1: %\documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,superscriptaddress,amsmath]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,amsmath,graphicx]{revtex4}
3:
4: %\usepackage{/home/kamenik/Tools/Mathematica/Feynarts/feynarts}
5: %\usepackage{ae}
6: %\usepackage{aecompl}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8:
9: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
10:
11: \def\slashed#1{\protect{\slash\hspace{-5pt}#1}}
12: \def\bi#1{\hbox{\boldmath{$#1$}}}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{Note on helicity amplitudes in $D \to V$ semileptonic decays}
17:
18: \author{Svjetlana Fajfer}
19: \email[Electronic address:]{svjetlana.fajfer@ijs.si}
20: \affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, P. O. Box 3000, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia}
21: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia}
22:
23: \author{Jernej Kamenik}
24: \email[Electronic address:]{jernej.kamenik@ijs.si}
25: \affiliation{J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, P. O. Box 3000, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia}
26:
27: \date{\today}
28:
29: \begin{abstract}
30: Motivated by the recent extraction of the helicity amplitudes for the
31: $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0} \mu \nu_{\mu}$ decay, done by the FOCUS
32: collaboration,
33: we determine helicity amplitudes for the $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0} l \nu_l$, $D^+ \to \rho^0 l \nu_l$
34: and $D^+_s \to \phi l \nu_l$ semileptonic decays
35: using the knowledge of the
36: relevant form factors. The vector and axial form
37: factors for $D \to V l \nu_l$
38: decays are parameterized by including contributions of charm meson resonances and using the
39: HQET and SCET limits. In the case that the vector form factor receives
40: contributions from two poles while axial form factors are dominated by a single pole for
41: $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0} l \nu_l$,
42: we obtain better agreement with the
43: experimental result
44: then when all of them are
45: dominated by single poles.
46:
47: \end{abstract}
48:
49: \pacs{13.20.Fc,13.20.-v,12.39.Hg,12.39.Fe}
50:
51: \maketitle
52:
53: Recently the FOCUS~\cite{Link:2005dp} collaboration has presented first
54: non-parametric determination of helicity amplitudes in the semileptonic decay
55: $D^+\to\bar K ^{*0} \mu^+ \nu$. This measurement allows for more detailed analysis of the $D\to V$ form factors, especially it enables the studying of the shapes of the form factors.
56:
57: \par
58:
59: We have recently proposed a generalization of the Be\'cirevi\'c-Kaidalov (BK) form factor
60: parameterization~\cite{Becirevic:1999kt} for the semileptonic $H\to V$ form
61: factors based on HQET and SCET scaling predictions~\cite{Fajfer:2005ug}. Furthermore we have
62: calculated the $D\to P$ and $D\to V$ form factors shapes within a model which combines
63: properties of the heavy meson chiral Lagrangian by taking into account known and predicted charm resonances and utilizing the general form factor parameterizations~\cite{Fajfer:2004mv,Fajfer:2005ug}.
64:
65: \par
66:
67: In this note we determine helicity amplitudes for the $D\to V$ semileptonic
68: decays and
69: compare our model predictions for the shapes of the form factors
70: with the new experimental results coming from FOCUS
71: for the $D^+\to\bar K ^{*0} \mu^+ \nu$ decay.
72: %and comment on the relevant
73: %$B\to V$ form factors and helicity amplitudes.
74:
75: \par
76:
77: The standard decomposition of the current matrix elements
78: relevant to semileptonic decays between a heavy pseudoscalar meson state
79: $|H(p_H)\rangle$ with momentum $p_H$ and a light vector meson
80: $|V(p_V,\epsilon_V)\rangle$ with momentum
81: $p_V$ and polarization vector $\epsilon_V$ is in terms of four
82: form factors $V$, $A_0$, $A_1$ and $A_2$, functions of the exchanged momentum
83: squared $q^2 = (p_H-p_V)^2$~\cite{Wirbel:1985ji}. Here $V$ denotes the vector form factor and is expected to be dominated by vector meson resonance exchange, the axial $A_1$
84: and $A_2$ form factors are expected to be dominated by axial resonances,
85: while $A_0$ denotes the pseudoscalar form factor and is expected to be dominated by pseudoscalar meson resonance exchange~\cite{Wirbel:1985ji}.
86: In order that the matrix elements are finite at $q^2=0$, the form factors must also satisfy the well known relation $A_0(0)+A_1(0)(m_H+m_V)/2m_V-A_2(0)(m_H-m_V)/2m_V=0$.
87: \par
88: Next we follow the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Becirevic:1999kt}, where the $F_+$
89: form factor in $H\to P$ transitions is given as a sum of two pole
90: contributions, while the
91: $F_0$ form factor is written as a single pole, based on form factor
92: dispersion properties as well as known HQET~\cite{Isgur:1990kf} and
93: SCET~\cite{Charles:1998dr,Beneke:2000wa,Ebert:2001pc} scaling limits near zero and maximum recoil
94: momentum respectively. Utilizing the same approach we have proposed a general
95: parametrization of the heavy to light vector form factors, which also takes
96: into account all the known scaling and resonance
97: properties of the form factors. The details of the analysis are outlined
98: in Ref.~\cite{Fajfer:2005ug} and we only give the results for the derived
99: form factor parameterizations:
100: \begin{eqnarray}
101: V(q^2) &=& \frac{c'_H (1-a)}{(1-x)(1-a x)},\nonumber\\
102: A_1(q^2) &=& \xi \frac{c'_H(1-a)}{1-b' x},\nonumber\\
103: A_0(q^2) &=& \frac{c''_H (1-a')}{(1-y)(1-a' y)},\nonumber\\
104: A_2(q^2) &=& \frac{c'''_H}{(1-b' x)(1-b'' x)},\nonumber\\
105: \end{eqnarray}
106: where $c'''_H = [(m_H+m_V) \xi c'_H (1-a) + 2 m_V c''_H (1-a')]/(m_H-m_V)$ is
107: fixed by the relation between the form factors at $q^2=0$ while
108: $\xi=m_H^2/(m_H+m_V)^2$ is the proportionality factor between $A_1$ and $V$
109: from the SCET relation. Variables $x=q^2/m_{H^*}^2$ and $y = q^2/m_H^2$ ensure, that
110: the $V$ and $A_0$ form factors are
111: dominated by the physical $1^-$ and $0^-$ resonance poles, while $a$ and $a'$
112: measure
113: the contributions of higher states, parameterized by additional
114: effective poles. On the other hand $b'$ in $A_1$ and $A_2$ measures the
115: contribution of resonant states with spin-parity assignment $1^+$ which are
116: parameterized by the effective pole at $m_{H'^*_{\mathrm{eff}}}^2=m_{H^*}^2/b'$
117: while the scaling properties and form factor relations require an additional
118: effective pole for the $A_2$ form factor. At the end we have parameterized the
119: four $H\to V$ vector form factors in
120: terms of the six parameters $c'_H$, $a$, $a'$, $b'$, $c''_H$ and
121: $b''$.
122:
123: \par
124:
125: We determine the above parameters via heavy meson chiral theory (HM$\chi$T) calculation of the form factors near $q^2_{\mathrm{max}}=(m_H-m_V)^2$. We use the leading
126: order heavy meson
127: chiral Lagrangian in which we include additional charm meson states.
128: The details of this framework are given in \cite{Fajfer:2005ug} and
129: \cite{Fajfer:2004mv}.
130: We first calculate values of the form factors in the small recoil region.
131: The presence of charm meson resonances in our Lagrangian affects the values of
132: the form factors at $q^2_{\mathrm{max}}$ and induces saturation of the second
133: poles in the parameterizations of the $F_+(q^2)$, $V(q^2)$ and $A_0(q^2)$ form
134: factors by the next radial excitations of $D_{(s)}^*$ and $D_{(s)}$ mesons
135: respectively.
136: %Although the $D$ mesons might not be considered heavy enough, we employ these parameterizations with model matching conditions at $q^2_{\mathrm{max}}$.
137: Using HQET parameterization of the current matrix
138: elements~\cite{Fajfer:2005ug}, which is especially suitable for HM$\chi$T
139: calculations of the form factors near zero recoil, we are able to extract
140: consistently the contributions of individual resonances from our Lagrangian
141: to the various $D\to V$ form factors.
142: We use physical pole masses of excited state charmed mesons in the
143: extrapolation, giving for
144: the pole parameters $a=m_{H^{*}}^2/m_{H'^{*}}^2$, $a'=m_{H}^2/m_{H'}^2$ and
145: $b'=m_{H^*}^{2}/m_{H_{A}}^2$.
146: Although in the general parameterization of the form factors the extra poles
147: in
148: $V$ and $A_{0,1,2}$ parameterize all the neglected higher resonances beyond
149: the ground state heavy meson spin doublets $(0^-,1^-)$, we are
150: saturating those by a single nearest resonance.
151: The single pole $q^2$ behavior of the $A_1(q^2)$ form factor is explained
152: by the presence of a single $1^+$ state relevant to each decay, while in
153: $A_2(q^2)$ in addition to these states one might also account for their next
154: radial excitations. However, due to the lack of data on their presence we
155: assume their masses being much higher than the first $1^+$ states and we
156: neglect their effects, setting effectively $b''=0$.
157:
158: \par
159:
160: The values of the unknown HM$\chi$T parameters appearing in $D \to V l \nu_l$
161: decay amplitudes~\cite{Fajfer:2005ug}
162: are determined by fitting the model predictions to known experimental
163: values of branching ratios and partial decay width ratios.
164:
165: \par
166:
167: In order to compare our model predictions with recent experimental analysis performed by
168: FOCUS collaboration, following ~\cite{Ball:1991bs}
169: we introduce helicity amplitudes $H_{+,-,0}$:
170: \begin{eqnarray}
171: H_{\pm}(y) &=& + (m_H+m_V) A_1(m_H^2 y) \mp \frac{2 m_H |\vec p_V(y)|}{m_H+m_V} V(m_H^2 y)\nonumber\\*
172: H_0(y) &=& + \frac{m_H+m_V}{2 m_H m_V \sqrt y} [ m_H^2 (1-y) -m_V^2] A_1(m_H^2 y)\nonumber\\*
173: && - \frac{2 m_H |\vec p_V(y)|}{m_V(m_H+m_V) \sqrt y } A_2(m_H^2 y)
174: \end{eqnarray}
175: where $y=q^2/m_H^2$ and the three-momentum of the light vector meson is given by:
176: \begin{equation}
177: |\vec p_V (y)|^2 = \frac{[m_H^2 (1-y) + m_V^2]^2}{4 m_H^2} -m_V^2.
178: \end{equation}
179:
180: \par
181:
182: Because of the arbitrary normalization of the form factors
183: in~\cite{Link:2005dp}, we fit our model predictions for a common overall
184: scale in order to compare the results. We plot the $q^2$ dependence of the
185: predicted helicity amplitudes and compare them with the experimental
186: results of FOCUS, scaled by an overall factor determined by the least
187: square fit of our model predictions, on FIGs.~\ref{1},~\ref{2} and~\ref{3}.
188: The scale factor is common to all form factors.
189:
190: \begin{figure}[!h]
191: \scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{H1plotDK0.eps}}
192: \caption{\label{1} Our model predictions (double pole in solid line and single pole in dashed line) for the $q^2$ dependence of the
193: helicity amplitude $H_+^2(q^2)$ in comparison with scaled FOCUS data on $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0}$ semileptonic decay.}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: \begin{figure}[!h]
197: \scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{H2plotDK0.eps}}
198: \caption{\label{2} Our model predictions (double pole in solid line and single pole in dashed line) for the $q^2$ dependence of the
199: helicity amplitude $H_-^2(q^2)$ in comparison with scaled FOCUS data on $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0}$ semileptonic decay.}
200: \end{figure}
201:
202: \begin{figure}[!h]
203: \scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{H3plotDK0.eps}}
204: \caption{\label{3} Our model predictions (double pole in solid line and single pole in dashed line) for the $q^2$ dependence of the
205: helicity amplitude $H_0^2(q^2)$ in comparison with scaled FOCUS data on $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0}$ semileptonic decay.}
206: \end{figure}
207:
208:
209: In addition to the two pole contributions we calculate helicity amplitudes
210: in the case when all the form factors exhibit single pole behavior.
211: %Here we have to explain how these single pole parameters are fixed!
212: Putting contributions of higher charm resonances to be zero we fit the remaining model parameters to existing branching ratios and partial decay ratios. We obtain the values for the following parameter combinations as explained in~\cite{Fajfer:2005ug}:
213: \begin{eqnarray}
214: \tilde\alpha\tilde\mu &=& 0 \nonumber\\*
215: \alpha'\zeta &=& -0.180~\mathrm{GeV}^{3/2} \nonumber\\*
216: \alpha'\mu &=& -0.00273~\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2} \nonumber\\*
217: \alpha_1 &=& -0.203~\mathrm{GeV}^{1/2}
218: \end{eqnarray}
219: %If that is correct then we should give values of relevant parameters!
220: As shown on FIGs.~\ref{1} and~\ref{2} the experimental data for $H_{\pm}$ do not favor such a parametrization, while in the case of $H_0$ helicity amplitude there is almost no difference since the $H_0$ helicity amplitude is defined via the $A_{1,2}$ form factors, which are in our approach both effectively dominated by a single pole.
221: The agreement between the FOCUS results and our model predictions for the
222: $q^2$ dependence of the helicity amplitudes is good, although as noted already
223: in~\cite{Link:2005dp}, the uncertainties of the data points are still rather large.
224: %do not
225: %allow for discrimination between single pole and double pole shapes of the
226: %form factors.
227: On FIGs.~\ref{4} and~\ref{5} we present helicity amplitudes for the $D^+ \to \rho^0 l \nu_l$ and
228: $D^+_s \to \phi l \nu_l$ decays. Both decay modes are most promissing for the future experimental studies.
229: We make predictions for the shapes of helicity amplitudes for both cases: where two poles contribute to the vector form factor and a single pole to the axial form factors, and the second case where all form factors exhibit single pole behavior.
230:
231: \begin{figure}[!h]
232: \scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{HplotDRho0.eps}}
233: \caption{\label{4} Our model predictions for the $q^2$ dependence of the helicity amplitudes $H_i^2(q^2)$ for the $D^+\to \rho^0$ semileptonic decay. Double pole predictions are rendered in thick (black) lines while single pole predictions are rendered in thin (red) lines: $H_-$ (solid lines), $H_0$ (dashed lines) and $H_+$ (dot-dashed lines).}
234: \end{figure}
235:
236: \begin{figure}[!h]
237: \scalebox{0.9}{\includegraphics{HplotDsPhi.eps}}
238: \caption{\label{5} Our model predictions for the $q^2$ dependence of the helicity amplitudes $H_i^2(q^2)$ for the $D_s^+\to \phi$ semileptonic decay. Double pole predictions are rendered in thick (black) lines while single pole predictions are rendered in thin (red) lines: $H_-$ (solid lines), $H_0$ (dashed lines) and $H_+$ (dot-dashed lines).}
239: \end{figure}
240:
241: \par
242:
243: In principle one can apply the above procedure to the $B \to \rho l \nu_l$
244: semileptonic decays. However, due to the much broader leptons invariant mass dependence in
245: this case, our procedure is much more sensitive to the values of the form factors at $q^2 \approx 0$.
246: In addition, the semileptonic decay rates in our model fit are numerically
247: dominated by the longitudinal helicity amplitude $H_0$ which has a broad
248: $1/\sqrt{q^2}$ pole~\footnote{Naive HQET scaling predicts that the $H_-$
249: helicity amplitude, which scales as $\sqrt{m_H}$ should dominate the decay
250: rate.}. This is true especially for $D\to V$ but to minor extent also for
251: $B\to V$ transitions. Since our model parameters are determined at
252: $q^2_{\mathrm{max}}$, this gives a poor handle on the dominating effects in
253: the overall decay rate. Thus, accurate determination of the magnitude and
254: shape of the $H_0$ helicity amplitude near $q^2=0$ would contribute much to
255: clarifying this issue.
256:
257: %Based on the results in $D\to V$ decays, we also tried to give predictions for
258: % shapes of the form factors and helicity amplitudes in $B\to V$ decays by
259: %using theoretical predictions~\cite{DiPierro:2001uu} for excited $B$ meson
260: %resonances included in the model. However we were unable to obtain reasonable
261: %results for the known branching ratios of $B\to \rho$ decay channels with the
262: %sets of model parameters determined in $D\to V$ decays. It seems that $1/m_H$
263: %effective contributions to the HM$\chi$T model parameters when determined
264: %from $D\to V$ decays are sizable. Also, violations of the SCET and HQET
265: %scaling of the form factors at $q^2\approx 0$ and $q^2_{\mathrm{max}}$
266: %respectively may be important in $D$ semileptonic decays and thus affecting
267: %the model parameters determined via global fit of $D$ meson decays. These
268: %effects seem to be more profound in $H\to V$ then in $H\to P$ decays also
269: %because the light vector mesons are much heavier then their pseudoscalar
270: %counterparts and the predictions of SCET are less valid in this case. In
271: %addition, the semileptonic decay rates in our model fit are numerically
272: %dominated by the longitudinal helicity amplitude $H_0$ which has a broad
273: %$1/\sqrt{q^2}$ pole~\footnote{Naive HQET scaling predicts that the $H_-$
274: %helicity amplitude, which scales as $\sqrt{m_H}$ should dominate the decay
275: %rate.}. This is true especially for $D\to V$ but to minor extent also for
276: %$B\to V$ transitions. Since our model parameters are determined at
277: %$q^2_{\mathrm{max}}$, this gives a poor handle on the dominating effects in
278: %the overall decay rate. Thus, accurate determination of the magnitude and
279: %shape of the $H_0$ helicity amplitude near $q^2=0$ would contribute much to
280: %clarifying this issue.
281: %On the other hand, due to lack of experimental results on $B\to V$
282: %semileptonic decays, we were also unable to determine the relevant HM$\chi$T
283: %model parameters solely from these decays.
284:
285: \par
286:
287: We can summarize:
288: we have investigated the predictions of the general $H\to V$ form factor
289: parametrization combined with HM$\chi$T calculation for the $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0}$
290: semileptonic helicity amplitudes, recently determined by the FOCUS collaboration.
291: In addition we have determined the helicity amplitudes for the $D^+ \to \rho^0 l \nu_l$ and $D_s^+ \to \phi l \nu_l$ decays.
292: In all three cases that we have considered we used two approaches: one with a
293: two poles shape for the vector form factor and single pole for the axial form factors, and secondly the usually assumed single pole behavior of all three relevant form factors.
294: Our study indicates that the two pole shape for the $V(q^2)$ form factor in $D^+ \to \bar K^{*0}$ transition is favored over the single pole shape, when compared to the FOCUS result.
295:
296: %We found good agreement for the shapes of the various helicity amplitudes.
297:
298: %A direct extension of our
299: %results to $B\to V$ semileptonic decays is not viable at present due to possibly large
300: %$1/m_H$ contributions and form factor scaling violations affecting $D\to V$ transitions on
301: %one hand, and lack of experimental results which could be used to determine directly $B\to V$
302: %model parameters on the other hand.
303:
304: \begin{acknowledgments}
305: We are thankful to D. Kim and J. Wiss from the FOCUS collaboration for sending us their data and for helping us understand it.
306: This work is supported in part by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia.
307: \end{acknowledgments}
308:
309: \bibliography{article}
310:
311: \end{document}