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}{16cm}
10: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.6in}
11: \setlength{\textheight}{24cm}
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/06/75\\
28: DCPT/06/150
29: \end{tabular}
30: \end{flushright}
31: \vskip1.5cm
32: \begin{center}
33: {\Large \bf\boldmath $|V_{ub}|$ from UTangles and
34: $B\to\pi \ell\nu$}
35: \vskip2.5cm {\sc
36: Patricia Ball\footnote{Patricia.Ball@durham.ac.uk}
37: }
38: \vskip0.5cm
39: {\em IPPP, Department of Physics,
40: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK }\\
41: \vskip2.5cm
42:
43: %{\em Version of \today}
44:
45: \vskip5cm
46:
47: {\large\bf Abstract\\[10pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{
48: The angles of the CKM unitarity triangle are now known well enough to
49: allow a determination of its sides from global fits, with good
50: accuracy. Assuming that new physics does not affect the angles,
51: UTfit and CKMfitter find $|V_{ub}|
52: = (3.50\pm 0.18)\times 10^{-3}$. Using this result, and new
53: high-precision data on the spectrum of $B\to\pi \ell\nu$ decays from BaBar, we
54: find $|V_{ub}| f_+(0) = (9.1\pm 0.7)\times 10^{-4}$ and $f_+(0) = 0.26\pm
55: 0.02$, with $f_+$ the $B\to\pi$ weak transition form factor.
56: These results are {\em completely model-independent}.
57: We compare them to theoretical calculations from lattice and QCD
58: sum rules on the light-cone.
59: }
60:
61: \end{center}
62: \end{titlepage}
63:
64: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
65: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
66:
67: \newpage
68:
69:
70: Ever since the first experimental observation of $b\to u$ transitions
71: by the ARGUS collaboration
72: in 1989 \cite{ARGUS}, the determination of $|V_{ub}|$ has been
73: one of the major challenges for both experimental and theoretical B
74: physics. While initially exclusive transitions, in particular $B\to\pi
75: e \nu$, were considered as the most promising ones, the realisation
76: that inclusive decays can be calculated using heavy quark expansion
77: \cite{manifesto}, with (seemingly) controlled theoretical
78: uncertainties, has spurred a number of very impressive theoretical
79: works, culminating in the calculation of decay spectra based solely
80: on first principles (dressed gluon exponentiation [DGE])
81: \cite{einan} or using additional information from
82: other inclusive decays ($b\to s\gamma, b\to c \ell \nu$)
83: in order to extract the
84: relevant non-perturbative quantities (BLNP) \cite{neubert}. At the same time,
85: the experimental measurement of inclusive $b\to u \ell\nu$ transitions
86: made major progress since the first measurements at ARGUS
87: and is now in a mature state. The results
88: for $|V_{ub}|$ determined in this way are collected and averaged by
89: the Heavy Flavour Average Group (HFAG) \cite{HFAG} and currently
90: (November 06) read
91: \begin{eqnarray}
92: |V_{ub}|_{\rm incl,DGE}^{\rm HFAG} &=& (4.46\pm 0.20({\rm exp})\pm
93: 0.20({\rm ext}))\times 10^{-3}\,,\nonumber\\
94: |V_{ub}|_{\rm incl,BLNP}^{\rm HFAG} &=& (4.49\pm 0.19({\rm exp})\pm
95: 0.27({\rm ext}))\times 10^{-3}\,,\label{VubHFAG}
96: \end{eqnarray}
97: where the first error is experimental (statistical and systematic) and
98: the second external (theoretical and parameter uncertainties). Both
99: results are in perfect agreement.
100:
101: At the same time, $|V_{ub}|$ can also be determined in a more
102: indirect way, based on global fits of the unitarity triangle (UT),
103: using only input from various CP violating observables which are
104: sensitive to the angles of the UT.
105: Following the UTfit collaboration, we call the corresponding fit of UT
106: parameters UTangles.
107: To be precise, the information entering UTangles comes from the
108: following non-leptonic
109: decays: $B\to \pi\pi$, $B\to \pi\rho$ and
110: $B\to \rho\rho$ which yield the angle $\alpha$
111: \cite{alpha}; $B\to D^{(*)}\, K^{(*)}$ decays yielding
112: $\gamma$ \cite{gamma}; $2\beta+\gamma$ comes from
113: time-dependent asymmetries in $B \to D^{(*)} \pi (\rho)$
114: decays~\cite{2bpg} and $\cos 2 \beta $ from $B^0_d \to J/\psi
115: K^{*0}_S$~\cite{cos2b}; $\beta$ is determined
116: from $B \to D^0\pi^0$~\cite{D0p0} and,
117: finally, $\sin 2 \beta$ from the ``golden mode'' $B^0_d \to J/\psi
118: K_S$~\cite{sin2b}. Both the UTfit \cite{UTfit} and the
119: CKMfitter collaboration \cite{CKMfitter,private} find
120: \begin{equation}\label{VubUT}
121: |V_{ub}|_{\rm UTangles}^{\rm UTfit,CKMfitter} = (3.50\pm 0.18)\times
122: 10^{-3}\,.
123: \end{equation}
124:
125: The discrepancy between (\ref{VubHFAG}) and (\ref{VubUT}) starts to
126: become significant. One interpretation of this result is that there is
127: new physics (NP) in $B_d$ mixing which impacts the value of $\sin 2\beta$
128: from $b\to ccs$ transitions, the angle measurement with the
129: smallest uncertainty. The value of $|V_{ub}|$ in (\ref{VubHFAG}) implies
130: \begin{equation}
131: \left.\beta\right|_{|V_{ub}|_{\rm incl}^{\rm HFAG}} = (26.9\pm
132: 2.0)^\circ\quad \longleftrightarrow \quad\sin 2\beta = 0.81\pm 0.04\,,
133: \end{equation}
134: using the recent Belle result $\gamma=(53\pm 20)^\circ$ from the
135: Dalitz-plot analysis of the tree-level process $B^+\to D^{(*)}K^{(*)+}$
136: \cite{Bellegamma}.\footnote{ We use the Belle measurement rather than
137: that from BaBar, $\gamma=(92\pm 44)^\circ$ \cite{BaBargamma},
138: because the uncertainty of the latter is too large to allow any
139: meaningful statement. At present, HFAG does not provide an average
140: of the BaBar and Belle measurements.}
141: This value disagrees by more than $2\sigma$
142: with the HFAG average for $\beta$ from
143: $b\to ccs$ transitions, $\beta = (21.2\pm 1.0)^\circ$ ($\sin 2\beta =
144: 0.675\pm 0.026$). The difference
145: of these two results indicates the possible presence of a NP phase in
146: $B_d$ mixing, $\phi_d^{\rm NP} \approx -10^\circ$.
147: This interpretation of the experimental situation
148: is in line with that of Ref.~\cite{newphase}.
149: An alternative
150: interpretation is that there is actually no or no significant NP in the
151: mixing phase of $B_d$ mixing, a scenario compatible with the MFV
152: hypothesis \cite{MFV}, but that the uncertainties in either
153: UTangles or inclusive $b\to u\ell\nu$ transitions (experimental and
154: theoretical) or both are
155: underestimated and that (\ref{VubHFAG}) and (\ref{VubUT}) actually do
156: agree.
157: In either case, the present situation calls for a critical re-assessment
158: of both UTangles and the inclusive analysis
159: and for an independent
160: determination of $|V_{ub}|$ from other sources. The aim of
161: this letter is to provide such a determination from exclusive $B\to\pi
162: \ell\nu$ decays, based on theoretical (lattice and QCD sum rule)
163: calculations and recent new data published by BaBar.
164:
165: As for $B\to\pi\ell\nu$, the primary observable is the branching
166: ratio, for which HFAG quotes, combining charged and neutral $B$
167: decays using isospin symmetry \cite{HFAG},
168: \begin{equation}\label{4}
169: {\cal B}(\bar B^0\to \pi^+\ell^- \bar \nu_\ell) = (1.37\pm 0.06({\rm
170: stat})\pm 0.06{\rm (syst)})\times 10^{-4}\,.
171: \end{equation}
172: %that is a measurement with 6\% total uncertainty
173: %when both errors are added in quadrature.
174: The extraction of $|V_{ub}|$ from this measurement requires a
175: theoretical calculation of the hadronic matrix element
176: \begin{equation}
177: \langle \pi(p_\pi)| \bar u \gamma_\mu b | B(p_\pi+q)\rangle = \left(
178: 2p_\pi{}_\mu + q_\mu - q_\mu\,\frac{m_B^2-m_\pi^2}{q^2}\right) f_+(q^2) +
179: \frac{m_B^2-m_\pi^2}{q^2}\, q_\mu \,f_0(q^2)\,,
180: \end{equation}
181: where $q_\mu$ is the momentum of the lepton pair,
182: with $m_{\ell}^2\leq q^2\leq
183: (m_B-m_\pi)^2=26.4\,$GeV$^2$. $f_+$ is the dominant form factor,
184: whereas $f_0$ enters only at order $m_{\ell}^2$ and can be neglected
185: for $\ell=e,\mu$. The spectrum in $q^2$ is then given by
186: \begin{equation}
187: \frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}\,(\bar B^0\to \pi^+ \ell^- \bar\nu_\ell) = \frac{G_F^2
188: |V_{ub}|^2}{ 192 \pi^3 m_B^3}\,\lambda^{3/2}(q^2) |f_+(q^2)|^2\,,
189: \end{equation}
190: where $\lambda(q^2) = (m_B^2+m_\pi^2-q^2)^2 - 4 m_B^2
191: m_\pi^2$ is the phase-space factor. The calculation of $f_+$ has
192: been the subject of numerous papers; the current state-of-the-art
193: methods are unquenched lattice simulations \cite{FNALno,HPQCD} and
194: QCD sum rules on the light-cone (LCSRs) \cite{otherLCSR,BZ04}.
195: A particular challenge for any
196: theoretical calculation is the prediction of the {\em shape} of
197: $f_+(q^2)$ for all physical $q^2$:
198: LCSRs effectively involve\footnote{This is
199: not to say that LCSRs are a power expansion in $m_b/(2E_\pi)$, which
200: is not a small parameter. Rather, the order parameter $1/m_b$ in the
201: twist expansion of the LCSR for the form factor at $q^2=0$, see
202: Refs.~\cite{VtdVts}, becomes $1/(2E_\pi)$ for $q^2>0$,
203: for contributions of twist 4 and higher.}
204: the parameter $m_b/(2E_\pi)$ and become less
205: reliable for small $E_\pi$, i.e.\ large $q^2$. Lattice
206: calculations, on the other hand, are to date most reliable for small
207: $E_\pi$, although this is expected to change in the future
208: with the implementation of ``moving NRQCD'', i.e.\ a non-relativistic
209: description of the $b$ quark in a moving frame of reference (instead
210: of its rest frame) \cite{moving}.
211: Hence, until very recently, the prediction of the
212: $B\to\pi \ell\nu$ decay rate necessarily involved an extrapolation of
213: the form factor, either to large or to small $q^2$. If, on the other
214: hand, the $q^2$ spectrum was known from experiment, the shape of $f_+$
215: could be constrained, allowing an extension of the LCSR and lattice
216: predictions beyond their region of validity. A first study of
217: the impact of the measurement of the $q^2$ spectrum in 5 bins in
218: $q^2$ by the BaBar collaboration \cite{bab} on the
219: shape of $f_+$ was presented in Ref.~\cite{BZvub}; in view of the
220: limited accuracy of the data available in 2005 the only firm
221: conclusion that could be drawn in \cite{BZvub} was that the simplest
222: possible parametrisation of the form factor by a simple pole at
223: $q^2=m_{B^*}^2$, assuming
224: dominance of the $B^*(1^-)$ meson, is disfavoured.
225: The situation has
226: improved dramatically in summer 2006 with the publication of (preliminary)
227: high-precision data of the $q^2$ spectrum by the BaBar collaboration
228: \cite{BaBarSL}, with 12 bins in $q^2$ and full statistical and
229: systematic error correlation matrices.\footnote{The spectrum has been
230: measured previously, by BaBar, CLEO and Belle
231: \cite{bab,earlier}, in a smaller number of $q^2$ bins. As the new BaBar
232: data are more precise, and the correlation of uncertainties is
233: unknown for the earlier measurements, we do not include them in our
234: analysis.} These data allow one to fit the
235: form factor to various parametrisations and determine the value of
236: $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$. As it turns out, the results from all but the
237: simplest parametrisation agree up to tiny discrepancies which suggests
238: that the resulting value of $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$ is {\em truly model-independent}.
239:
240: There are four parametrisations of $f_+$ which are frequently used in
241: the literature. All but one of them include the essential feature that
242: $f_+$ has a pole at $q^2=m_{B^*}^2$; as $B^*(1^-)$ is a narrow
243: resonance with $m_{B^*}=5.325\,{\rm GeV}<m_B+m_\pi$,
244: it is expected to have a
245: distinctive impact on the form factor. The parametrisations are:
246: \begin{itemize}
247: \item[(i)] Becirevic/Kaidalov (BK) \cite{BK}:
248: \begin{equation}\label{BK}
249: f_+(q^2) = \frac{f_+(0)}{\left(1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2\right)
250: \left(1-\alpha_{\rm BK}\,q^2/m_{B}^2\right)}\,,
251: \end{equation}
252: where $\alpha_{\rm
253: BK}$ determines the shape of $f_+$ and $f_+(0)$ the
254: normalisation;
255: \item[(ii)] Ball/Zwicky (BZ) \cite{BZ04}:
256: \begin{equation}\label{BZ}
257: f_+(q^2) = f_+(0)\left(\frac{1}{1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2} + \frac{r
258: q^2/m_{B^*}^2}{\left(1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2\right)\left(1-
259: \alpha_{\rm BZ}\,q^2/m_{B}^2\right)} \right),
260: \end{equation}
261: with the two shape parameters $\alpha_{\rm BZ}$, $r$ and the
262: normalisation $f_+(0)$; BK is a variant of BZ with $\alpha_{\rm BK} :=
263: \alpha_{\rm BZ} = r$;
264: \item[(iii)] the AFHNV parametrisation of Ref.~\cite{flynn}, based on
265: an $(n+1)$-subtracted Omnes respresentation of $f_+$:
266: \begin{eqnarray}
267: f_+(q^2) \stackrel{n\gg 1}{=} \frac{1}{s_{th}-q^2}\,\prod_{i=0}^n \left[
268: f_+(q_i)^2 (s_{th} - q_i^2)\right]^{\alpha_i(q^2)}\,,\\
269: \mbox{with}\quad \alpha_i(s) = \prod_{j=0,j\neq i}^n
270: \frac{s-s_j}{s_i-s_j}\,, \quad s_{th} = (m_B+m_\pi)^2\,;
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: this parametrisation assumes that $f_+$ has {\em no} poles for $q^2<s_{th}$;
273: the shape parameters are $f_+(q_i^2)/f_+(q_0^2)$ with
274: $q_{0,\dots n}^2$ the subtraction points; following \cite{flynn},
275: we choose evenly spaced
276: $q_i^2 = q^2_{\rm max} i/n$; again the normalisation is
277: given by $f_+(0)$; the assumption of no $B^*$ pole is likely to mostly
278: impact the form factor at large $q^2$;
279: \item[(iv)] the BGL parametrisation based on analyticity of $f_+$
280: \cite{disper}:
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: f_+(q^2) & = & \frac{1}{P(t) \phi(q^2,q_0^2)}\,\sum_{k=0}^\infty
283: a_k(q_0^2) [z(q^2,q_0^2)]^k\,,\label{disper}\\
284: \mbox{with}\quad z(q^2,q_0^2) & = & \frac{\{(m_B+m_\pi)^2 - q^2\}^{1/2}
285: - \{(m_B+m_\pi)^2 - q_0^2\}^{1/2}}{ \{(m_B+m_\pi)^2 - q^2\}^{1/2}
286: + \{(m_B+m_\pi)^2 - q_0^2\}^{1/2}}
287: \end{eqnarray}
288: with $\phi(q^2,q_0^2)$ as given in \cite{disper}. The ``Blaschke'' factor
289: $P(q^2) = z(q^2,m_{B^*}^2)$ accounts for the $B^*$ pole. The expansion
290: parameters $a_k$ are constrained by unitarity to fulfill $\sum_k a_k^2
291: \leq 1$. $q_0^2$ is a
292: free parameter that can be chosen to attain the tightest possible
293: bounds, and it defines $z(q_0^2,q_0^2) = 0$; $|z|<1$ for
294: $q_0^2<(m_B+m_\pi)^2$.
295: The series in (\ref{disper}) provides a systematic expansion in the
296: small parameter $z$, which for practical purposes has to be truncated
297: at order $k_{\rm max}$. We let data decide where to truncate and do
298: a $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ analysis for increasing $k_{\rm max}$ till an
299: absolute minimum of $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ is reached.
300: The shape parameters are then given by
301: $\{a_k\} \equiv \{ \tilde a_k\}\times\mbox{const.}$
302: and we choose $\mbox{(const.)}^2 =
303: \sum_0^{k_{\rm max}} a_k^2$, which implies $\sum_0^{k_{\rm max}}
304: \tilde{a}_k^2=1$, so
305: that the $\tilde a_k$ can be parametrised by
306: generalised $k_{\rm max}+1$ dimensional spherical polar angles. For
307: $k_{\max}=2$ we choose
308: \begin{equation}\label{as}
309: \tilde a_0 = \cos \theta_1,\quad \tilde a_1 = \sin\theta_1\cos
310: \theta_2,\quad \tilde a_2 = \sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2,
311: \end{equation}
312: and for $k_{\rm max}=3$
313: \begin{equation}
314: \tilde a_0 = \cos \theta_1,\quad \tilde a_1 = \sin\theta_1\cos
315: \theta_2,\quad \tilde a_2 = \sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\cos\theta_3,\quad
316: \tilde a_3 = \sin\theta_1\sin\theta_2\sin\theta_3.
317: \end{equation}
318: We then minimize $\chi^2$ in $\theta_{i}$ for the shape of $f_+$,
319: for two choices of $q_0^2$:
320: \begin{itemize}
321: \item[(a)] $q_0^2 = (m_B+m_\pi) (\sqrt{m_B}-\sqrt{m_\pi})^2 =
322: 20.062\,{\rm GeV}^2$, which minimizes the possible values of $z$,
323: $|z|<0.28$, and hence also minimizes the truncation error of the series in
324: (\ref{disper}) across all $q^2$; the minimum $\chi^2$ is reached for
325: $k_{\rm max} = 2$;
326: \item[(b)] $q_0^2 = 0\,{\rm GeV}^2$ with
327: $z(0,0)=0$ and $z(q^2_{\rm max},0)= -0.52$, which minimizes the
328: truncation error for small and moderate $q^2$ where the data are most
329: constraining; the minimum $\chi^2$ is reached for $k_{\rm max} = 3$.
330: \end{itemize}
331: \end{itemize}
332: The advantage of BK and BZ is that they are both intuitive and simple;
333: they are obtained from the dispersion relation for $f_+$,
334: \begin{equation}\label{eq:disper}
335: f_+(q^2) = \frac{{\rm Res}_{q^2=m_{B^*}^2} f_+(q^2)}{q^2-m_{B^*}^2} +
336: \frac{1}{\pi} \,\int_{(m_B+m_\pi)^2}^\infty dt\,\frac{{\rm
337: Im}\,f_+(t)}{t-q^2-i \epsilon}\,,
338: \end{equation}
339: by replacing the second term on the right-hand side by an effective pole.
340: However, they cannot easily be extended to include more
341: parameters. AFHNV, on the other hand,
342: is based on a completely different approach, so it is interesting to
343: compare the best-fit results with those from the other approaches; its
344: shortcoming is the failure to include the $B^*$ pole, which is
345: possible, but difficult, see Ref.~\cite{flynn}. Finally, BGL offers a
346: systematic expansion whose accuracy can be adapted to that of the data
347: to be fitted, so we choose it as our default parametrisation.
348:
349: We determine the best-fit parameters for all four parametrisations
350: from a minimum-$\chi^2$ analysis.
351: Our results are given in Tabs.~\ref{tab1} and \ref{tab2}.
352: \begin{table}[tbp]
353: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
354: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
355: $$
356: \begin{array}{l||l|l}
357: & |V_{ub}| f_+(0) & \mbox{Remarks}\\\hline
358: {\rm BK} & (9.3\pm 0.3\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}
359: & \chi^2_{\rm min}=8.74/11\,{\rm dof}\\
360: & & \alpha_{\rm BK} = 0.53\pm 0.06\\\hline
361: {\rm BZ} & (9.1\pm 0.5\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}
362: & \chi^2_{\rm min}=8.66/10\,{\rm dof}\\
363: & & \alpha_{\rm BZ}
364: = 0.40^{+0.15}_{-0.22},\,r = 0.64^{+0.14}_{-0.13} \\\hline
365: {\rm BGLa} & (9.1\pm 0.6 \pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}
366: & \chi^2_{\rm min}=8.64/10\,{\rm dof}\\
367: && q_0^2 = 20.062\,{\rm GeV}^2\\
368: && \theta_1 = 1.12^{+0.03}_{-0.04},\,\theta_2 = 4.45\pm 0.06\\\hline
369: {\rm BGLb} & (9.1\pm 0.6 \pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4}
370: & \chi^2_{\rm min}=8.64/9\,{\rm dof}\\
371: && q_0^2 = 0\,{\rm GeV}^2\\
372: && \theta_1 = 1.41^{+0.02}_{-0.03},\,\theta_2 = 3.97\pm
373: 0.10\,,
374: \theta_3 = 5.11^{+0.67}_{-0.39}\\\hline
375: {\rm AFHNV} & (9.1\pm0.3\pm0.3)\times 10^{-4} & \chi^2_{\rm min} = 8.64/8\,{\rm
376: dof}\\
377: && f_+(q^2_{\rm max}\cdot \{1/4,2/4,3/4,4/4\})/f_+(0)\\
378: && = \{1.54\pm
379: 0.07,1.54\pm 0.11,5.4\pm 0.4,26\pm 11\}\\\hline\hline
380: {\rm SCET} & (8.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-4} & \mbox{using the method of
381: Ref.~\cite{grin}}
382: %{\rm QCDF} & (10.6\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-4}
383: %& \mbox{using $B^\pm\to\pi^\pm\pi^0$ from HFAG}
384: \end{array}
385: $$
386: \caption[]{Model-independent results
387: for $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$ using the BaBar data for the
388: spectrum \cite{BaBarSL} and the HFAG average for the total branching
389: ratio ${\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu)=(1.37\pm 0.08)\times 10^{-4}$
390: \cite{HFAG}. The results are obtained using different parametrisations
391: of the form factor $f_+(q^2)$:
392: Becirevic/Kaidalov (BK) \cite{BK}, Ball/Zwicky (BZ)
393: \cite{BZ04}, Boyd/Grinstein/Lebed (BGL) \cite{disper} and the Omnes
394: representation of Ref.~\cite{flynn} (AFHNV). The first error is induced by
395: the uncertainties of the parameters determining the shape of $f_+$;
396: these parameters are given in the right column (our result for
397: $\alpha_{\rm BK}$ coincides with that obtained in \cite{BaBarSL}). The
398: second error comes from the uncertainty of the branching ratio.
399: We also give the corresponding result obtained
400: from $B\to\pi\pi$ decays using SCET \cite{grin} (with
401: $\gamma=(53\pm 20)^\circ$); the error is purely
402: experimental.
403: % the theory error for the QCDF result is $\pm 0.1\times
404: % 10^{-4}$ from the uncertainty of input parameters: we choose
405: % $\lambda_B = (0.35\pm 0.15)\,$GeVS
406: % and $a_2^\pi(2\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.2\pm 0.1$ \cite{a2pi};
407: % see Ref.~\cite{QCDF} for a
408: % definition of these parameters. {\em should also look up Jaeger for
409: % NNLO?}
410: }\label{tab1}
411: \end{table}
412: In Tab.~\ref{tab1} we give the results for $|V_{ub}|f_+(0)$ obtained from
413: fitting the various parametrisations to the BaBar data for the
414: normalised partial branching fractions in 12 bins of $q^2$:
415: $q^2\in \{[0,2],[2,4],[4,6],[6,8],[8,10],[10,12],$ $[12,14],[14,16],[16,18],
416: [18,20],[20,22],[22,26.4]\}\,{\rm GeV}^2$; the absolute
417: normalisation is gi\-ven by the HFAG average of the
418: semileptonic branching ratio, Eq.~(\ref{4}).
419: It is evident that good values of $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ are
420: obtained for all parametrisations. We have also determined $\chi^2$
421: for the (parameter-free) simple-pole/vector-dominance
422: parametrisation $f_+\propto 1/(1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2)$ and find $\chi^2 =
423: 45.3$ implying that this shape is largely incompatible with data,
424: which confirms the result of Ref.~\cite{BZvub}. The central values of
425: $|V_{ub}|f_+(0)$ agree for all parametrisations with more than one
426: shape parameter, i.e.\ all parametrisations except the simplest one,
427: BK. The uncertainty induced by the shape parameters is largest for the
428: BGL parametrisation. As our final result we quote
429: \begin{equation}\label{16}
430: |V_{ub}|f_+(0) = (9.1\pm 0.6({\rm shape})\pm 0.3({\rm branching~
431: ratio}))\times 10^{-4}
432: \end{equation}
433: and choose BGLa as default parametrisation with best $\chi^2_{\rm
434: min}$ for a minimum number of parameters.
435: We would like to stress that this result is {\em completely
436: model-independent}, and also independent of the value of $|V_{ub}|$; it
437: relies solely on the experimental data for $B\to\pi\ell\nu$ from BaBar
438: for the spectrum \cite{BaBarSL} and the HFAG average of the branching
439: ratio, Eq.~(\ref{4}). Using the two competing results for
440: $|V_{ub}|$, (\ref{VubHFAG}) and (\ref{VubUT}), (\ref{16}) implies
441: \begin{equation}
442: \left.f_+(0)\right|_{\rm incl}=0.20\pm0.02\,,\qquad
443: \left.f_+(0)\right|_{\rm UTangles}=0.26\pm0.02\,.
444: \end{equation}
445: We also give the result for $|V_{ub}|
446: f_+(0)$ obtained from non-leptonic $B\to\pi\pi$ decays using SCET
447: \cite{grin}.
448: %and QCD factorisation \cite{QCDF}; both results
449: %differ from the model-independent result obtained
450: %from the BaBar data and also from each other.
451: The method used in \cite{grin} to obtain a constraint on
452: $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$ from the decay rates for $B^\pm\to \pi^\pm \pi^0$
453: and $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ and the CP asymmetries of the latter decay
454: is only valid at tree-level and to leading order in $1/m_b$;
455: corrections to this relation are of order $\alpha_s$ and $1/m_b$ and
456: apparently, according to the BaBar data, are of the order of
457: 15\%. It remains to be seen whether a calculation of these
458: corrections in SCET is feasible.
459: %As for the QCDF results, we include
460: % NLO $O(\alpha_s)$ and the chirally enhanced $1/m_b$ results, but
461: % apparently there are still sizeable $1/m_b$ or other corrections
462: % unaccounted for.
463: % Another possible explanation of the discrepancy between the SCET
464: % results and $B\to\pi \ell\nu$ might be the presence of new physics
465: % in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ decays, which include penguin diagrams and
466: % hence are sensitive to new physics.
467: %This does not apply,
468: % however, to the QCDF result, as $B^\pm \to\pi^\pm\pi^0$ is a pure
469: % tree decay decay, except for (tiny) electroweak penguin corrections,
470: % which are furthermore known to be small because of the absence of
471: % sizeable direct CP violation in that channel.
472:
473: In Fig.~\ref{fig1} we show the best fit curves for all parametrisations
474: together with the experimental data and error bars.
475: \begin{figure}[tb]
476: $$\epsfxsize=0.48\textwidth\epsffile{fig1.eps}$$
477: \vspace*{-30pt}
478: \caption[]{Experimental data for the normalised branching ratio
479: $\delta{\cal B}/{\cal B}$ per
480: $q^2$ bin, $\sum \delta{\cal B}/{\cal B}=1$, and best
481: fits. We have added statistical and systematic
482: errors in quadrature. The lines are the best fit results for
483: the five different parametrisations listed in Tab.~\ref{tab1}.
484: The increase in the last bin is due to
485: the fact that it is wider than the others ($4.4\,{\rm GeV}^2$ vs.\
486: $2\,{\rm GeV}^2$).}\label{fig1}
487: $$\epsfysize=5cm\epsffile{fig2a.eps}
488: \qquad\epsfysize=5cm\epsffile{fig2b.eps} $$
489: \vspace*{-30pt}
490: \caption[]{Left panel: best-fit form factors $f_+$ as a function of
491: $q^2$. The line is an overlay of all five parametrisations.
492: Right panel: best-fit form factors normalised to BGLa. Solid
493: line: BK, long dashes: BZ, short dashes: BGLb, short dashes with
494: long spaces: AFHNV.}\label{fig2}
495: \end{figure}
496: All fit curves basically coincide except for the BK parametrisation
497: which has a slightly worse $\chi^2_{\rm min}$.
498: This can be easily understood because BK has only
499: one shape parameter which is not sufficient to describe the whole
500: spectrum. Still, BK gives, within errors, the same result for
501: $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$ as the other parametrisations.
502: The situation becomes more
503: complicated, however,
504: if one wants to fit lattice data obtained at large $q^2$ to
505: BK, as done, for instance, in Ref.~\cite{FNALno};
506: we will come back to that point below when
507: discussing lattice data. In Fig.~\ref{fig2} we show
508: the best-fit form factors themselves. The curve in the left
509: panel is an overlay
510: of all five parametrisations; noticeable differences only occur for
511: large $q^2$, which is due to the fact that these points are
512: phase-space suppressed in the spectrum and hence cannot be fitted with
513: high accuracy. In the right panel we graphically
514: enhance the differences
515: between the best fits by normalising all parametrisations
516: to our preferred choice BGLa; for $q^2<25\,{\rm GeV}^2$, all best-fit form
517: factors agree within 2\%. It is also evident that BZ and AFHNV
518: yield too slow an increase for $q^2>25\,{\rm GeV}^2$, that is in close
519: proximity of the $B^*$ pole at $28.4\,{\rm GeV}^2$. For AFHNV this is
520: expected, as it features the pole at a slightly larger $q^2$,
521: $(m_B+m_\pi)^2 = 29.4\,{\rm GeV}^2$. In Tab.~\ref{tab2} we give explicit
522: values for the best-fit form factors for various $q^2$.
523:
524: \begin{table}[tbp]
525: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
526: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
527: $$
528: \begin{array}{l||l|l|l|l|l}
529: & {\rm BK} & {\rm BZ} & {\rm BGLa} & {\rm BGLb} & {\rm AFHNV}\\\hline
530: f_+(0) & 0.26\pm 0.01 & 0.26\pm 0.01 & 0.26\pm 0.02 & 0.26\pm 0.02
531: & 0.26\pm 0.01\\
532: f_+(5) & 0.35\pm 0.01 & 0.35\pm 0.01 & 0.36\pm 0.01 & 0.36\pm 0.01
533: & 0.36\pm 0.02\\
534: f_+(10) & 0.50\pm 0.01 & 0.51\pm 0.01 & 0.51\pm 0.01 & 0.51\pm 0.01
535: & 0.51\pm 0.02\\
536: f_+(15.23) & 0.80\pm 0.01 & 0.81\pm 0.02 & 0.81\pm 0.02 & 0.81\pm 0.02
537: & 0.80\pm 0.03\\
538: f_+(15.87) & 0.86\pm 0.01 & 0.86\pm 0.02 & 0.86\pm 0.02 & 0.86\pm 0.02
539: & 0.86\pm 0.04\\
540: f_+(16.28) & 0.90\pm 0.02 & 0.90\pm 0.02 & 0.90\pm 0.03 & 0.90\pm 0.03
541: & 0.90\pm 0.04\\
542: f_+(17.34) & 1.01\pm 0.02 & 1.02\pm 0.03 & 1.01\pm 0.04 & 1.01\pm 0.04
543: & 1.01\pm 0.04\\
544: f_+(18.39) & 1.15\pm 0.03 & 1.15\pm 0.05 & 1.15\pm 0.05 & 1.15\pm 0.06
545: & 1.15\pm 0.06\\
546: f_+(18.58) & 1.18\pm 0.04 & 1.18\pm 0.05 & 1.18\pm 0.05 & 1.18\pm 0.06
547: & 1.18\pm 0.06\\
548: f_+(19.45) & 1.33\pm 0.05 & 1.33\pm 0.07 & 1.32\pm 0.06 & 1.32\pm 0.08
549: & 1.33\pm 0.08\\
550: f_+(20.51) & 1.56\pm 0.06 & 1.55\pm 0.09 & 1.55\pm 0.08 & 1.54\pm 0.11
551: & 1.55\pm 0.10\\
552: f_+(21.56) & 1.86\pm 0.09 & 1.84\pm 0.12 & 1.84\pm 0.10 & 1.84\pm 0.15
553: & 1.85\pm 0.15\\
554: f_+(24.09) & 3.21\pm 0.21 & 3.13\pm 0.29 & 3.17\pm 0.23 & 3.17\pm 0.39
555: & 3.16\pm 0.53
556: \end{array}
557: $$
558: \vspace*{-10pt}
559: \caption[]{Results for $f_+(q^2)$ using the best fits collected in
560: Tab.~\ref{tab1} and the UTangles value for $|V_{ub}|$,
561: $(3.5\pm 0.18)\times 10^{-3}$. The errors refer to the
562: fit of the various parametrisations to the data; the additional
563: error induced by $|V_{ub}|$ is $\pm 5\%$ and that from the total
564: branching ratio $\pm 3\%$.}\label{tab2}
565:
566: \medskip
567:
568: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
569: %\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
570: $$
571: \begin{array}{c|c||c|c||c|c}
572: q^2\,[{\rm GeV}]^2
573: & \mbox{LCSRs \cite{BZ04}} & q^2\,[{\rm GeV}]^2 & \mbox{HPQCD \cite{HPQCD}} &
574: q^2\,[{\rm GeV}]^2 & \mbox{FNAL \cite{grin}}\\\hline
575: 0 & 0.26\pm 0.03
576: & 15.23 & 0.649\pm 0.063
577: & 15.87 & 0.799\pm 0.058%\pm 0.088
578: \\
579: 2 & 0.29\pm 0.03
580: & 16.28 & 0.727\pm 0.064
581: & 18.58 & 1.128\pm 0.086%\pm 0.124
582: \\
583: 4 & 0.33\pm 0.04
584: & 17.34 & 0.815\pm0.065
585: & 24.09 & 3.262\pm0.324%\pm 0.359
586: \\
587: 6 & 0.38\pm0.05
588: & 18.39 & 0.944\pm 0.066
589: &
590: \\
591: 8 & 0.44\pm 0.05
592: & 19.45 & 1.098\pm 0.067
593: &
594: \\
595: 10 & 0.52\pm 0.06
596: & 20.51 & 1.248\pm0.097
597: &
598: \\
599: &
600: & 21.56 & 1.554\pm0.156
601: &
602: \end{array}
603: $$
604: %vspace*{-10pt}
605: \caption[]{Theoretical predictions of $f_+(q^2)$ from LCSRs
606: \cite{BZ04} and lattice \cite{HPQCD,grin}.
607: The errors quoted for HPQCD are combined
608: statistical and chiral extrapolation errors.
609: The FNAL numbers are quoted
610: from Ref.~\cite{grin}, as we were unable to track down any
611: publication of the FNAL group giving these numbers; the error
612: is statistical.}\label{tab3}
613: \end{table}
614:
615: \begin{table}[tb]
616: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
617: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
618: $$
619: \begin{array}{l||l|l}
620: & \mbox{BK} & \mbox{BGLa}\\\hline
621: \mbox{LCSR}
622: & f_+(0)=0.26\pm 0.03\,,\quad \alpha_{\rm BK} = 0.63^{+0.18}_{-0.21}
623: & f_+(0)=0.26\pm 0.03\\
624: \mbox{Ref.~\cite{BZ04}}
625: & |V_{ub}| = (3.5\pm 0.6\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-4} & |V_{ub}| = (3.5\pm
626: 0.4\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-4}\\
627: & |V_{ub}| f_+(0) = (9.0^{+0.7}_{-0.6}\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-4} &\\
628: \mbox{exp. input} & {\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu)_{q^2\leq 16\,{\rm
629: GeV}^2}
630: & {\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu) \mbox{~and~BGLa}\\
631: & = (0.95\pm 0.07)\times 10^{-4}
632: & \mbox{parameters from Tab.~\ref{tab1}}\\ \hline
633: \mbox{HPQCD}
634: & f_+(0)=0.21\pm 0.03\,,\quad \alpha_{\rm BK} = 0.56^{+0.08}_{-0.11}
635: & f_+(0)=0.21\pm 0.03\\
636: \mbox{Ref.~\cite{HPQCD}}
637: & |V_{ub}| = (4.3\pm 0.7\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4} & |V_{ub}| = (4.3\pm
638: 0.5\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-4}\\
639: & |V_{ub}| f_+(0) = (8.9^{+1.2}_{-0.9}\pm 0.4)\times 10^{-4} &\\
640: \mbox{exp. input} & {\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu)_{q^2\geq 16\,{\rm
641: GeV}^2}
642: & {\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu) \mbox{~and~BGLa}\\
643: & = (0.35\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-4}
644: & \mbox{parameters from Tab.~\ref{tab1}}\\ \hline
645: \mbox{FNAL}
646: & f_+(0)=0.23\pm 0.03\,,\quad \alpha_{\rm BK} = 0.63^{+0.07}_{-0.10}
647: & f_+(0)=0.25\pm 0.03\\
648: \mbox{Ref.~\cite{grin}}
649: & |V_{ub}| = (3.6\pm 0.6\pm 0.2)\times 10^{-4} &
650: |V_{ub}| = (3.7\pm 0.4\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-4}\\
651: & |V_{ub}| f_+(0) = (8.2^{+1.0}_{-0.8}\pm 0.3)\times 10^{-4} &\\
652: \mbox{exp. input} & {\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu)_{q^2\geq 16\,{\rm
653: GeV}^2}
654: & {\cal B}(B\to\pi \ell\nu)\mbox{~and~BGLa}\\
655: & = (0.35\pm 0.04)\times 10^{-4}
656: & \mbox{parameters from Tab.~\ref{tab1}}
657: \end{array}
658: $$
659: \caption[]{$|V_{ub}|$ and $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$ from various theoretical
660: methods. The column labelled BK gives the results obtained from a
661: fit of the form factor to the BK parametrisation, and the column
662: labelled BGLa that from a fit of $f_+(0)$
663: to the best-fit BGLa parametrisation from Tab.~\ref{tab1}. The first
664: uncertainty comes from the shape parameters, the second from the
665: experimental branching ratios;
666: the latter are taken from HFAG \cite{HFAG}.
667: }\label{tab4}
668: \end{table}
669:
670: As mentioned above, theoretical predictions for $f_+$ are available
671: from lattice calculations and LSCR and are
672: collected in Tab.~\ref{tab3}. The LCSR calculations \cite{BZ04}
673: include twist 2 and 3 contributions to $O(\alpha_s)$ accuracy and twist-4
674: contributions at tree-level. The lattice calculations are unquenched
675: with $N_f=2+1$ dynamical flavours, i.e.\
676: mass-degenerate $u$ and $d$ quarks and a heavier $s$ quark. These
677: quarks are described by an improved staggered quark action, which
678: allows a simulation much closer to the (physical) chiral limit than
679: with alternative actions. The two calculations differ in the treatment
680: of the $b$ quark: whereas HPQCD simulates it in
681: nonrelativistic QCD, FNAL employs a tadpole-improved clover action
682: with the Fermilab interpretation. The obvious questions are (a) whether these
683: predictions are compatible with the experimentally determined shape of
684: the form factor and (b) what the resulting value of $|V_{ub}|$
685: is. In order to answer these questions, we fit the lattice and LCSR
686: form factors to the BK parametrisation and extract $|V_{ub}|$, for
687: lattice, from ${\cal B}(B\to\pi\ell\nu)_ {q^2\geq 16\,{\rm
688: GeV}^2}$, and for LCSR from ${\cal B}(B\to\pi\ell\nu)_ {q^2\leq 16\,{\rm
689: GeV}^2}$; the cuts in $q^2$ are imposed in order to minimise any
690: uncertainty from extrapolating in $q^2$.
691: In our fits we treat the theory errors given in
692: Tab.~\ref{tab3} as uncorrelated and add another 12\% fully correlated
693: systematic error, both for LCSR and lattice predictions, which
694: is the procedure followed by experimental and
695: lattice papers (with the exception of Ref.~\cite{HPQCD} where BZ is
696: used).
697: The results are shown in the BK column of
698: Tab.~\ref{tab4}. Equipped with the experimental information on the form factor
699: shape, i.e.\ the BGLa parametrisation of Tab.~\ref{tab1},
700: we suggest a different procedure and
701: perform a fit of the theoretical predictions to
702: this shape, with the normalisation as fit parameter. The corresponding
703: results are shown in the right column. Comparing these results, we
704: observe the following:
705: \begin{itemize}
706: \item $|V_{ub}|$ from LCSR and FNAL is in better agreement with the
707: UTangles value (\ref{VubUT}) than that from inclusive decays
708: (\ref{VubHFAG}); $|V_{ub}|$ from HPQCD agrees with (\ref{VubHFAG});
709: the discrepancy between LCSR and (\ref{VubHFAG}) is at the $2\sigma$
710: level, for FNAL it is slightly smaller;
711: \item the difference in results for the two parametrisations is
712: strongest for FNAL, which is due to the small number of theory input
713: points (3); the ``quality'' of the BK
714: parametrisation can be measured by the result for $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$
715: which for LCSR and HPQCD perfectly agrees with the experimental
716: value (\ref{16}), whereas the central value for FNAL is a bit low;
717: \item comparing the errors for $|V_{ub}|$ in both columns,
718: it is evident that the main impact of the experimentally fixed
719: shape, i.e.\ using the BGLa parametrisation of $f_+$,
720: is a reduction of both theory and experimental errors; this is due to the
721: fact that, once the shape is fixed, $|V_{ub}|$ can be determined
722: from the full branching ratio with only 3\% experimental
723: uncertainty, whereas the partical branching fractions in the BK
724: column induce 4\% and 6\% uncertainty, respectively, for $|V_{ub}|$;
725: the theory error becomes smaller because the errors on $f_+$ in
726: Tab.~\ref{tab3} are still rather large, which implies errors
727: on the shape parameter $\alpha_{BK}$ which are larger than those of
728: the experimentally fixed shape parameters.
729: \end{itemize}
730: The main conclusion from this discussion is that both LCSR and FNAL
731: predictions for $f_+$ support the UTangles value for $|V_{ub}|$,
732: and differ at the $2\sigma$ level from the inclusive $|V_{ub}|$,
733: whereas HPQCD supports the inclusive result. Using the experimentally
734: fixed shape of $f_+$ in the analysis instead of fitting it to the
735: theoretical input points reduces both the theoretical and experimental
736: uncertainty of the extracted $|V_{ub}|$.
737:
738: To summarize, we have presented a truly model-independent
739: determination of the quantity $|V_{ub}| f_+(0)$ from the experimental data
740: for the spectrum of $B\to\pi\ell\nu$ in the invariant lepton mass
741: provided by the BaBar collaboration \cite{BaBarSL};
742: our result is given in (\ref{16}). We
743: have found that the BZ, BGL and AFHNV parametrisations of the form
744: factor yield, to within 2\% accuracy, the same results for
745: $q^2<25\,{\rm GeV}^2$. We then have used the best-fit BGLa shape of $f_+$ to
746: determine $|V_{ub}|$ using three different theoretical predictions for
747: $f_+$, QCD sum rules on the light-cone \cite{BZ04}, and the lattice
748: results of the HPQCD \cite{HPQCD} and FNAL collaborations
749: \cite{FNALno,grin}. The advantage of this procedure compared to that
750: employed in previous works, where the shape was determined from the
751: theoretical calculation itself, is a
752: reduction of both experimental and theoretical uncertainties of the
753: resulting value of $|V_{ub}|$. We have found that the LCSR and FNAL
754: form factors yield values for $|V_{ub}|$ which
755: agree with the UTangles result, but
756: differ, at the $2\sigma$ level, from the HFAG value
757: obtained from inclusive decays. The HPQCD form factor, on
758: the other hand, is compatible with both UTangles and the inclusive
759: $|V_{ub}|$. Our results show a certain preference for the UTangles
760: result for $|V_{ub}|$, disfavouring a new-physics scenario in $B_d$
761: mixing, and highlight the quite urgent need for a
762: re-analysis the inclusive case.
763:
764: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
765: This work was supported in part by the EU-RTN network {\sc
766: Flavianet}, contract No.\
767: MRTN-CT-2006-035482.
768:
769: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
770:
771: \bibitem{ARGUS}
772: H.~Albrecht {\it et al.} [ARGUS Collaboration],
773: %``OBSERVATION OF SEMILEPTONIC CHARMLESS B MESON DECAYS,''
774: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 234} (1990) 409.
775: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B234,409;%%
776:
777: \bibitem{manifesto}
778: I.~I.~Bigi {\it et al.},
779: %``A QCD 'manifesto' on inclusive decays of beauty and charm,''
780: arXiv:hep-ph/9212227.
781: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9212227;%%
782:
783: \bibitem{einan}
784: J.~R.~Andersen and E.~Gardi,
785: %``Inclusive spectra in charmless semileptonic B decays by dressed gluon
786: %exponentiation,''
787: JHEP {\bf 0601} (2006) 097
788: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509360].
789: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509360;%%
790:
791: \bibitem{neubert}
792: S.~W.~Bosch, B.~O.~Lange, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,
793: %``Factorization and shape-function effects in inclusive B-meson decays,''
794: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699} (2004) 335
795: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402094];\\
796: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0402094;%%
797: B.~O.~Lange, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,
798: %``Theory of charmless inclusive B decays and the extraction of V(ub),''
799: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 073006
800: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504071].
801: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504071;%%
802:
803: \bibitem{HFAG}
804: E. Barberio {\it et al.} [HFAG],
805: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''
806: arXiv:hep-ex/0603003; updated results available at {\tt
807: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}.
808: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603003;%%
809: \bibitem{alpha}
810: M.~Gronau and D.~London,
811: %``Isospin Analysis Of CP Asymmetries In B Decays,''
812: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 65} (1990) 3381;\\
813: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,3381;%%
814: A.~E.~Snyder and H.~R.~Quinn,
815: %``Measuring CP asymmetry in B $\to$ rho pi decays without ambiguities,''
816: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48} (1993) 2139.
817: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,2139;%%
818:
819: \bibitem{gamma}
820: M.~Gronau and D.~London.,
821: %``How to determine all the angles of the unitarity triangle from B(d)0 $\to$
822: %D K(s) and B(s)0 $\to$ D0,''
823: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 253} (1991) 483;\\
824: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B253,483;%%
825: M.~Gronau and D.~Wyler,
826: %``On determining a weak phase from CP asymmetries in charged B decays,''
827: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 265} (1991) 172;\\
828: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B265,172;%%
829: I.~Dunietz,
830: %``CP Violation With Beautiful Baryons,''
831: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 56} (1992) 129;\\
832: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C56,129;%%
833: D.~Atwood, G.~Eilam, M.~Gronau and A.~Soni,
834: %``Enhancement of CP violation in B+- $\to$ K(i)+- D0 by resonant effects,''
835: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 341} (1995) 372
836: [arXiv:hep-ph/9409229];
837: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9409229;%%
838: %D.~Atwood, I.~Dunietz and A.~Soni,
839: % ``Enhanced CP violation with B --> K D0 (anti-D0) modes and extraction of
840: %the CKM angle gamma,''
841: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 78} (1997) 3257
842: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612433];
843: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612433;%%
844: %D.~Atwood, I.~Dunietz and A.~Soni,
845: % ``Improved methods for observing CP violation in B+- --> K D and measuring
846: %the CKM phase gamma,''
847: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 036005
848: [arXiv:hep-ph/0008090];\\
849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008090;%%
850: A.~Giri, Y.~Grossman, A.~Soffer and J.~Zupan,
851: %``Determining gamma using B+- --> D K+- with multibody D decays,''
852: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 054018
853: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303187].
854: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303187;%%
855:
856: \bibitem{2bpg}
857: I.~Dunietz,
858: %``Clean CKM information from B/d(t) $\to$ D*-+ pi+-,''
859: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 427} (1998) 179
860: [arXiv:hep-ph/9712401].
861: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712401;%%
862:
863: \bibitem{cos2b}
864: I.~Dunietz {\it et al.}, %H.~R.~Quinn, A.~Snyder, W.~Toki and H.~J.~Lipkin,
865: %``How To Extract CP Violating Asymmetries From Angular Correlations,''
866: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 43} (1991) 2193;\\
867: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D43,2193;%%
868: J.~Charles {\it et al.}, %A.~Le Yaouanc, L.~Oliver, O.~Pene and J.~C.~Raynal,
869: %``New CP observables in B0(t) $\to$ hyperon + antihyperon from parity
870: %violation in the sequential decay,''
871: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 114021
872: [arXiv:hep-ph/9806347];\\
873: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806347;%%
874: A.~S.~Dighe, I.~Dunietz and R.~Fleischer,
875: %``Resolving a discrete ambiguity in the CKM angle beta through B(u,d) $\to$
876: %J/psi K* and B/s $\to$ J/psi Phi decays,''
877: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 433} (1998) 147
878: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804254].
879: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804254;%%
880:
881: \bibitem{D0p0}
882: I.~Dunietz and R.~G.~Sachs,
883: %``Asymmetry Between Inclusive Charmed And Anticharmed Modes In B0, Anti-B0
884: %Decay As A Measure Of CP Violation,''
885: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 37} (1988) 3186
886: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 39} (1989) 3515].
887: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,3186;%%
888:
889: \bibitem{sin2b}
890: I.~I.~Bigi and A.~I.~Sanda,
891: %``Notes On The Observability Of CP Violations In B Decays,''
892: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 193} (1981) 85.
893: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,85;%%
894:
895: \bibitem{UTfit}
896: M.~Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration],
897: % ``The unitarity triangle fit in the standard model and hadronic parameters
898: % from lattice QCD: A reappraisal after the measurements of Delta(m(s)) and
899: %BR(B --> tau nu/tau),''
900: arXiv:hep-ph/0606167; updated results available at {\tt
901: http://www.utfit.org/}.
902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0606167;%%
903:
904: \bibitem{CKMfitter}
905: J.~Charles {\it et al.} [CKMfitter group],
906: %``CP violation and the CKM matrix: Assessing the impact of the asymmetric B
907: %factories,''
908: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41} (2005) 1
909: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406184];
910: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406184;%%
911: updated results and plots available at {\tt http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr}.
912:
913: \bibitem{private}
914: A. Jantsch and H. Lacker, private communication
915:
916: \bibitem{Bellegamma}
917: A.~Poluektov {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
918: % ``Measurement of phi(3) with Dalitz plot analysis of B+ --> D(*) K(*)+
919: %decay,''
920: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 112009
921: [arXiv:hep-ex/0604054].
922: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0604054;%%
923:
924: \bibitem{BaBargamma}
925: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
926: % ``Measurement of the CKM angle gamma in B-+ --> D(*) K-+ decays with a Dalitz
927: %analysis of D0 --> K0(S) pi- pi+,''
928: arXiv:hep-ex/0607104.
929: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0607104;%%
930:
931: \bibitem{newphase}
932: A.J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel and F.~Schwab,
933: %``New aspects of B $\to$ pi pi, pi K and their implications for rare
934: %decays,''
935: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.~{\bf C45} (2006) 701
936: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512032];\\
937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512032;%%
938: M.~Bona {\it et al.}\ [UTfit Collaboration],
939: %``The UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle
940: %beyond the standard model. I: Model-independent analysis and minimal flavour
941: %violation,''
942: JHEP {\bf 0603} (2006) 080
943: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509219];\\
944: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509219;%%
945: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,
946: %``Probing new physics through B mixing: Status, benchmarks and prospects,''
947: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.~{\bf C} (2006) {\it in press} [arXiv:hep-ph/0604249].
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604249;%%
949:
950: \bibitem{MFV}
951: G.~D'Ambrosio, G.~F.~Giudice, G.~Isidori and A.~Strumia,
952: %``Minimal flavour violation: An effective field theory approach,''
953: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 645} (2002) 155
954: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207036].
955: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207036;%%
956:
957: \bibitem{FNALno}
958: M.~Okamoto {\it et al.},
959: %``Semileptonic D $\to$ pi / K and B $\to$ pi / D decays in 2+1 flavor lattice
960: %QCD,''
961: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 140} (2005) 461
962: [arXiv:hep-lat/0409116].
963: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0409116;%%
964:
965: \bibitem{HPQCD}
966: E.~Dalgic {\it et al.},
967: %``B meson semileptonic form factors from unquenched lattice QCD,''
968: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 074502
969: [arXiv:hep-lat/0601021].
970: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0601021;%%
971:
972: \bibitem{otherLCSR}
973: V.M.\ Belyaev, A. Khodjamirian and R. R\"uckl,
974: %``QCD calculation of the B $\to$ pi, K form-factors,''
975: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 60} (1993) 349
976: [hep-ph/9305348];\\
977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9305348;%%
978: A. Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
979: %``Perturbative QCD correction to the B $\to$ pi transition form-factor,''
980: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 410} (1997) 275
981: [hep-ph/9706303];\\
982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706303;%%
983: E. Bagan, P. Ball and V.M.\ Braun,
984: %``Radiative corrections to the decay B $\to$ pi e nu and the heavy quark
985: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417} (1998) 154
986: [hep-ph/9709243];\\
987: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709243;%%
988: P.~Ball,
989: %``B --> pi and B --> K transitions from {QCD} sum rules on the light-cone,''
990: JHEP {\bf 9809} (1998) 005
991: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802394];\\
992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802394;%%
993: A. Khodjamirian {\it et al.},
994: %``Predictions on B $\to$ pi anti-l nu/l, D $\to$ pi anti-l nu/l and D $\to$
995: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 114002
996: [hep-ph/0001297];\\
997: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001297;%%
998: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
999: %``Improved analysis of B --> pi e nu from QCD sum rules on the light-cone,''
1000: JHEP {\bf 0110} (2001) 019
1001: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110115].
1002: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110115;%%
1003:
1004: \bibitem{BZ04}
1005: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1006: %``New results on B $\to$ pi, K, eta decay formfactors from light-cone sum
1007: %rules,''
1008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 014015
1009: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406232].
1010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406232;%%
1011:
1012: \bibitem{VtdVts}
1013: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1014: %``|V(td)/V(ts)| from B --> V gamma,''
1015: JHEP {\bf 0604} (2006) 046
1016: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603232];\\
1017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603232;%%
1018: P.~Ball,
1019: %``Testing QCD sum rules on the light-cone in D --> (pi, K) l nu decays,''
1020: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641} (2006) 50
1021: [arXiv:hep-ph/0608116].
1022: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608116;%%
1023:
1024: \bibitem{moving}
1025: K.~M.~Foley and G.~P.~Lepage,
1026: %``Moving NRQCD for B form factors at high recoil,''
1027: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 119} (2003) 635
1028: [arXiv:hep-lat/0209135];\\
1029: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0209135;%%
1030: K.~M.~Foley, G.~P.~Lepage, C.~T.~H.~Davies and A.~Dougall,
1031: %``Moving NRQCD: B mesons at high velocities,''
1032: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 140} (2005) 470.
1033: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,140,470;%%
1034:
1035: \bibitem{bab}
1036: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1037: %``Study of $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ and $B \to \rho \ell \nu$ decays and
1038: %determination of $|V_{ub}|$,''
1039: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 051102
1040: [arXiv:hep-ex/0507003].
1041: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507003;%%
1042:
1043: \bibitem{BZvub}
1044: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1045: %``|V(ub)| and constraints on the leading-twist pion distribution amplitude
1046: %from B --> pi l nu,''
1047: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 625} (2005) 225
1048: [arXiv:hep-ph/0507076].
1049: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507076;%%
1050:
1051: \bibitem{BaBarSL}
1052: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1053: % ``Measurement of the B0 --> pi- l+ nu form factor shape and branching
1054: % fraction, and determination of |V(ub)| with a loose neutrino reconstruction
1055: %technique,''
1056: arXiv:hep-ex/0607060.
1057: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0607060;%%
1058:
1059: \bibitem{earlier}
1060: S.~B.~Athar {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
1061: % ``Study of the q**2 dependence of B --> pi l nu and B --> rho (omega) l nu
1062: %decay and extraction of |V(ub)|,''
1063: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 072003
1064: [arXiv:hep-ex/0304019];\\
1065: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0304019;%%
1066: T.~Hokuue {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
1067: % ``Measurements of branching fractions and q**2 distributions for B --> pi l
1068: %nu and B --> rho l nu decays with B --> D(*) l nu decay tagging,''
1069: arXiv:hep-ex/0604024.
1070: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0604024;%%
1071:
1072: \bibitem{BK}
1073: D.~Becirevic and A.~B.~Kaidalov,
1074: %``Comment on the heavy --> light form factors,''
1075: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478} (2000) 417
1076: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904490].
1077: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904490;%%
1078:
1079: \bibitem{flynn}
1080: C.~Albertus {\it et al.},
1081: %J.~M.~Flynn, E.~Hernandez, J.~Nieves and J.~M.~Verde-Velasco,
1082: % ``Semileptonic B --> pi decays from an Omnes improved nonrelativistic
1083: %constituent quark model,''
1084: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 033002
1085: [arXiv:hep-ph/0506048];\\
1086: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506048;%%
1087: J.~M.~Flynn and J.~Nieves,
1088: %``Extracting |V(ub)| from B --> pi l nu decays using a multiply-subtracted
1089: %Omnes dispersion relation,''
1090: arXiv:hep-ph/0607258.
1091: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607258;%%
1092:
1093: \bibitem{disper}
1094: C.~G.~Boyd, B.~Grinstein and R.~F.~Lebed,
1095: %``Constraints On Form-Factors For Exclusive Semileptonic Heavy To Light Meson
1096: %Decays,''
1097: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 74} (1995) 4603
1098: [arXiv:hep-ph/9412324];\\
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412324;%%
1100: C.~G.~Boyd and M.~J.~Savage,
1101: % ``Analyticity, shapes of semileptonic form factors, and anti-B --> pi l
1102: %anti-nu,''
1103: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 303
1104: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702300].
1105: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702300;%%
1106:
1107: \bibitem{grin}
1108: M.~C.~Arnesen, B.~Grinstein, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart,
1109: % ``A precision model independent determination of |V(ub)| from B --> pi e
1110: %nu,''
1111: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 071802
1112: [arXiv:hep-ph/0504209].
1113: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504209;%%
1114:
1115:
1116: \end{thebibliography}
1117:
1118: \end{document}
1119: \bibitem{QCDF1}
1120: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
1121: %``{QCD} factorization for B --> pi pi decays:Strong phases and CP violation
1122: %in the heavy quark limit,''
1123: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 1914
1124: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905312];\\
1125: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905312;%%
1126: M.~Beneke and M.~Neubert,
1127: %``QCD factorization for B --> P P and B --> P V decays,''
1128: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 675} (2003) 333
1129: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308039].
1130: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308039;%%
1131:
1132: \bibitem{QCDF2}
1133: M.~Beneke and S.~J\"ager,
1134: %``Spectator scattering at NLO in non-leptonic B decays: Tree amplitudes,''
1135: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 751} (2006) 160
1136: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512351];\\
1137: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512351;%%
1138: G. Bell, talk at ``Flavour in the era of the LHC'', Oct 2006,\\ {\tt
1139: http://mlm.home.cern.ch/mlm/FlavLHC.html}.
1140:
1141: \bibitem{a2pi}
1142: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and A.~Lenz,
1143: %``Higher-twist distribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD,''
1144: JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 004
1145: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603063];\\
1146: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603063;%%
1147: V.~M.~Braun {\it et al.},
1148: %``Moments of pseudoscalar meson distribution amplitudes from the lattice,''
1149: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 074501
1150: [arXiv:hep-lat/0606012].
1151: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0606012;%%
1152:
1153: \bibitem{PDG}
1154: W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1155: %``Review of particle physics,''
1156: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
1157: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
1158:
1159: \bibitem{dispersion}
1160: L.~Lellouch,
1161: %``Lattice-Constrained Unitarity Bounds for $\bar B~0\to\pi+\ell-\bar\nu_\ell$
1162: %Decays,''
1163: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 479} (1996) 353
1164: [arXiv:hep-ph/9509358];\\
1165: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509358;%%
1166: M.~Fukunaga and T.~Onogi,
1167: %``A model independent determination of $|$V(ub)$|$ using the global q**2
1168: %dependence of the dispersive bounds on the B $\to$ pi l nu form factors,''
1169: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 034506
1170: [arXiv:hep-lat/0408037].
1171: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0408037;%%
1172:
1173:
1174: \bibitem{QM}
1175: M.~Wirbel, B.~Stech and M.~Bauer,
1176: %``Exclusive Semileptonic Decays Of Heavy Mesons,''
1177: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 29} (1985) 637;\\
1178: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C29,637;%%
1179: J.~G.~K\"orner and G.~A.~Schuler,
1180: %``Exclusive Semileptonic Decays Of Bottom Mesons In The Spectator Quark
1181: %Model,''
1182: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 38} (1988) 511
1183: [Erratum-ibid.\ C {\bf 41} (1989) 690];\\
1184: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C38,511;%%
1185: N.~Isgur {\it et al.},
1186: %``Semileptonic B And D Decays In The Quark Model,''
1187: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 39} (1989) 799.
1188: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,799;%%
1189:
1190: \bibitem{lattdisper}
1191: L.~Lellouch,
1192: % ``Lattice-Constrained Unitarity Bounds for $\bar
1193: %B~0\to\pi~+\ell~-\bar\nu_\ell$ Decays,''
1194: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 479} (1996) 353
1195: [arXiv:hep-ph/9509358];\\
1196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9509358;%%
1197: M.~Fukunaga and T.~Onogi,
1198: % ``A model independent determination of |V(ub)| using the global q**2
1199: %dependence of the dispersive bounds on the B --> pi l nu form factors,''
1200: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 034506
1201: [arXiv:hep-lat/0408037].
1202: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0408037;%%
1203:
1204: \bibitem{deRafael}
1205: E.~de Rafael and J.~Taron,
1206: %``Constraints on heavy meson form-factors,''
1207: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 282} (1992) 215;
1208: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B282,215;%%
1209: % ``Analyticity properties and unitarity constraints of heavy meson
1210: %form-factors,''
1211: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 373
1212: [arXiv:hep-ph/9306214].
1213: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306214;%%
1214:
1215: \bibitem{omnes}
1216: S.~Mandelstam,
1217: % ``Determination Of The Pion - Nucleon Scattering Amplitude From Dispersion
1218: %Relations And Unitarity. General Theory,''
1219: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 112} (1958) 1344;\\
1220: %%CITATION = PHRVA,112,1344;%%
1221: K.~M.~Watson,
1222: % ``Some general relations between the photoproduction and scattering of pi
1223: %mesons,''
1224: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 95} (1954) 228.
1225: %%CITATION = PHRVA,95,228;%
1226: