1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{array,dsfont}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{graphics,graphpap}
7:
8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}
9: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.2cm}
10: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.6in}
11: \setlength{\textheight}{24.2cm}
12: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
13:
14: \addtolength{\jot}{10pt}
15: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
16: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
17: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
18: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
19:
20: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%% Title page
25: \begin{titlepage}
26: \begin{flushright}\begin{tabular}{l}
27: IPPP/06/58\\
28: DCPT/06/116
29: \end{tabular}
30: \end{flushright}
31: \vskip1.5cm
32: \begin{center}
33: {\Large \bf\boldmath Testing QCD
34: Sum Rules on the Light-Cone\\[5pt]
35: in $D\to(\pi,K)\ell\nu$ Decays}
36: \vskip1.3cm {\sc
37: Patricia Ball\footnote{Patricia.Ball@durham.ac.uk}
38: }
39: \vskip0.5cm
40: {\em IPPP, Department of Physics,
41: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK }\\
42: \vskip2.5cm
43:
44: %{\em Version of \today}
45:
46: \vskip5cm
47:
48: {\large\bf Abstract\\[10pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{
49: We compare the predictions for the form factors $f_+^{D\to\pi,K}(0)$
50: from QCD sum rules on the light-cone with recent experimental
51: results. We find $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0) = 0.63\pm 0.11$, $f_+^{D\to K}(0) =
52: 0.75\pm 0.12$ and $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)= 0.84\pm 0.04$ in
53: very good agreement with experiment. Although
54: the uncertainties of the form factors themselves are larger than the
55: current experimental errors and difficult to reduce, their ratio is
56: determined much more accurately and with an accuracy that
57: matches that of experiment.
58: }
59:
60: \vfill
61:
62: %{\em submitted to Physics Letters B}
63:
64: \vspace*{1cm}
65:
66: \end{center}
67: \end{titlepage}
68:
69: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
70: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
71:
72: \newpage
73:
74: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:1}
75:
76: Exclusive semileptonic decays of $B$ and $D$ mesons are a favoured means of
77: determining the weak interaction couplings of quarks within the
78: Standard Model (SM)
79: because of their relative abundance and, as compared to non-leptonic
80: decays, simple theoretical treatment.
81: The latter requires the calculation of form factors by non-perturbative
82: techniques, the most precise of which, ultimately, will be lattice QCD
83: simulations. Another, technically much less demanding, but also
84: less rigorous approach is provided by QCD sum rules on the
85: light-cone (LCSRs) \cite{LCSR}. While the main motivation for the
86: calculation of $B\to\pi$ form factors is the determination of
87: $|V_{ub}|$, see \cite{Vub} for recent analyses,
88: $D\to(\pi,K)$ form factors provide
89: both the possibility to determine $|V_{cd}|$ and $|V_{cs}|$ from
90: the semileptonic decays $D\to(\pi,K)\ell\nu$ and, due to the
91: similarity of the calculation, a check of the validity of
92: $B\to\pi$ form factor calculations. The impressive accumulation of
93: data on the experimental side, with recent results from
94: BaBar~\cite{BaBar}, Belle~\cite{Belle}, BES~\cite{BES}, CLEO~\cite{CLEO}
95: and FOCUS~\cite{FOCUS}, has been
96: matched by lattice calculations \cite{latt},
97: whereas the last comprehensive analysis from LCSRs
98: dates back to 2000 \cite{alexD}. In view of the recent developments in
99: LCSRs, in particular the updates on the hadronic
100: input, that is the light-cone distribution amplitudes (DAs) of $\pi$ and
101: $K$ mesons of
102: leading and higher twist, see Ref.~\cite{BBL06}, it is both
103: timely and instructive to recalculate the corresponding form factors
104: from LCSRs and confront the results with experimental data. This is
105: the subject of this letter.
106:
107: \section{\boldmath A Light-Cone Sum Rule for $f_+^{D\to\pi,K}(0)$}\label{sec:2}
108:
109: The key idea of light-cone sum rules is to
110: consider a correlation function of the weak current and a current with
111: the quantum numbers of the $D$ meson, sandwiched between the vacuum
112: and a
113: $\pi$ or $K$ state. For large (negative) virtualities of these currents, the
114: correlation function is, in coordinate-space, dominated by distances
115: close to the light-cone and can be discussed in the framework of
116: light-cone expansion. In contrast to the short-distance expansion
117: employed by conventional QCD sum rules \`a la SVZ \cite{SVZ}, where
118: non-perturbative effects are encoded in vacuum expectation values
119: of local operators with
120: vacuum quantum numbers, the condensates, LCSRs
121: rely on the factorisation of the underlying correlation function into
122: genuinely non-perturbative and universal hadron DAs
123: $\phi$. The DAs are convoluted with process-dependent amplitudes $T_H$,
124: which are the analogues of the Wilson coefficients in the
125: short-distance expansion and can be
126: calculated in perturbation theory. Schematically, one has
127: \begin{equation}\label{eq:1}
128: \mbox{correlation function~}\sim \sum_n T_H^{(n)}\otimes \phi^{(n)}.
129: \end{equation}
130: The expansion is ordered in terms of contributions of
131: increasing twist $n$. The corresponding DAs have been studied in
132: Refs.~\cite{PB98,BBL06}, both for $\pi$ and $K$ mesons and including two-
133: and three-particle Fock states up to twist 4. The light-cone expansion is
134: matched to the description of the correlation function in terms of hadrons
135: by analytic continuation
136: into the physical regime and the application of a Borel
137: transformation, which introduces the Borel parameter $M^2$ and
138: exponentially suppresses contributions from higher-mass states.
139: In order to extract the contribution
140: of the $D$ meson, one describes the contribution of other hadron states by
141: a continuum model, which introduces a second model parameter,
142: the continuum threshold $s_0$. The sum rule then yields
143: the form factor in question, $f_+$, multiplied by the coupling of the
144: $D$ meson to
145: its interpolating field, i.e.\ the $D$ meson's leptonic decay constant
146: $f_D$.
147:
148: LCSRs are available for the $D\to\pi,K$ form
149: factor $f_+$ to
150: $O(\alpha_s)$ accuracy for the twist-2 and part of the twist-3
151: contributions and at
152: tree-level for higher-twist (3 and 4) contributions
153: \cite{Bpi,alexD,BZ01,BZ04}. Although these sum rules allow the
154: prediction of $f_+$ as a function of $q^2$, the momentum transfer to
155: the leptons, in this letter we only consider the case $q^2=0$. The
156: reason is that, in contrast to $B$ decays, the range of $q^2$
157: accessible to LCSR calculations is rather limited in $D$
158: decays. Following Ref.~\cite{alexD}, one can estimate this range as
159: $q^2<m_c^2- 2 m_c\chi$, where $\chi$ is a hadronic scale independent
160: of the flavour of the heavy quark.
161: In Ref.~\cite{alexD}, $\chi\approx
162: 0.5\,$GeV was chosen, which translates into $q^2<0.6\,{\rm
163: GeV}^2$. In Ref.~\cite{BZ04}, we chose $\chi\approx 1\,$GeV for $B$
164: decays, which translates into $q^2<-0.9\,{\rm GeV}^2$ for $D$
165: decays. This has to be compared with the kinematic range in $D$
166: decays: $0\leq q^2\leq (m_D-m_P)^2$, i.e.\ $q^2<3.0\,{\rm GeV}^2$ for
167: $D\to\pi$ and $q^2<1.9\,{\rm GeV}^2$ for $D\to K$. That is: even in
168: the optimistic scenario of Ref.~\cite{alexD}, at most 30\% of the
169: available phase space can be accessed by direct LCSR calculations. The
170: form factor for larger $q^2$ has then to be extrapolated, using, for
171: instance, the modified two-pole formula by Becirevic and Kaidalov
172: \cite{BK}, which is also frequently used in experimental analyses.
173: In view of this situation, and the
174: converging experimental data on the shape in $q^2$, which allows a
175: direct extraction of $f_+(0)$ from experiment,\footnote{To be more
176: precise, it is $|V_{cq} f_+(0)|$ that can be determined from
177: experiment. Assuming, however, the SM to be correct, $|V_{cd}|$ and
178: $|V_{cs}|$ are related to $\lambda$, the Wolfenstein parameter, and
179: known with negligible uncertainty.}
180: we decide to focus on
181: the prediction of $f_+(0)$ only, whose theoretical uncertainty is
182: smaller than that of the form factor for positive
183: $q^2$. We compile the currently available
184: experimental and theoretical results for $f_+(0)$ in Tab.~\ref{tab1}.
185: \begin{table}
186: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
187: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
188: $$
189: \begin{array}{l|lll}
190: & f_+^{D\to K}(0) & f_+^{D\to \pi}(0) & f_+^{D\to
191: \pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)\\\hline
192: \mbox{Belle \cite{Belle}} & 0.695\pm 0.023 & 0.624\pm 0.036
193: & 0.898\pm 0.045\\
194: \mbox{BES \cite{BES}} & 0.78\pm0.05 & 0.73\pm 0.15 &
195: 0.93\pm 0.20\\
196: \mbox{CLEO \cite{CLEO}} & 0.760\pm 0.012 & 0.670\pm 0.031 & 0.882\pm
197: 0.050\\
198: \mbox{FOCUS \cite{FOCUS}} & \mbox{---} & \mbox{---} & 0.85\pm 0.06\\\hline
199: \mbox{LCSR \cite{alexD}} & 0.91\pm 0.14 & 0.65\pm 0.11 & 0.71 \pm 0.15\\
200: \mbox{LQCD \cite{latt}} & 0.73\pm 0.08 & 0.64\pm 0.07 & 0.87\pm 0.09\\
201: \mbox{This Paper} & 0.75\pm 0.12 & 0.63\pm 0.11 & 0.84\pm 0.04
202: \end{array}
203: $$
204: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
205: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
206: \vspace*{-10pt}
207: \caption[]{\sf Experimental and theoretical values of $f_+^{D\to
208: \pi,K}(0)$; LQCD = lattice QCD. All errors have been added in
209: quadrature. BaBar has to date only published data on the shape of
210: $f_+^{D\to K}(q^2)$, but not the absolute normalisation \cite{BaBar}.
211: The LCSR value for $f_+^{D\to K}(0)$
212: corresponds to $\overline{m}_s(2\,{\rm GeV}) = (0.10\pm 0.02)\,{\rm GeV}$
213: and has been obtained by an interpolation of the results given, in
214: Ref.~\cite{alexD},
215: for several values of $m_s$.}\label{tab1}
216: \end{table}
217:
218: Although, as mentioned before, the LCSR for $f_+$ has been
219: investigated in quite a few publications, the actual formula turns
220: out to be quite complicated and has never been given in a tangible
221: form. In this letter, we present, for the first time, a compact
222: formula for $f_+^{D\to P}(0)$, $P=\pi,K$, to tree-level accuracy,
223: which makes explicit the suppression factors for contributions of
224: higher twist.
225: At tree level, one has, to twist-4 accuracy:
226: \begin{eqnarray}
227: \lefteqn{\frac{m_D^2 f_D}{m_c}\,e^{-m_P^2/M^2}\,
228: f_+^{D\to P}(0) = f_P m_c \int_{u_0}^1
229: du\, e^{-m_c^2/(u M^2)}\left\{\frac{\phi_{2;P}(u)}{2u}\right.}\nonumber\\
230: && + \frac{m_P^2}{m_c (m_{q_1} + m_{q_2})} \,\left[ \frac{1}{2}\,
231: \phi^p_{3;P}(u) + \frac{1}{12}\,\left(
232: \frac{2}{u}-\frac{d}{du}\right) \phi^\sigma_{3;P}(u)\right.\nonumber\\
233: && \hspace*{3.5cm}\left. - \eta_{3P}
234: \left(\frac{1}{u} + \frac{d}{du}\right) \int_0^u d\alpha_1
235: \int_0^{\bar u} d\alpha_2
236: \,\frac{u-\alpha_1}{u\alpha_3^2}\,\Phi_{3;P}(\underline{\alpha})
237: \right] \nonumber\\
238: &&{}+\frac{1}{m_c^2}\left[ -\frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{du} \int_0^u d\alpha_1
239: \int_0^{\bar u} d\alpha_2 \frac{1}{\alpha_3}\left(
240: 2 \Psi_{4;P}(\underline{\alpha}) -
241: \Phi_{4;P}(\underline{\alpha}) + 2 \widetilde\Psi_{4;P}(\underline{\alpha}) -
242: \widetilde\Phi_{4;P}(\underline{\alpha})\right)\right.\nonumber\\
243: && \hspace*{1.5cm} - \frac{1}{8}\, u
244: \,\frac{d^2}{du^2}\, \phi_{4;P}(u) - \frac{1}{2} \frac{d}{du}\left(
245: u \int_0^u dv\left\{ \psi_{4;P}(v) - m_P^2 \phi_{2;P}(v)\right\}
246: \right)\nonumber\\
247: &&\hspace*{1.5cm}\left.\left. + \frac{1}{12}\,\frac{d}{du}\left[m_P^2u^2
248: \phi_{3;P}^\sigma(u) \right] - \frac{d}{du}\left[m_P^2u^2
249: \phi_{2;P}(u)\right] + \frac{1}{8}\, \delta(1-u)
250: \frac{d}{du}\,\phi_{4;P}(u)\right]\right\}\label{1}\\
251: &\equiv &f_P m_c \int_{u_0}^1 du \, e^{-m_c^2/(u M^2)}\left\{ R_1(u) +
252: \frac{m_P^2}{m_c (m_{q_1} + m_{q_2})} R_2(u) + \frac{m_P^2}{m_c^2}\,
253: R_3(u) + \frac{\delta_P^2}{m_c^2}\, R_4(u)
254: \right\}.\nonumber\\[-12pt] \label{2}
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: Here $M^2$, the Borel-parameter, and $u_0=m_c^2/s_0$, $s_0$ being the
257: continuum threshold, are the sum rule specific parameters introduced
258: above. $m_c$ is the $c$ quark (pole) mass and $m_D$ the $D$ meson
259: mass. $f_P$ is the light meson's
260: leptonic decay constant, $m_P$ its mass and $m_{q_i}$ are its valence-quark
261: masses. $\phi_{n;P}$ and $\Phi_{n;P}$ etc.\ are twist-$n$ two- and
262: three-particle light-cone DAs of $P$, as
263: defined in Ref.~\cite{BBL06}; $\eta_{3P}$ is related to the
264: three-particle twist-3 matrix element $f_{3P}$ and is also defined in
265: \cite{BBL06}. $u$ is the longitudinal momentum fraction of
266: the quark in a two-particle Fock state of the $P$ meson,
267: whereas $\alpha_{1,2,3}$, with $\sum \alpha_i=1$, are the
268: momentum fractions of the partons in a three-particle Fock state. The
269: first neglected term in the light-cone expansion is
270: of order $1/m_c^3$. Although
271: we only write down the tree-level expression for the form factor, radiative
272: corrections are known for $R_1$ \cite{Bpi} and the two-particle
273: contributions to $R_2$ \cite{BZ04}, and will be included in the
274: numerical analysis. All scale-dependent quantities are calculated at
275: the (infra-red)
276: factorisation scale $\mu^2_F = m_D^2-m_c^2$. The term in $\delta(1-u)$
277: in the last line of (\ref{1}) is a surface term that arises from
278: Borelisation and continuum subtraction. $R_1$ in
279: Eq.~(\ref{2}) contains only twist-2 and $R_2$ only twist-3 contributions,
280: whereas $R_3$ contains mass-corrections to $R_{1,2}$ and $R_4$
281: genuine twist-4 contributions which are governed by the matrix
282: element $\delta_P^2$, see Ref.~\cite{BBL06}. The allocation of
283: $1/m_c^2$ terms in (\ref{1}) to $R_3$ and $R_4$, respectively, is
284: governed by the explicit factors $m_P^2$ in (\ref{1}) and the
285: implicit factors $m_P^2$ and $\delta_P^2$ in the DAs as given in
286: Ref.~\cite{BBL06}; the reason why
287: we split the $1/m_c^2$ corrections into two different terms is
288: because, numerically, $\delta_\pi^2\approx \delta_K^2$ \cite{BBL06}, but
289: $m_\pi^2 \ll m_K^2$.
290:
291: It is evident from Eq.~(\ref{2}) that the respective
292: weight of various contributions is controlled by powers of
293: $1/m_c$;\footnote{The $R_i$ themselves are independent of $m_c$.}
294: the next term in the light-cone expansion contains
295: twist-3 and 5 DAs and is
296: of order $1/m_c^3$. Nonetheless, (\ref{2}) cannot be
297: interpreted as $1/m_c$ expansion: for $m_c\to\infty$, the support
298: of the integrals in $u$ also becomes of ${\cal O}(1/m_c)$, as $1-u_0=
299: 1 - m_c^2/s_0 \sim \omega_0/m_c$, with $\omega_0\approx 1\,$GeV
300: a hadronic quantity \cite{Bpi}.
301: In this case, the scaling of the various terms in
302: $m_c$ is controlled by the behaviour of the DAs near the end-point
303: $u= 1$. For finite $m_c$, however, the sum rules are not sensitive
304: to the details of the end-point behaviour, see also Ref.~\cite{angi}.
305: Numerically, the expansion in terms of $1/m_c$ works very
306: well for $B$ decays (with $m_c\to m_b$),
307: whereas for $D$ decays the chirally enhanced term
308: multiplying $R_2$ is $\sim 1.5$. We shall come back to that point in
309: Sec.~\ref{sec:4}.
310:
311: It is possible to write down a similar sum rule also for $f_+(q^2)$.
312: The main difference to the case $q^2=0$ is a modification of
313: the argument of the
314: exponential in (\ref{2}), $m_c^2/(uM^2)\to (m_c^2-(1-u)q^2)/(uM^2)$,
315: and, more importantly, a change of the weight factors with which
316: $R_{3,4}(u)$ enter:\footnote{Evidently, the $R_i(u)$ also become
317: dependent on $q^2$.}
318: the terms in $d\phi/du$ are to be multiplied by a factor
319: $1/(1-q^2/m_c^2)$, and those with $d^2\phi/du^2$ by
320: $1/(1-q^2/m_c^2)^2$. Hence, for $q^2\to m_c^2$, the power suppression of
321: higher-twist terms and, consequently, the light-cone expansion breaks
322: down. This is the reason why the LCSR method is only applicable for
323: values of $q^2$ which are parametrically smaller than $m_c^2$.
324:
325: The focus of this letter is on the calculation of both the individual
326: form factors
327: $f_+^{D\to P}(0)$ and the ratio $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)$;
328: both values have been determined be several experiments, see Tab.~\ref{tab1}.
329: Whereas the ratio is largely
330: independent of the precise values of the QCD sum rule parameters
331: and can
332: be determined with small uncertainty, very much like
333: the form factor ratio for $B\to (\rho,K^*)\gamma$ transitions
334: \cite{BZ06_2}, the value of $f_+^{D\to P}(0)$ itself also depends on
335: $f_D$. This decay constant has recently been measured with impressive
336: accuracy by CLEO, $f_D = (222.6\pm 16.7^{+2.3}_{-3.4})\,$MeV
337: \cite{Artuso}, which is the value we shall use in our calculation.
338:
339: Compared with the analysis of Ref.~\cite{alexD},
340: in this letter we implement the
341: following improvements:
342: \begin{itemize}
343: \item updated values of twist-2 parameters, from both QCD sum rules
344: and lattice calculations
345: \cite{BZa1,Braunlatt,chris};
346: \item two-loop evolution evolution of twist-2 parameters \cite{evolution};
347: \item updated values of light quark masses, leading to a significant
348: reduction of the theoretical uncertainty \cite{lattms,SRms,Leutwyler};
349: \item inclusion of $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections to the two-particle
350: twist-3 contributions \cite{BZ01,BZ04};
351: \item complete account for SU(3)-breaking in twist-3 and 4 DAs \cite{BBL06}.
352: \end{itemize}
353:
354: \section{Hadronic Input}\label{sec:3}
355:
356: Let us now shortly discuss the hadronic input to Eq.~(\ref{1}).
357: As for twist-2 DAs, the standard approach is to parametrise them in
358: terms of a few parameters which are the leading-order terms in
359: the conformal expansion
360: \begin{equation}\label{eq:confexp}
361: \phi_{2;P}(u,\mu^2) = 6 u (1-u) \left( 1 + \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty
362: a^P_{n}(\mu^2) C_{n}^{3/2}(2u-1)\right).
363: \end{equation}
364: To leading-logarithmic accuracy the (non-perturbative)
365: Gegenbauer moments $a_n^P$ renormalize multiplicatively. This feature is
366: due to the conformal symmetry of massless QCD at one-loop,
367: the $a_n^P$ start to mix only at next-to-leading order
368: \cite{evolution}. Although (\ref{eq:confexp}) is not an expansion in any
369: obvious small parameter, the contribution of terms with large $n$ to
370: physical amplitudes is suppressed by the fact that the Gegenbauer
371: polynomials oscillate rapidly and hence are ``washed out'' upon
372: integration over $u$ with a ``smooth'' (i.e.\ not too singular)
373: perturbative hard-scattering
374: kernel. One usually takes into account the terms
375: with $n=1,2$; the $a_n^P$ are estimated from QCD sum rules, and, since
376: very recently, lattice simulations. Both are
377: expected to become less reliable for large-$n$ moments which describe
378: increasingly non-local characteristics of $\phi_{2;P}$.
379: As an alternative, one
380: can build models for $\phi_{2;P}$ based on an assumed fall-off behaviour of
381: $a_n^P$ for large $n$. The model of Ball and Talbot (BT)
382: \cite{angi}, for instance,
383: assumes that, at a certain reference
384: scale, e.g.\ $\mu=1\,$GeV, the even moments $a^P_{2n}$ fall off
385: as powers of $n$:
386: \begin{equation}\label{5}
387: a^P_{2n} \propto \frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}\,.
388: \end{equation}
389: BT fix the
390: absolute normalisation of the Gegenbauer moments by the first
391: inverse moment:
392: $$\int_0^1 \frac{du}{2u}\,\left\{\phi_{2;P}(u)+\phi_{2;P}(1-u)\right\}
393: \equiv 3 \Delta = 3 \left(1 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty a^P_{2n}\right),$$
394: which can be viewed as a convolution with the singular hard-scattering
395: kernel $1/u$ and gives all $a_{2n}^P$ the same (maximum) weight $1$.
396: The rationale of this model is that the DA is given in terms of only
397: two parameters, $p$ and $\Delta$, and allows one to estimate the
398: effect of higher order terms in the conformal expansion of
399: observables. A similar model can be constructed for odd Gegenbauer
400: moments. In this letter, we calculate the form factor using both
401: conformal expansion, truncated after $n=2$, and the BT model,
402: normalised by $a^P_1$ and $a^P_2$, respectively,
403: and taking into account terms up to $n=9$. It turns out
404: that the effect of terms with $n>2$ is very small.
405:
406: As for the numerical values of the Gegenbauer moments,
407: $a_1^\pi$ vanishes by G-parity and $a_1^K$ has been the subject
408: of a certain controversy \cite{controversy,KMM}, which has finally
409: been decided in favour of the value
410: \begin{equation}
411: a_1^K(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.06\pm 0.03
412: \end{equation}
413: obtained from QCD sum rules \cite{BZa1}.
414: Very recently this value has been confirmed from
415: lattice calculations:
416: \begin{eqnarray}
417: a_1^K(1\,{\rm GeV}) & = & 0.057(1)(4)
418: \quad\mbox{Ref.~\cite{Braunlatt}},\nonumber\\
419: a_1^K(1\,{\rm GeV}) & = & 0.068(6)
420: \qquad\mbox{~Ref.~\cite{chris}},
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: where we have rescaled the original value given. in
423: Ref.~\cite{Braunlatt},
424: at the scale $\mu=2\,$GeV by the next-to-leading
425: order scaling factor
426: 1.26 and the value of Ref.~\cite{chris}, given at $1.6\,$GeV,
427: by the scaling factor 1.19.
428: As for $a_2^\pi$, the situation as of spring 2006 is summarised in
429: Ref.~\cite{BBL06}, with $a_2^\pi(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.25\pm 0.15$
430: averaged over all determinations and $0.28\pm 0.08$ from QCD
431: sum rules alone. In the meantime, a new lattice calculation has returned
432: $a_2^\pi(2\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.2\pm 0.1$ \cite{Braunlatt}, which translates into
433: $a_2^\pi(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.3\pm 0.15$. For $a_2^K$, Ref.~\cite{KMM}
434: quotes $0.27^{+0.37}_{-0.12}$ and Ref.~\cite{BBL06} $0.30\pm 0.15$,
435: both QCD sum rule results at the scale $1\,$GeV. The first lattice
436: determination of this quantity is $a_2^K(2\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.18\pm 0.05$
437: \cite{Braunlatt}, which corresponds to $a_2^K(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.26\pm
438: 0.07$. All these results are consistent with each other and indicate
439: that the values of $a_2^\pi$ and $a_2^K$ are nearly equal. In this letter
440: we use
441: \begin{equation}
442: a_2^\pi(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.28\pm 0.08 = a_2^K(1\,{\rm GeV})\,.
443: \end{equation}
444: As for twist-3 DAs, we use the expressions and parameters derived in
445: Ref.~\cite{BBL06}. For twist-4 DAs, i.e.\ the terms entering $R_4$
446: in (\ref{2}), one can use expressions based
447: on truncated conformal expansion or the renormalon
448: model of Ref.~\cite{renormalon}. The advantage of the latter is that
449: the plethora of independent hadronic twist-4 parameters can all be
450: expressed in terms of one genuine twist-4 parameter, $\delta_P^2$, and
451: the twist-2 Gegenbauer moments $a_n^P$.
452: One characteristic of the model is that the
453: end-point behaviour of the DAs for $u\to 0,1$ is more singular than
454: that of the conformal expansion. While this is a small effect in $B$
455: decays because of the power-suppression $\sim 1/m_b^2$ of these
456: contributions, it turns out to be rather problematic in $D$ decays
457: where the suppression factor is much smaller, and
458: results in a marked difference in numerics between using the
459: conformally expanded twist-4 DAs and those based on the renormalon model. In
460: addition, the conformal expansion converges only badly for the
461: latter. We illustrate that in Fig.~\ref{fig1}, whose left panel shows
462: \begin{figure}[tb]
463: $$\epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig1a.eps}
464: \qquad \epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig1b.eps}$$
465: \vspace*{-30pt}
466: \caption[]{\sf Left panel: contribution of $a_n^P$, $n\leq 5$, to
467: $R_1$ as a function of $u$.
468: Right panel: the same for $R_4$ in the renormalon model. The larger
469: $n$, the more the contribution of $a_n^P$
470: diverges for $u\to 1$.}\label{fig1}
471: \end{figure}
472: the weight factors with which the Gegenbauer moments $a^P_{n\leq 5}$
473: enter $R_1$, whereas the right panel shows the corresponding weight
474: factors for $R_4$. The divergence of the terms in $a_n^P$ for $u\to 1$
475: is rather striking. The result is a strong dependence of $R_4$, in the
476: renormalon model, on the order at which $\phi_{2;P}$ is truncated. We
477: hence decide to drop the renormalon model for the calculation of $D$ decays and
478: only use the conformally expanded expression for $R_4$.
479:
480: Other parameters that remain to be specified are the quark masses and
481: $\alpha_s$. As for the charm quark mass, we use the one-loop pole mass
482: $m_c = (1.40\pm 0.05)\,$GeV which can be obtained from the value
483: for $\overline{m}_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}$ found, for instance, from inclusive
484: $b\to c \ell\nu$ decays \cite{buchmuller}. For the strange quark mass,
485: we use $\overline{m}_s(2\,{\rm GeV}) =
486: (0.10\pm 0.02)\,$GeV, which is in agreement with both lattice
487: \cite{lattms} and QCD sum rule results \cite{SRms}. As for the
488: light quark masses, we use the average mass
489: $\overline{m}_q=(\overline{m}_u+\overline{m}_d)/2$ with
490: $\overline{m}_s/\overline{m}_q = 24.6\pm 1.2$
491: from chiral perturbation theory \cite{Leutwyler}.
492: Concerning $\alpha_s$, we use two-loop running down from $\alpha_s(m_Z) =
493: 0.1176\pm 0.002$ \cite{PDG}, which results in $\alpha_s(1\,{\rm
494: GeV}) = 0.497\pm 0.005$.
495:
496: \section{Numerical Results}\label{sec:4}
497:
498: Equipped with the hadronic input parameters,
499: we can now assess the respective size of
500: the contributions of $R_i$ to the sum rule (\ref{2}). In
501: Fig.~\ref{fig2}, the $R_i$ are plotted as functions of $u$.
502: \begin{figure}[tb]
503: $$\epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig2.eps}
504: $$
505: \vspace*{-30pt}
506: \caption[]{\sf $R_i$ as function of $u$. Solid line: $R_1$, long dashes:
507: $R_2$, short dashes: $R_3$, dash-dotted line: $R_4$.}\label{fig2}
508: \end{figure}
509: All $R_i$, or at least their integrals over $u$, are of order 1 and hence the
510: parametric size of their contribution to the LCSR (\ref{2})
511: is indeed set by the weight
512: factors in (\ref{2}). The central numerical values of these
513: factors are given in Tab.~\ref{tab2}, together with those for $B$
514: decay form factors.
515: \begin{table}
516: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
517: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
518: $$
519: \begin{array}{l|l|l|l}
520: & \ds\frac{m_P^2}{m_c(m_{q_1} + m_{q_2})} & \ds\frac{m_P^2}{m_c^2} &
521: \ds\frac{\delta_P^2}{m_c^2}\\[8pt]\hline
522: D\to\pi & 1.44 & 0.01 & 0.08\\
523: D\to K & 1.41 & 0.13 & 0.09\\\hline
524: B\to\pi & 0.52 & <0.001 & 0.006\\
525: B\to K & 0.50 & 0.01 & 0.007
526: \end{array}
527: $$
528: \vspace*{-10pt}
529: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
530: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
531: \caption[]{\sf Central values of the weight factors for $R_{2,3,4}$ in
532: the LCSR (\ref{2}); the weight factor for $R_1$ is $1$. For
533: comparison, the corresponding weights for $B$
534: decay form factors are also shown (based on $m_b = 4.8\,$GeV).}\label{tab2}
535: \end{table}
536: Whereas for $B$ decays twist-3 contributions are smaller than
537: those of twist-2, this is not the case for $D$ decays due to the
538: chiral enhancement factor $m_P^2/(m_c (m_{q_1} + m_{q_2}))$. This
539: feature was already noted in Ref.~\cite{alexD} and is a bit
540: unfortunate from the point of view of using $D\to P$ decays to
541: test LCSR predictions for $B\to P$: evidently $f_+^{D\to P}$ is more
542: sensitive to the precise value of $1/(m_{q_1} + m_{q_2})$ than
543: $f_+^{B\to P}$, but the LCSR technique itself is of course completely
544: independent of that parameter.
545: In addition, $R_2$ is
546: essentially independent of the Gegenbauer moments $a_n^P$, which enter
547: $R_2$ only as quark-mass corrections in $m_{q_1}\pm m_{q_2}$, so that
548: the sensitivity of $f_+^{D\to P}$ to $a_n^P$ is smaller than that of
549: $f_+^{B\to P}$. Stated differently: a successful calculation of
550: $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)$ with a given set of Gegenbauer moments does not
551: necessarily imply a correct prediction of $f_+^{B\to\pi}$ with the
552: same moments. The light-cone expansion is also less convergent for
553: $D$ than for $B$ decays, so that one may wonder about
554: the size of the neglected twist-5 contributions $R_5$, which come with a
555: weight factor $\epsilon^2_{5P}
556: m_P^2/(m_c^3(m_{q_1} + m_{q_2}))\sim 1.5\,\epsilon^2_{5P}/m_c^2$
557: with $\epsilon^2_{5P}$ being a twist-5
558: hadronic matrix element.
559:
560: Leaving these reservations aside, at least
561: for the moment, we proceed to present results for $f_+(0)$.
562: \begin{figure}[tbp]
563: $$\epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig3a.eps}\qquad
564: \epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig3b.eps}$$
565: \vspace*{-30pt}
566: \caption[]{\sf $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)$ (left panel) and $f_+^{D\to K}(0)$
567: (right panel) as functions of the Borel parameter $M^2$ for central
568: values of the input parameters. Solid lines: $f_+(0)$, long dashes:
569: twist-2 contributions, short dashes: twist-3 contributions,
570: dash-dotted lines: twist-4 contributions.}\label{fig3}
571: $$\epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig4a.eps}\qquad
572: \epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig4b.eps}$$
573: \vspace*{-30pt}
574: \caption[]{\sf $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)$ as function of
575: the Borel parameter $M^2$ (left panel) and
576: the continuum threshold $s_0$ (right panel), for central values of
577: input parameters.}\label{fig4}
578: $$\epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig5a.eps}\qquad
579: \epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig5b.eps}$$
580: \vspace*{-30pt}
581: \caption[]{\sf $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)$ as function of
582: $R=\overline{m}_s/\overline{m}_q$ (left panel) and
583: $\overline{m}_s(2\,{\rm GeV})$ (right panel), for $M^2=4\,{\rm GeV}^2$
584: and $s_0=6\,{\rm GeV}^2$.}\label{fig5}
585: \end{figure}
586: In Fig.~\ref{fig3} we plot $f_+^{D\to\pi,K}(0)$ as function of the
587: Borel parameter $M^2$ for $s_0=6\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and central values of
588: the hadronic input parameters; we also plot the twist-2, 3
589: and 4 contributions separately. Although the twist-3 contribution is
590: larger than that of twist-2, due to the chiral enhancement factor,
591: the hierarchy of higher-twist contributions is preserved and the total
592: twist-4 contribution is much smaller than that of twist-2 and
593: 3. Fig.~\ref{fig4} shows the ratio $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)$
594: as function of $M^2$ and $s_0$, respectively. The dependence of the
595: ratio on these parameters is remarkably small and causes it to vary in
596: the very small interval $[0.83,0.84]$ only. This is very similar to what we
597: found in Ref.~\cite{BZ06_2} for the ratio of form factors in $B\to
598: (\rho,K^*)\gamma$ transitions and due to the fact that the Borel parameter
599: $M^2$ controls the respective weights of
600: contributions of different $u$; as these contributions are nearly
601: equal in numerator and denominator of the ratio of form factors, except for
602: moderately sized SU(3) breaking, it follows that the resulting dependence on
603: $M^2$ is very small.
604: The parameters to
605: which the ratio is most
606: sensitive are $R=\overline{m}_s/\overline{m}_q$ and $\overline{m}_s$,
607: and we show the corresponding curves in Fig.~\ref{fig5}. Still, the
608: dependence of $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)/f_+^{D\to K}(0)$ on all these
609: parameters is very moderate, which allows a very precise prediction
610: of this quantity from LCSRs.
611:
612: In order to obtain final results with a meaningful theoretical
613: uncertainty, we take $M^2=4\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and $s_0 = 6\,{\rm GeV}^2$ as
614: our central sum rule parameters and vary both $M^2$ and $s_0$ by $\pm
615: 1{\rm GeV}^2$. We also vary all hadronic input parameters within their
616: respective ranges as given above or in Ref.~\cite{BBL06}, including
617: $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ and the factorisation scale $\mu^2$, whose central
618: value is set to be $m_P^2-m_c^2$. We also include the effect of
619: switching from the BT model for $\phi_{2;P}$ to a conformal expansion
620: truncated after the second Gegenbauer moment. Finally, we address the issue of
621: possible chirally enhanced twist-5 contributions by varying the
622: twist-4 contributions by a factor 3. When adding all these uncertainties in
623: quadrature, we obtain the following results:
624: \begin{eqnarray}
625: f_+^{D\to\pi}(0) & = & 0.63\pm 0.03 \pm 0.10 = 0.63\pm 0.11\,,\nonumber\\
626: f_+^{D\to K}(0) & = & 0.75\pm 0.04 \pm 0.11 = 0.75\pm 0.12\,.\label{9}
627: \end{eqnarray}
628: Here the first uncertainty comes from the variation of the QCD sum
629: rule parameters ($M^2$ and $s_0$), the second from the uncertainties
630: of the hadronic input parameters which are dominated by $f_D$,
631: $\overline{m}_s$ and $R$. A slight reduction of the total uncertainty
632: is possible, once more accurate determinations of these parameters will
633: have become available in the future, but it will be difficult to get below $\pm
634: 0.08$. Our result for $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)$ nearly coincides with that
635: obtained in Ref.~\cite{alexD}; this is, however, to a certain extent,
636: an accident as quite a few parameters in Ref.~\cite{alexD} were chosen
637: to have different values, notably $m_c$, $f_D$ and the chiral
638: enhancement factor
639: $m_\pi^2/(2 \overline{m}_q)$, which in Ref.~\cite{alexD} was tied to
640: the value of the quark condensate. Our value for $f_+^{D\to K}(0)$ is
641: significantly smaller than that of Ref.~\cite{alexD} as given in
642: Tab.~\ref{tab1} for the same values of $\overline{m}_s$ we use in this
643: letter; this is
644: partially due to the larger $f_D$ we use. The relative errors in
645: (\ref{9}) are also significantly larger than those quoted, in
646: Ref.~\cite{BZ04}, for $f_+^{B\to P}(0)$. This is due to the fact
647: that, for $D$ decays, some parametric uncertainties are larger than
648: for $B$ decays: the uncertainty due to the light quark masses is three
649: times larger (see the 2nd column in Tab.~\ref{tab2}); there is a
650: larger uncertainty due to neglected twist-5 contributions; the
651: dependence of $f_+$ on $M^2$ and $s_0$ is larger; there is a larger
652: uncertainty due to $f_D$ for which we use the experimental value
653: instead of a QCD sum rule.
654:
655: For the ratio of form factors we find, using the same procedure:
656: \begin{equation}
657: \frac{f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)}{f_+^{D\to K}(0)} = 0.84\pm 0.04\,.
658: \end{equation}
659: In this ratio, quite a few uncertainties cancel
660: so that the total uncertainty is significantly
661: smaller than that of
662: both form factors separately. A reduction of this
663: uncertainty will be very difficult and requires major progress for
664: several quantities, including twist-5 contributions.
665:
666: Our results are in perfect agreement
667: with the lattice predictions given in Tab.~\ref{tab1}, although our
668: errors for the form factors are slightly larger. For the ratio of form
669: factors, our error is by a factor 2 smaller than the lattice
670: uncertainty quoted in Ref.~\cite{latt}. Comparing with experiment, our
671: results for the form factors are perfectly consistent with the
672: experimental results, although the theoretical uncertainty is much
673: larger than the experimental error quoted by Belle and CLEO. On the
674: other hand, the
675: theoretical uncertainty of the ratio of form factors is about the same
676: size as its experimental counterpart and our predictions agree,
677: within errors, to
678: the experimental results.
679:
680: \section{Summary and Conclusions}\label{sec:5}
681:
682: The title of this letter is ``Testing QCD
683: Sum Rules on the Light-Cone
684: in $D\to(\pi,K)\ell\nu$ Decays''. So what is the outcome of this
685: test? We have found that the predictions of LCSRs for the form
686: factors at zero momentum transfer, $f_+^{D\to\pi}(0)$ and
687: $f_+^{D\to K}(0)$, do perfectly agree with both experiment and
688: lattice calculations, although the errors are relatively large and
689: not expected to be reduced in the near future. The ratio of both form
690: factors, on the other hand, can be predicted with much better
691: accuracy which matches that of current experimental data and
692: surpasses that quoted by the Fermilab/MILC/HPQCD lattice collaboration
693: \cite{latt}. Our result agrees within 1.5$\sigma$ with all
694: experimental determinations of that ratio, and within 1$\sigma$
695: with the experimental average 0.88.
696: This indicates that the LCSR method works very well for these form
697: factors and with the set of input parameters for $\pi$ and $K$ DAs
698: given in Refs.~\cite{BZa1,BBL06,Braunlatt,chris}, and the
699: light quark masses $\overline{m}_{q,s}$ obtained from lattice
700: calculations \cite{lattms}, QCD sum rules \cite{SRms} and chiral
701: perturbation theory \cite{Leutwyler}. This success is certainly
702: very encouraging for the LCSR method as such, but unfortunately can
703: not be taken as proof that the results for $f_+^{B\to\pi}$ and
704: other $B$ decay form factors with the same input parameters will be
705: as successful. The main problem area is the larger weight given to
706: $a_n^P$ in $B$ decays and the value of $f_B$ which in
707: Ref.~\cite{BZ04} was taken from QCD sum rules. Although the $B$
708: decay constant has been measured by Belle in early 2006
709: \cite{blessedfB}, the experimental uncertainty is yet too large
710: for this measurement to be useful for phenomenology. Nonetheless,
711: the overall result is that LCSRs have successfuly passed their
712: first serious experimental test in heavy flavour physics and remain
713: a serious contender for predicting $B$ decay form factors,
714: alongside with and complementary to lattice calculations.
715:
716:
717: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
718:
719: \bibitem{LCSR}
720: I.I.\ Balitsky, V.M.\ Braun and A.V.\ Kolesnichenko,
721: %``Radiative Decay Sigma+ $\to$ P Gamma In Quantum Chromodynamics,''
722: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 312} (1989) 509;\\
723: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B312,509;%%
724: V.L.\ Chernyak and I.R.\ Zhitnitsky,
725: %``B Meson Exclusive Decays Into Baryons,''
726: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 345} (1990) 137;\\
727: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B345,137;%%
728: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and H.~G.~Dosch,
729: %``Form-Factors Of Semileptonic D Decays From QCD Sum Rules,''
730: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 3567.
731: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,3567;%%
732:
733: \bibitem{Vub}
734: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
735: %``|V(ub)| and constraints on the leading-twist pion distribution amplitude
736: %from B --> pi l nu,''
737: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625} (2005) 225
738: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507076];\\
739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507076;%%
740: T.~Becher and R.~J.~Hill,
741: %``Comment on form factor shape and extraction of |V(ub)| from B --> pi l
742: %nu,''
743: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 61
744: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509090];\\
745: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509090;%%
746: M.~Okamoto,
747: %``Full determination of the CKM matrix using recent results from lattice
748: %QCD,''
749: PoS {\bf LAT2005} (2006) 013
750: [arXiv:hep-lat/0510113];\\
751: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0510113;%%
752: P.~B.~Mackenzie,
753: %``CKM physics from lattice QCD,''
754: arXiv:hep-ph/0606034;\\
755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606034;%%
756: J.~M.~Flynn and J.~Nieves,
757: %``Extracting |V(ub)| from B --> pi l nu decays using a multiply-subtracted
758: %Omnes dispersion relation,''
759: arXiv:hep-ph/0607258.
760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607258;%%
761:
762: \bibitem{BaBar}
763: B.~Aubert [BABAR coll.],
764: % ``Measurement of the q2 dependence of the Hadronic Form Factor in D0 --> K-
765: %e+ nu_e decays,''
766: arXiv:hep-ex/0607077.
767: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0607077;%%
768:
769: \bibitem{Belle}
770: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [BELLE coll.],
771: %``Measurement of D0 $\to$ pi l nu (K l nu) and their form factors,''
772: arXiv:hep-ex/0510003;\\
773: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0510003;%%
774: L.~Widhalm {\it et al.} [BELLE coll.],
775: %``Measurement of D0 $\to$ pi l nu (K l nu) form factors and absolute
776: %branching fractions,''
777: arXiv:hep-ex/0604049.
778: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0604049;%%
779:
780: \bibitem{BES}
781: M.~Ablikim {\it et al.} [BES coll.],
782: %``Direct Measurements Of The Branching Fractions For D0 $\to$ K- E+ Nu/E And
783: %D0 $\to$ Pi- E+ Nu/E And Determinations Of The Form Factors F+(K)(0) And
784: %F+(Pi)(0),''
785: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 597} (2004) 39
786: [arXiv:hep-ex/0406028].
787: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406028;%%
788:
789: \bibitem{CLEO}
790: Y. Gao [CLEO coll.], talk given at ICHEP06, Moscow, August 2006.
791:
792: \bibitem{FOCUS}
793: J.~M.~Link {\it et al.} [FOCUS coll.],
794: %``Measurement of the branching ratio of the decay D0 $\to$ pi- mu+ nu
795: %relative to D0 $\to$ K- mu+ nu,''
796: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 607} (2005) 51
797: [arXiv:hep-ex/0410068].
798: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410068;%%
799:
800: \bibitem{latt}
801: C.~Aubin {\it et al.},
802: %``Semileptonic decays of D mesons in three-flavor lattice QCD,''
803: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94} (2005) 011601
804: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408306].
805: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408306;%%
806:
807: \bibitem{alexD}
808: A.~Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
809: %``Predictions On B $\to$ Pi Anti-L Nu/L, D $\to$ Pi Anti-L Nu/L And D $\to$ K
810: %Anti-L Nu/L From QCD Light-Cone Sum Rules,''
811: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 114002
812: [arXiv:hep-ph/0001297].
813: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001297;%%
814:
815: \bibitem{BBL06}
816: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and A.~Lenz,
817: %``Higher-twist distribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD,''
818: JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 004
819: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603063].
820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603063;%%
821:
822: \bibitem{SVZ}
823: M.A.\ Shifman, A.I.\ Vainshtein and V.I.\ Zakharov,
824: %``QCD And Resonance Physics. Sum Rules,''
825: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 147} (1979) 385;
826: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,385;%%
827: ibd.\ {\bf 147} (1979) 448.
828: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B147,448;%%
829:
830: \bibitem{PB98}
831: V.~M.~Braun and I.~E.~Filyanov,
832: %``Conformal Invariance And Pion Wave Functions Of Nonleading Twist,''
833: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 48} (1990) 239;\\
834: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C48,239;%%
835: P.~Ball,
836: %``Theoretical update of pseudoscalar meson distribution amplitudes of higher
837: %twist: The nonsinglet case,''
838: JHEP {\bf 9901} (1999) 010
839: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812375].
840: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812375;%%
841:
842: \bibitem{Bpi}
843: A.~Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
844: %``Perturbative QCD correction to the B --> pi transition form factor,''
845: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 410} (1997) 275
846: [arXiv:hep-ph/9706303];\\
847: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706303;%%
848: E. Bagan, P. Ball and V. M. Braun,
849: %``Radiative corrections to the decay B --> pi e nu and the heavy quark
850: %limit,''
851: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417} (1998) 154
852: [arXiv:hep-ph/9709243].
853: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709243;%%
854:
855: \bibitem{BZ01}
856: P.~Ball,
857: %``B --> pi and B --> K transitions from {QCD} sum rules on the light-cone,''
858: JHEP {\bf 9809} (1998) 005
859: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802394];\\
860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802394;%%
861: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
862: %``Improved analysis of B --> pi e nu from QCD sum rules on the light-cone,''
863: JHEP {\bf 0110} (2001) 019
864: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110115].
865: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110115;%%
866:
867: \bibitem{BZ04}
868: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
869: %``New results on B $\to$ pi, K, eta decay formfactors from light-cone sum
870: %rules,''
871: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 014015
872: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406232].
873: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406232;%%
874:
875: \bibitem{BK}
876: D.~Becirevic and A.~B.~Kaidalov,
877: %``Comment on the heavy --> light form factors,''
878: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478} (2000) 417
879: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904490].
880: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904490;%%
881:
882: \bibitem{angi}
883: P.~Ball and A.~N.~Talbot,
884: %``Models for light-cone meson distribution amplitudes,''
885: JHEP {\bf 0506} (2005) 063
886: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502115].
887: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502115;%%
888:
889: \bibitem{BZ06_2}
890: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
891: %``|V(td)/V(ts)| from B --> V gamma,''
892: JHEP {\bf 0604} (2006) 046
893: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603232].
894: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603232;%%
895:
896: \bibitem{Artuso}
897: M.~Artuso {\it et al.} [CLEO coll.],
898: %``Improved measurement of B(D+ --> mu+ nu) and the pseudoscalar decay
899: %constant f(D+),''
900: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 251801
901: [arXiv:hep-ex/0508057].
902: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508057;%%
903:
904: \bibitem{BZa1}
905: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
906: %``SU(3) breaking of leading-twist K and K* distribution amplitudes: A
907: %reprise,''
908: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 289 [arXiv:hep-ph/0510338] and
909: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510338;%%
910: %``Operator relations for SU(3) breaking contributions to K and K* distribution
911: %amplitudes,''
912: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2006) 034
913: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601086].
914: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601086;%%
915:
916: \bibitem{Braunlatt}
917: V.~M.~Braun {\it et al.},
918: %``Moments of pseudoscalar meson distribution amplitudes from the lattice,''
919: arXiv:hep-lat/0606012.
920: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0606012;%%
921:
922: \bibitem{chris}
923: P.~A.~Boyle {\it et al.},
924: %``A Lattice Computation of the First Moment of the Kaon's Distribution
925: %Amplitude,''
926: arXiv:hep-lat/0607018.
927: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0607018;%%
928:
929: \bibitem{evolution}
930: D.~Mueller,
931: %``Conformal constraints and the evolution of the nonsinglet meson
932: %distribution amplitude,''
933: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 2525.
934: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,2525;%%
935:
936: \bibitem{lattms}
937: F.~Knechtli,
938: %``Lattice computation of the strange quark mass in QCD,''
939: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36} (2005) 3377
940: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511033];\\
941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511033;%%
942: M.~G\"ockeler {\it et al.},
943: %``Determining the strange quark mass for 2-flavour QCD,''
944: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 153} (2006) 154
945: [arXiv:hep-lat/0602028].
946: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0602028;%%
947:
948: \bibitem{SRms}
949: E.~Gamiz {\it et al.},
950: %``V(us) and m(s) from hadronic tau decays,''
951: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94} (2005) 011803
952: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408044];\\
953: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408044;%%
954: K.~G.~Chetyrkin and A.~Khodjamirian,
955: %``Strange quark mass from pseudoscalar sum rule with O(alpha(s)**4)
956: %accuracy,''
957: arXiv:hep-ph/0512295.
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512295;%%
959:
960: \bibitem{Leutwyler}
961: H.~Leutwyler,
962: %``The ratios of the light quark masses,''
963: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 378} (1996) 313
964: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602366].
965: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602366;%%
966:
967: \bibitem{controversy}
968: V.~L.~Chernyak and A.~R.~Zhitnitsky,
969: %``Asymptotic Behavior Of Exclusive Processes In QCD,''
970: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 112} (1984) 173;\\
971: %%CITATION = PRPLC,112,173;%%
972: P.~Ball and M.~Boglione,
973: %``SU(3) breaking in K and K* distribution amplitudes,''
974: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 094006
975: [arXiv:hep-ph/0307337];\\
976: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307337;%%
977: V.~M.~Braun and A.~Lenz,
978: %``On the SU(3) symmetry-breaking corrections to meson distribution
979: %amplitudes,''
980: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 074020
981: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407282].
982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407282;%%
983:
984: \bibitem{KMM}
985: A.~Khodjamirian, T.~Mannel and M.~Melcher,
986: %``Kaon distribution amplitude from QCD sum rules,''
987: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 094002
988: [arXiv:hep-ph/0407226].
989: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407226;%%
990:
991: \bibitem{renormalon}
992: V.~M.~Braun, E.~Gardi and S.~Gottwald,
993: %``Renormalon approach to higher-twist distribution amplitudes and the
994: %convergence of the conformal expansion,''
995: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685} (2004) 171
996: [arXiv:hep-ph/0401158].
997: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401158;%%
998:
999: \bibitem{buchmuller}
1000: O.~Buchm\"uller and H.~Fl\"acher,
1001: %``Fits to moment measurementsfrom B --> X/c l nu and B --> X/s gamma decays
1002: %using heavy quark expansions in the kinetic scheme,''
1003: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 073008\\
1004: {}[arXiv:hep-ph/0507253].
1005: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507253;%%
1006:
1007: \bibitem{PDG}
1008: W.-M. Yao {\it et al.} [PDG], J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
1009:
1010: \bibitem{blessedfB}
1011: K.~Ikado {\it et al.} [Belle coll.],
1012: %``Evidence of the purely leptonic decay B- --> tau- anti-nu/tau,''
1013: arXiv:hep-ex/0604018.
1014: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0604018;%%
1015:
1016: \end{thebibliography}
1017:
1018: \end{document}
1019:
1020: