V(p) | T J_W(x) j_b^\dagger(0) | 0 \rangle,
456: \end{equation}
457: with $j_b = m_b \bar q' i \gamma_5 b$, $q'\in\{u,d,s\}$.
458: For virtualities
459: \begin{equation}\label{eq:virt}
460: m_b^2-p_B^2 \geq O(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}m_b), \qquad
461: m_b^2-q^2 \geq O(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}m_b),
462: \end{equation}
463: the correlation function \eqref{eq:corr}
464: is dominated by light-like distances
465: and therefore accessible to an expansion around the light-cone.
466: The above conditions can be understood by demanding that the exponential
467: factor in \eqref{eq:corr} vary only slowly. The light-cone expansion
468: is performed by integrating out the transverse and ``minus'' degrees
469: of freedom and leaving only the longitudinal momenta of the partons as
470: relevant degrees of freedom. The integration over transverse momenta
471: is done up to a cutoff, $\mu_{\rm IR}$, all momenta below which are
472: included in a so-called hadron distribution amplitude (DA) $\phi$, whereas
473: larger transverse momenta are calculated in perturbation theory. The
474: correlation function is hence decomposed, or factorized, into
475: perturbative contributions $T$ and nonperturbative contributions
476: $\phi$, which both depend on the longitudinal parton momenta and the
477: factorization scale $\mu_{\rm IR}$. If the vector meson is an effective
478: quark-antiquark bound state, as is the case to leading order in the
479: light-cone expansion, one can write the corresponding longitudinal
480: momenta as $up$ and $(1-u)p$, where $p$ is the momentum of the meson
481: and $u$ a number between 0 and 1. The schematic relation
482: \eqref{eq:schemat} can then be written
483: in more explicit form as
484: \begin{equation}
485: \label{eq:lcexp}
486: \Gamma(q^2,p_B^2) = \sum_n \int_0^1 du \,
487: T^{(n)}(u,q^2,p_B^2,\mu_{\text{IR}}) \phi^{(n)}(u,\mu_{\text{IR}}).
488: \end{equation}
489: As $\Gamma$ itself is independent of the arbitrary scale
490: $\mu_{\text{IR}}$, the scale-dependence of $T^{(n)}$ and $\phi^{(n)}$
491: must cancel
492: each other.\footnote{If there is more than one contribution of a
493: given twist, they will mix under a change of the factorization scale
494: $\mu_{\rm IR}$ and it is only in the sum of all such contributions
495: that the residual $\mu_{\rm IR}$ dependence cancels.}
496: If $\phi^{(n)}$ describes the meson in a 2-parton state, it is
497: called a 2-particle DA, if it describes
498: a 3-parton,
499: i.e.\ quark-antiquark-gluon state, it is called 3-particle DA. In
500: the latter case the integration over $u$ gets replaced by an
501: integration over two independent momentum fractions, say $\alpha_1$
502: and $\alpha_2$.
503: Eq.~(\ref{eq:lcexp}) is called a ``collinear'' factorization formula,
504: as the momenta of the partons in the meson are collinear with its momentum.
505: Any such factorisation formula requires verification
506: by explicit calculation; we will come back to
507: that issue in the next section.
508:
509: Let us now define the distribution amplitudes to be used in this
510: paper. All definitions and formulas are well-known
511: and can be found in Ref.~\cite{wavefunctions}.
512: In general, the distribution amplitudes we are
513: interested in are related
514: to nonlocal matrix elements of type\footnote{The currents to use for
515: $\rho^0$ and $\omega$ are $(\bar u\Gamma u \mp \bar d\Gamma
516: d)/\sqrt{2}$, respectively.}
517: $$\bra 0 | \bar q_2(0) \Gamma [0,x] q_1(x)|V(p)\rangle \quad \mbox{or}\quad
518: \bra 0 | \bar q_2(0) [0,vx]\Gamma G^a_{\mu\nu}(vx)\lambda^a/2 [vx,x]
519: q_1(x)|V(p)\rangle.
520: $$
521: $x$ is light-like or close to light-like and the light-cone expansion
522: is an expansion in $x^2$; $v$ is a number between 0 and 1 and $\Gamma$
523: a combination of Dirac matrices. The expressions $[0,x]$ etc.\ denote
524: Wilson lines that render the matrix elements, and hence
525: the DAs, gauge-invariant. One usually works in the convenient
526: Fock-Schwinger gauge $x^\mu A^a_\mu(x)\lambda^a/2 = 0$, where all Wilson
527: lines are just $\bf 1 $;
528: we will suppress them from now on.
529:
530: The DAs are formally
531: ordered by twist, i.e.\ the difference between spin and dimension of
532: the corresponding operators. In this paper we take into account 2-
533: and 3-particle DAs of twist-2, 3 and 4.
534: The classification scheme of vector meson DAs is more involved than
535: that for pseudoscalars; it has been studied in detail in
536: Ref.~\cite{wavefunctions}. One important point is the distinction
537: between chiral-even and chiral-odd operators, i.e.\ those with an odd
538: or even number of $\gamma_\mu$-matrices. In the limit of massless quarks
539: the DAs associated with these operators form two completely separate
540: classes that do not mix under a change of $\mu_{\rm IR}$.
541: One more important parameter is the
542: polarisation-state of the meson, longitudinal ($\parallel$) or
543: transverse ($\perp$), which
544: helps to classify twist-2 and 3 DAs. Up to twist-4 accuracy, we have
545: the following decomposition of chiral-even 2-particle
546: DAs \cite{wavefunctions}:
547: \begin{eqnarray}
548: \langle 0|\bar q_2(0) \gamma_\mu q_1(x)|V(P,\lambda)\rangle
549: &=& f_V m_V \Bigg\{
550: \frac{e^{(\lambda)}z}{Pz}\, P_\mu \int_0^1 du \,e^{-i u Pz}
551: \Big[\phi_\parallel(u)
552: +\frac{m^2_V x^2}{16} {\mathbb A}_\parallel(u) + O(x^4)\Big]
553: \nonumber\\
554: &&{}+\left(e^{(\lambda)}_\mu-P_\mu\frac{e^{(\lambda)}z}{Pz}\right)
555: \int_0^1 du\, e^{-i u Pz} \,\left( g_\perp^{(v)}(u) + O(x^2)\right)
556: \nonumber\\
557: \lefteqn{-\frac{1}{2}z_\mu \frac{e^{(\lambda)}z}{(pz)^2} m^2_V \int_0^1 du
558: \, e^{-i u pz}\,\left( g_3(u) + \phi_\parallel(u) -
559: 2 g_\perp^{(v)}(u) + O(x^2)\right)
560: \Bigg\},}\hspace*{2cm}
561: \label{eq:OPEvector}\\
562: \langle 0|\bar q_2(0) \gamma_{\mu} \gamma_{5}
563: q_1(x)|V(P,\lambda)\rangle
564: &=& -\frac{1}{4}\,f_{V}
565: m_{V} \epsilon_{\mu}^{\phantom{\mu}\nu \alpha \beta}
566: e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu} p_{\alpha} z_{\beta}
567: \int_{0}^{1} \!du\, e^{-i u p z} \left( g_\perp^{(a)}(u) +
568: O(x^2)\right),\label{eq:OPEaxial}
569: \end{eqnarray}
570: and for the chiral-odd ones:
571: \begin{eqnarray}
572: \lefteqn{\langle 0|\bar q_2(0) \sigma_{\mu \nu}
573: q_1(x)|V(P,\lambda)\rangle =
574: i f_{V}^{T} \left[ (e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}P_\nu -
575: e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}P_\mu )
576: \int_{0}^{1} \!du\, e^{-i u P z}
577: \Bigg[\phi_{\perp}(u) +\frac{m_V^2x^2}{16}
578: {\mathbb A}_\perp(u)\Bigg] \right.}\hspace*{2cm}\nonumber\\
579: & &\hspace*{-10pt} {}+ (p_\mu z_\nu - p_\nu z_\mu )
580: \frac{e^{(\lambda)} z}{(p z)^{2}}
581: m_{V}^{2}
582: \int_{0}^{1} \!du\, e^{-i u p z}
583: \left(h_\parallel^{(t)}(u)-\frac{1}{2}\, \phi_\perp(u) - \frac{1}{2}\,
584: h_3(u) + O(x^2) \right)
585: \nonumber
586: \end{eqnarray}
587: \begin{equation}
588: \hspace*{-10pt} \left.{}+ \frac{1}{2}
589: (e^{(\lambda)}_{ \mu} z_\nu -e^{(\lambda)}_{ \nu} z_\mu)
590: \frac{m_{V}^{2}}{p z}
591: \int_{0}^{1} \!du\, e^{-i u p z} \left(h_3(u)-\phi_\perp(u) +
592: O(x^2)\right) \right],
593: \label{eq:OPE2}
594: \end{equation}
595: \begin{equation}
596: \langle 0 | \bar q_2(0) q_1(x) | V(P,\lambda)\rangle =
597: \frac{i}{2}\,f_V^T
598: \left(e^{(\lambda)} z\right) m_V^2 \int_0^1 du\, e^{-i u pz} \left(
599: h_\parallel^{(s)}(u) + O(x^2)\right).\hspace*{2cm}
600: \label{eq:OPEx}
601: \end{equation}
602: The relevant 3-particle DAs are defined in App.~\ref{app:A}.
603:
604: Note that we distinguish between light-like vectors $p,z$ with
605: $p^2=0=z^2$ and the vectors $P,x$ with $P^2=m_V^2$ and $x^2\neq 0$;
606: explicit relations between these vectors are given in App.~\ref{app:A}.
607: The DAs are dimensionless functions of $u$ and
608: describe
609: the probability amplitudes to find the vector meson $V$ in a state with minimal
610: number of constituents ---
611: quark and antiquark --- which carry
612: momentum fractions $u$ (quark) and $1-u$ (antiquark), respectively.
613: The eight DAs $\phi=\{\phi_{\parallel,\perp},
614: g_\perp^{(v,a)},h_\parallel^{(s,t)},h_3,g_3\}$ are normalized as
615: \begin{equation}
616: \int_0^1\!du\, \phi(u) =1.
617: \label{eq:norm}
618: \end{equation}
619: The nonlocal operators on the left-hand side are
620: renormalized at scale $\mu$, so that
621: the distribution amplitudes depend on $\mu$ as well. This
622: dependence can be calculated in perturbative QCD; we will come back to
623: that point below.
624:
625: The vector and tensor decay constants $f_V$ and $f_V^T$ featuring in
626: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:OPEvector}) and (\ref{eq:OPEx}) are defined
627: as
628: \begin{eqnarray}
629: \langle 0|\bar q_2(0) \gamma_{\mu}
630: q_1(0)|V(P,\lambda)\rangle & = & f_Vm_V
631: e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu},
632: \label{eq:fr}\\
633: \langle 0|\bar q_2(0) \sigma_{\mu \nu}
634: q_1(0)|V(P,\lambda)\rangle &=& i f_V^{T}(\mu)
635: (e_{\mu}^{(\lambda)}P_{\nu} - e_{\nu}^{(\lambda)}P_{\mu});
636: \label{eq:frp}
637: \end{eqnarray}
638: numerical values are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}. $f_V^T$
639: depends on the renormalization scale as
640: $$
641: f_V^T(Q^2) = L^{C_F/\beta_0} f_V^T(\mu^2)
642: $$
643: with $L = \alpha_s(Q^2)/\alpha_s(\mu^2)$ and $\beta_0 = 11-2/3 n_f$,
644: $n_f$ being the number of flavors involved.
645:
646: The DAs as defined above do actually not all correspond to matrix
647: elements of operators with definite twist:
648: $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$ are of twist-2,
649: $h_{\parallel}^{(s,t)}$ and $g_\perp^{(v,a)}$ contain a mixture of
650: twist-2 and 3 contributions and ${\mathbb A}_{\perp,\parallel}$, $h_3$
651: and $g_3$ a mixture of twist-2, 3 and 4 contributions. Rather than as
652: matrix elements of operators with definite twist, the DAs
653: are defined as matrix elements of operators built from fields with a
654: fixed spin-projection onto the light-cone. For quark fields, the
655: possible spin projections are $s=\pm 1/2$ and the corresponding
656: projection operators $P_+=1/(2pz)\, \pslash\zslash$ and $P_- = 1/(2pz)\,
657: \zslash\pslash$. Fields with fixed spin-projection have a definite
658: conformal spin, given by $j=1/2 (s+\mbox{canonical mass dimension})$,
659: and composite operators built from such fields can be expanded in
660: terms of increasing conformal spin.\footnote{For a more detailed
661: discussion we refer to the first reference in
662: \cite{wavefunctions} and to Ref.~\cite{VBreview}.} The
663: expansion of the corresponding DAs, suitably dubbed
664: conformal expansion, is one of the primary tools in the analysis of
665: meson DAs, and together with the use of the QCD
666: equations of motion it allows one to parametrize the plethora of
667: 2- and 3-particle DAs in terms of a manageable number of
668: independent hadronic matrix elements. DAs defined as matrix elements
669: of operators with definite twist, on the other hand, do not have a
670: well-defined conformal expansion \cite{lazar}, and
671: this is the reason why we prefer the above definitions. In an
672: admittedly rather sloppy way we will from now on refer to $g_\perp^{(v,a)},
673: h_\parallel^{(s,t)}$ as twist-3 DAs and to $h_3,g_3,{\mathbb
674: A}_{\perp,\parallel}$ as twist-4 DAs. A more detailed
675: discussion of the relations between the different DAs is given in
676: App.~\ref{app:A}; the upshot is that
677: the 18 twist-2, 3 and 4 DAs we shall take into account
678: can be paramatrized, to NLO in the conformal expansion, in
679: terms of 10 hadronic matrix elements, most of which give only
680: tiny contributions to the LCSRs for form factors.
681:
682: For the leading twist-2 DAs $\phi_{\parallel,\perp}$ in particular,
683: the conformal expansion goes in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials:
684: \begin{equation}
685: \phi(u,\mu^2) = 6 u (1-u) \left( 1 + \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty
686: a_{n}(\mu^2) C_{n}^{3/2}(2u-1)\right).
687: \end{equation}
688: The first term on the right-hand side, $6 u (1-u)$, is referred to as
689: asymptotic DA; as the anomalous dimensions of $a_n$ are positive,
690: $\phi$ approaches the asymptotic DA in the limit $\mu^2\to\infty$.
691: The usefulness of this expansion manifests itself in the fact that,
692: to leading logarithmic accuracy, the (nonperturbative) Gegenbauer
693: moments $a_n$ renormalize multiplicatively with
694: \begin{equation}
695: a_n(Q^2) = L^{\gamma_n/(2\beta_0)}\, a_n(\mu^2)
696: \end{equation}
697: with $L= \alpha_s(Q^2)/\alpha_s(\mu^2)$.
698: The anomalous dimensions $\gamma^{\parallel,\perp}_n$ are given by
699: \begin{eqnarray}
700: \gamma^\parallel_n &=& 8C_F \left(\psi(n+2) + \gamma_E - \frac{3}{4} -
701: \frac{1}{2(n+1)(n+2)} \right),\\
702: \gamma^\perp_n &=& 8C_F \left(\psi(n+2) + \gamma_E - 1 \right)\label{17}
703: \end{eqnarray}
704: with $\psi(n+1) = \sum_{k=1}^n 1/k - \gamma_E$.
705: As the contributions from different comformal spin do not mix under
706: renormalization, at least to leading logarithmic accuracy, one can construct
707: models for DAs by truncating the expansion
708: at a fixed order. Despite the absence of any ``small parameter'' in
709: that expansion, the truncation is justified inasmuch as one is
710: interested in physical amplitudes rather than the DA itself. If we write
711: $${\rm amplitude~}= \int_0^1 du\,\phi(u) T(u),
712: $$
713: then, assuming that $T$ is a regular function of $u$, i.e.\ with no
714: (endpoint) singularities, the highly
715: oscillating behavior of the Gegenbauer polynomials suppresses
716: contributions from higher orders in the conformal expansion.
717: Even for a function $T$ with a mild endpoint singularity,
718: for instance $T=\ln u$, we find, using the
719: generating function of the Gegenbauer polynomials,
720: $$\int_0^1 du\,\phi(u) T(u) = -\frac{5}{6}\,a_0 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty
721: \frac{(-1)^{n-1} }{n(n+3)}\,3a_n.$$
722: This result indicates that, assuming the $a_n$ fall off in $n$,
723: which, as we shall see seen in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3}, is indeed the case,
724: even a truncation after the first few terms should
725: give a reasonable approximation to the full amplitude. A more
726: thorough discussion of the convergence of the conformal expansion
727: for physical amplitudes can be found in Ref.~\cite{angi}.
728: The major shortcoming of models based on the truncation of the
729: conformal expansion is the fact that the
730: information available on the actual values of the $a_n$ (and in particular
731: their analogues in 3-particle DAs) is, to put it mildly,
732: scarce. We therefore use
733: truncated models only for DAs whose contribution to the LCSRs is
734: small as is the case for all 3-particle DAs and the twist-4 DAs;
735: explicit formulas are given in App.~\ref{app:A}.
736: All contributions due to or induced by twist-2 DAs, on the other
737: hand, are treated as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3}.
738:
739: The major difference between the analysis of LCSRs for $B\to\,$vector
740: meson form factors and that of $B\to\,$pseudoscalar form factors
741: presented in \cite{BZ} is probably the identification of a suitable
742: parameter by which to order the relative weight of different contributions
743: to the sum rules. For $B\to\,$pseudoscalar form factors, the standard
744: classification in terms of increasing twist proved to be
745: suitable, as the chiral parities of the twist-2 DA and 2-particle twist-3
746: DAs are different, so that contribution of the latter to the LCSRs is
747: suppressed by a factor $m_\pi^2/(m_u+m_d)/m_b$. In addition, the
748: admixture of twist-2 matrix elements to twist-3 DAs
749: and of twist-2 and 3 matrix elements to twist-4 DAs is small and
750: moreover vanishes in the chiral limit $m_\pi\to 0$.
751: For vector mesons, the
752: situation is more complex: for instance, both the twist-2 DA
753: $\phi_\perp$ and the twist-3 DA $g_\perp^{(v)}$ contribute at the same
754: order to the form factors $A_2$ and $A_0$, in the combination
755: $\phi_\parallel - g_\perp^{(v)}$. Naive twist-counting is evidently
756: not very appropriate for classifying the relative size of
757: contributions of different DAs to the form factors. Instead, we
758: decide to classify the relevance of
759: contributions to the LCSRs not by twist, but by a parameter
760: $\delta\propto m_V$. The precise definition of $\delta$ depends on the
761: kinematics of the process; to leading order in an expansion in
762: $1/m_b$, however, one finds $\delta_{\rm HQL} = m_V/m_b$.
763: The numerical analysis of the
764: LCSRs does indeed display a clear suppression of terms in
765: $O(\delta)$ and higher, which suggests
766: the following classification of 2-particle DAs:
767: \begin{itemize}
768: \item $O(\delta^0):$ $\phi_\perp$;
769: \item $O(\delta^1):$ $\phi_\parallel,g_\perp^{(v,a)}$;
770: \item $O(\delta^2):$ $h_\parallel^{(s,t)},h_3,{\mathbb A}_\perp$;
771: \item $O(\delta^3):$ $g_3,{\mathbb A}_\parallel$.
772: \end{itemize}
773: We treat $\delta$ as expansion parameter of the light-cone
774: expansion and shall combine it with the perturbative QCD expansion in
775: $\alpha_s$ to obtain a second order expression for the correlation
776: functions (\ref{eq:corr}); terms in $\delta^3$ are dropped.
777:
778: \section{Calculation of the Correlation Functions}\label{sec:3}
779:
780: As we have seen in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, LCSRs for form factors are
781: extracted from the correlation function of the corresponding weak
782: current with the pseudoscalar current $j_b = m_b \bar q' i\gamma_5
783: b$, evaluated between the vacuum and the vector meson. In this
784: section we describe the calculation of these correlation functions
785: to second order in $\alpha_s$ and $\delta$.
786:
787: The relevant correlation functions are defined as
788: \begin{eqnarray}
789: \lefteqn{i\int d^4x e^{iqx} \langle V(p)|T(V-A)_\mu(x)
790: j_b^\dagger(0)|0\rangle =}\hspace*{0.5cm}\nonumber\\
791: & = & -i \Gamma_0 e^*_\mu + i \Gamma_+(e^* q)\, (q+2p)_\mu +
792: i \Gamma_- \,(e^* q)\, q_\mu + \Gamma_V
793: \epsilon_\mu^{\phantom{\mu}\alpha\beta\gamma} e^*_\alpha q_\beta
794: p_\gamma\,,\label{15}
795: \end{eqnarray}
796: \begin{eqnarray}
797: \lefteqn{i\int d^4x e^{iqx} \langle V(p)|T [\bar q\sigma_{\mu\nu}
798: \gamma_5 b](x)
799: j_b^\dagger(0)|0\rangle =}\hspace*{0.5cm}\nonumber\\
800: & = & {\cal A} \{e^*_\mu (2p+q)_\nu - e^*_\nu
801: (2p+q)_\mu\}
802: - {\cal B}\{e^*_\mu q_\nu - e^*_\nu q_\mu\} - 2
803: {\cal C} (e^* q) \{p_\mu q_\nu - q_\mu p_\nu\}.\label{x}
804: \end{eqnarray}
805: The definitions of $\Gamma^{\pm}$ and ${\cal C}$ differ from those used
806: in Ref.~\cite{BB98} by a factor $pq$; we shall come back to this
807: point below. In this section we describe the calculation of the
808: contributions of 2-particle DAs to the above correlation functions;
809: those of 3-particle DAs are calculated in App.~\ref{app:B}.
810:
811: In light-cone expansion and including only contributions from
812: 2-particle Fock-states of the mesons, each of the seven invariants
813: $\Gamma_{0,\pm,V}$, ${\cal A,B,C}$ can be written as a
814: convolution integral of type
815: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fac}
816: \Gamma^V = \int \frac{dk_+}{2\pi}\, \phi^V_{ab}(k_+)\, T_{ba}(k_+,p_B^2,q^2)
817: \end{equation}
818: with $a,b$ being spinor indices. $p^2=m_V^2$ is set to 0 and
819: $k_+$ is the longitudinal momentum of
820: the quark in the
821: vector meson $V$, which is related to the momentum fraction $u$
822: introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:2} by $k_+ = u p_+$.\footnote{The
823: plus-component of a 4-vector $k^\mu$ is defined as $k_+ =
824: (k^0+k^3)/\sqrt{2}$, the minus-component as $k_- =
825: (k^0-k^3)/\sqrt{2}$.}
826: The above factorisation formula implies a complete decoupling of
827: long-distance QCD effects, encoded in the DA $\phi^V$, and short-distance
828: effects calculable in perturbation theory, described by
829: $T$. Factorisation also makes it possible to calculate $T$ in a
830: convenient way: if it holds, $T$ must be independent of the specific
831: properties of the external hadron state, %\footnote{This is why we have
832: % called it $T$ and not $T^V$.}
833: and one can calculate $\Gamma^V$
834: with a particularly simple state that allows a
835: straight\-for\-ward extraction of the short-distance amplitudes
836: $T$.\footnote{This is completely
837: analogous to the calculation of Wilson-coefficients in a local
838: operator product expansion, which must be independent of the external
839: states and hence are calculated using any convenient state.} A
840: convenient choice of the external state is a free quark-antiquark pair
841: with longitudinal momenta $up$ and $\bar u p$ and spins $s$ and $r$,
842: respectively, and DA
843: \begin{eqnarray*}
844: \phi^{q_1\bar q_2}_{ab}(k_+) &=& \left.\int dz_- \,e^{-ik_+z_-}
845: \langle q_1(u p,s) \bar q_2(\bar u p,r) | (\bar q_1)_{a}(z) [z,0] (q_2)_b(0)
846: | 0 \rangle\right|_{z_+=0,z_\perp=0}\\
847: & = & 2\pi\,\bar u^{q_1}_{a}(up,s) v^{q_2}_{b}(\bar up,r)\delta(k_+-up_+),
848: \end{eqnarray*}
849: where $\bar u$ and $v$ are the standard fermion spinors.
850: The $T$ amplitudes, to one loop accuracy,
851: are then given directly by the diagrams shown in
852: Fig.~\ref{fig:1} with external on-shell quarks with momenta $up$ and
853: $(1-u)p$, respectively.
854: \begin{figure}[tb]
855: $$\epsfxsize=0.55\textwidth\epsffile{figBvec1.ps}$$
856: \caption[]{Diagrams for 2-particle correlation functions. $\Gamma$
857: is the weak interaction vertex. The light-quark self-energy diagrams
858: of type c give purely divergent contributions in $1/\epsilon_{\rm IR} -
859: 1/\epsilon_{\rm UV}$.}\label{fig:1}
860: \end{figure}
861: The projection onto a specific Dirac structure is done using the general
862: decomposition
863: \begin{eqnarray}
864: (\bar q_1)_a (q_2)_b & = & \frac{1}{4}\, ({\bf 1})_{ba} (\bar q_1 q_2) -
865: \frac{1}{4} \, (i\gamma_5)_{ba} (\bar q_1 i\gamma_5 q_2) + \frac{1}{4}\,
866: (\gamma_\mu)_{ba} (\bar q_1 \gamma^\mu q_2) - \frac{1}{4}\,
867: (\gamma_\mu\gamma_5)_{ba} (\bar q_1 \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 q_2)\nonumber\\
868: & & {} + \frac{1}{8}\,(\sigma_{\mu\nu})_{ba} (\bar q_1
869: \sigma^{\mu\nu} q_2).\label{20A}
870: \end{eqnarray}
871: In order to obtain the convolution integrals for
872: vector mesons, one has to replace the structures $\bar q_1 \Gamma q_2$
873: in (\ref{20A}) by the appropriate DAs and include
874: factors of $e^*z$, $pz$ and
875: $x^2$ as given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:OPEvector}) to (\ref{eq:OPEx}).
876: The translation of explicit terms in $z_\mu$
877: into momentum space is given by
878: \begin{equation}\label{deriv1}
879: z_\mu \to -i \frac{\partial}{\partial(up)_\mu},
880: \end{equation}
881: as the outgoing $q_1$ comes with a factor $\exp(iupz)$.
882: Terms in $1/(p z)$ can be treated by partial integration:
883: \begin{equation}\label{deriv2}
884: \frac{1}{p z}\, \phi(u) \to -i \int_0^u dv\,\phi(v) \equiv -i \Phi(u).
885: \end{equation}
886: There are no surface terms, as for all the relevant structures $\phi$,
887: e.g.\ $\phi_\parallel-g_\perp^{(v)}$, one has $\Phi(0)=0=\Phi(1)$.
888: A second, approximate way to deal with factors $(e^* z)/(pz)$ is based
889: on the observation that $(e^* z)$ projects onto the longitudinal
890: polarisation state of the vector meson, cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{polv}), and that
891: in the ultrarelativistic limit $E_V\to\infty$ the longitudinal
892: polarisation vector is approximately collinear with the meson's momentum:
893: $$
894: \epsilon^{(0)}_\mu = \frac{1}{m_V}\left( p_\mu +
895: O(m_V^2)\right)\quad\Longrightarrow \quad \frac{e^* z}{pz}\to
896: \frac{1}{m_V}\mbox{~~and~~} \frac{1}{m_V}\to \frac{e^* q}{pq}.
897: $$
898: Up to corrections in $m_V^2$, this procedure yields results identical
899: with those from partial
900: integration --- provided that the corresponding DA $\phi$ is normalized to
901: 0. That is:
902: $$
903: -\int_0^1 du
904: \Phi(u)\, e^*_\kappa\,\frac{\partial}{\partial(up)_\kappa} \sim
905: \frac{e^*z}{pz} \int_0^1 du \phi(u) \sim \frac{e^* q}{pq} \left(
906: \int_0^1 du \phi(u) + O(m_V^2)\right),
907: $$
908: where the first relation is valid only if $\phi$ is normalized to 0,
909: i.e.\ $\Phi(1) = 0$. This is
910: indeed the case for the mixed-twist structure
911: $\phi_\parallel-g_\perp^{(v)}$, but does not apply if only the
912: pure twist-2 DA $\phi_\parallel$ is included, as
913: done in \cite{BB98}. In this
914: case, unphysical singularities in $p_B^2=q^2$ appear in $\Gamma_\pm$
915: and ${\cal C}$ and have to be factored out.
916: This explains the appearance of additional factors $1/(pq)
917: = 2/(p_B^2-q^2)$ in the correlation functions used in \cite{BB98}.
918: In the calculation presented in this paper
919: we use the prescriptions (\ref{deriv1}) and (\ref{deriv2}) througout
920: and hence avoid unphysical singularities in $p_B^2$. We have
921: checked that indeed the singularity structure of all
922: seven invariants $\Gamma_{0,\pm,V}$, ${\cal A,B,C}$ is given by a cut
923: on the real axis for $p_B^2\geq m_b^2$.
924:
925: The complete correlation function, including 2-particle DAs
926: to $O(\delta^2)$ for the vector current $V$, axialvector current $A$, tensor
927: current $T$ and scalar current $S$,\footnote{The matrix elements of
928: vector mesons over the pseudoscalar current vanish.} can now be written as
929: \begin{eqnarray}
930: \Gamma(q^2,p_B^2) &=&
931: \sum_{C=V,A,T,S}\int_0^1 du\,{\mathfrak P}_{ab}^C(u;\mu^2)
932: T_{ba}(u,p_B^2,q^2;\mu^2)\\[-5pt]
933: {\rm with}\quad {\mathfrak P}^V_{ab} & = & \frac{1}{4}\, f_V m_V
934: (\gamma^{\alpha})_{ab} \left( -P_\alpha e^*_\beta
935: \,\Phi(u)\,\frac{\partial}{\partial(up)_\beta} + e^*_\alpha
936: g_\perp^{(v)}(u) \right),\\
937: {\mathfrak P}^A_{ab} & = &
938: -\frac{i}{16}\,f_Vm_V\,(\gamma^\alpha\gamma_5)_{ab}\,
939: \epsilon_{\alpha\kappa\lambda
940: \beta}\,e^{*\kappa} P^\lambda
941: g_\perp^{(a)}(u)\,\frac{\partial}{\partial(up)_{\beta}},\\
942: {\mathfrak P}^T_{ab} & = & -\frac{i}{4}\, f_V^T
943: (\sigma^{\alpha\beta})_{ab} \left\{ e^*_\alpha P_\beta \left(
944: \phi_\perp(u) - \frac{1}{16}\,m_V^2 {\mathbb A}_\perp
945: \,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial(up)_\kappa\partial(up)^\kappa}\right)\right.\\
946: &&{}\left.+
947: m_V^2 P_\alpha \epsilon^*_\gamma
948: I_L(u)\,\frac{\partial^2}{\partial(up)_\beta \partial(up)_\gamma} -
949: \frac{1}{2}\,m_V^2\,e^*_\alpha H_3(u)
950: \,\frac{\partial}{\partial(up)_\beta}\right\},\\
951: {\mathfrak P}^S_{ab} & = &
952: -\frac{1}{8}\,m_V^2 f_V^T (e^*_\alpha)({\bf 1})_{ab}
953: h_\parallel^{(s)}(u) \,\frac{\partial}{\partial(up)_\beta},\\[-5pt]
954: %\end{eqnarray}
955: %\begin{eqnarray}
956: {\rm where}\quad
957: \Phi(u) & = & \int_0^v dv
958: \left(\phi_\parallel(v)-g_\perp^{(v)}(v)\right),\nonumber\\
959: I_L(u) & = & \int_0^u dv \int_0^v dw \left(h_\parallel^{(t)}(w)
960: -\frac{1}{2}\, \ \phi_\perp(w) - \frac{1}{2}\, h_3(w)\right),\nonumber\\
961: H_3(u) & = & \int_0^u dv\,(h_3(v)-\phi_\perp(v)).\nonumber
962: \end{eqnarray}
963: All these three functions $F(u)$ fulfill $F(0)=1=F(1)$.
964:
965: Just to give an example, the tree-contribution is given by
966: $$
967: T_{ba}^{\rm tree} = -i\left[\Gamma (\slash{q}+u\slash{P}+m_b)
968: \gamma_5\right]_{ba}/((q+uP)^2-m_b^2)
969: $$
970: with the weak vertex $\Gamma$.
971:
972: In order for factorisation to hold, two conditions have to be met:
973: \begin{itemize}
974: \item[(a)] the long-distance infrared
975: sensitive parts (IR-sin\-gu\-la\-ri\-ties) in $T$ have to cancel against those
976: in the DAs;
977: \item[(b)] the convolution integral $\int du \phi^{\rm ren}(u) T^{\rm
978: ren}(u)$ has to converge. Otherwise factorisation is violated by
979: soft end-point singularities.
980: \end{itemize}
981: In order to check condition (a), we
982: decompose the bare amplitude into finite and
983: divergent terms as
984: \begin{eqnarray*}
985: T^{\rm bare}(u) & = & T^{(0)}(u) + \alpha_s \left(
986: T^{(1),{\rm ren}}(u) +
987: \frac{1}{\epsilon} \,T^{(1),\rm div}(u)\right).
988: \end{eqnarray*}
989: Ultra-violet divergences, which only occur for the
990: penguin-current, are easily subtracted using the known renormalisation
991: of the corresponding current:
992: $$T^{\rm bare}(u) \to T^{\rm bare}(u) - \delta Z_{\rm peng}
993: T^{(0)}(u).$$
994: The remaining divergent terms have to cancel against the divergent
995: parts of the bare DA,
996: $$\phi^{\rm bare}(u) = \phi^{\rm ren}(u) + \alpha_s
997: \,\frac{1}{\epsilon}\, \phi^{\rm div}(u)
998: $$
999: so that
1000: $$\int_0^1 du\left( \phi^{\rm ren}(u) T^{(1),{\rm div}}(u) + \phi^{\rm
1001: div}(u) T^{(0)}(u) \right) = 0.
1002: $$
1003: $\phi^{\rm div}(u)$ is known explicitly for the twist-2 $\pi$ DA
1004: \cite{pQCD} and
1005: coincides with that for $\phi_\parallel$, but to the best of our
1006: knowledge has not yet been calculated for $\phi_\perp$. Alternatively,
1007: one can check the cancellation of divergences order by order in the
1008: conformal expansion of the DAs, cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:2} and
1009: App.~\ref{app:B}, with\footnote{We use dimensional regularisation with
1010: $D=4+2\epsilon$.}
1011: $$a_n^{\parallel,\perp,{\rm bare}} = a_n^{\parallel,\perp} \left( 1 +
1012: \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\,
1013: \frac{\gamma_n^{\parallel,\perp}}{2}\,\frac{1}{\epsilon} \right).
1014: $$
1015: We find that all $1/\epsilon$ terms cancel as required.
1016:
1017: As for condition (b), we also find that all $T$ are
1018: regular at the endpoints, so that there are no endpoint singularities
1019: in the convolution.
1020:
1021: As an
1022: interesting by-product, we also find the following fixed-order
1023: evolution-equations of the first
1024: inverse moment of the DAs:
1025: \begin{eqnarray}
1026: \int_0^1 du\,\frac{\phi_\parallel(u,\mu_2^2)}{u} &=&
1027: \int_0^1 du\,\frac{\phi_\parallel(u,\mu_1^2)}{u}\left\{ 1 +
1028: a_s\,\ln\,\frac{\mu_2^2}{\mu_1^2} \left( 3 + 2 \ln u\right)\right\},\nonumber\\
1029: \int_0^1 du\,\frac{\phi_\perp(u,\mu_2^2)}{u} &=&
1030: \int_0^1 du\,\frac{\phi_\perp(u,\mu_1^2)}{u}\left\{ 1 +
1031: 2 a_s\,\ln\,\frac{\mu_2^2}{\mu_1^2} \left( 2 + \frac{\ln
1032: u}{1-u}\right)\right\}.\label{25}
1033: \end{eqnarray}
1034: These equations allow one to calculate the change of that inverse
1035: moment directly for a given DA without having to calculate the
1036: Gegenbauer-moments in an intermediate step.
1037: The first of these relations can also be obtained
1038: from the known one-loop evolution kernel of the $\pi$ twist-2 DA
1039: \cite{pQCD}, whose anomalous dimensions coincide with those of
1040: $\phi_\parallel$; the relation for $\phi_\perp$ is new.
1041:
1042: As we shall see in the next section, the LCSRs do actually not
1043: involve the full correlation functions, but only their imaginary
1044: parts in $p_B^2$. As in Ref.~\cite{BZ} we take the imaginary part only after
1045: calculating the convolution integral, which results in closed and
1046: comparatively simple, albeit lengthy expressions.
1047: The distribution amplitudes $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$,
1048: $g_\perp^{(v,a)}$ are given by
1049: their respective conformal expansions, which we truncate at $a_9$.
1050: As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, the effective expansion parameter of
1051: the light-cone expansion is $\delta$, so that the correlation
1052: function is expanded in both $\delta$ and $\alpha_s$.
1053: We combine both expansions and include terms up to second order, i.e.\
1054: $O(\delta^{0,1,2}\alpha_s^0)$ and $O(\delta^{0,1}\alpha_s^1)$, but
1055: drop $O(\delta^2\alpha_s^1)$.\footnote{Terms of
1056: $O(\delta^0\alpha_s^2)$ are not included, either.}
1057: A list of the included terms is given in
1058: Tab.~\ref{tab:1}. Note that we have not calculated the radiative
1059: corrections to the contributions from the 3-particle twist-3 DAs
1060: $\cal V,A$ as they are expected to be very small. This follows in part
1061: from the observation that $O(\alpha_s)$ terms in the corresponding
1062: twist-3 matrix elements do also show up in the $O(\alpha_s)$
1063: corrections to $g_\perp^{(v,a)}$ and are very small numerically.
1064: \begin{table}
1065: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
1066: $$\begin{array}{|llcc|}\hline
1067: & {\rm DA} & O(\alpha_s^0) & O(\alpha_s)\\\hline
1068: \mbox{\rm twist-2:} & \phi_\perp & \delta^0,\delta^2 & \delta^0\\
1069: & \phi_\parallel & \delta\phantom{^{0}} & \delta\phantom{^{0}}\\
1070: \mbox{\rm twist-3:} & g^{(a)}_\perp,g_\perp^{(v)}
1071: & \delta\phantom{^{0}}& \delta^{(*)}\\
1072: & h_\parallel^{(s)},h_\parallel^{(t)} & \delta^2 & -\\
1073: & {\cal V,A}\mbox{~(3-part.\ DAs)} & \delta\phantom{^{0}} & -\\
1074: & {\cal T}\mbox{~(3-part.\ DA)} & \delta^2 & -\\
1075: \mbox{\rm twist-4:} & h_3, {\mathbb A}_\perp & \delta^2 & - \\
1076: & \mbox{\rm chiral-odd 3-part.\ DAs} & \delta^2 & - \\\hline
1077: \end{array}$$
1078: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
1079: \caption[]{Contributions included in the calculation of the
1080: correlation functions (\ref{15}) and (\ref{x}). $\delta\propto
1081: m_V$ is the
1082: effective expansion parameter of the light-cone expansion; we include
1083: contributions up to second order in $\delta$ and $\alpha_s$; those
1084: marked by $(*)$ are new.}\label{tab:1}
1085: \end{table}
1086:
1087: Depending on the specific weak vertex and projection onto the DAs, some
1088: diagrams contain traces with an odd number
1089: of $\gamma_5$, which leads to ambiguities
1090: when naive dimensional regularisation with
1091: anticommuting $\gamma_5$ is used. We solve this problem by using Larin's
1092: prescription for dealing with $\gamma_5$ \cite{Larin} and replace, whenever
1093: necessary, ($a_s
1094: = C_F \alpha_s/(4\pi)$)
1095: \begin{eqnarray*}
1096: \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 & \to & \left(1- 4 a_s\right) \frac{i}{3!}\,\epsilon_{\mu
1097: \nu_1\nu_2\nu_3} \,\gamma^{\nu_1}\gamma^{\nu_2}\gamma^{\nu_3},\\
1098: \gamma_5 & \to & \left(1- 8 a_s\right) \frac{i}{4!}\,\epsilon_{\nu_1
1099: \nu_2\nu_3\nu_4} \,\gamma^{\nu_1}\gamma^{\nu_2}\gamma^{\nu_3}
1100: \gamma^{\nu_4},
1101: \end{eqnarray*}
1102: \begin{eqnarray*}
1103: \sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5 &\to& -\left(1- 0 a_s\right) \frac{i}{2}
1104: \,\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta} \sigma^{\alpha\beta}.
1105: \end{eqnarray*}
1106: Note that we use the Bjorken/Drell convention for the $\epsilon$
1107: tensor with $\epsilon_{0123}=+1$.
1108: For the special case of the axial-vector form factors and the
1109: projection onto the DA $g_\perp^{(a)}$, one can implement Larin's prescription
1110: by rewriting either the weak vertex or the $B$ vertex. We have checked
1111: that we obtain the same result in both cases. One might also think of
1112: ``Larinizing'' the projection operator onto the DA; the corresponding
1113: finite renormalisation will be $u$-dependent due to the nonlocality
1114: of the current and is yet unknown.
1115:
1116:
1117: \section{Numerics}\label{sec:4}
1118:
1119: This section is the heartpiece of our paper, in which
1120: we derive the sum rules for $B\to V$ form factors and
1121: obtain numerical results. The section is organised as follows: in
1122: Sec.~\ref{sec:4.1} we derive the LCSR for one of the seven form
1123: factors, $V$. In Sec.~\ref{sec:4.2} we give values for most of the
1124: needed hadronic input parameters and explain how to determine the sum rule
1125: specific parameters, i.e.\ the Borel parameter $M^2$ and the continuum
1126: threshold $s_0$. We also calculate $f_{B_d}$ and $f_{B_s}$, which are necessary
1127: ingredients in the LCSRs. In Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3} we motivate the need
1128: for and introduce models of the twist-2 DAs $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$.
1129: In Sec.~\ref{sec:4.4} we calculate the form factors at $q^2=0$
1130: and discuss their uncertainties.
1131: In Sec.~\ref{sec:4.5} we present the form factors for
1132: central input values of the parameters and provide a simple
1133: parametrization valid in the full kinematical regime of $q^2$.
1134: The results for $q^2=0$ are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}, central
1135: results for arbitrary $q^2$ in
1136: Tab.~\ref{tab:fits}.
1137:
1138: \subsection{The Sum Rules}\label{sec:4.1}
1139:
1140: With explicit expressions for the correlation functions in hand, we
1141: are now in a position to derive the LCSRs for the form factors. Let us
1142: choose $V(q^2)$ for a $B_q$ transition as example.
1143: The corresponding correlation function is $\Gamma_V$ as
1144: defined in Eq.~(\ref{15}). The basic idea is to express $\Gamma_V$ in
1145: two different ways, as dispersion relation of the expression obtained
1146: in light-cone expansion on one hand, and as dispersion relation in
1147: hadronic contributions on the other hand. Equating both
1148: representations one obtains a light-cone sum rule for $V$.
1149: One side of the equation is hence the light-cone expansion result
1150: \begin{equation}\label{xy}
1151: \Gamma_V^{\rm LC}(p_B^2,q^2) = \int_{m_b^2}^\infty ds\,\frac{\rho^{\rm
1152: LC}_V(s,q^2)}{s-p_B^2}\,,
1153: \end{equation}
1154: with $\pi \rho^{\rm LC}_V(s,q^2)={\rm Im}[\Gamma_V^{\rm LC}]$, which
1155: has to be compared to the physical correlation function
1156: that also features a cut in $p_B^2$, starting at $m_B^2$:
1157: \begin{equation}
1158: \Gamma_V^{\rm phys}(p_B^2,q^2) = \int_{m_B^2}^\infty ds\,\frac{\rho^{\rm
1159: phys}_V(s,q^2)}{s-p_B^2}\,;
1160: \end{equation}
1161: the spectral density is given by hadronic contributions and reads
1162: \begin{equation}\label{xz}
1163: \rho^{\rm phys}_V(s,q^2) = f_{B_q} m_B^2 \,\frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_V}\,
1164: \delta(s-m_B^2) +
1165: \rho^{\rm\scriptstyle higher-mass~states}_+(s,q^2).
1166: \end{equation}
1167: Here $f_{B_q}$ is the $B_q$ meson decay constant defined as
1168: \begin{equation}\label{fb}
1169: \langle 0 |\bar q \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 b | B\rangle = if_{B_q} p_\mu
1170: \quad{\rm or} \quad (m_b+m_q) \langle 0 |\bar q i\gamma_5 b | B\rangle
1171: = m_B^2 f_{B_q}.
1172: \end{equation}
1173: To obtain a light-cone sum rule for $V$, one equates the two
1174: expressions for $\Gamma_V$ and uses quark-hadron duality to approximate
1175: \begin{equation}\label{dunno}
1176: \rho^{\rm\scriptstyle higher-mass~states}_V(s,q^2) \approx \rho_V^{\rm
1177: LC}(s,q^2)\Theta(s-s_0),
1178: \end{equation}
1179: where $s_0$, the so-called continuum threshold is a parameter to be
1180: determined within the sum rule approach itself. In principle one
1181: could now write a sum rule
1182: $$\Gamma_V^{\rm\scriptstyle phys}(p_B^2,q^2) = \Gamma_V^{\rm LC}(p_B^2,q^2)$$
1183: and extract $V$. However, in order to suppress the impact
1184: of the approximation (\ref{dunno}), one subjects
1185: both sides of the equation to a Borel
1186: transformation
1187: $$\frac{1}{s-p_B^2}\to
1188: \hat{B}\,\frac{1}{s-p_B^2} = \frac{1}{M^2}\, \exp(-s/M^2)$$
1189: which ensures that contributions from higher-mass states be sufficiently
1190: suppressed and improves the convergence of the OPE.
1191: We then obtain
1192: \begin{equation}\label{srx}
1193: e^{-m_B^2/M^2} m_B^2f_{B_q}\;\frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_V} =
1194: \int_{m_b^2}^{s_0} ds\, e^{-s/M^2}
1195: \rho_V^{\rm LC}(s,q^2). \quad
1196: \end{equation}
1197: This is the final sum rule for $V$ and explains why, as announced in
1198: the previous section, only the imaginary part of the correlation
1199: function is needed. Expressions for the other
1200: form factors are obtained analogously. The task is now to find sets of
1201: parameters $M^2$ (the Borel parameter) and $s_0$ (the continuum
1202: threshold) such that the resulting form factor does not
1203: depend too much on the precise values of these parameters; in
1204: addition the continuum contribution, that is the part of the
1205: dispersive integral from $s_0$ to $\infty$, which has been subtracted
1206: from both sides of (\ref{srx}), should not be too large, say less than
1207: 30\% of the total dispersive integral.
1208:
1209: \begin{table}
1210: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1211: $$
1212: \begin{array}{|l|cccc|}
1213: \hline
1214: V & \rho & \omega & K^* & \phi \\\hline
1215: f_V [{\rm MeV}] & 205\pm 9\phantom{0} & 195\pm 3\phantom{0} &
1216: 217 \pm 5\phantom{0} & 231 \pm 4\phantom{0}\\
1217: f_V^T(1\,{\rm GeV}) [{\rm MeV}] & 160\pm 10 & 145 \pm 10 & 170\pm 10 & 200 \pm
1218: 10\\
1219: f_V^T(2.2\,{\rm GeV}) [{\rm MeV}] & 147\pm10 & 133\pm10 & 156\pm10 & 183\pm10 \\\hline
1220: \end{array}
1221: $$
1222: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1223: \caption[]{Values of the vector meson couplings. $f_V$ is
1224: extracted from experiment, $f_V^T$ from QCD sum rules for
1225: $f_V^T/f_V$, cf.\ Ref.~\cite{SU(3)breaking}.}\label{tab:fV}
1226: \end{table}
1227:
1228: \subsection{Hadronic Input Parameters}\label{sec:4.2}
1229:
1230: After having derived the LCSRs for the form factors, the next step is
1231: to fix the parameters on which they depend. These are the
1232: decay constants of the $B_q$ and $B_s$ meson, $f_{B_q}$ and
1233: $f_{B_s}$, the couplings $f^{(T)}_V$ of the vector mesons, introduced
1234: in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, the meson DAs, the quark masses $m_b$ and $m_s$,
1235: $\alpha_s$ and the factorisation scale $\mu_{\rm IR}$,
1236: and, finally, the sum-rule specific parameters $M^2$ and $s_0$.
1237:
1238: The $f_V$ are known from experiment and are collected in
1239: Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}. The $f_V^T$, on the other hand, are not that easily
1240: accessible in experiment and hence have to be determined from
1241: theory. For internal consistency, we determine these parameters from
1242: QCD sum rules for the ratio $f_V^T/f_V$, as explained in
1243: Ref.~\cite{SU(3)breaking}. The results are collected in
1244: Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}, too. $f_\rho^T$ had already been determined
1245: earlier in Ref.~\cite{BB96}; the result agrees with that in
1246: Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}. The ratios $f_V^T/f_V$ have also been determined
1247: from lattice \cite{lattfT} and agree with ours within errors.
1248: Meson DAs are discussed in the next subsection.
1249:
1250: The $b$ quark mass entering our formulas is the
1251: one-loop pole mass $m_b$ for which we use $m_b = (4.80\pm
1252: 0.05)\, \text{GeV}$, cf.\ Tab.~6 in Ref.~\cite{LCSRs:reviews}.
1253: $m_s$, on the other
1254: hand, is the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ running mass,
1255: $\overline{m}_s(2\,\text{GeV}) =
1256: 100\,\text{MeV}$, which is an average of two recent lattice
1257: determinations \cite{mslatt}; the uncertainty in $m_s$ has only a
1258: minor impact on our results. As for the strong coupling, we take
1259: $\alpha_s(m_Z)=0.118$ and use NLO evolution to evaluate it at lower
1260: scales. All scale-dependent quantities
1261: are evaluated at the factorisation scale $\mu_{\rm IR}$ which
1262: separates long- from short-distance physics. The only exception are
1263: the form factors $T_i$, which also depend on an ultraviolet scale
1264: $\mu_{\rm UV}$
1265: which is set to $m_b$. We choose $\mu_{\rm IR}
1266: = \sqrt{m_B^2-m_b^2} = 2.2\,\text{GeV}$ as reference scale;
1267: a variation of $\mu_{\rm IR}$ by $\pm 1\,{\rm GeV}$ has only small
1268: impact on the final results.
1269:
1270: The remaining parameters are $f_{B_{q,s}}$, $M^2$ and $s_0$. $f_{B_{q,s}}$ has
1271: been determined from both lattice and QCD sum rule calculations. The
1272: state of the art of the former are unquenched NRQCD simulations with $2+1$
1273: light flavors, yielding $f_{B_s} = (260\pm 30)\,\text{MeV}$
1274: \cite{fBlatt}, which is
1275: slightly larger than the 2003 recommendation $f_{B_s} = (240\pm
1276: 35)\,\text{MeV}$ \cite{kronfeld}. For $f_{B_d}$, it is difficult to
1277: find any recent numbers, the consensus being that more
1278: calculations at smaller quark masses are needed in order to bring
1279: the extrapolation to physical $m_{u,d}$ under sufficient control \cite{fBlatt}.
1280: As for QCD sum rules, both $f_{B_d}$ and $f_{B_s}$ have been determined to
1281: $O(\alpha_s^2)$ accuracy: $f_{B_d} = (208\pm 20)\,\text{MeV}$ and
1282: $f_{B_s} = (224\pm 21)\,\text{MeV}$ \cite{fBSR}, in agreement with
1283: lattice determinations. The impact of $O(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections on
1284: $f_{B_{q,s}}$ is nonnegligible. As the diagrams responsible for these
1285: corrections, for instance $B$ vertex corrections, are precisely the
1286: same that will enter LCSRs at $O(\alpha_s^2)$, we proceed from the
1287: assumption that these corrections
1288: will tend to cancel in the ratio
1289: (correlation~function)/$f_B$. We hence evaluate $f_{B_{d,s}}$ from a QCD
1290: sum rule to $O(\alpha_s)$ accuracy, which
1291: reads \cite{SRfB}:\footnote{The contribution of
1292: the gluon condensate
1293: is not sizable and we therefore neglect it.}
1294: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:aa}
1295: f_{B_q}^2 m_B^2 e^{-m_B^2/M^2} &=& \int_{m_b^2}^{s_0} ds\,\rho^{\rm pert}(s)
1296: e^{-s/M^2} + C_{\bar qq} \bra\bar q q \ket + C_{\bar q Gq}
1297: \bra\bar q \sigma gG q \ket
1298: \equiv \int_{m_b^2}^{s_0} ds\,\rho^{\rm tot}(s)
1299: e^{-s/M^2}.\nonumber\\[-0.5cm]
1300: \end{eqnarray}
1301: Here $ \bra\bar q q \ket$ and $\bra\bar q \sigma gG q \ket$ are the
1302: the quark and mixed condensate, respectively, for which we use the
1303: following numerical values at $\mu=1\,{\rm GeV}$:
1304: \begin{equation}\label{eq:conds}\bra\bar q
1305: q\ket = -(0.24\pm0.01)^3\,\text{GeV}^3 \quad\mbox{and} \quad
1306: {\bra \bar q \sigma gG q \ket}= 0.8\,\text{GeV}^2\bra
1307: \bar q q \ket.
1308: \end{equation}
1309: The $C$ are perturbative Wilson coefficients multiplying the
1310: condensates. $C_{\bar qq}$ is known to $O(\alpha_s)$ accuracy
1311: \cite{thesis,fBSR}, $C_{\bar q Gq}$ at tree-level.
1312:
1313: The criteria for choosing $M^2$ and $s_0$ in the above sum
1314: rule are very similar to those to be used for the LCSRs. Ideally, if the
1315: correlation function were known exactly, the sum rule would be
1316: independent of $M^2$. In practice it isn't, but ``good'' sum rules,
1317: plotted as function of $M^2$,
1318: still exhibit a flat extremum. We hence require the existence of such
1319: an extremum in $M^2$ and evaluate the sum rule precisely at that point. This
1320: eliminates $M^2$ as independent parameter and leaves us with $s_0$. As
1321: already mentioned after Eq.~(\ref{srx}), the purpose of the Borel
1322: transformation is to enhance the contribution of the ground state to
1323: the physical spectral function with
1324: respect to that of higher states. We hence
1325: require that that continuum contribution, that is the integral over
1326: $\rho^{\rm tot}(s)$ for $s>s_0$, must not be too large. To be
1327: specific, we require
1328: $$\left(\int_{s_0}^\infty ds \rho^{\rm tot}(s) e^{-s/M^2}\right)/\left(
1329: \int_{m_b^2}^\infty ds \rho^{\rm tot}(s) e^{-s/M^2}\right) < 30\%.$$
1330: This puts a lower bound on $s_0$. The larger $s_0$, the smaller $M^2$,
1331: the position of the minimum, and the larger nonperturbative
1332: contributions to (\ref{eq:aa}). As the condensates are meant to yield
1333: small nonperturbative corrections, but blow up at small $M^2$,
1334: requiring the nonperturbative corrections to be not too large puts an
1335: upper bound on $s_0$. For $f_{B_{q,s}}$, we require the highest term
1336: in the condensate expansion, the mixed condensate, to contribute less
1337: than $10\%$ to the correlation function. For LCSRs, which rely on an
1338: expansion in higher twist rather than higher condensates, we
1339: correspondingly require
1340: the contribution of higher twists to the LCSR not to exceed
1341: 10\%. One more requirement on the $s_0$ is that
1342: they not stray away too much from ``reasonable'' values: $s_0$ is
1343: to separate the ground state from higher mass contributions, and hence
1344: should be below the next known clear resonance in that
1345: channel. Assuming an excitation energy of $0.4$ to $0.8\,$GeV, we thus
1346: expect the $s_0$ to lie in the interval 32 to 37~GeV$^2$, which is
1347: evidently fulfilled by all $s_0$ quoted in Tab.~\ref{tab:7FF}.
1348:
1349: \begin{table}
1350: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1351: $$
1352: \begin{array}{|l|c|ccc||ccc|}
1353: \hline & m_b & s_0 & M^2 & f_{B_q} &
1354: s_0 & M^2 & f_{B_s} \\\hline
1355: {\rm set} 1 & 4.85 & 33.8 & 3.8 & 148 & 34.9 & 4.2 & 169 \\
1356: {\rm set} 2 & 4.80 & 34.2 & 4.1 & 161 & 35.4 & 4.4 & 183 \\
1357: {\rm set} 3 & 4.75 & 34.6 & 4.4 & 174 & 35.9 & 4.6 & 197 \\
1358: \hline
1359: \end{array}
1360: $$
1361: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1362: \caption[]{Parameter sets for $f_{B_q}$ and $f_{B_s}$ to $O(\alpha_s)$
1363: accuracy. $f_{B_q}$ and $f_{B_s}$
1364: are given in MeV, $s_0$ and $M^2$ in GeV$^2$. Note that
1365: the values of $f_{B_{q,s}}$ given in the table are
1366: {\it not} to be interpreted as
1367: meaningful determinations of these quantities,
1368: cf.\ text.}\label{tab:fB}
1369: \end{table}
1370:
1371: Applying the above criteria to (\ref{eq:aa}), we obtain the sets of
1372: $(s_0,M^2)$ collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:fB}, together with the
1373: resulting $f_{B_{q,s}}$. We would like to stress
1374: that these values are not to be interpreted as new independent
1375: determinations of $f_{B_{q,s}}$, but are intermediate results to be used
1376: in the evaluation of the LCSRs.
1377:
1378: We proceed to determine the continuum thresholds and Borel parameters
1379: for the LCSRs, using the same criteria as above. In order to keep
1380: the complexity of the calculation at a manageable level, for each form factor
1381: the corresponding set is determined only once, at $q^2=0$.
1382: To avoid confusion between parameters entering
1383: \eqref{eq:aa} and those entering the LCSRs, let us call the latter
1384: ones $M_{\rm LC}^2$ and $s_0^F$ where $F$ is the form factor.
1385: For larger $q^2$, these
1386: parameters are expected to change slightly. Part of this effect can
1387: be taken into account in the following way:
1388: the tree-level LCSR to twist-2 accuracy reads, basically,
1389: $$
1390: \int_{u_0}^{1} du \,\frac{\phi(u)}{u}\,
1391: e^{-(m_b^2-(1-u)q^2)/(u M_{\rm LC}^2)} \quad\text{with}\quad
1392: u_0=\frac{m_b^2-q^2}{s_0-q^2} \,,
1393: $$
1394: which implies that the expansion parameter is $uM_{\rm LC}^2$ rather
1395: than $M_{\rm LC}^2$.
1396: We hence rescale the Borel parameter as
1397: $$M_{\rm LC}^2\to M_{\rm LC}^2/\bra u \ket(q^2)$$
1398: with the average value of $u$, $\bra u \ket(q^2)$, given by
1399: \begin{equation*}
1400: \bra u \ket(q^2) \equiv
1401: \left(\int_{u_0}^{1} du \,u \, \frac{\phi_(u)}{u}\,
1402: e^{-(m_b^2-(1-u)q^2)/(u M_{\rm LC}^2)}\right) /\left(
1403: \int_{u_0}^{1} du\,\frac{\phi(u)}{u}\, e^{-(m_b^2-(1-u)q^2)/(u
1404: M_{\rm LC}^2)}\right)
1405: \end{equation*}
1406: with, approximately,
1407: $\bra u \ket (0\,\text{GeV}^2)=0.86$ and
1408: $\bra u \ket (14\,\text{GeV}^2)=0.77$. The optimum Borel parameter
1409: hence becomes larger with increasing $q^2$, which agrees with what one
1410: finds when $M_{\rm LC}^2$ is determined without rescaling.
1411: Pa\-ra\-me\-tri\-sing the relation
1412: between the Borel parameters of local and light-cone correlation functions as
1413: \begin{equation}\label{eq:borels}
1414: M_{\rm LC}^2 \equiv c_c M^2/\bra u \ket,
1415: \end{equation}
1416: we obtain, for $B_q \to \rho$, the values collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:7FF}.
1417: The sets for other transitions are similar.
1418:
1419:
1420: \begin{table}
1421: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
1422: $$
1423: \begin{array}{|l|c|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|}
1424: \hline
1425: & m_b & s^V_0 & c_c^V & s^{A_0}_0 & c_c^{A_0} & s^{A_1}_0 & c_c^{A_1}
1426: & s^{A_2}_0 & c_c^{A_2} & s^{T_1}_0 & c_c^{T_1} & s^{T_3}_0 &
1427: c_c^{T_3}
1428: \\ \hline
1429: {\rm set~1} & 4.85 & 35.2 & 1.7 & 33.0 & 1.7 & 33.7 & 1.7 & 34.1 & 1.7 &
1430: 34.8 &
1431: 1.7 & 34.7 & 1.7 \\
1432: {\rm set~2} & 4.80 & 35.8 & 2.1 & 33.6 & 1.6 & 34.2 & 1.8 & 34.7 & 1.8 &
1433: 35.3 &
1434: 1.9 & 35.2 & 1.8 \\
1435: {\rm set~3} & 4.75 & 36.4 & 2.1 & 34.2 & 1.6 & 34.7 & 1.9 & 35.3 & 1.9 &
1436: 35.8 &
1437: 2.1 & 35.7 & 1.9 \\
1438: \hline
1439: \end{array}
1440: $$
1441: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
1442: \caption[]{Parameter sets for $B_q \to \rho$ for
1443: $V$, $A_0$, $A_1$, $A_2$, $T_1$ and $T_3$.
1444: As $T_1(0)=T_2(0)$
1445: the corresponding parameters are equal.
1446: $s_0$ and $M^2$ in GeV$^2$.}\label{tab:7FF}
1447: \end{table}
1448:
1449: \subsection{Models for Distribution Amplitudes}\label{sec:4.3}
1450:
1451: As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:2} and detailed in App.~\ref{app:A}, the
1452: DAs entering the LCSRs can be modelled by a truncated conformal
1453: expansion. It turns out that the dominant contributions to the sum
1454: rules come from the twist-2 DAs $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$, which to NLO
1455: in the conformal expansion are described by the lowest three Gegenbauer moments:
1456: $a_0^{\perp,\parallel}\equiv 1$, which follows from the normalisation
1457: of the DAs, $a_1^{\perp,\parallel}$, which is nonzero only for $K^*$, and
1458: $a_2^{\perp,\parallel}$. In Ref.~\cite{BB98}, it was these three
1459: parameters
1460: that were used to define
1461: the models for
1462: $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$; all terms
1463: $a_{n\geq 3}$ were dropped.
1464:
1465: The numerical values of $a_{1,2}$ (and higher moments) are largely unknown.
1466: $a_1$ has been determined from QCD sum rules in
1467: \cite{CZreport,SU(3)breaking,moreSU(3)}. Averaging over the
1468: determinations, we choose
1469: \begin{equation}\label{a1}
1470: a_1^\parallel(K^*,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.10\pm 0.07 =
1471: a_1^\perp(K^*,1\,{\rm GeV})
1472: \end{equation}
1473: as our preferred values. Note that positive $a_1$
1474: refer to a $K^*$ containing an $s$ quark -- for
1475: a $\bar K^*$ with an $\bar s$ quark, $a_1$ changes sign.
1476:
1477: Predictions for $a_2^{\perp,\parallel}$ also come from QCD
1478: sum rules \cite{wavefunctions,CZreport,SU(3)breaking,BB96} and read
1479: \begin{equation}
1480: \begin{array}[b]{l@{\quad}l@{\quad}l}
1481: a_2^{\parallel}(\rho,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.18\pm 0.10, &
1482: a_2^{\parallel}(K^*,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.09\pm 0.05, &
1483: a_2^{\parallel}(\phi,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0\pm 0.1,\\[5pt]
1484: a_2^{\perp}(\rho,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.2\pm 0.1,\phantom{00} &
1485: a_2^{\perp}(K^*,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.13\pm 0.08, &
1486: a_2^{\perp}(\phi,1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0\pm 0.1.
1487: \end{array}\label{41}
1488: \end{equation}
1489: All these determinations have to be taken {\em cum grano salis}, as
1490: the sum rules do not exhibit a clear Borel-window and also
1491: become increasingly
1492: unreliable for larger $n$.\footnote{This is due to the different power
1493: behavior of perturbative and nonperturbative terms in $n$, cf.\
1494: Ref.~\cite{BB96}.}
1495:
1496: But even assuming $a_{1,2}$ were known to sufficient accuracy -- under
1497: what conditions is a truncation of $\phi$
1498: after $a_2$ is justified? We have seen in Sec.~\ref{sec:2} that after
1499: the convolution with a smooth short-distance function $T$ the
1500: contributions of higher $a_n$ fall off sharply. So the actual question
1501: is not so much how the truncated expansion compares to the full
1502: convolution integral, but rather how the neglected terms compare to
1503: other terms, for instance originating from 3-particle DAs, which
1504: are included in the LCSR. For instance, assuming
1505: $a_i\geq 0.05$ it is necessary to include $a_2^\parallel$ and
1506: $a_{2,4,6,8}^\perp$ in order to match the size of the contributions
1507: from quark-quark-gluon matrix elements, and even for $a_i\geq 0.01$
1508: one still needs $a_2^\parallel$ and $a_{2,4}^\perp$. If, on the other
1509: hand, one consistently neglects terms that contribute less than 1\% to
1510: the form factor, one can drop nearly all contributions from
1511: quark-quark-gluon matrix elements, unless their values as given in
1512: App.~\ref{app:A} are grossly underestimated. If $a_i\geq 0.05$, one
1513: then has to keep $a_{2,4,6}^\perp$, but can drop all
1514: $a_{n>0}^\parallel$. The upshot is that, in view of the lack of
1515: information on $a_n^{\perp,\parallel}$, it is a good idea to devise models for
1516: $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$ with a small number of parameters, possibly
1517: tied to experimental observables, and a
1518: well-defined ``tail'' of higher-order Gegenbauer moments. This task
1519: is undertaken in Ref.~\cite{angi}.
1520:
1521: \begin{figure}[tb]
1522: $$\epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth\epsffile{phipl.eps}$$
1523: \vskip-12pt
1524: \caption[]{Examples for model DAs $\phi_a^+$ as functions of $u$, for
1525: $\Delta=1.2$ and
1526: $a=1.5,2,3,4$ (solid curves), as compared to the asymptotic DA
1527: (dashed curve). For $a\to 1$, $\phi^+_a$ approaches the asymptotic
1528: DA.}\label{fig:2}
1529: $$\epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth\epsffile{psipl.eps}$$
1530: \vskip-13pt
1531: \caption[]{Models for the asymmetric contributions to the twist-2
1532: DA for $a_1 = 0.1$. Solid curves: $\phi_b^{\rm asym,+}$
1533: as function of $u$ for
1534: $b\in\{2,3,5\}$; dashed curve: $\phi_\infty^{\rm asym,+}$.
1535: }\label{fig:3}
1536: \end{figure}
1537:
1538: Following Ref.~\cite{angi}, we introduce
1539: two-parameter models for (the symmetric part of)
1540: $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$ which are defined by the
1541: fall-off behavior of the Gegenbauer moments
1542: $a_n$ in $n$ and the value of the integral
1543: \begin{equation}\label{def:delta}
1544: \Delta = \int_0^1 du \,\frac{\phi(u)}{3u}
1545: \equiv 1 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_{2n}\,;
1546: \end{equation}
1547: $\Delta=1$ for the asymptotic DA.
1548: In particular we require $\Delta$ to be finite, which implies that the
1549: $a_n$ must fall off sufficiently fast. The choice of $\Delta$
1550: as characteristic parameter of $\phi$ relies on the fact that it is
1551: directly related to an experimental observable, at least for $\pi$ and
1552: $\eta$, namely the
1553: $\pi(\eta)\gamma\gamma^*$ transition form factor,
1554: for which experimental constraints exist from CLEO \cite{CLEO}.
1555: We assume that the vector meson DAs are not fundamentally different
1556: and take the range of $\Delta(\pi)$ extracted from CLEO as the likely
1557: range for $\Delta(\rho)$.
1558: The second parameter characterizing our models is the
1559: fall-off behavior of the Gegenbauer moments in $n$, which we assume to
1560: be powerlike. We then can define a model DA $\tilde\phi_a^+$ in terms
1561: of its Gegenbauer moments
1562: \begin{equation}
1563: \label{eq:anmodel}
1564: a_n = \frac{1}{(n/2 + 1)^a}\,:
1565: \end{equation}
1566: using the generating function of the Gegenbauer-polynomials,
1567: $$
1568: f(\xi,t) = \frac{1}{(1-2 \xi t + t^2)^{3/2}} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty
1569: C_n^{3/2}(\xi)\, t^n,
1570: $$
1571: this model can be summed to all orders in the Gegenbauer-expansion:
1572: \begin{eqnarray}
1573: \tilde\phi_a^+(u) &=& \frac{3u \bar u }{\Gamma(a)}\,
1574: \int_0^1 dt (-\ln t)^{a-1}\, \left( f(2u-1,\sqrt{t})
1575: + f(2u-1,-\sqrt{t})\right).
1576: \end{eqnarray}
1577: The corresponding value of $\Delta$ is $\Delta_a^+ =
1578: \zeta(a)$.
1579: In order to obtain models for arbitrary
1580: values of $\Delta$, we split off the asymptotic DA and write
1581: \begin{eqnarray}
1582: \phi^+_a(\Delta) &=& 6 u \bar u + \frac{\Delta-1}{\Delta_a^+ -1}
1583: \left(\tilde{\phi}^+_a(u) - 6 u \bar u\right).\label{47}
1584: \end{eqnarray}
1585: Evidently one recovers the asymptotic DA for $\Delta=1$ and the
1586: truncated conformal expansion with $a_2=\Delta-1$ and
1587: $a_{n\geq 4}=0$ for $a\to\infty$.
1588: The above formula is only valid for
1589: $a>1$, as otherwise $\Delta^+_a$ diverges, or, equivalently,
1590: $\phi^+_a$ does not vanish at the endpoints $u=0,1$. In
1591: Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we plot several examples of $\phi_a^+$ for a fixed
1592: value of $\Delta$.
1593:
1594: Our preferred values for $\Delta$, $a$ and the corresponding values of
1595: $a_{2,4}^{\perp,\parallel}(1\,{\rm GeV})$ are collected in
1596: Tab.~\ref{tab:Delta}. We choose $a=3\pm 1$ in order to obtain
1597: nonnegligible effects from higher order $a_n$. The choice of
1598: $\Delta(\rho)$ is motivated by the fact that all available
1599: calculations indicate $a_2>0$, hence $\Delta>1$. We then fix the
1600: maximum $\Delta$ in such a way that it yields $a_2<0.2$, which, given
1601: the fact that the sum rule results (\ref{41}) are likely to overshoot
1602: the true value of $a_2$, appears as to be the likely maximum value. We then
1603: obtain $\Delta(\rho) = 1.15\pm 0.10$, with a rather conservative
1604: error. We choose the same values for $\omega$.
1605: For $K^*$ and $\phi$, we take into account that the values of
1606: $a_2$ appear to have the tendency to decrease, which was noticed
1607: already in Ref.~\cite{CZreport}. Assuming that the decrease is 20\% from
1608: $\rho$ to $K^*$, and another 20\% from $K^*$ to $\phi$, we arrive at
1609: the numbers quoted in Tab.~\ref{tab:Delta}.
1610: \begin{table}
1611: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
1612: $$
1613: \begin{array}{|l|cc|cc|}
1614: \hline
1615: & \Delta & a & a_2^{\perp,\parallel}(1\,{\rm GeV}) &
1616: a_4^{\perp,\parallel}(1\,{\rm GeV})\\\hline
1617: \rho,\omega & 1.15\pm 0.10 & 3\pm 1 & 0.09^{+0.10}_{-0.07} & 0.03\pm0.02\\
1618: K^* & 1.12\pm 0.10 & 3\pm 1 & 0.07^{+0.09}_{-0.07} & 0.02\pm 0.01\\
1619: \phi & 1.10\pm 0.10 & 3\pm 1 & 0.06^{+0.09}_{-0.07} &
1620: 0.02^{+0.01}_{-0.02}\\\hline
1621: \end{array}
1622: $$
1623: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
1624: \caption[]{Values for $\Delta(1\,{\rm
1625: GeV})\equiv\Delta^{\perp,\parallel}(1\,{\rm GeV})$, $a$ and
1626: the corresponding values of
1627: $a_{2,4}^{\perp,\parallel}(1\,{\rm GeV})$.}\label{tab:Delta}
1628: \end{table}
1629:
1630: Evidently, DAs defined in dependence of $\Delta$ also require a
1631: specification of the scale at which they are valid. As we presume that
1632: $\Delta(\mu)$ will be measured, if at all, at the low scale $\mu=1\,{\rm
1633: GeV}$, we choose this as the reference scale. $\Delta$ at higher
1634: scales can be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{def:delta}), using the leading-order
1635: RG-improved expressions for $a_n(\mu)$, or, if $\mu$ is not too
1636: different from 1~GeV, from the unimproved expression Eq.~(\ref{25}).
1637:
1638: Models for the asymmetric part of the DA, relevant for $K^*$, can be
1639: constructed in a similar way as
1640: \begin{eqnarray}
1641: \tilde\psi_b^+(u) &= &\frac{3u \bar u }{\Gamma(b)}\,
1642: \int_0^1 dt (-\ln t)^{b-1}\, \left( f(2u-1,\sqrt{t})
1643: - f(2u-1,-\sqrt{t})\right).
1644: \end{eqnarray}
1645: One relevant parameter is $b$, and as the second one we choose $a_1$.
1646: Models for the asymmetric part of $\phi$ with arbitrary $a_1$ can then
1647: be defined as
1648: \begin{equation}
1649: \phi_b^{{\rm asym},+} = a_1 (3/2)^b \tilde\psi_b^+(u).
1650: \end{equation}
1651: Examples for such models are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}.
1652:
1653: $\phi_b^{\rm asym,+}$ also contributes to the value of $\Delta$:
1654: \begin{eqnarray*}
1655: \Delta^{{\rm asym},+} & = & \int_0^1 du\,\frac{\phi_b^{\rm
1656: asym,+}(u)}{3u} = - a_1 (3/2)^b
1657: \zeta(b,3/2),
1658: \end{eqnarray*}
1659: where $\zeta(b,s)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty 1/(k+s)^b$ is the Hurwitz $\zeta$
1660: function.
1661: Our models for the $K^*$ DA are hence characterized by four parameters:
1662: $\Delta$, $a$ of the symmetric part and $a_1$, $b$ of the asymmetric
1663: part. The total value of $\Delta$ is given by
1664: $$\Delta^{{\rm total},+} = \Delta + \Delta^{{\rm asym},+}.$$
1665: In the actual calculation we choose $a=b$.
1666:
1667: \subsection{\boldmath Results for $q^2=0$}\label{sec:4.4}
1668:
1669: %\begin{table}[tbp]
1670: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
1671: %$$
1672: %\begin{array}{|c|ccc||ccc||c|c|}
1673: %\hline
1674: %F(0) & \mbox{set 1} & \mbox{set 2} & \mbox{set 3} & \Delta_{7p} &
1675: %\Delta_L & \Delta_T & \Delta_{\rm tot} & \Delta_{a_1} \\ \hline
1676: %V^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.316 & 0.323 & 0.328 & 0.0252 & 0.0048 & 0.013 & 0.029 \ & \\
1677: %A_0^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.299 & 0.303 & 0.305 & 0.0263 & 0.0089 & 0.0062 & \ 0.0285 & \\
1678: %A_1^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.235 & 0.242 & 0.247 & 0.0198 & 0.0038 & 0.0097 & \ 0.0224 & \\
1679: %A_2^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.213 & 0.221 & 0.227 & 0.0178 & 0.0021 & 0.011 & \ 0.021 & \\
1680: %T_1^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.263 & 0.267 & 0.27 & 0.0183 & 0.0045 & 0.01 & \ 0.0215 & \\
1681: %T_3^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.175 & 0.176 & 0.175 & 0.0125 & 0.0013 & 0.0091 & \ 0.0155 & \\ \rline
1682: %V^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.305 & 0.311 & 0.314 & 0.0211 & 0.0029 & 0.013 & \ 0.0252 & -0.45\relta_{a_1} \\
1683: %A_0^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.36 & 0.363 & 0.364 & 0.0321 & 0.0057 & 0.009 & \ 0.0338 & -0.37\relta_{a_1} \\
1684: %A_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.226 & 0.233 & 0.239 & 0.0186 & 0.0024 & 0.0097 \ & 0.0211 & -0.33\relta_{a_1} \\
1685: %A_2^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.173 & 0.181 & 0.189 & 0.021 & 0.001 & 0.0099 & \ 0.0233 & -0.32\relta_{a_1} \\
1686: %T_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.255 & 0.26 & 0.262 & 0.021 & 0.0028 & 0.01 & \ 0.0235 & -0.35\relta_{a_1} \\
1687: %T_3^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.133 & 0.136 & 0.138 & 0.0134 & 4.9 10^{-4} & \ 0.0079 & 0.0156 & -0.19\relta_{a_1} \\ \rline
1688: %V^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.403 & 0.411 & 0.416 & 0.0292 & 0.0033 & 0.013 & 0.0322 \ & 0.46\relta_{a_1} \\
1689: %A_0^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.365 & 0.374 & 0.374 & 0.0311 & 0.0048 & 0.0075 & \ 0.0324 & 0.4\relta_{a_1} \\
1690: %A_1^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.283 & 0.292 & 0.298 & 0.0251 & 0.0024 & 0.0091 & \ 0.0268 & 0.34\relta_{a_1} \\
1691: %A_2^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.25 & 0.259 & 0.267 & 0.0226 & 0.0014 & 0.0098 & \ 0.0246 & 0.31\relta_{a_1} \\
1692: %T_1^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.328 & 0.333 & 0.334 & 0.0261 & 0.003 & 0.0098 & \ 0.028 & 0.36\relta_{a_1} \\
1693: %T_3^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.201 & 0.202 & 0.2 & 0.0155 & 0.001 & 0.0082 & 0.0175 \ & 0.2\relta_{a_1} \\ \rline
1694: %V^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.287 & 0.293 & 0.298 & 0.0253 & 0.0016 & 0.013 & \ 0.0284 & \\
1695: %A_0^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.269 & 0.281 & 0.286 & 0.0274 & 0.003 & 0.0058 & \ 0.0282 & \\
1696: %A_1^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.211 & 0.219 & 0.225 & 0.0211 & 0.0013 & 0.0094 & \ 0.0231 & \\
1697: %A_2^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.191 & 0.198 & 0.204 & 0.0176 & 6.8 10^{-4} & \ 0.011 & 0.0206 & \\
1698: %T_1^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.24 & 0.242 & 0.245 & 0.0186 & 0.0015 & 0.0099 & \ 0.0211 & \\
1699: %T_3^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.155 & 0.155 & 0.155 & 0.0117 & 4.4 10^{-4} & \ 0.0087 & 0.0146 & \\ \rline
1700: %V^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.43 & 0.434 & 0.437 & 0.032 & 0.0028 & 0.014 & 0.035 & \ \\
1701: %A_0^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.476 & 0.474 & 0.472 & 0.0308 & 0.0046 & 0.01 & \ 0.0328 & \\
1702: %A_1^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.304 & 0.311 & 0.317 & 0.027 & 0.0021 & 0.0094 & \ 0.0287 & \\
1703: %A_2^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.223 & 0.234 & 0.244 & 0.0242 & 9.7 10^{-4} & 0.0089 \ & 0.0258 & \\
1704: %T_1^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.345 & 0.349 & 0.35 & 0.0309 & 0.0025 & 0.01 & \ 0.0326 & \\
1705: %T_3^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.172 & 0.175 & 0.176 & 0.0155 & 5.5 10^{-4} & 0.0072 \ & 0.0171 & \\ \rline
1706: %\end{array}
1707: %$$
1708: %\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
1709: %\caption[]{Form factors at $q^2=0$ for the three parameter sets of Tabs.~\ref{tab:fB}
1710: %and \ref{tab:7FF}, which refer to different values of $m_b$.
1711: %$\Delta_{7p}$ is the maximum deviation found by scanning the
1712: %7-parameter space discussed in the text. $\Delta_L$
1713: %and $\Delta_T$ are the uncertainties induced by the vector and tensor
1714: %couplings in Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}. The total error $\Delta_{\rm tot}$ is obtained by adding
1715: %$\Delta_{(7p,L,T)}$ in quadrature. Form factors involving $K^*$
1716: %carry one more uncertainty induced by the first Gegenbauer moment
1717: %$a_1$, which is given by $\Delta_{a_1}$ with
1718: %$\delta_{a_1} = (a_1({K^*},1\,{\rm GeV})-0.1)$. The final results, including the
1719: %uncertainty in $m_b$, are given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:final0}).
1720: %}\label{tab:basic}
1721: %\end{table}
1722:
1723: \begin{table}[tbp]
1724: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{5pt}
1725: $$
1726: \begin{array}{|c|c||cccc||c|c|}
1727: \hline
1728: & F(0) & \Delta_{m_b} & \Delta_{7p} &
1729: \Delta_L & \Delta_T & \Delta_{\rm tot} & \Delta_{a_1} \\ \hline
1730: V^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.323 & 0.007& 0.025 & 0.005 & 0.013 & 0.029 & \\
1731: A_0^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.303 & 0.004 & 0.026 & 0.009 & 0.006 & 0.028 & \\
1732: A_1^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.242 & 0.007 & 0.020 & 0.004 & 0.010 & 0.024 & \\
1733: A_2^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.221 & 0.008 & 0.018 & 0.002 & 0.011 & 0.023 & \\
1734: T_1^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.267 & 0.004 & 0.018 & 0.004 & 0.010 & 0.021 & \\
1735: T_3^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.176 & 0.001 & 0.013 & 0.001 & 0.009 & 0.016 & \\
1736: \hline
1737: V^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.311 & 0.006 & 0.021 & 0.003 & 0.013 & 0.026 &
1738: -0.43\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1739: A_0^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.363 & 0.003 & 0.032 & 0.006 & 0.009 & 0.034 &
1740: -0.37\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1741: A_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.233 & 0.007 & 0.019 & 0.002 & 0.010 & 0.023 &
1742: -0.32\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1743: A_2^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.181 & 0.008 & 0.021 & 0.001 & 0.010 & 0.025 &
1744: -0.30\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1745: T_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.260 & 0.005 & 0.021 & 0.003 & 0.010 & 0.024 &
1746: -0.33\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1747: T_3^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.136 & 0.003 & 0.013 & 0.000 & 0.008 & 0.016 &
1748: -0.17\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1749: \hline
1750: V^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.411 & 0.008 & 0.029 & 0.003 & 0.013 & 0.033 &
1751: \phantom{-}0.44\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1752: A_0^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.374 & 0.009 & 0.031 & 0.005 & 0.008 & 0.034 &
1753: \phantom{-}0.39\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1754: A_1^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.292 & 0.009 & 0.025 & 0.002 & 0.009 & 0.028 &
1755: \phantom{-}0.33\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1756: A_2^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.259 & 0.009 & 0.023 & 0.001 & 0.010 & 0.027 &
1757: \phantom{-}0.31\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1758: T_1^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.333 & 0.005 & 0.026 & 0.003 & 0.010 & 0.028 &
1759: \phantom{-}0.34\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1760: T_3^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.202 & 0.002 & 0.016 & 0.001 & 0.008 & 0.018 &
1761: \phantom{-}0.18\,\relta_{a_1} \\
1762: \hline
1763: V^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.293 & 0.006 & 0.025 & 0.002 & 0.013 & 0.029 & \\
1764: A_0^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.281 & 0.012 & 0.027 & 0.003 & 0.006 & 0.030 & \\
1765: A_1^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.219 & 0.008 & 0.021 & 0.001 & 0.010 & 0.025 & \\
1766: A_2^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.198 & 0.007 & 0.018 & 0.001 & 0.011 & 0.022 & \\
1767: T_1^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.242 & 0.003 & 0.019 & 0.002 & 0.010 & 0.022 & \\
1768: T_3^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.155 & 0.000 & 0.012 & 0.000 & 0.009 & 0.015 &\\
1769: \hline
1770: V^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.434 & 0.004 & 0.032 & 0.003 & 0.014 & 0.035 & \\
1771: A_0^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.474 & 0.002 & 0.031 & 0.005 & 0.019 & 0.037 & \\
1772: A_1^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.311 & 0.007 & 0.027 & 0.002 & 0.009 & 0.029 & \\
1773: A_2^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.234 & 0.011 & 0.024 & 0.001 & 0.009 & 0.028 & \\
1774: T_1^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.349 & 0.004 & 0.031 & 0.002 & 0.010 & 0.033 & \\
1775: T_3^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.175 & 0.003 & 0.016 & 0.000 & 0.007 & 0.018 & \\
1776: \hline
1777: \end{array}
1778: $$
1779: \vskip-5pt
1780: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-5pt}
1781: \caption[]{Form
1782: factors at $q^2=0$ for parameter set 2 of Tabs.~\ref{tab:fB}
1783: and \ref{tab:7FF}, i.e.\ $m_b=4.8\,$GeV. The form factors are defined
1784: in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:SLFF}) and (\ref{eq:pengFF}). The penguin form factors
1785: $T_i$ are evaluated at the UV scale $\mu = m_b$.
1786: $\Delta_{m_b}$ is the variation of the result with $m_b$, i.e.\ the
1787: maximum deviation between the results obtained for sets 1, 2 and 3.
1788: $\Delta_{7p}$ is the maximum deviation found by scanning the
1789: 7-parameter space discussed in the text. $\Delta_L$
1790: and $\Delta_T$ are the uncertainties induced by the vector and tensor
1791: couplings in
1792: Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}. The total error $\Delta_{\rm tot}$ is obtained by adding
1793: $\Delta_{(m_b,7p,L,T)}$ in quadrature. Form factors involving $K^*$
1794: carry one more uncertainty $\Delta_{a_1}$ induced by the Gegenbauer moment
1795: $a_1$, with $\delta_{a_1} = [a_1({K^*},1\,{\rm GeV})-0.1]$.
1796: }\label{tab:basic}
1797: \end{table}
1798:
1799: Let us first analyse the form factors for $q^2=0$.
1800: Using the input parameters given in Tabs.~\ref{tab:7FF} and
1801: \ref{tab:Delta}, we obtain the results collected in
1802: Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}.
1803:
1804: For the discussion of theoretical uncertainties, we distinguish
1805: between uncertainties that can be reduced by future more accurate
1806: determinations of the corresponding hadronic parameters and others
1807: that are either systematic uncertainties, inherent to the method of
1808: LCSRs, or parameter uncertainties
1809: not likely to be reduced in the near future.
1810: The latter comprise the dependence of the form factors on the LCSR
1811: parameters $s_0$, $M^2$, $\mu_{\rm IR}$ and, via $f_B$, the quark and
1812: mixed condensate. Our results also depend, very mildly, on $m_s$ and,
1813: more importantly, on the meson DAs which are described by the
1814: 2-parameter model (\ref{47}). All these parameters induce a
1815: theoretical error of
1816: the form factors which we determine by varying
1817: \begin{itemize}
1818: \item the threshold $s_0$ by $\pm 1.0\,\text{GeV}^2$;
1819: \item the Borel parameter
1820: $M^2$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:borels} by $\pm 1.5\,\text{GeV}^2$;
1821: \item the infrared factorization scale $\mu_{\rm IR}=\sqrt{m_B^2-m_b^2}$
1822: by $\pm 1\,\text{GeV}$;
1823: \item the quark condensate and the mixed condensate as indicated in
1824: Eq.~\eqref{eq:conds};
1825: \item the first inverse moment of the twist-2 DAs, $\Delta$, by $\pm 0.1$;
1826: \item the power behavior of the Gegenbauer moments, $a$, by $\pm 1$;
1827: \item the strange quark mass $m_s$ by $\pm 20 \%$.
1828: \end{itemize}
1829: The largest deviation of the form factor from its central value,
1830: in this 7-parameter space, is dubbed $\Delta_{7p}$ and amounts
1831: to typically 7 to 11\%. In Fig.~\ref{fig:del} we show the dependence
1832: of selected form factors on $\Delta$ and $a$. The uncertainty in these
1833: parameters is the most important single source of error of the form
1834: factors and amounts to half of the total error.
1835: \begin{figure}[tb]
1836: $$\begin{array}{@{}c@{\quad}c@{}}
1837: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{vvdel.eps} &
1838: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{aa1del.eps}\\[10pt]
1839: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{aa2del.eps} &
1840: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{tt1del.eps}\\[-0.6cm]
1841: \end{array}
1842: $$
1843: \caption[]{The form factors $V(0)$, $A_1(0)$, $A_2(0)$ for
1844: $B_q\to\rho$ and $T_1(0)$ for $B_q\to K^*$ as functions of $\Delta$,
1845: the main parameter of the twist-2 DAs. Solid lines: central values of
1846: input parameters. Dashed lines: variation of the form factors with a
1847: change of $a$, the second parameter of the DAs, by $\pm 1$. Allowed
1848: values of $\Delta$: cf.\ Tab.~\ref{tab:Delta}.}\label{fig:del}
1849: \end{figure}
1850:
1851: The form factors also depend, rather mildly, on $m_b$: varying $m_b$
1852: by $\pm 0.05\,$GeV around the central value 4.8$\,$GeV, and using
1853: $s_0$ and $M^2$ as given in Tabs.~\ref{tab:fB} and \ref{tab:7FF}, we
1854: obtain the error $\Delta_{m_b}$ which ranges from 1\% to 5\%.
1855:
1856: One more source of uncertainty of the form factors is due to
1857: $f_V$ and $f_V^T$, the vector and tensor coupling of the vector
1858: mesons. This is easily
1859: understood by splitting the generic form factor $F$ into two terms
1860: proportional to $f^T$ and
1861: $f^L\equiv f$:
1862: \begin{equation}
1863: F = f^L F^L + f^T F^T.
1864: \end{equation}
1865: As argued in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, the first term is of order
1866: $\delta\propto m_V$, the second of order 1 and indeed, for most form
1867: factors, is the dominant
1868: contribution. The present errors of $f^T$, as collected in
1869: Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}, are nonnegligible.
1870: $f^T$ is accessible to lattice calculations and
1871: first results have been reported in Ref.~\cite{lattfT}, which
1872: indicates that a reduction of
1873: the error of $f^T$ seems feasible. In order to allow the
1874: adjustment of our form factors to new results for $f^T$, we
1875: give explicit results for $F^L$ and $F^T$ in
1876: App.~\ref{app:0}. The uncertainties $\Delta_{T,L}$
1877: of the form factors due to the present values of
1878: $f^{T,L}$ are included in
1879: Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}. $\Delta_T$ is typically of order 4\%,
1880: $\Delta_L$ is much smaller.
1881:
1882: For transitions involving the $K^*$, an additional uncertainty is
1883: induced by the first Gegenbauer moment $a_1$, and is given by
1884: $\Delta_{a_1}$ in Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}, where the quantity
1885: $\delta_{a_1}$ is defined as $[a_1({K^*},1\,{\rm GeV})-0.1]$. Note
1886: that $a_1({K^*})$ refers to a $s\bar q$ bound state and hence
1887: $a_1({\bar K^*}) = - a_1(K^*)$, which explains the negative sign of
1888: the corresponding entries in Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}. Again we aim to
1889: make our results adjustable to any future improvement in the
1890: determination of $a_1$ and
1891: give explicit results for the corresponding contributions in
1892: App.~\ref{app:0}.
1893:
1894: Some important features of the results collected in
1895: Tab.~\ref{tab:basic} are:
1896: \begin{itemize}
1897: \item the form factors for $B_q\to K^*$ transition are about 20\%
1898: larger than those for $B_q\to\rho$. The reason for this is
1899: twofold: on the one hand, the $K^*$ vector and tensor couplings are
1900: larger than those of the $\rho$. On the other hand, the
1901: SU(3)-breaking of the twist-2 DAs, parametrised by the first
1902: Gegenbauer moment $a_1$, gives a positive contribution to the form
1903: factors;
1904: \item the form factors for $B_s\to K^*$ have a tendency to be
1905: smaller than those for $B_q\to\rho$. The reason for this is a
1906: negative contribution of $a_1$ and the fact that $f_{B_s}$ is larger
1907: than $f_{B_q}$. On the other hand, the optimum $s_0$ are also larger
1908: than for $B_q\to\rho$, which partially compensates the first two effects;
1909: \item the $B_q\to\omega$ form factors are slightly smaller than those
1910: for $B_q\to\rho$. This is a consequence of the fact that the
1911: $\omega$ vector and tensor couplings are smaller than those of the $\rho$;
1912: \item the total theoretical error is dominated by that of the twist-2
1913: DAs and the sum rule parameters $s_0$ and $M^2$. The former can,
1914: in principle, be reduced by future calculations, the second is
1915: systematic and irreducible.
1916: \end{itemize}
1917:
1918: The typical total uncertainty of each form factor is 10\%,
1919: ranging between 8\% and
1920: 13\%. Any significant reduction of the error requires more
1921: accurate information on the twist-2 DAs. The minimum irreducible
1922: theoretical uncertainty is set by the systematic uncertainty of the
1923: LCSR approach and encoded in the dependence of the results on $s_0$
1924: and $M^2$; it amounts to about 6 to 7\%.
1925:
1926: Let us also compare our results to those obtained in Ref.~\cite{BB98}
1927: by the same method, but with less sophistication. The main difference
1928: between our present and our previous analysis is the inclusion of
1929: radiative corrections to 2-particle twist-3 contributions, the
1930: description of the twist-2 DAs by models including all-order effects
1931: in the conformal expansion,
1932: the more accurate determination of the sum rule parameters $s_0$ and
1933: $M^2$ and the much more detailed error analysis. The most striking
1934: difference between the actual results affects the $B_s\to K^*$
1935: transition, whose form factors were predicted, in \cite{BB98},
1936: to be between 10 and 30\% smaller than those in
1937: Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}. The reason for this discrepancy is mainly
1938: the more accurate determination of $M^2$ and $s_0$ we
1939: employ in the present analysis --- in Ref.~\cite{BB98} all
1940: form factors were determined for the {\em same} values of $M^2$ and
1941: $s_0$. All other form factors quoted in \cite{BB98} agree, within
1942: $\pm 15$\%, with those of Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}, which is within the
1943: theoretical uncertainty stated in \cite{BB98}. The only exception is
1944: $T_3(0)$, which deviates by between 15 and 45\% from the numbers
1945: obtained in \cite{BB98}. The reason for this discrepancy lies in the
1946: (correct) treatment of factors $1/(pz)$ in our present paper,
1947: cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:3}.
1948:
1949: \begin{figure}[tb]
1950: $$
1951: \begin{array}{@{}c@{\quad}c}
1952: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{AVr.eps} &
1953: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{Tr.eps}\\[5pt]
1954: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{AVks.eps} &
1955: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{Tks.eps}\\[5pt]
1956: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{AVw.eps} &
1957: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{Tw.eps}
1958: \end{array}
1959: $$
1960: \vskip-10pt
1961: \caption[]{Form factors for $B_q$ decays as functions of $q^2$,
1962: for central values of input parameters.
1963: }\label{fig:mainA}
1964: \end{figure}
1965:
1966: \begin{figure}[tb]
1967: $$
1968: \begin{array}{@{}c@{\quad}c}
1969: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{AVk.eps} &
1970: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{Tk.eps}\\[5pt]
1971: \epsfxsize=0.43\textwidth\epsffile{AVf.eps} &
1972: \epsfxsize=0.43\textwidth\epsffile{Tf.eps}
1973: \end{array}
1974: $$
1975: \vskip-10pt
1976: \caption[]{Form factors for $B_s$ decays as functions of $q^2$,
1977: for central values of input parameters.}\label{fig:mainB}
1978: \end{figure}
1979:
1980:
1981: \subsection{Results for $q^2\neq0$, Fits and Extrapolations}\label{sec:4.5}
1982:
1983: In this subsection we discuss the $q^2$-dependence of the form factors.
1984: The results of the LCSR calculation are plotted in
1985: Figs.~\ref{fig:mainA} and \ref{fig:mainB}.
1986: They can be parametrised in terms of simple formulas with 2 or 3 parameters,
1987: which are valid in the full kinematical regime in $q^2$. The
1988: corresponding parameters are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:fits}.
1989:
1990: As mentioned in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, the LCSR method is valid for large
1991: energies of the final state vector meson, $E_V \gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$,
1992: which implies, via the relation $q^2 = m_B^2 - 2 m_B E_V$,
1993: a restriction to not too large $q^2$.
1994: We include values in the regime
1995: \begin{equation}
1996: \label{eq:LCSRregime}
1997: 0\leq q^2\leq q^2_{\rm LCSR, max} = 14\,{\rm GeV}^2\,,
1998: \end{equation}
1999: which has to be compared with the maximum physical $q^2_{\rm phys, max} =
2000: (m_B-m_V)^2$ of $20.3\,{\rm GeV}^2$ for $B_q\to(\rho,\omega)$,
2001: $19.2\,{\rm GeV}^2$ for $B_q \to K^*$, $20.0 \,{\rm GeV}^2$ for
2002: $B_s \to \bar{K}^*$ and $ 18.2\,{\rm GeV}^2$ for $B_s \to \phi$. The
2003: main aim of this subsection is to provide fits for the LCSR
2004: results, which are valid in the full physical regime of $q^2$. We
2005: will comment below on the dependence of the fit results on the actual
2006: value used for $q^2_{\rm LCSR, max}$.
2007:
2008: We closely follow the procedure we used in our previous paper
2009: on $B\to\,$pseu\-do\-sca\-lar form factors, Ref.~\cite{BZ}. Generically,
2010: barring the occurence of anomalous thresholds,
2011: any form factor $F(q^2)$ has singularities (poles and cuts)
2012: for positive real $q^2$, starting at
2013: the position of the lightest resonance coupling to the relevant current,
2014: and hence can be written as a dispersion integral in $q^2$.
2015: Splitting off the lowest-lying resonance with mass $m_R$, one has
2016: \begin{equation}
2017: F(q^2) = \frac{r_1}{1-q^2/m_R^2}+
2018: \int_{t_0}^\infty
2019: ds\,\frac{\rho(s)}{s-q^2}\,,\label{eq:xyz}
2020: \end{equation}
2021: where $t_0$ is the threshold for multiparticle contributions, which
2022: can be above or below $m_R^2$.
2023: Keeping only the first term and neglecting the integral altogether one
2024: obtains the vector meson dominance (VMD)
2025: approximation.\footnote{This notion comes from the analysis of
2026: electromagnetic form factors, where the first resonance is the
2027: $\rho$. In weak decays, however, the lowest resonance is, in general, not a
2028: vector meson, so that the notion VMD is, strictly speaking, obsolete.}
2029: Even though this approximation is
2030: expected to work very well close to the pole,
2031: it certainly won't work far away from
2032: it, e.g.\ at $q^2=0$. For $B\to \pi$ transitions it was
2033: argued in Ref.~\cite{BecKai} that the integral can be modelled by a
2034: second pole at larger $q^2$, which is unrelated to any physical
2035: resonance:
2036: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dp}
2037: F(q^2)=\frac{r_1}{1-q^2/m_R^2}+\frac{r_2}{1-q^2/m_{\rm fit}^2}
2038: \end{equation}
2039: with the three independent parameters $r_{1,2}$ and $m_{\rm fit}$.
2040: \begin{table}[p]
2041: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2042: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
2043: \vskip-10pt
2044: $$
2045: \begin{array}{|l||c|cc||cccc|c|c|}
2046: \hline
2047: & F(0) & \Delta_{\rm tot} & \Delta_{a_1} & r_1 & m_R^2 & r_2 &
2048: m_{\rm fit}^2 & \delta & \mbox{fit eq.} \\
2049: \hline
2050: V^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.323 & 0.030 & & \phantom{-}1.045 & m^2_{1^-} &
2051: -0.721 & 38.34 & 0.1 & (\ref{eq:dp})\\
2052: A_0^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.303 & 0.029 & & \phantom{-}1.527 & m^2_{0^-} & -1.220 & 33.36 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2053: A_1^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.242 & 0.023 & & - & - & \phantom{-}0.240 & 37.51 & 1.0 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2054: A_2^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.221 & 0.023 & & \phantom{-}0.009 & - &
2055: \phantom{-}0.212 & 40.82 & 0.1 & (\ref{eq:dmex})\\
2056: T_1^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.267 & 0.023 & & \phantom{-}0.897 & m^2_{1^-} & -0.629 & 38.04 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2057: T_2^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.267 & 0.023 & & - & - & \phantom{-}0.267 & 38.59 & 2.3 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2058: \tilde{T}_3^{B_q \to \rho} & 0.267 & 0.023 & & \phantom{-}0.022 & - & \phantom{-}0.246 & 40.88 & 0.1 & (\ref{eq:dmex})\\\rline
2059: V^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.311 & 0.026 & -0.43\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}2.351 & m^2_{1^-} & -2.039 & 33.10 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2060: A_0^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.360 & 0.034 & -0.37\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}2.813 & m^2_{0^-} & -2.509 & 31.58 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2061: A_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.233 & 0.022 & -0.32\relta_{a_1} & - & - & \phantom{-}0.231 & 32.94 & 0.8 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2062: A_2^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.181 & 0.025 & -0.30\relta_{a_1} & -0.011 & - & \phantom{-}0.192 & 40.14 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dmex})\\
2063: T_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.260 & 0.024 & -0.33\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}2.047 & m^2_{1^-} & -1.787 & 32.83 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2064: T_2^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.260 & 0.024 & -0.33\relta_{a_1} & - & - & \phantom{-}0.260 & 33.01 & 1.9 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2065: \tilde{T}_3^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & 0.260 & 0.024
2066: & -0.33\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}0.043 & - & \phantom{-}0.217 & 39.38 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dmex})\\ \rline
2067: V^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.411 & 0.033 & \phantom{-}0.44\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}0.923 & m^2_{1^-} & -0.511 & 49.40 & 0.0 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2068: A_0^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.374 & 0.033 & \phantom{-}0.39\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}1.364 & m^2_{0^-} & -0.990 & 36.78 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2069: A_1^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.292 & 0.028 & \phantom{-}0.33\relta_{a_1} & - & - & \phantom{-}0.290 & 40.38 & 1.0 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2070: A_2^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.259 & 0.027 & \phantom{-}0.31\relta_{a_1} & -0.084 & - & \phantom{-}0.342 & 52.00 & 0.2 &(\ref{eq:dmex})\\
2071: T_1^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.333 & 0.028 & \phantom{-}0.34\relta_{a_1} & \phantom{-}0.823 & m^2_{1^-} & -0.491 & 46.31 & 0.0 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2072: T_2^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.333 & 0.028 & \phantom{-}0.34\relta_{a_1} & - & - & \phantom{-}0.333 & 41.41 & 2.5 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2073: \tilde{T}_3^{B_q \to K^*} & 0.333 & 0.028 &
2074: \phantom{-}0.34\relta_{a_1} & -0.036 & - &\phantom{-} 0.368 & 48.10 &
2075: 0.1 & (\ref{eq:dmex})\\ \rline
2076: V^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.293 & 0.029 & & \phantom{-}1.006 & m^2_{1^-}& -0.713 & 37.45 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2077: A_0^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.281 & 0.030 & & \phantom{-}1.321 & m^2_{0^-} & -1.040 & 34.47 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2078: A_1^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.219 & 0.024 & & - & - & -0.217 & 37.01 & 1.1 & (\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2079: A_2^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.198 & 0.023 & & \phantom{-}0.006 & - & \phantom{-}0.192 & 41.24 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dmex})\\
2080: T_1^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.242 & 0.021 & & \phantom{-}0.865 & m^2_{1^-} & -0.622 & 37.19 & 0.1 &(\ref{eq:dp})\\
2081: T_2^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.242 & 0.021 & & - & - & \phantom{-}0.242 & 37.95 & 2.1 &(\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2082: \tilde{T}_3^{B_q \to \rmega} & 0.242 & 0.021 & & \phantom{-}0.023 & - & \phantom{-}0.220 & 40.87 & 0.1& (\ref{eq:dmex})\\ \rline
2083: V^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.434 & 0.035 & & \phantom{-}1.484 & m^2_{1^-} & -1.049 & 39.52 & 0.1& (\ref{eq:dp})\\
2084: A_0^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.474 & 0.033 & & \phantom{-}3.310 & m^2_{0^-} & -2.835 & 31.57 & 0.1& (\ref{eq:dp})\\
2085: A_1^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.311 & 0.030 & & - & - & \phantom{-}0.308 & 36.54 & 1.0& (\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2086: A_2^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.234 & 0.028 & & -0.054 & - & \phantom{-}0.288 & 48.94 & 0.2& (\ref{eq:dmex})\\
2087: T_1^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.349 & 0.033 & & \phantom{-}1.303 & m^2_{1^-} & -0.954 & 38.28 & 0.1& (\ref{eq:dp})\\
2088: T_2^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.349 & 0.033 & & - & - & \phantom{-}0.349 & 37.21 & 2.4& (\ref{eq:vmd})\\
2089: \tilde{T}_3^{B_s \to \rhi} & 0.349 & 0.033 & & \phantom{-}0.027 & - & \phantom{-}0.321 & 45.56 & 0.1& (\ref{eq:dmex})\\ \rline
2090: \end{array}
2091: $$
2092: \vskip-1pt
2093: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
2094: \caption[]{Fits for the form factors
2095: valid for general $q^2$. Columns 2 to 4 give
2096: the results of Tab.~\ref{tab:basic} for $q^2=0$, including the
2097: errors $\Delta_{\rm tot}$ and $\Delta_{a_1}$.
2098: The remaining colums give the fit parameters.
2099: Note that we fit
2100: the form factor $\tilde{T}_3$, defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:eq}), instead of
2101: $T_3$. The fit formulas to use are given in the last column, the
2102: masses $m_R$ are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:poles}.
2103: The penultimate column gives the fit error
2104: $\delta$ as defined in Eq.~\eqref{eq:delta}.}\label{tab:fits}
2105: \end{table}
2106:
2107: The dominant poles at $q^2=m_R^2$ correspond to resonances with
2108: quantum numbers $J^P=1^-$ for $V$ and $T_1$, $0^-$ for $A_0$ and
2109: $1^+$ for $A_{1,2,3}$ and $T_{2,3}$, $\widetilde{T}_3$. As discussed
2110: in Sec.~\ref{sec:2}, not all these form factors are independent, and
2111: the question arises which ones to fit to the above equation -- or any
2112: similar formula -- and which ones to define in terms of the others. As
2113: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dp}) contains two explicit poles, we decide the above
2114: question in favor of the form factors with the steepest increase in
2115: $q^2$, which means that the independent form factors are $V$,
2116: $A_{0,1,2}$ and $T_{1,2}$, $\tilde{T}_3$, whereas $T_3$ and $A_3$ are
2117: the dependent ones, defined as in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:A30}) and (\ref{eq:T3tilde}).
2118:
2119: The values of the
2120: resonance masses $m_R$ in (\ref{eq:dp})
2121: are known from experiment for $0^-$ and $1^-$
2122: in the $B_q$ channel and $0^-$ in the $B_s$ channel;
2123: the other masses are obtained using heavy quark symmetry relations
2124: \cite{Bardeen},
2125: the numerical values are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:poles}.
2126:
2127: We shall use fits to Eq.~(\ref{eq:dp}) for the form factors $V$, $A_0$
2128: and $T_1$, where the lowest pole $m_R^2$ lies well below the
2129: multiparticle threshold $(m_{B_{q,s}} + m_{\pi,K})^2$.
2130: \begin{table}[tbp]
2131: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
2132: $$
2133: \begin{array}{|l|cccc|}
2134: \hline
2135: & 0^- & 0^+ & 1^- & 1^+ \\ \hline
2136: B_q & 5.28 & 5.63 & 5.32 & 5.68 \\
2137: B_s & 5.37 & 5.72 & 5.42 & 5.77 \\
2138: \hline
2139: \end{array}
2140: $$
2141: \caption[]{$B$ meson masses in units GeV, taken from
2142: Ref.~\cite{Bardeen}.}\label{tab:poles}
2143: \end{table}
2144: If, on the other hand,
2145: the lowest physical pole lies sufficiently close to the
2146: multiparticle threshold $t_0$ or even above it, then it may be impossible to
2147: ``resolve'' the poles from a low-$q^2$ ``perspective''. In this case
2148: it is more appropriate to expand the form factor to second order around the
2149: pole, yielding
2150: \begin{equation}\label{eq:dmex}
2151: F(q^2)=\frac{r_1}{1-q^2/m_{\rm fit}^2}+\frac{r_2}{(1-q^2/m_{\rm fit}^2)^2}\,,
2152: \end{equation}
2153: with the three parameters $r_{1,2}$ and $m_{\rm fit}$. This is the fit
2154: formula we shall use for the axialvector form factors, in particular
2155: $A_2$ and $\tilde{T}_3$. For $A_1$ and $T_2$,
2156: on the other hand, the residue of the double pole in $m_{\rm fit}$
2157: turns out to be
2158: extremely small, so that it can be dropped and one is back to the VMD formula
2159: \begin{equation}\label{eq:vmd}
2160: F(q^2)= \frac{r_2}{1-q^2/m_{\rm fit}^2}\,,
2161: \end{equation}
2162: albeit with an effective pole mass $m_{\rm fit}$ unrelated to any resonance.
2163:
2164: The fits of the LCSR results to the above formulas are collected in
2165: Tab.~\ref{tab:fits}; they
2166: differ from the LCSR results obtained for $q^2\leq 14\,{\rm
2167: GeV}^2$, by no more than 2.5\%. In Tab.~\ref{tab:fits} we
2168: indicate the ``quality'' of the fit by $\delta$,
2169: which is the maximum deviation of the fit relative to the mean value
2170: of the form factor in percent and defined as
2171: \begin{equation}\label{eq:delta}
2172: \delta = 100\:\frac{\sum_t|f(t)-f^{\rm fit}(t)|}{\sum_{t}|f(t)|},
2173: \end{equation}
2174: where the sum runs over $t\in\{ 0,0.5,1,\dots,14\}$.
2175:
2176: We have also tried fits to
2177: the two pole ansatz (\ref{eq:dp}) without fixing one of the
2178: masses. In this case the lowest pole is fitted to lie below the actual
2179: resonance pole, by up to
2180: $1.5\,{\rm GeV}^2$. Given the fact that LCSRs are
2181: valid for small $q^2$ far away from the pole, one cannot expect them
2182: to resolve its position with perfect accuracy. Nonetheless we take it
2183: as an indication for the consistency of our approach that the double
2184: pole formula with unrestricted pole positions gives results
2185: that agree qualitatively with those from the restricted fits.
2186: We also have checked the dependence of the fits on the maximum value
2187: of $q^2_{\rm max, LCSR}$ up to which LCSR results are included into
2188: the fit. It turns out that the fits are very robust against lowering
2189: $q^2_{\rm max, LCSR}$; lowering it from 14$\,{\rm GeV}^2$
2190: to 7$\,{\rm GeV}^2$ changes the fitted values at 20$\,{\rm GeV}^2$ by at
2191: most 8\%,
2192: $T_2$ being the odd one sticking out. In Fig.~\ref{fig:fitqu} we show the
2193: effects of a change of $q^2_{\rm max, LCSR}$ on $T_1^{B\to\rho}$ and
2194: $A_1^{B\to\rho}$.
2195:
2196: Let us now turn to a consistency check of our fits. One can express
2197: the residues of
2198: $V$, $T_1$ and $A_0$ for $B\to\rho$ in terms of decay constants and
2199: strong couplings as follows:
2200: \begin{equation}\label{eq:residues}
2201: r_1^V = \frac{m_B+m_V}{2 m_B} f_{B^*}\, g_{BB^*\rho},\quad
2202: r_1^{T_1} = \frac{f_{B^*}^T}{2}\, g_{BB^*\rho},\quad
2203: r_1^{A_0} = \frac{f_B}{2 m_V}\, g_{BB\rho},
2204: \end{equation}
2205: where $f_{B^*}^T$ is the tensor coupling of the $B^*$ meson
2206: defined in the same way as light vector tensor couplings,
2207: Eq.~\eqref{eq:frp}.
2208: $f_B$ has been discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.2}; its value is about
2209: $200\, {\rm MeV}$ and we expect $f_{B^*}$ and $f^T_{B^*}$ to be of about
2210: the same size.
2211: The values of the strong couplings $g_{BB\rho}$ and $g_{BB^*\rho}$ are
2212: more controversial as discussed below.
2213: As a first check, consider the $g$-independent ratio
2214: \begin{equation}\label{eq:expecto_patronum}
2215: \alpha \equiv \frac{r_1^V}{r_1^{T_1}} = \frac{m_B+m_V}{m_{B^*}}\,
2216: \frac{f_{B^*}}{f_{B^*}^T} \sim 1.14.
2217: \end{equation}
2218: The fitted values of $r_1$ are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:Vergleich}
2219: and yield $\alpha_{\rm fit} = 1.16$ ---
2220: very close to (\ref{eq:expecto_patronum}). For $r_1$ fitted using
2221: parameter sets 1 and 3 we find $\alpha=1.16$ and 1.17, respectively.
2222: \begin{figure}[tb]
2223: $$\epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{tt1fit.eps} \quad
2224: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{aa1fit.eps}$$
2225: \caption[]{Comparison of the consistency of fits of
2226: $T_{1}^{B_q\to\rho}$ and $A_{1}^{B_q\to\rho}$obtained for
2227: different values of $q^2_{\rm LCSR, max}$. Dots: LCSR results for
2228: $q^2\leq 14\,{\rm GeV}^2$. Lines: fits according
2229: to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dp}) for $T_1$ and (\ref{eq:vmd}) for $A_1$, for
2230: $q^2_{\rm LCSR, max}$ between 7 and $14\,{\rm GeV}^2$. The maximum
2231: discrepancy between the fit-results at $q^2=20\,{\rm GeV}^2$ is
2232: 2\% for $T_1$ and 5\% for $A_1$.}\label{fig:fitqu}
2233: \end{figure}
2234: Any further check of the fitted $r_1$ requires information on the
2235: couplings $g_{BB^{(*)}\rho}$, which have been calculated from both
2236: LCSRs \cite{China} and within the
2237: constituent quark meson (CQM) model \cite{Italia} --- with
2238: significantly different results. The situation resembles that for
2239: $g_{DD^*\pi}$, where LCSR determinations are typically by a factor 2
2240: smaller than lattice and CQM calculations
2241: \cite{gDDpi_lat}. For this coupling there actually exists an experimental
2242: measurement by CLEO \cite{CLEO2}, which agrees with the lattice and
2243: CQM determinations, but disagrees with LCSRs. For the corresponding $B$
2244: coupling $g_{BB^*\pi}$ there is no experimental measurement, as the
2245: decay $B^*\to B\pi$ is forbidden by phase space, but one can use
2246: heavy quark scaling to obtain $g_{BB^*\pi}$ from the measured
2247: $g_{DD^*\pi}$ and compare it with the corresponding theoretical
2248: predictions. It turns out that again lattice and CQM calculations are
2249: favored, whereas the LCSR calculation gives a too small result, which
2250: can be understood following the discussion in Ref.~\cite{possible}.
2251: The recent LCSR determination \cite{China}
2252: has up-to-date input parameters and they get
2253: from a tree-level analysis
2254: \begin{equation}
2255: \label{eq:China}
2256: g_{BB\rho} = 5.37,\quad g_{BB^*\rho} = 5.70 \,{\rm GeV}^{-1}\,.
2257: \end{equation}
2258: For pseudoscalar mesons, NLO calculations have consistently yielded
2259: smaller values than tree level determinations,
2260: cf.\ Ref.~\cite{gBBpi}, which,
2261: if true also for the $\rho$, would widen
2262: the gap between the results from different methods even further.
2263: The CQM-model predictions are \cite{Italia}:
2264: \begin{eqnarray}
2265: \label{eq:Italia}
2266: g_{BB\rho} &=& -\sqrt{2} \beta \frac{m_\rho}{f_\pi} =
2267: 7.2 \quad {\rm with } \quad \beta = -0.86, \\
2268: g_{BB^*\rho} &=& \sqrt{8} \lambda \,
2269: \sqrt{\frac{m_{B^*}}{m_B}} \frac{m_\rho}{f_\pi} = 10.0 \: {\rm GeV}^{-1}
2270: \quad {\rm with } \quad \lambda = 0.6\, {\rm GeV}^{-1}.\label{eq:Italia2}
2271: \end{eqnarray}
2272: It is hard for us to judge on the validity of this approach,
2273: but as far as we understand the model is further based on empirical success.
2274: In Tab.~\ref{tab:Vergleich} we compare the
2275: residues for the $B \to \rho$ transition
2276: as obtained from our fits, Tab.~\ref{tab:fB}, to their values
2277: given in Eq.~\eqref{eq:residues}, using the couplings \eqref{eq:China},
2278: \eqref{eq:Italia} and \eqref{eq:Italia2}.
2279: \begin{table}
2280: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
2281: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
2282: $$
2283: \begin{array}{|l|ccc|}\hline
2284: & \mbox{our fit} & \mbox{LCSR \cite{China}} &
2285: \mbox{CQM \cite{Italia}} \\ \hline
2286: r_1^V & 1.05 & 0.65 & 1.14 \\
2287: r_1^{T_1} & 0.90 & 0.57 & 1.00 \\
2288: r_1^{A_0} & 1.53 & 0.70 & 0.94 \\
2289: \hline
2290: \end{array}
2291: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
2292: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
2293: $$
2294: \caption[]{Residues of the lowest-lying pole for
2295: $V^{B_q\to\rho}$, $T_1^{B_q\to\rho}$ and $A_0^{B_q\to\rho}$ obtained
2296: from our fits
2297: as compared to Eq.~\eqref{eq:residues} with input values from LCSR
2298: and CQM determinations.}\label{tab:Vergleich}
2299: \end{table}
2300: For $V$ and $T_1$ with a $1^-$ pole
2301: the CQM residues are about $10\%$ larger,
2302: and the LCSR about $40\%$
2303: lower than the fitted values. As discussed above, the LCSR results are
2304: expected to fall short of the real values, so this is an excellent
2305: confirmation of our results.
2306: The $A_0$ form factor shows some discrepancy which may indicate that
2307: either the estimate of the $g_{BB\rho}$ coupling is too low or that
2308: the second pole in the fit, $m_{\rm fit}^2 \approx 33\,{\rm GeV}^2$, is
2309: too close to the resonance pole to allow a clean determination of
2310: its residue. Taken altogether, however, the agreement of our fitted
2311: results to that of independent calculations is an excellent confirmation or
2312: our results.
2313:
2314: \section{Summary \& Conclusions}
2315:
2316: In this paper we present a thorough and careful examination of the
2317: predictions of QCD sum rules on the light-cone for the form factors
2318: of $B_q$ and $B_s$ transitions to $\rho$, $\omega$, $K^*$ and $\phi$.
2319: Our main results for zero momentum transfer
2320: $q^2=0$ are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:basic},
2321: those for general $q^2$ in Tab.~\ref{tab:fits}.
2322:
2323: The present analysis is a sequel of our work on
2324: $B\to\,$pseu\-do\-sca\-lar form factors, Ref.~\cite{BZ}, and an
2325: extension of the previous work of one of us on $B\to\,$vector form
2326: factors, Ref.~\cite{BB98}. It improves upon the latter by
2327: \begin{itemize}
2328: \item including predictions for all form factors of $B_{q,s}$ transitions
2329: to $O(\alpha_s)$ accuracy for twist-2 and 3 2-particle
2330: contributions;
2331: \item a more sophisticated method for fixing sum rule specific
2332: parameters, cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:4.2};
2333: \item implementing recently developed new models for the dominant
2334: nonperturbative vector meson contributions, the twist-2 vector meson
2335: distribution amplitudes, cf.\ Ref.~\cite{angi};
2336: \item the possibility to implement future updates of some hadronic
2337: parameters in a straightforward way, cf.\ App.~\ref{app:0};
2338: \item a careful assessment of uncertainties at zero momentum transfer,
2339: cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:4.4};
2340: \item a parametrization of the $q^2$-dependence of form factors valid
2341: in the full physical regime of momentum transfer, cf.\
2342: Sec.~\ref{sec:4.5};
2343: \item a variety of consistency checks for the robustness of the $q^2$-fits
2344: and their numerical results.
2345: \end{itemize}
2346:
2347: The accuracy of our results is limited, on the one hand, by the
2348: uncertainty of hadronic input parameters and, on the other hand, by
2349: the systematic uncertainty induced by the fact that QCD sum rules on
2350: the light-cone are an approximative method. The uncertainty due to
2351: the variation of only the sum rule specific parameters is about
2352: 7\%, which cannot be reduced any further and hence sets the minimum theoretical
2353: uncertainty that can be achieved within this method. An equally large
2354: theoretical uncertainty is induced by hadronic parameters and can, in
2355: principle, be improved upon. We quote in particular the tensor
2356: couplings $f_V^T$ of vector mesons, which presently come with the
2357: rather large error quoted in Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}. Improvement should be
2358: possible by dedicated lattice calculations, a first example of
2359: which is Ref.~\cite{lattfT}. Another relevant hadronic parameter is
2360: $\Delta$, the first inverse moment of the twist-2 vector meson
2361: distribution amplitudes, as defined in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3}.
2362: We have inferred a likely range for this
2363: parameter for $\rho$ and $\omega$ mesons from the known experimental
2364: constraints on $\Delta(\pi)$, and further determined a range for
2365: $\Delta(K^*)$ and $\Delta(\phi)$ from the observed decrease, within QCD
2366: sum rule calculations, of the
2367: second Gegenbauer moment $a_2$ with increasing meson mass. Comparing the
2368: theoretical errors collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:basic} with
2369: the global theoretical uncertainty $\sim 15\%$ quoted in our previous
2370: publication \cite{BB98}, we have achieved a reduction to about 10\%. This
2371: is partially due to a reduction of the uncertainties of the hadronic input
2372: parameters, in particular $m_b$, and partially due to a refinement
2373: of the assessment of sum rule specific uncertainties as discussed in
2374: Sec.~\ref{sec:4.2}. Any future reduction of the total uncertainty will
2375: depend on more accurate
2376: determinations of $\Delta$, which are absolutely essential not only for
2377: light-cone sum rule calculations, but also for exploiting the full
2378: potential of QCD factorisation formulas for nonleptonic exclusive B
2379: decays \cite{QCDfac}. We take this occasion to urge lattice
2380: practitioners to take up the challenge and develop new and ingenious
2381: methods to tackle this problem --- or just give us an accurate
2382: value of $a_2$, which would already be a big step forward.
2383:
2384: The prospects for future direct determinations of $B\to V$ form factors from
2385: lattice calculations do appear a bit clouded. On the one hand, there
2386: are two recent studies, by the SPQcdR and UKQCD collaborations,
2387: Ref.~\cite{early}, using an improved
2388: Wilson action and the quenched approximation. The $b$ quarks are fully
2389: relativistic and have typical masses of about 2 to 3~GeV, so they need
2390: to be extrapolated to the physical $b$ quark mass. On the other hand,
2391: we conclude from \cite{davies} that an unquenched calculation in NRQCD
2392: is not really on the menu, which, as far as
2393: we understand, is due to an improvement in the treatment of light
2394: quark masses on the lattice, causing the $\rho$ and other vector
2395: mesons to become instable particles without a pronounced plateau in the
2396: fall-off of the correlation function, and essentially prevents a precise
2397: determination of their properties from lattice. We do not pretend to
2398: be sufficient experts in LQCD to be able to meaningfully comment on
2399: these issues, but remain hopeful that the situation will be clarified
2400: in due course.
2401:
2402: We have calculated all form factors for $0\leq q^2\leq 14\,{\rm
2403: GeV}^2$; the upper bound on $q^2$ is due to the limitations of the
2404: light-cone expansion which requires the final-state meson to have
2405: energies $E\gg \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$: for $q^2_{\rm max} = 14\,{\rm
2406: GeV}^2$ the meson energy is $E = 1.3\,$GeV. In order to facilitate the
2407: use of our results we have given, in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.5},
2408: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dp}), (\ref{eq:dmex}) and (\ref{eq:vmd}), simple
2409: parametrisations that include the main features of the analytical
2410: properties of the form factors and are valid in the full physical
2411: regime $0\leq q^2\leq (m_B-m_V)^2$. The corresponding results for
2412: our preferred set of input parameters are given in Tab.~\ref{tab:fits}.
2413: We have checked that the fit results are fairly insensitive to the maximum
2414: value of $q^2$ included, and that reducing the latter to e.g.\ $7\,{\rm
2415: GeV}^2$ changes the extrapolated values of the form factors at
2416: $q^2=20\,{\rm GeV}^2$ by typically only 1 to 2\%, and by 8\% at most
2417: (for $T_2$).
2418:
2419: In Sec.~\ref{sec:intro} we mentioned factorisation formulas for form
2420: factors derived in SCET, Ref.~\cite{SCET,fuck,hill}, which in particular
2421: imply certain (heavy quark) symmetry relations. Since the
2422: objective of this paper was to provide numerical results, ready for
2423: use in phenomenological applications, we did not discuss the question
2424: whether and to what extent our results fulfill these relations, nor
2425: the size of symmetry-breaking corrections. A previous study of the
2426: corresponding effect in $B\to\,$pseudoscalar decays has indicated that
2427: such corrections are likely to be nonnegligible \cite{yetanotherone}.
2428: We plan to come
2429: back to these points in a future publication.
2430:
2431: \section*{Acknowledgements}
2432:
2433: R.Z.is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and
2434: would like to thank Antonio Polosa for correspondence on Ref.~\cite{Italia}.
2435:
2436: \appendix
2437:
2438: \section*{Appendix}
2439: \setcounter{equation}{0}
2440: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
2441: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Alph{table}}
2442: \setcounter{section}{0}
2443: \setcounter{table}{0}
2444:
2445: \begin{table}[tbp]
2446: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
2447: \begin{center}
2448: \begin{tabular}{|c|cc||c|cc|}
2449: \hline
2450: $F(0)$ & $F^L$ & $F^T$ & $F(0)$ & $F^L$ & $F^T$ \\
2451: \hline
2452: $V^{B_q \to \rho}$ & 0.1092 & 0.2139 & $A_0^{B_q \to \rho}$ & 0.2036 & 0.0990\\
2453: $A_1^{B_q \to \rho}$ & 0.0867 & 0.1552 & $A_2^{B_q \to \rho}$ & 0.0467 & 0.1743\\
2454: $T_1^{B_q \to \rho}$ & 0.1034 & 0.1641 & $T_3^{B_q \to \rho}$ & 0.0303 & 0.1455 \\
2455: \hline
2456: $V^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*}$ & 0.1275 & 0.2289 & $A_0^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*}$ & 0.2469 & 0.1532\\
2457: $A_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*}$ & 0.1022 & 0.1641 & $A_2^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*}$ & 0.0445 & 0.1684\\
2458: $T_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*}$ & 0.1215 & 0.1737 & $T_3^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*}$ & 0.0211 & 0.1339\\
2459: \hline
2460: $V^{B_q \to K^*}$ & 0.1415 & 0.2234 & $A_0^{B_q \to K^*}$ & 0.2071 & 0.1269\\
2461: $A_1^{B_q \to K^*}$ & 0.1034 & 0.1545 & $A_2^{B_q \to K^*}$ & 0.0614 & 0.1658\\
2462: $T_1^{B_q \to K^*}$ & 0.1301 & 0.1665 & $T_3^{B_q \to K^*}$ & 0.0436 & 0.1386\\
2463: \hline
2464: $V^{B_q \to \rmega}$ & 0.1048 & 0.1884 & $A_0^{B_q \to \rmega}$ & 0.1967 & 0.0838\\
2465: $A_1^{B_q \to \rmega}$ & 0.0834 & 0.1357 & $A_2^{B_q \to \rmega}$ & 0.0443 & 0.1536\\
2466: $T_1^{B_q \to \rmega}$ & 0.0984 & 0.1440 & $T_3^{B_q \to \rmega}$ & 0.0288 & 0.1264\\
2467: \hline
2468: $V^{B_s \to \rhi}$ & 0.1594 & 0.2748 & $A_0^{B_s \to \rhi}$ & 0.2647 & 0.2098\\
2469: $A_1^{B_s \to \rhi}$ & 0.1226 & 0.1884 & $A_2^{B_s \to \rhi}$ & 0.0558 & 0.1784\\
2470: $T_1^{B_s \to \rhi}$ & 0.1469 & 0.2019 & $T_3^{B_s \to \rhi}$ & 0.0316 & 0.1433\\
2471: \hline
2472: \end{tabular}
2473: \end{center}
2474: \caption[]{Contributions in $f^L$ and
2475: $f^T$ to the form factors at $q^2=0$. The numbers correspond to
2476: the central values of parameter set 2, i.e.\
2477: $m_b=4.8\,$GeV. $T_2(0)$ follows from $T_1(0)=T_2(0)$.}\label{tab:fLfT1}
2478: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
2479: $$
2480: \begin{array}{|c|cc||c|cc|}
2481: \hline
2482: F(0) & F^{L,a_1} & F^{T,a_1} & F(0) & F^{L,a_1} & F^{T,a_1}\\\hline
2483: V^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & -0.0057 & -0.0396 & A_0^{B_s \to\rar{K}^*} &
2484: -0.0398 & \phantom{-}0.0024\\
2485: A_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & -0.0057 & -0.0276 & A_2^{B_s \to
2486: \rar{K}^*} & \phantom{-}0.0079 & -0.0394 \\
2487: T_1^{B_s \to \rar{K}^*} & -0.0056 & -0.0297 & T_3^{B_s \to
2488: \rar{K}^*} & \phantom{-}0.0104 & -0.0293 \\ \hline
2489: V^{B_q \to K^*} & \phantom{-}0.0060 & \phantom{-}0.0403 & A_0^{B_q
2490: \to K^*} & \phantom{-}0.0403 & -0.0001 \\
2491: A_1^{B_q \to K^*} & \phantom{-}0.0059 & \phantom{-}0.0281 & A_2^{B_q
2492: \to K^*} & -0.0080 & \phantom{-}0.0395 \\
2493: T_1^{B_q \to K^*} & \phantom{-}0.0059 & \phantom{-}0.0303 &
2494: T_3^{B_q \to K^*} & -0.0103 & \phantom{-}0.0299 \\\hline
2495: \end{array}
2496: $$
2497: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2498: \caption[]{Contributions of $a_1$ to the form factors at $q^2=0$.
2499: Parameters like in Tab.~\ref{tab:fLfT1}.}\label{tab:fLfT2}
2500: \end{table}
2501:
2502: \section{\boldmath Form Factors For Different $f_V^{(T)}$ and
2503: $a_1(K^*)$}\label{app:0}
2504:
2505: The form factors can be written as sum of two contributions which are
2506: proportional to the vector meson's vector coupling $f_V\equiv f^L$ and
2507: the tensor coupling $f_V^T\equiv f^T$, respectively. The uncertainties
2508: of these parameters as tabled in Tab.~\ref{tab:fV} are nonnegligible,
2509: but amenable to future improvement by e.g.\ lattice calculations, cf.\
2510: Ref.~\cite{lattfT}. The same applies to $a_1(K^*)$ which also comes with a
2511: considerable uncertainty, cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{a1}).
2512: In order to allow the adjustment of our results to improved
2513: determinations of these parameters, we write the generic form factor
2514: $F$ as
2515: \begin{equation}\label{eq:fsplit}
2516: F = \hat{f}^L(F^L+\hat{a}^L_1\,
2517: F^{L,a_1})+\hat{f}^T(F^T+ \hat{a}^T_1\, F^{T,a_1}) \quad ,
2518: \end{equation}
2519: where the hatted quantities are normalized to the central values used
2520: in our calculation, i.e.\ the couplings of Tab.~\ref{tab:fV} and
2521: $a_1^T\equiv a_1^\perp$, $a_1^L\equiv a_1^\parallel$ as given in
2522: (\ref{a1}). For instance $\hat{f}^L_\rho = f_\rho/(205\,{\rm MeV})$.
2523: Note that $\hat{a}_1(K^*)\equiv \hat{a}_1(\bar K^*)$ and
2524: that hatted quantities are trivially invariant under LO scaling.
2525: $F^L$ and $F^T$ are collected, for $q^2=0$, in Tab.~\ref{tab:fLfT1}
2526: and $F^{a_1}$ in Tab.~\ref{tab:fLfT2}. To give an example, for $A_0^{B_s \to
2527: \bar{K}^*}$ we obtain
2528: \begin{eqnarray*}
2529: A_0^{B_s \to \bar{K}^*}(0) &=& \frac{f_{K^*}}{217\,\text{\small MeV}} \left(0.2469 -
2530: \frac{a_1^{K^*}(\text{\small 1 \rm GeV})}{0.1}\, 0.0398 \right)\\
2531: &&{}+ \frac{f^T_{K^*}(\text{\small 1 \rm GeV}) }
2532: {170\,\text{\small MeV}}\left(0.1532 +
2533: \frac{a_1^{K^*}(\text{\small 1 \rm GeV})}{0.1}\, 0.0024\right),
2534: \end{eqnarray*}
2535: which, choosing the central values of the couplings and $a_1$, yields
2536: 0.3627, in agreement with Tab.~\ref{tab:basic}.
2537:
2538: \section{Distribution Amplitudes}\label{app:A}
2539:
2540: In this appendix we collect explicit expressions for some of the
2541: twist-3 and 4 DAs that
2542: enter the LCSRs. These expressions are well-known and have been
2543: taken from Ref.~\cite{wavefunctions}. The twist-2 DAs have already
2544: been discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3}. We also motivate and justify the
2545: use of models for DAs based on a truncated conformal expansion.
2546:
2547: Before defining the DAs, we introduce the light-like vectors
2548: in which they are expressed. We denote the meson momentum by $P_\mu$
2549: (with $P^2=m_V^2$) and the separation between fields in a nonlocal
2550: operator by $x_\mu$ (with $x^2$ close to 0)
2551: and introduce light-like vectors $p$ and $z$ such that
2552: \begin{equation}
2553: p_\mu = P_\mu-\frac{1}{2}z_\mu \frac{m^2_V}{pz}\,, \qquad
2554: z_\mu = x_\mu - P_\mu \left[ xP - \sqrt{(xP)^2 - x^2 m_V^2}\right]/m_V^2.
2555: \end{equation}
2556: The meson polarization vector $e^{(\lambda)}_\mu$ is decomposed into
2557: projections onto the two light-like vectors and the orthogonal plane
2558: as
2559: \begin{equation}
2560: e^{(\lambda)}_\mu = \frac{(e^{(\lambda)} z)}{pz}
2561: \left( p_\mu -\frac{m^2_V}{2pz} z_\mu \right)+e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}.
2562: \label{polv}
2563: \end{equation}
2564: We also need the projector onto the directions orthogonal to $p$ and $z$:
2565: \begin{equation}
2566: g^\perp_{\mu\nu} = g_{\mu\nu} -\frac{1}{pz}(p_\mu z_\nu+ p_\nu z_\mu).
2567: \end{equation}
2568: The dual gluon field strength
2569: tensor is defined as $\widetilde{G}_{\mu\nu} =
2570: \frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mu\nu \rho\sigma} G^{\rho\sigma}$.
2571: We use the standard Bjorken-Drell
2572: convention \cite{BD65} for the metric tensor
2573: and the Dirac matrices; in particular
2574: $\gamma_{5} = i \gamma^{0} \gamma^{1} \gamma^{2} \gamma^{3}$,
2575: and the Levi-Civita tensor $\epsilon_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma}$
2576: is defined as the totally antisymmetric tensor with $\epsilon_{0123} = 1$.
2577: This convention differs in sign by the one of Itzykson/Zuber \cite{IZ}
2578: used in some programming packages, e.g.\ {\sc FeynCalc}.
2579: We use a sign-convention for the strong coupling $g$ where the
2580: covariant derivative is defined as
2581: $D_{\mu}= \partial_{\mu} - igA_{\mu}$ and hence the Feynman-rule for
2582: $qqg$ vertices is $+ig\gamma_\mu$.
2583:
2584: Let us also clarify the treatment of SU(3)-breaking effects in
2585: DAs. SU(3) breaking occurs in three different ways:
2586: \begin{itemize}
2587: \item the contribution of odd Gegenbauer-moments $a_{1,3,\dots}$ to
2588: the DAs of the $K^*$;
2589: \item a difference in the values of the couplings $f_V^{(T)}$,
2590: the even Gegenbauer-moments
2591: $a_2^{\rho}\neq a_2^{K^*}$ and 3-particle matrix elements;
2592: \item the modification of relations between DAs by terms in
2593: $m_{q_1}\pm m_{q_2}$.
2594: \end{itemize}
2595: We will take into account the first effect wherever it occurs, except
2596: for terms in $O(\delta^2)$, the reason being that the structure of
2597: $\delta^2$ terms is very involved and there are yet unknown
2598: contributions in $m_V^2 a_1^\perp$ induced by 3-particle
2599: twist-4 DAs. The second effect is taken into account for the decay
2600: constants and parametrized by the dependence of
2601: the form factors on the parameters $\Delta$, as discussed in
2602: Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3}; we do not include SU(3) breaking for the
2603: 3-particle matrix elements as information on these effects is
2604: virtually nonexistant. The third effect is taken into account at
2605: $O(\delta \alpha_s^0,\delta \alpha_s)$, i.e.\ for the chiral-even DAs
2606: $g_\perp^{(a,v)}$. It does not occur at $O(\delta^0)$ and the
2607: corresponding terms are unknown at $O(\delta^2)$.
2608:
2609: The 2-particle DAs have been defined in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:OPEvector}) to
2610: (\ref{eq:OPEx}). Up to twist-4 and $O(\delta^2)$, there are seven
2611: chiral-odd 3-particle DAs which can be defined as \cite{wavefunctions}
2612: \begin{eqnarray}
2613: \lefteqn{\langle 0|\bar q_2(z) \sigma_{\alpha\beta}
2614: gG_{\mu\nu}(vz)
2615: q_1(-z)|V(p,\lambda)\rangle \ =}\hspace*{1.6cm}\nonumber\\
2616: &=& f_{V}^T m_{V}^2 \frac{e^{(\lambda)} z }{2 (p z)}
2617: [ p_\alpha p_\mu g^\perp_{\beta\nu}
2618: -p_\beta p_\mu g^\perp_{\alpha\nu}
2619: -p_\alpha p_\nu g^\perp_{\beta\mu}
2620: +p_\beta p_\nu g^\perp_{\alpha\mu} ]
2621: {\cal T}(v,pz)
2622: \nonumber\\
2623: &&{}+ f_{V}^T m_{V}^2
2624: [ p_\alpha e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}g^\perp_{\beta\nu}
2625: -p_\beta e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}g^\perp_{\alpha\nu}
2626: -p_\alpha e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}g^\perp_{\beta\mu}
2627: +p_\beta e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}g^\perp_{\alpha\mu} ]
2628: T_1^{(4)}(v,pz)
2629: \nonumber\\
2630: &&{}+ f_{V}^T m_{V}^2
2631: [ p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\alpha}g^\perp_{\beta\nu}
2632: -p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\beta}g^\perp_{\alpha\nu}
2633: -p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\alpha}g^\perp_{\beta\mu}
2634: +p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\beta}g^\perp_{\alpha\mu} ]
2635: T_2^{(4)}(v,pz)
2636: \nonumber\\
2637: &&{}+ \frac{f_{V}^T m_{V}^2}{pz}
2638: [ p_\alpha p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\beta}z_\nu
2639: -p_\beta p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\alpha}z_\nu
2640: -p_\alpha p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\beta}z_\mu
2641: +p_\beta p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\alpha}z_\mu ]
2642: T_3^{(4)}(v,pz)
2643: \nonumber\\
2644: &&{}+ \frac{f_{V}^T m_{V}^2}{pz}
2645: [ p_\alpha p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}z_\beta
2646: -p_\beta p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}z_\alpha
2647: -p_\alpha p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}z_\beta
2648: +p_\beta p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}z_\alpha ]
2649: T_4^{(4)}(v,pz),\hspace*{1cm}
2650: \label{eq:T3}\\
2651: \lefteqn{\langle 0|\bar q_2(z)
2652: gG_{\mu\nu}(vz)
2653: q_1(-z)|V(p,\lambda)\rangle
2654: \ =\ i f_{V}^T m_{V}^2
2655: [e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}p_\nu-e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}p_\mu] S(v,pz),}
2656: \hspace*{1.6cm}\nonumber\\
2657: \lefteqn{\langle 0|\bar q_2(z)
2658: ig\widetilde G_{\mu\nu}(vz)\gamma_5
2659: q_1(-z)|V(p,\lambda)\rangle
2660: \ =\ i f_{V}^T m_{V}^2
2661: [e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}p_\nu-e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}p_\mu]
2662: \widetilde S(v,pz).}\hspace*{1.6cm}\label{eq:2.21}
2663: \end{eqnarray}
2664: Of these seven amplitudes, ${\cal T}$ is of twist-3 and the other six
2665: of twist-4; higher twist terms are suppressed.
2666: In the above equations, we use
2667: \begin{equation}
2668: {\cal T}(v,pz) =\int {\cal D}\underline{\alpha}
2669: e^{-ipz(\alpha_2-\alpha_1+v\alpha_3)}{\cal T}(\underline{\alpha}),
2670: \end{equation}
2671: etc., and $\underline{\alpha}$ is the set of three momentum fractions
2672: $\underline{\alpha}=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3\}$.
2673: The integration measure is defined as
2674: \begin{equation}
2675: \int {\cal D}\underline{\alpha} \equiv \int_0^1 d\alpha_1
2676: \int_0^1 d\alpha_2\int_0^1 d\alpha_3 \,\delta\left(1-\sum \alpha_i\right).
2677: \label{eq:measure}
2678: \end{equation}
2679: As for chiral-even DAs, to order $O(\delta^2)$ only the twist-3 DAs
2680: contribute, which we define as
2681: \begin{eqnarray}
2682: \langle 0|\bar q_2(z) g\widetilde G_{\mu\nu}(vz)\gamma_\alpha\gamma_5
2683: q_1(-z)|V(p,\lambda)\rangle & = &
2684: f_V m_V p_\alpha[p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}
2685: -p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}]{\cal A}(v,pz) +
2686: O(m_V^3),\hspace*{0.6cm}
2687: \label{eq:even1}\\
2688: \langle 0|\bar q_2(z) g G_{\mu\nu}(vz)i\gamma_\alpha
2689: q_1(-z)|V(p)\rangle &=&
2690: f_V m_V p_\alpha[p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\mu}
2691: - p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\perp\nu}]{\cal V}(v,pz) +
2692: O(m_V^3).\hspace*{0.6cm}
2693: \label{eq:even2}
2694: \end{eqnarray}
2695:
2696: At first glance, the sheer number of different DAs, 2 of twist-2, 7 of
2697: twist-3 and 9 of twist-4, seems to preclude any predictivity of the
2698: LCSRs. Appearances are deceiving, though: not all these DAs are
2699: independent of each other, and one can disentangle their mutual
2700: interdependencies using the {\em QCD equations of motion}, which results in
2701: integral relations between different DAs, e.g.\ the chiral-odd DAs
2702: $\phi_\parallel$, $g_\perp^{(a,v)}$, $g_3$ etc.\ We shall see
2703: examples of such relations below. The other important organising
2704: principle for DAs is {\em conformal expansion}, i.e.\ a partial wave
2705: expansion of DAs in terms of contributions of increasing
2706: conformal spin. Conformal expansion relies on the fact that massless
2707: QCD displays conformal symmetry\footnote{See Ref.~\cite{VBreview} for
2708: a review on the use of conformal symmetry in QCD.}
2709: which allows one to organise the DAs in
2710: terms of irreducible representations of the corresponding symmetry
2711: group SL$(2,{\mathbb R})$. The coefficients of these
2712: different partial waves renormalize multiplicatively to LO in QCD, but
2713: mix at NLO, the reason being that the symmetry is anomalous.
2714:
2715:
2716: As mentioned above, the plethora of vector meson DAs is not mutually
2717: independent, but related by the QCD equations of motion. These
2718: relations are discussed at length in Ref.~\cite{wavefunctions}, whose
2719: formulas we adapt to the present case. The chiral-even
2720: twist-3 DAs are of order
2721: $\delta$, so we keep the full dependence on terms induced by
2722: $\phi_\parallel$, but use conformal expansion for the admixture of
2723: 3-particle DAs:
2724: \begin{eqnarray}
2725: \left(1-\delta_+\right) g_\perp^{(a)} & = & \bar u
2726: \int_0^u\,dv\,\frac{\Psi(v)}{\bar v} + u
2727: \int_u^1\,dv\,\frac{\Psi(v)}{v}\nonumber\\
2728: &&{}+ 10\zeta_3 \left(1 - \frac{3}{16}\,\omega_3^A +
2729: \frac{9}{16}\,\omega_3^V \right) \left\{ 5
2730: (2u-1)^2-1\right\},\\
2731: g_\perp^{(v)} & = & \frac{1}{4}\left[
2732: \int_0^u\,dv\,\frac{\Psi(v)}{\bar v} +
2733: \int_u^1\,dv\,\frac{\Psi(v)}{v}\right]+
2734: 5\zeta_3 \left\{ 3 (2u-1)^2-1\right\}\nonumber\\
2735: &&{} + \frac{15}{64}\,\zeta_3
2736: \left( 3 \omega_3^V - \omega_3^A\right) \left( 3 - 30 (2u-1)^2 + 35
2737: (2u-1)^4 \right),
2738: \end{eqnarray}
2739: with $\Psi(u) = 2 \phi_\parallel(u) + \delta_+(2u-1)\phi'_\perp(u)
2740: +\delta_- \phi'_\perp(u)$, $\delta_{\pm} = (f_V^T/f_V)\, (m_{q_2}\pm
2741: m_{q_1})/m_V$.
2742: The dimensionless coupling $\zeta_3$ is
2743: defined by the (local) matrix element
2744: \begin{eqnarray}
2745: \langle0|\bar q_2 g\tilde G_{\mu\nu}\gamma_\alpha
2746: \gamma_5 q_1|V(P,\lambda)\rangle & = &
2747: f_V m_V \zeta_{3}
2748: \Bigg[
2749: e^{(\lambda)}_\mu\Big(P_\alpha P_\nu-\frac{1}{3}m^2_V \,g_{\alpha\nu}\Big)
2750: -e^{(\lambda)}_\nu\Big(P_\alpha P_\mu-\frac{1}{3}m^2_V \,g_{\alpha\mu}\Big)
2751: \Bigg]\nonumber\\
2752: & & {}+ \frac{1}{3}f_V m_V^3 \zeta_{4}
2753: \Bigg[e^{(\lambda)}_\mu g_{\alpha\nu}- e^{(\lambda)}_\nu g_{\alpha\mu}\Bigg],
2754: \label{def:zeta34}
2755: \end{eqnarray}
2756: where $\zeta_4$ is a matrix-element of twist-4. $\omega_3^{A,V,T}$ are
2757: matrix elements of quark-quark-gluon operators involving derivatives
2758: and defined in the second reference of \cite{wavefunctions}.
2759:
2760: The chiral-odd twist-3 DAs, on the other hand, are $O(\delta^2)$, so
2761: we model them in conformal expansion truncated after the first
2762: non-leading order:
2763: \begin{eqnarray}
2764: h_\parallel^{(s)}(u) & = & 6u\bar u \left[ 1 + \left( \frac{1}{4}a_2^\perp +
2765: \frac{5}{8}\,\zeta_{3}\omega_3^T \right) (5(2u-1)^2-1)\right],\\
2766: h_\parallel^{(t)}(u) &= & 3(2u-1)^2+
2767: \frac{3}{2} a_2^\perp\, (2u-1)^2 \,(5(2u-1)^2-3)\nonumber\\
2768: &&{}+\frac{15}{16}\zeta_{3}\omega_3^T(3-30(2u-1)^2+35(2u-1)^4).
2769: \end{eqnarray}
2770: As mentioned above, we drop contributions in the odd
2771: Gegenbauer-moment $a_1^\perp$, as not
2772: all $m_V^2 a_1^\perp$ terms are known.
2773:
2774: As for the 3-particle twist-3 DAs, we have, quoting from
2775: Ref.~\cite{wavefunctions}:
2776: \begin{eqnarray}
2777: {\cal V} (\underline{\alpha}) &=&
2778: 540\, \zeta_3 \omega^V_3 (\alpha_1-\alpha_2)\alpha_1 \alpha_2\alpha_3^2,
2779: \label{modelV}\\
2780: {\cal A} (\underline{\alpha}) &=&
2781: 360\,\zeta_3 \alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3^2
2782: \left[ 1+ \omega^A_{3}\,\frac{1}{2}\,(7\alpha_3-3)\right],\label{modelA}\\
2783: {\cal T}(\underline{\alpha}) &=& 540 \,\zeta_3\, \omega_3^T
2784: (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) \alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3^2.\label{modelT}
2785: \end{eqnarray}
2786: These expressions are valid to NLO in the conformal expansion.
2787:
2788: \begin{table}
2789: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
2790: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
2791: $$
2792: \begin{array}{|c|ccc|}\hline
2793: \mu & \zeta_3 & \omega_3^A & \omega_3^V\\ \hline
2794: 1\,{\rm GeV}\phantom{.2} & 0.032\pm 0.010 &
2795: -2.1\pm1.0 & 3.8\pm1.8 \\
2796: 2.2\,{\rm GeV} & 0.018\pm 0.006 & -1.7\pm 0.9 & 3.6\pm 1.7 \\\hline
2797: \end{array}
2798: $$
2799: \caption[]{3-particle parameters of chiral-even distribution
2800: amplitudes.}\label{tab:A}
2801: $$
2802: \begin{array}{|c|ccccc|}\hline
2803: \mu & \omega_3^T & \zeta_4^T & \tilde{\zeta_4^T} &
2804: \langle\!\langle Q^{(1)}\rangle\!\rangle
2805: & \langle\!\langle Q^{(3)}\rangle\!\rangle \\ \hline
2806: 1\,{\rm GeV}\phantom{.2} & 7.0 \pm 7.0 & 0.10\pm 0.05 &
2807: -0.10\pm 0.05 & -0.15\pm 0.15 & 0 \\
2808: 2.2\,{\rm GeV} & 7.2\pm 7.2 & 0.06\pm 0.03 & -0.06\pm 0.03 & -0.07\pm
2809: 0.07& 0 \\\hline
2810: \end{array}
2811: $$
2812: \caption[]{3-particle parameters of
2813: chiral-odd distribution amplitudes. Terms in $a_2^\perp$
2814: are treated as described in Sec.~\ref{sec:4.3}.}\label{tab:B}
2815: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
2816: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
2817: \end{table}
2818:
2819: The chiral-even 2-particle DAs of twist-4, $g_3$ and $\mathbb A_\parallel$ in
2820: Eq.~(\ref{eq:OPEvector}), are $O(\delta^3)$, so we drop them. For the
2821: chiral-odd twist-4 DAs $h_3$ and ${\mathbb A}_\perp$ we use NLO conformal
2822: expansion (with $a_1^\perp\to 0$):
2823: \begin{eqnarray}
2824: h_3(u) & = & 1 + \left\{\frac{3}{7}\,a_2^\perp -1 - 10 (\zeta_4^T +
2825: \wt{\zeta}_4^T ) \right\}\! C_2^{1/2}(2u-1)+ \left\{
2826: -\frac{3}{7}\, a_2^\perp - \frac{15}{8}\, \zeta_3
2827: \omega_3^T\right\}\! C_4^{1/2}(2u-1),\nonumber\\[-0.5cm]\label{eq:h3exp}
2828: \end{eqnarray}
2829: \begin{eqnarray}
2830: {\mathbb A}_\perp(u) & = & 30 u^2 \bar u^2 \left\{ \frac{2}{5} \left( 1 +
2831: \frac{2}{7}\, a_2^\perp + \frac{10}{3}\, \zeta_4^T - \frac{20}{3}\,
2832: \wt{\zeta}_4^T \right) + \left( \frac{3}{35}\, a_2^\perp +
2833: \frac{1}{40}\, \zeta_3 \omega_3^T \right) C_2^{5/2}(2u-1)
2834: \right\}\nonumber\\
2835: & & {} - \left( \frac{18}{11}\, a_2^\perp - \frac{3}{2}\, \zeta_3
2836: \omega_3^T + \frac{126}{55}\,
2837: \langle\!\langle Q^{(1)}\rangle\!\rangle + \frac{70}{11}\,
2838: \langle\!\langle Q^{(3)}\rangle\!\rangle
2839: \right)\nonumber\\
2840: & & \times \left( u\bar u (2+13 u\bar u) + 2u^3 (10-15u+6u^2) \ln u +
2841: 2\bar u^3 (10-15\bar u + 6\bar u^2) \ln \bar u\right).\hspace*{0.9cm}
2842: \label{eq:ATexp}
2843: \end{eqnarray}
2844: The formulas for chiral-odd 3-particle DAs of twist-4 are rather
2845: lengthy and we refrain from reproducing them here. They can be
2846: found in the second reference of \cite{wavefunctions}.
2847:
2848: The numerical values of 3-particle matrix-elements are given in
2849: Tabs.~\ref{tab:A} and \ref{tab:B}, for the scales 1~GeV and
2850: $\sqrt{m_B^2-m_b^2} = 2.2\,$GeV. The corresponding one-loop anomalous
2851: dimensions are also given in \cite{wavefunctions}. The numerical
2852: values for the decays constants $f_V^{(T)}$ are collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:fV}.
2853:
2854: \section{3-Particle Contributions to the LCSRs}\label{app:B}
2855:
2856: In this paper we include contributions of 3-particle
2857: DAs to the correlation function (\ref{eq:corr}) at tree level. This appendix contains
2858: explicit formulas for these contributions.
2859:
2860: The 3-particle DAs of twist-3 have been defined in
2861: App.~\ref{app:A}; the definitions for twist-4 DAs can be found in Ref.~\cite{wavefunctions}.
2862: Their contributions to the correlation functions are most easily
2863: calculated in the external field method proposed in Ref.~\cite{NSVZ}.
2864: The light-cone $b$ quark propagator in an external field reads,
2865: in the Fock-Schwinger gauge $x_\mu A^\mu(x)=0$:
2866: \begin{equation}
2867: \matel{0}{Tb(x)\bar{b}(0)}{0}_A = iS_b^{(0)}(x)+iS_b^{(2)}(x,0),
2868: \end{equation}
2869: with
2870: \begin{equation}
2871: S_b^{(2)}(x,0)= -\int \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi)^4} e^{-ik\cdot x} \int_0^1 dv
2872: \frac{1}{2}\big( \bar{v}S_2(k,m)\, \sigma_{\mu\nu} G^{\mu\nu}(vx) + v \sigma_{\mu\nu}
2873: G^{\mu\nu}(vx)\, S_2(k,m) \big),
2874: \end{equation}
2875: where $S_n(k,m) = (\s{k}+m)/\Delta^n(k)$ with $\Delta(k)\equiv
2876: 1/(k^2-m^2)$.\footnote{Note
2877: that $S^{(2)}(x,0) \neq S^{(2)}(0,-x)$ as the Fock-Schwinger gauge
2878: breaks translational invariance.}
2879: This expression is equivalent to Eq.~(2.25) in Ref.~\cite{BB98}.
2880: The decomposition \eqref{20A} selects the chiral odd DAs \eqref{eq:T3},
2881: \eqref{eq:2.21} and
2882: the chiral even DAs \eqref{eq:even1}, \eqref{eq:even2}.
2883: Terms in $e^*_\al x_\beta/px$ are treated by partial integration;
2884: we have checked that all boundary terms vanish.
2885: Upon partial integration, we hence have
2886: \begin{equation*}
2887: \frac{e^*_\al x_\beta}{px} \int_\al e^{ix \cdot (k-l)}
2888: f(\al_1,\al_3)
2889: S_2(k,m) \to
2890: \int_\al e^{ix \cdot (k-l)} f(\tilde{\al}_1,\al_3) \Big[ 4
2891: S_3(k,m)e^*_\al
2892: k_\beta
2893: -e^*_\al \ga_\beta \Delta(k)^2 \Big] \quad ,
2894: \end{equation*}
2895: with $l= q+ (\al_1+v \al_3)p$, $f(\tilde{x},y) = \int^x da f(a,y)$
2896: and
2897: $\int_\al =
2898: \int_0^1 d\al_3 \int_0^{1-\al_3} d\alpha_1$.
2899:
2900: The contribution of 3-particle DAs to the
2901: correlation function \eqref{eq:corr} then reads:
2902: \begin{eqnarray*}
2903: \frac{i}{4} f_V m_V & & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\, \Delta(l)^2\,
2904: (pq)\big({\cal V}(\al)+{\cal A}(\al)\big) \,
2905: 2 v {\rm tr}[\Gamma \s{e}^* \s{p} \ga_5] + O(m_V^3)\\
2906: +&&\frac{i}{4} f_V^T m_V^2 \left(\int_0^1 dv \int D\al\,
2907: \Delta(l)^2\, S(\al)
2908: (\bar{v} {\rm tr}[\Gamma (\s{q}+m) \s{e}^*\s{p}\ga_5]+v{\rm
2909: tr}[\Gamma
2910: \s{e}^*\s{p}(\s{q}+m) \ga_5])\right.
2911: \nonumber \\
2912: -& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\, \Delta(l)^2\, \tilde{S}(\al)
2913: (\bar{v}{\rm tr}[\Gamma (\s{q}+m) \s{e}^*\s{p}\ga_5]+v{\rm
2914: tr}[\Gamma
2915: \s{e}^*\s{p}(-\s{q}+m)\ga_5])\nonumber\\
2916: +& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\, \Delta(l)^2\,
2917: \bar{v}{\rm tr}[\Gamma (\s{q}+m) \s{e}^*\s{p}\ga_5]
2918: T^{(4)}_3(\al_1,\al_3)
2919: \nonumber \\
2920: +& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\, \Delta(l)^3\,
2921: 4v (pq){\rm tr}[\Gamma (-\s{q}+m) \s{e}^*\s{p}\ga_5] T^{(4)}_3(
2922: \tilde{\al_1},\al_3) \nonumber \\
2923: -& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\, \Delta(l)^2\,
2924: \bar{v}{\rm tr}[\Gamma (\s{q}+m) \s{e}^*\s{p}\ga_5]
2925: T^{(4)}_4(\al_1,\al_3)
2926: \nonumber
2927: \end{eqnarray*}
2928: \begin{eqnarray*}
2929: -& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\, \Delta(l)^3\,
2930: 4v (pq){\rm tr}[\Gamma \s{e}^*\s{p} (-\s{q}+m) \ga_5] T^{(4)}_4(
2931: \tilde{\al_1},\al_3) \nonumber \\
2932: +& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\,
2933: \Big[ (16\bar{v}\{p(e^*q)\} + 4v\{e^*pq\}-4vm\{e^*p\})
2934: \,(pq)
2935: \Delta(l)^3\,T^{(4)}_1(\tilde{\al_1},\al_3)
2936: \nonumber
2937: \end{eqnarray*}
2938: \begin{eqnarray*}
2939: +& &
2940: ((\bar{v}-v)\{qe^*p\}-4v\{e^*(pq)\}+v\{e^*pq\}+m(\bar{v}+2v)\{
2941: e^*p\})\,\Delta(l)^2\,T^{(4)}_1
2942: (\al_1,\al_3) \Big]
2943: \nonumber \\
2944: +& & \int_0^1 dv \int D\al\,
2945: \Big[ (-16\bar{v}\{p(e^*q)\} - 4v\{qe^*p\}-4vm\{e^*p\})
2946: \,(pq)
2947: \Delta(l)^3\,T^{(4)}_2(\tilde{\al_1},\al_3)
2948: \nonumber \\
2949: +& &\left.\left(
2950: ((\bar{v}+v)\{qe^*p\}-4v\{e^*(pq)\}+v\{e^*pq\}+m(\bar{v}+2v)\{
2951: e^*p\})\,\Delta(l)^2\,T^{(4)}_2
2952: (\al_1,\al_3) \Big]\right.\right). \nonumber
2953: \end{eqnarray*}
2954: In the above formula, we use $\{abc\}={\rm tr}[\Gamma \s{a}\s{b}\s{c} \ga_5]$ and
2955: $\{a(bc)\} = b \cdot c\;{\rm tr}[\Gamma \s{a} \ga_5]$.
2956:
2957: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2958:
2959: \bibitem{BZ}
2960: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
2961: %``New results on B $\to$ pi, K, eta decay form factors from light-cone sum
2962: %rules,''
2963: arXiv:hep-ph/0406232 (to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ D).
2964: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406232;%%
2965:
2966: \bibitem{protz}
2967: V.M.\ Belyaev, A. Khodjamirian and R. R\"uckl,
2968: %``QCD calculation of the B $\to$ pi, K form-factors,''
2969: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 60} (1993) 349
2970: [hep-ph/9305348];\\
2971: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305348;%%
2972: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
2973: %``Use and misuse of QCD sum rules in heavy-to-light transitions: The decay B
2974: %$\to$ rho e nu reexamined,''
2975: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 5561
2976: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701238];\\
2977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701238;%%
2978: A. Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
2979: %``Perturbative QCD correction to the B $\to$ pi transition form-factor,''
2980: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 410} (1997) 275
2981: [hep-ph/9706303];\\
2982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706303;%%
2983: E. Bagan, P. Ball and V.M.\ Braun,
2984: %``Radiative corrections to the decay B $\to$ pi e nu and the heavy quark
2985: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417} (1998) 154
2986: [hep-ph/9709243];\\
2987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709243;%%
2988: P. Ball,
2989: %``B $\to$ pi and B $\to$ K transitions from {QCD} sum rules on the light
2990: JHEP {\bf 9809} (1998) 005
2991: [hep-ph/9802394];\\
2992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802394;%%
2993: A. Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
2994: %``Predictions on B $\to$ pi anti-l nu/l, D $\to$ pi anti-l nu/l and D $\to$
2995: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} 114002 (2000)
2996: [hep-ph/0001297];\\
2997: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001297;%%
2998: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
2999: %``Improved analysis of B $\to$ pi e nu from QCD sum rules on the
3000: %light-cone,''
3001: JHEP {\bf 0110} (2001) 019
3002: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110115].
3003: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110115;%%
3004:
3005: \bibitem{LCSRs:reviews}
3006: P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian,
3007: %``QCD sum rules: A modern perspective,''
3008: hep-ph/0010175;\\
3009: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010175;%%
3010: A. Khodjamirian,
3011: %``QCD Sum Rules for Heavy Flavor Physics,''
3012: hep-ph/0108205.
3013: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108205;%%
3014:
3015: \bibitem{BB98}
3016: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
3017: %``Exclusive semileptonic and rare B meson decays in {QCD},''
3018: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 094016
3019: [arXiv:hep-ph/9805422].
3020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805422;%%
3021:
3022: \bibitem{CKMWS}
3023: P.~Ball {\it et al.},
3024: %``B decays at the LHC,''
3025: arXiv:hep-ph/0003238;\\
3026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003238;%%
3027: 2nd Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle, Durham, England, Apr 2003.
3028: Proceedings published as eConf C0304052.
3029:
3030: \bibitem{QCDfac}
3031: M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert,
3032: %``QCD factorization for B $\to$ P P and B $\to$ P V decays,''
3033: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675} (2003) 333
3034: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308039].
3035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308039;%%
3036:
3037:
3038: \bibitem{pQCD}
3039: V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
3040: %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Hadron Form-Factors In Quark Model. (In Russian),''
3041: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 25} (1977) 510
3042: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 25} (1977) 544];\\
3043: %%CITATION = JTPLA,25,510;%%
3044: %``Asymptotics Of Hadronic Form-Factors In The Quantum Chromodynamics.
3045: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 31} (1980) 544
3046: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 31} (1980) 1053];\\
3047: %%CITATION = SJNCA,31,544;%%
3048: A.V.\ Efremov and A.V.\ Radyushkin,
3049: %``Factorization And Asymptotical Behavior Of Pion Form-Factor In QCD,''
3050: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 94} (1980) 245;
3051: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B94,245;%%
3052: %``Asymptotical Behavior Of Pion Electromagnetic Form-Factor In QCD,''
3053: Theor.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 42} (1980) 97
3054: [Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 42} (1980) 147];\\
3055: %%CITATION = TMPHA,42,97;%%
3056: G.P.\ Lepage and S.J.\ Brodsky,
3057: %``Exclusive Processes In Quantum Chromodynamics: Evolution Equations For
3058: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 87} (1979) 359;
3059: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B87,359;%%
3060: %``Exclusive Processes In Perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics,''
3061: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 22} (1980) 2157;\\
3062: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2157;%%
3063: V.L.\ Chernyak, A.R.\ Zhitnitsky and V.G.\ Serbo,
3064: %``Asymptotic Hadronic Form-Factors In Quantum Chromodynamics,''
3065: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 26} (1977) 594
3066: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 26} (1977) 760];
3067: %%CITATION = JTPLA,26,594;%%
3068:
3069: %``Calculation Of Asymptotics Of The Pion Electromagnetic Form-Factor In
3070: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 31} (1980) 552
3071: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 31} (1980) 1069].
3072: %%CITATION = SJNCA,31,552;%%
3073:
3074: \bibitem{SCET}
3075: C.~W.~Bauer {\it et al.},
3076: %``An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light
3077: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 114020
3078: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011336].
3079: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011336;%%
3080:
3081: \bibitem{fuck}
3082: C.W.\ Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W.\ Stewart,
3083: %``Factorization and endpoint singularities in heavy-to-light decays,''
3084: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 071502
3085: [arXiv:hep-ph/0211069].
3086: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211069;%%
3087:
3088: \bibitem{hill}
3089: R.~J.~Hill,
3090: %``Symmetry relations for heavy-to-light meson form factors at large recoil,''
3091: arXiv:hep-ph/0411073.
3092: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411073;%%
3093:
3094: \bibitem{SVZ}
3095: M.A.\ Shifman, A.I.\ Vainshtein and V.I.\ Zakharov,
3096: %``QCD And Resonance Physics. Sum Rules,''
3097: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 147} (1979) 385;
3098: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,385;%%
3099: ibd.\ {\bf 147} (1979) 448.
3100: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,448;%%
3101:
3102: \bibitem{Hiller}
3103: A.~Ali {\it et al.},
3104: %``A comparative study of the decays B $\to$ (K,K*) l+ l- in standard
3105: %supersymmetric theories,''
3106: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 074024 (2000)
3107: [arXiv:hep-ph/9910221].
3108: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910221;%%
3109:
3110: \bibitem{parkho}
3111: A.~Ali, E.~Lunghi and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko,
3112: %``Implication of the B $\to$ (rho, omega) gamma branching ratios for the CKM
3113: %phenomenology,''
3114: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595} (2004) 323
3115: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405075].
3116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405075;%%
3117:
3118: \bibitem{wavefunctions}
3119: P. Ball {\it et al.},
3120: %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in {QCD}: Formalism
3121: %and twist three distributions,''
3122: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 529} (1998) 323
3123: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802299];\\
3124: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802299;%%
3125: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
3126: %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in {QCD}: Twist-4
3127: %distributions and meson mass corrections,''
3128: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 543} (1999) 201
3129: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810475].
3130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810475;%%
3131:
3132: \bibitem{VBreview}
3133: V.~M.~Braun, G.~P.~Korchemsky and D.~M\"uller,
3134: %``The uses of conformal symmetry in QCD,''
3135: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 51} (2003) 311
3136: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306057].
3137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306057;%%
3138:
3139: \bibitem{lazar}
3140: P.~Ball and M.~Lazar,
3141: %``A note on Wandzura-Wilczek relations,''
3142: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 515} (2001) 131
3143: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103080].
3144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103080;%%
3145:
3146: \bibitem{angi}
3147: P. Ball, A. Talbot, {\em in preparation}.
3148:
3149: \bibitem{Larin}
3150: S.~A.~Larin,
3151: %``The Renormalization of the axial anomaly in dimensional regularization,''
3152: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 303} (1993) 113
3153: [arXiv:hep-ph/9302240].
3154: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9302240;%%
3155:
3156: \bibitem{SU(3)breaking}
3157: P.~Ball and M.~Boglione,
3158: %``SU(3) breaking in K and K* distribution amplitudes,''
3159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 094006
3160: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307337].
3161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307337;%%
3162:
3163: \bibitem{BB96}
3164: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
3165: %``The $\rho$ Meson Light-Cone Distribution Amplitudes of Leading Twist
3166: %Revisited,''
3167: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 2182
3168: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602323].
3169: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602323;%%
3170:
3171: \bibitem{lattfT}
3172: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},
3173: %``Coupling of the light vector meson to the vector and to the
3174: JHEP {\bf 0305} (2003) 007
3175: [arXiv:hep-lat/0301020].
3176: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0301020;%%
3177:
3178: \bibitem{mslatt}
3179: C.~Aubin {\it et al.} [HPQCD Coll.]
3180: %``First determination of the strange and light quark masses from full lattice
3181: %QCD,''
3182: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 031504
3183: [arXiv:hep-lat/0405022];\\
3184: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0405022;%%
3185: M.~G\"ockeler {\it et al.} [QCDSF Coll.],
3186: %``Determination of light and strange quark masses from full lattice QCD,''
3187: arXiv:hep-ph/0409312.
3188: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409312;%%
3189:
3190: \bibitem{fBlatt}
3191: M.~Wingate {\it et al.},
3192: %``The B/s and D/s decay constants in 3 flavor lattice QCD,''
3193: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 162001
3194: [arXiv:hep-ph/0311130].
3195: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311130;%%
3196:
3197: \bibitem{kronfeld}
3198: A.~S.~Kronfeld,
3199: %``Heavy quarks and lattice QCD,''
3200: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 129} (2004) 46
3201: [arXiv:hep-lat/0310063].
3202: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310063;%%
3203:
3204: \bibitem{fBSR}
3205: A.~A.~Penin and M.~Steinhauser,
3206: %``Heavy-light meson decay constant from QCD sum rules in three-loop
3207: %approximation,''
3208: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054006 (2002)
3209: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108110];\\
3210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108110;%%
3211: M.~Jamin and B.~O.~Lange,
3212: %``f(B) and f(B/s) from QCD sum rules,''
3213: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 056005 (2002)
3214: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108135].
3215: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108135;%%
3216:
3217: \bibitem{SRfB}
3218: For instance, T.~M.~Aliev and V.~L.~Eletsky,
3219: %``On Leptonic Decay Constants Of Pseudoscalar D And B Mesons,''
3220: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 38} (1983) 936
3221: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 38} (1983) 1537];\\
3222: %%CITATION = SJNCA,38,936;%%
3223: E.~Bagan {\it et al.},
3224: %``QCD Sum Rules In The Effective Heavy Quark Theory,''
3225: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 278} (1992) 457.
3226: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B278,457;%%
3227:
3228: \bibitem{thesis}
3229: P. Ball, PhD Thesis, Heidelberg 1992 (unpublished).
3230:
3231: \bibitem{CZreport}
3232: V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
3233: %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Exclusive Processes In QCD,''
3234: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 112} (1984) 173.
3235: %%CITATION = PRPLC,112,173;%%
3236:
3237: \bibitem{moreSU(3)}
3238: V.~M.~Braun and A.~Lenz,
3239: %``On the SU(3) symmetry-breaking corrections to meson distribution
3240: %amplitudes,''
3241: arXiv:hep-ph/0407282.
3242: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407282;%%
3243:
3244: \bibitem{CLEO}
3245: J.~Gronberg {\it et al.} [CLEO Coll.],
3246: %``Measurements of the meson photon transition form factors of light
3247: %pseudoscalar mesons at large momentum transfer,''
3248: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 33
3249: [arXiv:hep-ex/9707031].
3250: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9707031;%%
3251:
3252: \bibitem{BecKai}
3253: D.~Becirevic and A.~B.~Kaidalov,
3254: %``Comment on the heavy $\to$ light form factors,''
3255: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478} (2000) 417
3256: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904490].
3257: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904490;%%
3258: \bibitem{Bardeen}
3259: W.~A.~Bardeen, E.~J.~Eichten and C.~T.~Hill,
3260: %``Chiral multiplets of heavy-light mesons,''
3261: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 054024
3262: [arXiv:hep-ph/0305049].
3263: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305049;%%
3264:
3265: \bibitem{China}
3266: Z.~H.~Li {\it et al.},
3267: %``Strong couplings of heavy mesons to a light vector meson in QCD,''
3268: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 076005
3269: [arXiv:hep-ph/0208168].
3270: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208168;%%
3271:
3272: \bibitem{Italia}
3273: A.~Deandrea {\it et al.},
3274: %``Semileptonic B $\to$ rho and B $\to$ a1 transitions in a quark-meson
3275: %model,''
3276: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59} (1999) 074012
3277: [arXiv:hep-ph/9811259].
3278: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811259;%%
3279:
3280: \bibitem{gDDpi_lat}
3281: A.~Abada {\it et al.},
3282: %``First lattice QCD estimate of the g(D* D pi) coupling,''
3283: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 074504
3284: [arXiv:hep-ph/0206237].
3285: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206237;%%
3286:
3287: %\bibitem{gBBpi_lat}
3288: %A.~Abada {\it et al.},
3289: %%``Lattice measurement of the couplings g-hat(infinity) and g(B* B pi),''
3290: %JHEP {\bf 0402} (2004) 016
3291: %[arXiv:hep-lat/0310050].
3292: %%%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0310050;%%
3293:
3294: \bibitem{CLEO2}
3295: S.~Ahmed {\it et al.} [CLEO Coll.],
3296: %``First measurement of Gamma(D*+),''
3297: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251801
3298: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108013];\\
3299: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108013;%%
3300: A.~Anastassov {\it et al.} [CLEO Coll.],
3301: %``First measurement of Gamma(D*+) and precision measurement of m(D*+) -
3302: %m(D0),''
3303: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 032003
3304: [arXiv:hep-ex/0108043].
3305: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0108043;%%
3306:
3307: \bibitem{possible}
3308: D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},
3309: %``Possible explanation of the discrepancy of the light-cone QCD sum rule
3310: %calculation of g(D* D pi) coupling with experiment,''
3311: JHEP {\bf 0301} (2003) 009
3312: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212177].
3313: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212177;%%
3314:
3315: \bibitem{gBBpi}
3316: V.M.\ Belyaev {\it et al.},
3317: %``D* D pi and B* B pi couplings in QCD,''
3318: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 6177
3319: [hep-ph/9410280];\\
3320: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410280;%%
3321: A. Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
3322: %``Perturbative {QCD} correction to the light-cone sum rule for the B* B pi
3323: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 457} (1999) 245
3324: [hep-ph/9903421].
3325: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903421;%%
3326:
3327: \bibitem{davies}
3328: P. McKenzie, talk at $V_{ux}$ workshop at SLAC, December 2003;\\
3329: C.H.\ Davies, talk at UK BaBar meeting, Durham April 2004.
3330:
3331: \bibitem{early}
3332: A.~Abada {\it et al.} [SPQcdR Coll.],
3333: %``Heavy to light vector meson semileptonic decays,''
3334: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 119} (2003) 625
3335: [arXiv:hep-lat/0209116];\\
3336: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0209116;%%
3337: K.~C.~Bowler {\it et al.} [UKQCD Coll.],
3338: %``B $\to$ rho l nu form factors in lattice QCD,''
3339: JHEP {\bf 0405} (2004) 035
3340: [arXiv:hep-lat/0402023].
3341: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0402023;%%
3342:
3343: \bibitem{yetanotherone}
3344: P.~Ball,
3345: %``QCD sum rules on the light-cone, factorisation and SCET,''
3346: arXiv:hep-ph/0308249.
3347: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308249;%%
3348:
3349: \bibitem{BD65} J.D.\ Bjorken and S.D.\ Drell,
3350: {\em Relativistic Quantum Fields} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).
3351:
3352: \bibitem{IZ} C. Itzykson, J.B. Zuber, {\em Quantum Field Theory},
3353: McGraw-Hill, New York (1980).
3354:
3355: \bibitem{NSVZ}
3356: V.~A.~Novikov {\it et al.},
3357: %``Calculations In External Fields In Quantum Chromodynamics:. Technical Review
3358: %(Abstract Operator Method, Fock-Schwinger Gauge),''
3359: Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 32} (1985) 585.
3360: %%CITATION = FPYKA,32,585;%%
3361:
3362: \end{thebibliography}
3363:
3364: \end{document}
3365: