1: \documentclass[12pt,prd,showpacs,tightenlines,nofootinbib]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{bm}

3: \usepackage{graphics}

4: \usepackage{rotating}

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \begin{document}

7: \begin{flushright}{HU-EP-06/42}\end{flushright}

8: \title{New analysis of semileptonic $B$ decays in

9: the relativistic quark model} 

10: \author{D. Ebert}

11: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt--Universit\"at zu Berlin,

12: Newtonstr. 15, D-12489  Berlin, Germany}

13: \author{R. N. Faustov}

14: \author{V. O. Galkin}

15: \affiliation{Institut f\"ur Physik, Humboldt--Universit\"at zu Berlin,

16: Newtonstr. 15, D-12489 Berlin, Germany}

17: \affiliation{Dorodnicyn Computing Centre, Russian Academy of Sciences,

18:   Vavilov Str. 40, 119991 Moscow, Russia}

19: 

20: \begin{abstract}

21: We present the new analysis of the semileptonic $B$ decays

22: in the framework of the relativistic quark model based on the

23: quasipotential approach. Decays both to heavy $D^{(*)}$ and light

24: $\pi(\rho)$ mesons are considered. All relativistic effects are

25: systematically taken into account including contributions of the

26: negative-energy states and the wave function transformation from the rest

27: to moving reference frame. For heavy-to-heavy transitions the

28: heavy quark expansion is applied. Leading and subleading Isgur-Wise

29: functions are determined as the overlap integrals of initial and final

30: meson wave functions. For heavy-to-light transitions the explicit

31: relativistic expressions are used to determine the dependence of the

32: form factors on the momentum transfer squared. Such treatment significantly

33: reduces theoretical uncertainties and increases reliability of

34: obtained predictions. All results for form factors, partial and total

35: decay rates agree well with recent experimental data and unquenched

36: lattice calculations. From this comparison we find the following

37: values of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa  matrix elements:

38: $|V_{cb}|=(3.85\pm0.15\pm 0.20)\times 10^{-2}$ and

39:  $|V_{ub}|=(3.82\pm0.20\pm0.20)\times 10^{-3}$, where the first error

40:  is experimental and the second one is theoretical. 

41: 

42: 

43: \end{abstract}

44: 

45: \pacs{12.39.Ki, 13.20.He, 12.15.Hh}

46: 

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: 

50: 

51: \section{Introduction}

52: \label{intr}

53: The investigation of the semileptonic decays of heavy $B$ mesons is an

54: important source for the determination of the parameters of the standard model,

55: such as Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements $V_{cb}$ and

56: $V_{ub}$. They also provide valuable insight in quark dynamics in the

57: nonperturbative domain of QCD. Recently significant experimental

58: progress has been achieved in studying exclusive semileptonic $B$

59: decays (for a recent review see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{kowal}). A very

60: important information on both the values of the total decay rates and 

61: the differential decay rate dependence on the momentum transfer

62: is becoming available. The experimental accuracy is constantly

63: increasing due to the large data accumulated at $B$ factories. For

64: most decay modes experimental errors are comparable to or already smaller

65: than theoretical ones. Thus the accurate extraction of the CKM matrix

66: elements from the semileptonic $B$ decays requires an increase in the

67: reliability and 

68: precision of theoretical methods for determining weak decay form

69: factors. Main theoretical approaches for calculating these form

70: factors are lattice QCD, QCD sum rules and constituent quark

71: models. Unfortunately, the first two approaches are applicable only in

72: limited regions: lattice QCD gives reliable results for high values of

73: the square of momentum transfer from the parent to daughter hadron

74: $q^2$, while QCD sum rules are suitable only for low $q^2$. Thus

75: extrapolations for the full $q^2$ region are at present inevitable in

76: these methods. On the other hand, quark models, which are not straightforwardly

77: related to QCD (at least this relation is not currently

78: established), allow to determine weak form factors in the whole

79: kinematical range. To give a correct description of semileptonic decays

80: such models should consistently and comprehensively account for

81: relativistic effects and use the wave functions which lead to correct

82: meson masses.  They should also respect all the relations imposed by

83: the symmetries of the QCD Lagrangian arising in the heavy quark limit.              

84: 

85: From a theoretical point of view the simplest semileptonic $B$ decays

86: are heavy-to-heavy transitions such as $B\to D^{(*)}e\nu$. The presence of

87: the heavy quark both in the initial and final mesons significantly

88: simplifies the understanding of such processes. The heavy quark

89: limit $m_Q\to\infty$ is a good initial approximation

90:  \cite{iw}. In this limit heavy quark symmetry emerges 

91: substantially reducing the number of independent characteristics which

92: are necessary  for the description of heavy-light meson properties

93: \cite{iw1}. Mass and spin decouple from the consideration and all

94: meson properties are determined by the light quark degrees of freedom

95: alone. This leads to symmetry relations between form

96: factors responsible for the heavy-to-heavy weak transitions. Thus one

97: needs considerably less independent functions. For the semileptonic

98: $B$ decay to the ground state $D^{(*)}$ meson all form factors

99: can be expressed through one Isgur-Wise function \cite{iw} which

100: is normalized to 1 at the point of zero recoil of the final

101: meson. However, in reality $b$ and $c$ quarks are not infinitely heavy

102: and therefore the corrections in inverse powers of the heavy quark

103: mass $m_Q$ (especially $m_c$) are important. Heavy quark effective

104: theory (HQET) \cite{n} is the adopted tool for a systematic

105: expansion of weak decay amplitudes in  $1/m_Q$. The coefficients in this

106: expansion are functions of the velocity transfer in the weak decay and

107: do not depend on spin and flavour of the heavy quarks. These functions

108: originate from the infrared (nonperturbative) region of QCD and thus

109: cannot be determined from first principles of QCD at present. It is

110: necessary to use some model assumptions in order to calculate these

111: functions.  Note that notwithstanding heavy quark

112: symmetry violation already in the first order in  $1/m_Q$, its

113: remnants remain and thus HQET significantly restricts the structure of

114: $1/m_Q$ corrections.  E.g., in the first order in $1/m_Q$ for $B$

115: decays to the ground state $D^{(*)}$ mesons one mass parameter and

116: four additional functions (two of which are normalized at the zero

117: recoil point) emerge instead of 12 possible ones. This is the

118: consequence of QCD and heavy quark symmetry. Thus all models which

119: pretend to describe correctly weak heavy-to-heavy transitions should

120: satisfy HQET symmetry relations. 

121: 

122: The theoretical description of exclusive semileptonic heavy-to-light $B$

123: decays, such as $B\to\pi(\rho)e\nu$, represents a more difficult task

124: since the final meson contains light quarks only. The expansion in

125: inverse powers of the $b$ quark mass does

126: not reduce the number of independent form

127: factors. Only relations between semileptonic and rare radiative decays

128: emerge in the heavy $b$ quark limit. It is important to note that in

129: these decays the final light meson has a large (compared to its mass)

130: recoil momentum (energy) in the rest frame of the decaying $B$ meson almost in the

131: whole kinematical range except the small region near the point of zero

132: recoil. The maximum value of recoil momentum is of order of

133: $m_b/2$. Thus near this point one can expand both in inverse powers of

134: the heavy $b$ quark mass and large recoil momentum of the final light

135: meson. Such expansions lead to the so-called large-energy effective

136: theory (LEET) \cite{dg}, to a new symmetry and as a result to the form factor

137: relations in the heavy 

138: quark and large recoil limits \cite{clopr,efgfr}. Large values of the recoil

139: momentum require the completely relativistic treatment of the

140: semileptonic heavy-to-light $B$ decays.

141: 

142: In our previous papers  \cite{fg,fgmslhh,fgmslhl} we considered

143: semileptonic $B$ decays to heavy $D^{(*)}$ and light $\pi(\rho)$

144: mesons in the framework of the relativistic quark model based on the

145: quasipotential approach. At that time taking into account large

146: experimental errors in the measured decay rates we used the simple

147: Gaussian parameterization for the meson wave functions. Moreover, we

148: calculated the heavy-to-light decay form factors only at the point of

149: maximum recoil of the final light meson using an expansion both in

150: inverse powers of the heavy $b$ quark and large recoil momentum of the

151: light meson. Then we employed a Gaussian or pole parameterization of the

152: form factors in order to extrapolate them to the whole kinematical

153: range. Such substitutions and extrapolations induced

154: significant theoretical errors in the obtained results, but the

155: accuracy was sufficient compared to large experimental uncertainties.

156: Since then, as it has been already mentioned before, the experimental

157: accuracy improved significantly. The main aim of this paper is to

158: revise our previous considerations of semileptonic $B$ decays

159: substantially increasing the precision and reliability. This is achieved

160: by using the wave functions of the heavy $B$, $D$ and light $\pi$,

161: $\rho$ mesons which were obtained by calculating their mass spectra

162: \cite{hlm,lmm}.  The complete expressions for the heavy-to-light decay

163: form factors are used for calculations and the determination of their

164: $q^2$ dependence, thus avoiding ad hoc parameterizations.      

165: In the following we concentrate on the study of the relativistic

166: effects and, for simplicity, neglect short-distance radiative corrections

167: \cite{n}  since their contribution does not exceed the uncertainty

168: of our calculations.    

169: 

170: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{rqm} we briefly

171: describe our relativistic quark model. Then in Sec.~\ref{mml}   we

172: discuss the relativistic calculation of the decay matrix element of

173: the weak current between meson states in the quasipotential

174: approach. Special attention is devoted to the contributions of the

175: negative energy states and the relativistic transformation of the wave

176: functions from the rest to the moving reference frame. Semileptonic $B$

177: decays to $D^{(*)}$ mesons are considered in Sec.~\ref{sec:bdsl} using

178: the heavy quark expansion in $1/m_Q$. Leading and subleading Isgur-Wise

179: functions are explicitly determined as the overlap integrals of the

180: initial and final meson wave functions. A comprehensive comparison with

181: recent experimental data is given and on this basis the value of the

182: CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ is determined.  In Sec.~\ref{sec:blsd}

183: semileptonic $B$ decays to $\pi$ and $\rho$ are investigated. The

184: parameterization of the calculated form factors in the whole

185: kinematical range is given. Total and partial decay rates are compared

186: with recent measurements and the value of the CKM matrix element

187: $|V_{ub}|$ is extracted. Section~\ref{sec:concl} contains our conclusions.    

188: 

189: 

190: 

191: \section{Relativistic quark model}  

192: \label{rqm}

193: 

194: In the quasipotential approach a meson is described by the wave

195: function of the bound quark-antiquark state, which satisfies the

196: quasipotential equation \cite{3} of the Schr\"odinger type \cite{4}

197: \begin{equation}

198: \label{quas}

199: {\left(\frac{b^2(M)}{2\mu_{R}}-\frac{{\bf

200: p}^2}{2\mu_{R}}\right)\Psi_{M}({\bf p})} =\int\frac{d^3 q}{(2\pi)^3}

201:  V({\bf p,q};M)\Psi_{M}({\bf q}),

202: \end{equation}

203: where the relativistic reduced mass is

204: \begin{equation}

205: \mu_{R}=\frac{E_1E_2}{E_1+E_2}=\frac{M^4-(m^2_1-m^2_2)^2}{4M^3},

206: \end{equation}

207: and $E_1$, $E_2$ are the center of mass energies on mass shell given by

208: \begin{equation}

209: \label{ee}

210: E_1=\frac{M^2-m_2^2+m_1^2}{2M}, \quad E_2=\frac{M^2-m_1^2+m_2^2}{2M}.

211: \end{equation}

212: Here $M=E_1+E_2$ is the meson mass, $m_{1,2}$ are the quark masses,

213: and ${\bf p}$ is their relative momentum.  

214: In the center of mass system the relative momentum squared on mass shell 

215: reads

216: \begin{equation}

217: {b^2(M) }

218: =\frac{[M^2-(m_1+m_2)^2][M^2-(m_1-m_2)^2]}{4M^2}.

219: \end{equation}

220: 

221: The kernel 

222: $V({\bf p,q};M)$ in Eq.~(\ref{quas}) is the quasipotential operator of

223: the quark-antiquark interaction. It is constructed with the help of the

224: off-mass-shell scattering amplitude, projected onto the positive

225: energy states. 

226: Constructing the quasipotential of the quark-antiquark interaction, 

227: we have assumed that the effective

228: interaction is the sum of the usual one-gluon exchange term with the mixture

229: of long-range vector and scalar linear confining potentials, where

230: the vector confining potential

231: contains the Pauli interaction. The quasipotential is then defined by

232: \cite{mass1}

233:   \begin{equation}

234: \label{qpot}

235: V({\bf p,q};M)=\bar{u}_1(p)\bar{u}_2(-p){\mathcal V}({\bf p}, {\bf

236: q};M)u_1(q)u_2(-q),

237: \end{equation}

238: with

239: $${\mathcal V}({\bf p},{\bf q};M)=\frac{4}{3}\alpha_sD_{ \mu\nu}({\bf

240: k})\gamma_1^{\mu}\gamma_2^{\nu}

241: +V^V_{\rm conf}({\bf k})\Gamma_1^{\mu}

242: \Gamma_{2;\mu}+V^S_{\rm conf}({\bf k}),$$

243: where $\alpha_s$ is the QCD coupling constant, $D_{\mu\nu}$ is the

244: gluon propagator in the Coulomb gauge

245: \begin{equation}

246: D^{00}({\bf k})=-\frac{4\pi}{{\bf k}^2}, \quad D^{ij}({\bf k})=

247: -\frac{4\pi}{k^2}\left(\delta^{ij}-\frac{k^ik^j}{{\bf k}^2}\right),

248: \quad D^{0i}=D^{i0}=0,

249: \end{equation}

250: and ${\bf k=p-q}$; $\gamma_{\mu}$ and $u(p)$ are 

251: the Dirac matrices and spinors

252: \begin{equation}

253: \label{spinor}

254: u^\lambda({p})=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon(p)+m}{2\epsilon(p)}}

255: \left(

256: \begin{array}{c}1\cr {\displaystyle\frac{\bm{\sigma}

257:       {\bf  p}}{\epsilon(p)+m}}

258: \end{array}\right)\chi^\lambda.

259: \end{equation}

260: Here  $\bm{\sigma}$   and $\chi^\lambda$

261: are the Pauli matrices and spinors; $\epsilon(p)=\sqrt{p^2+m^2}$.

262: The effective long-range vector vertex is

263: given by

264: \begin{equation}

265: \label{kappa}

266: \Gamma_{\mu}({\bf k})=\gamma_{\mu}+

267: \frac{i\kappa}{2m}\sigma_{\mu\nu}k^{\nu},

268: \end{equation}

269: where $\kappa$ is the Pauli interaction constant characterizing the

270: long-range anomalous chromomagnetic moment of quarks. Vector and

271: scalar confining potentials in the nonrelativistic limit reduce to

272: \begin{eqnarray}

273: \label{vlin}

274: V_V(r)&=&(1-\varepsilon)(Ar+B),\nonumber\\ 

275: V_S(r)& =&\varepsilon (Ar+B),

276: \end{eqnarray}

277: reproducing 

278: \begin{equation}

279: \label{nr}

280: V_{\rm conf}(r)=V_S(r)+V_V(r)=Ar+B,

281: \end{equation}

282: where $\varepsilon$ is the mixing coefficient. 

283: 

284: The expression for the quasipotential of the heavy quarkonia,

285: expanded in $v^2/c^2$ without and with retardation corrections to the

286: confining potential, can be found in Refs.~\cite{mass1,mass},

287: respectively. The 

288: structure of the spin-dependent interaction is in agreement with

289: the parameterization of Eichten and Feinberg \cite{ef}. The

290: quasipotential for the heavy quark interaction with a light antiquark

291: without employing the nonrelativistic ($v/c$)  expansion for the light quark

292: is given in Ref.~\cite{hlm}.  All the parameters of

293: our model like quark masses, parameters of the linear confining potential

294: $A$ and $B$, mixing coefficient $\varepsilon$ and anomalous

295: chromomagnetic quark moment $\kappa$ are fixed from the analysis of

296: heavy quarkonium masses \cite{mass1} and radiative

297: decays \cite{gf}. The quark masses

298: $m_b=4.88$ GeV, $m_c=1.55$ GeV, $m_{u,d}=0.33$ GeV and

299: the parameters of the linear potential $A=0.18$ GeV$^2$ and $B=-0.30$ GeV

300: have usual values of quark models.  The value of the mixing

301: coefficient of vector and scalar confining potentials $\varepsilon=-1$

302: has been determined from the consideration of the heavy quark expansion

303: for the semileptonic $B\to D$ decays

304: \cite{fg} and charmonium radiative decays \cite{gf}.

305: Finally, the universal Pauli interaction constant $\kappa=-1$ has been

306: fixed from the analysis of the fine splitting of heavy quarkonia ${

307: }^3P_J$- states \cite{mass1}. Note that the 

308: long-range  magnetic contribution to the potential in our model

309: is proportional to $(1+\kappa)$ and thus vanishes for the 

310: chosen value of $\kappa=-1$. It has been known for a long time 

311: that the correct reproduction of the

312: spin-dependent part of the quark-antiquark interaction requires 

313: either assuming  the scalar confinement or equivalently  introducing the

314: Pauli interaction with $\kappa=-1$ \cite{schn,mass1,mass} in the vector

315: confinement.

316: 

317: 

318: \section{Matrix elements of the weak current for

319:   $\bm{\lowercase{b\to c,u}}$ transitions} \label{mml}

320: 

321: In order to calculate the exclusive semileptonic decay rate of the

322: $B$ meson, it is necessary to determine the corresponding matrix

323: element of the  weak current between meson states.

324: In the quasipotential approach,  the matrix element of the weak current

325: $J^W_\mu=\bar f\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5)b$, associated with $b\to f$ ($f=c$

326: or $u$) transition, between a $B$ meson with mass $M_{B}$ and

327: momentum $p_{B}$ and a final meson $F$ ($F=D^{(*)}$ or $\pi(\rho)$)

328: with mass $M_F$  and momentum $p_F$ takes the form \cite{f} 

329: \begin{equation}\label{mxet} 

330: \langle F(p_F) \vert J^W_\mu \vert B(p_{B})\rangle

331: =\int \frac{d^3p\, d^3q}{(2\pi )^6} \bar \Psi_{F\,{\bf p}_F}({\bf

332: p})\Gamma _\mu ({\bf p},{\bf q})\Psi_{B\,{\bf p}_{B}}({\bf q}),

333: \end{equation}

334: where $\Gamma _\mu ({\bf p},{\bf

335: q})$ is the two-particle vertex function and  

336: $\Psi_{M\,{\bf p}_M}$ are the

337: meson ($M=B,F)$ wave functions projected onto the positive energy states of

338: quarks and boosted to the moving reference frame with momentum ${\bf p}_M$.

339: \begin{figure}

340:   \centering

341: %\vskip 1.5cm

342:   \includegraphics{diag1.eps}

343: \caption{Lowest order vertex function $\Gamma^{(1)}$

344: contributing to the current matrix element (\ref{mxet}). \label{d1}}

345: \end{figure}

346: 

347: \begin{figure}

348:   \centering

349: %\vskip 1.5cm

350:   \includegraphics{diag2.eps}

351: \caption{ Vertex function $\Gamma^{(2)}$

352: taking the quark interaction into account. Dashed lines correspond  

353: to the effective potential ${\cal V}$ in 

354: (\ref{qpot}). Bold lines denote the negative-energy part of the quark

355: propagator. \label{d2}}

356: \end{figure}

357: 

358: 

359:  The contributions to $\Gamma$ come from Figs.~\ref{d1} and \ref{d2}. 

360: The leading order vertex function $\Gamma^{(1)}$ corresponds to the impulse

361: approximation, while the vertex function $\Gamma^{(2)}$ accounts for

362: contributions of the negative-energy states. Note that the form of the

363: relativistic corrections resulting from the vertex function

364: $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is explicitly dependent on the Lorentz structure of the

365: quark-antiquark interaction. In the leading order of the  the heavy

366: quark expansion  ($m_{b,c}\to \infty$) for $B\to D$ transitions 

367: only $\Gamma^{(1)}$ contributes, while $\Gamma^{(2)}$  

368: contributes already at the subleading order. 

369: The vertex functions look like

370: \begin{equation} \label{gamma1}

371: \Gamma_\mu^{(1)}({\bf

372: p},{\bf q})=\bar u_{f}(p_f)\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma^5)u_b(q_b)

373: (2\pi)^3\delta({\bf p}_q-{\bf

374: q}_q),\end{equation}

375: and

376: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gamma2} 

377: \Gamma_\mu^{(2)}({\bf

378: p},{\bf q})&=&\bar u_{f}(p_f)\bar u_q(p_q) \Bigl\{\gamma_{1\mu}(1-\gamma_1^5)

379: \frac{\Lambda_b^{(-)}(

380: k)}{\epsilon_b(k)+\epsilon_b(p_q)}\gamma_1^0

381: {\cal V}({\bf p}_q-{\bf

382: q}_q)\nonumber \\ 

383: & &+{\cal V}({\bf p}_q-{\bf

384: q}_q)\frac{\Lambda_{f}^{(-)}(k')}{ \epsilon_{f}(k')+

385: \epsilon_{f}(q_f)}\gamma_1^0 \gamma_{1\mu}(1-\gamma_1^5)\Bigr\}u_b(q_b)

386: u_q(q_q),\end{eqnarray}

387: where the superscripts ``(1)" and ``(2)" correspond to Figs.~\ref{d1} and

388: \ref{d2},  ${\bf k}={\bf p}_f-{\bf\Delta};\

389: {\bf k}'={\bf q}_b+{\bf\Delta};\ {\bf\Delta}={\bf

390: p}_F-{\bf p}_{B_c}$;

391: $$\Lambda^{(-)}(p)=\frac{\epsilon(p)-\bigl( m\gamma

392: ^0+\gamma^0({\bm{ \gamma}{\bf p}})\bigr)}{ 2\epsilon (p)}.$$

393: Here \cite{f} 

394: \begin{eqnarray*} 

395: p_{f,q}&=&\epsilon_{f,q}(p)\frac{p_F}{M_F}

396: \pm\sum_{i=1}^3 n^{(i)}(p_F)p^i,\\

397: q_{b,q}&=&\epsilon_{b,q}(q)\frac{p_{B}}{M_{B}} \pm \sum_{i=1}^3 n^{(i)}

398: (p_{B})q^i,\end{eqnarray*}

399: and $n^{(i)}$ are three four-vectors given by

400: $$ n^{(i)\mu}(p)=\left\{ \frac{p^i}{M},\ \delta_{ij}+

401: \frac{p^ip^j}{M(E+M)}\right\}, \quad E=\sqrt{{\bf p}^2+M^2}.$$

402: 

403: It is important to note that the wave functions entering the weak current

404: matrix element (\ref{mxet}) are not in the rest frame in general. For example, 

405: in the $B$ meson rest frame (${\bf p}_{B}=0$), the final  meson

406: is moving with the recoil momentum ${\bf \Delta}$. The wave function

407: of the moving  meson $\Psi_{F\,{\bf\Delta}}$ is connected 

408: with the  wave function in the rest frame 

409: $\Psi_{F\,{\bf 0}}\equiv \Psi_F$ by the transformation \cite{f}

410: \begin{equation}

411: \label{wig}

412: \Psi_{F\,{\bf\Delta}}({\bf

413: p})=D_f^{1/2}(R_{L_{\bf\Delta}}^W)D_q^{1/2}(R_{L_{

414: \bf\Delta}}^W)\Psi_{F\,{\bf 0}}({\bf p}),

415: \end{equation}

416: where $R^W$ is the Wigner rotation, $L_{\bf\Delta}$ is the Lorentz boost

417: from the meson rest frame to a moving one, and   

418: the rotation matrix $D^{1/2}(R)$ in spinor representation is given by

419: \begin{equation}\label{d12}

420: {1 \ \ \,0\choose 0 \ \ \,1}D^{1/2}_{q,c}(R^W_{L_{\bf\Delta}})=

421: S^{-1}({\bf p}_{q,c})S({\bf\Delta})S({\bf p}),

422: \end{equation}

423: where

424: $$

425: S({\bf p})=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon(p)+m}{2m}}\left(1+\frac{\bm{\alpha}{\bf p}}

426: {\epsilon(p)+m}\right)

427: $$

428: is the usual Lorentz transformation matrix of the four-spinor.

429: 

430: The general structure of the current matrix element (\ref{mxet}) is

431: rather complicated, because it is necessary to integrate both with

432: respect to $d^3p$ and $d^3q$. The $\delta$-function in the expression

433: (\ref{gamma1}) for the vertex function $\Gamma^{(1)}$ permits to perform

434: one of these integrations. As a result the contribution of

435: $\Gamma^{(1)}$ to the current matrix element has the usual structure of

436: an overlap integral of meson wave functions and

437: can be calculated exactly (without employing any expansion) in the

438: whole kinematical range, if the wave functions of the

439: initial and final mesons are known. The situation with the contribution

440: $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is different. Here, instead of a $\delta$-function, we have

441: a complicated structure, containing the potential of the $q\bar

442: q$-interaction in the meson. It contains also the quark energies

443: $\epsilon_q(p)=\sqrt{m_q^2+{\bf p}^2}$, which explicitly depend on the

444: the relative quark momentum ${\bf p}$. The presence of such dependence

445: does not permit one, in the general case, to  get rid of one

446: of the integrations in the contribution of $\Gamma^{(2)}$ to the

447: matrix element (\ref{mxet}). Therefore, it is necessary to use some 

448: additional considerations in order to simplify calculations. The main

449: idea is to expand the vertex 

450: function $\Gamma^{(2)}$, given by (\ref{gamma2}), in such  a way that it

451: will be possible to use the quasipotential equation (\ref{quas}) in order

452: to perform one of the integrations in the current matrix element

453: (\ref{mxet}) and thus express this contribution to the decay matrix

454: element through the usual overlap integral of meson wave

455: functions. The realization of this strategy differs for the cases of

456: heavy-to-heavy and heavy-to-light transitions.  

457: 

458: 

459: 

460: \section{Semileptonic $B$ meson decays to $D$ mesons}

461: \label{sec:bdsl}

462: For the description of semileptonic $B$ decays to ground state $D$

463: mesons (heavy-to-heavy transitions) it is convenient to use the HQET

464: parameterization for the decay matrix elements \cite{n}:

465: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ff}

466:  {\langle D(v')| \bar c\gamma^\mu b |B(v)\rangle  

467: \over\sqrt{M_{D}M_B}}

468:   &=& h_+ (v+v')^\mu + h_- (v-v')^\mu , \cr\cr

469:   \langle D(v')| \bar c\gamma^\mu b \gamma_5 |B(v)\rangle 

470:   &=& 0, \cr\cr

471:   {\langle D^*(v',\epsilon)| \bar c\gamma^\mu b |B(v)\rangle  

472: \over\sqrt{M_{D^*}M_B}}

473:   &=& i h_V \varepsilon^{\mu\alpha\beta\gamma} 

474:   \epsilon^*_\alpha v'_\beta v_\gamma ,\cr\cr

475:   {\langle D^*(v',\epsilon)| \bar c\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 b |B(v)\rangle  

476: \over\sqrt{M_{D^*}M_B}}

477:   &=& h_{A_1}(w+1) \epsilon^{* \mu} 

478:    -(h_{A_2} v^\mu + h_{A_3} v'^\mu) (\epsilon^*\cdot v) ,

479:    \end{eqnarray}

480: where $v~(v')$ is the four-velocity of $B~(D^{(*)})$ meson,

481: $\epsilon^\mu$ is the polarization vector of the final vector meson,

482: and the form

483: factors   $h_i$ are dimensionless functions of the product of

484: four-velocities $$w=v\cdot

485: v'=\frac{M_B^2+M_{D^{(*)}}^2-q^2}{2M_BM_{D^{(*)}}},$$

486: and $q=p_B-p_{D^{(*)}}$ is the momentum transfer from the parent to

487: daughter meson. 

488: 

489: In HQET these form factors up to $1/m_Q$ are given by \cite{n}

490: \begin{eqnarray}\label{cffgs}

491: h_{+}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\xi+(\varepsilon_c+\varepsilon_b)\left[2\chi_1-4(w-1)\chi_2+

492: 12\chi_3\right],\cr\cr

493: h_{-}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!(\varepsilon_c-\varepsilon_b)\left[2\xi_3-\bar\Lambda\xi\right],\cr\cr 

494: h_V\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\xi+\varepsilon_c\left[2\chi_1-4\chi_3+

495: \bar\Lambda\xi\right]+\varepsilon_b\left[2\chi_1-4(w-1)\chi_2+

496: 12\chi_3+\bar\Lambda\xi

497: -2\xi_3\right],\cr\cr

498: h_{A_1}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\xi+\varepsilon_c\left[2\chi_1-4\chi_3+

499: \frac{w-1}{w+1}\bar\Lambda\xi\right]+\varepsilon_b\left[2\chi_1-4(w-1)\chi_2+

500: 12\chi_3+

501: \frac{w-1}{w+1}\left(\bar\Lambda\xi-2\xi_3\right)\right],\cr\cr

502: h_{A_2}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\varepsilon_c\left[4\chi_2-\frac2{w+1}\left(

503: \bar\Lambda\xi+\xi_3\right)\right],\cr\cr

504: h_{A_3}\!\!\!&=&\!\!\!\xi+\varepsilon_c\left[2\chi_1-4\chi_2-

505: 4\chi_3+\frac{w-1}{w+1}\bar\Lambda\xi^{(n)}-\frac2{w+1}\xi_3\right]\cr\cr

506: &&+\varepsilon_b\left[2\chi_1-4(w-1)\chi_2+

507: 12\chi_3+\bar\Lambda\xi-2\xi_3\right].

508: \end{eqnarray}

509: 

510: 

511: 

512: The calculation of the weak transition $B\to D^{(*)}$  matrix elements

513: using the heavy quark expansion shows that all model independent HQET

514: relations are satisfied in our model. In the limit of an infinitely heavy

515: quark all form factors are expressed through the Isgur-Wise function

516: \cite{iw} 

517: \begin{eqnarray}

518: &&h_+(w)=h_{A_1}(w)=h_{A_3}(w)=h_{V}(w)=\xi(w)\cr

519: &&h_{-}(w)=h_{A_2}(w)=0.

520: \end{eqnarray}

521: In our model this function is given as the overlap integral of

522: meson wave functions  \cite{fg}

523: \begin{equation} \label{iw}

524:   \xi(w)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{w+1}}\lim_{m_Q\to\infty} \int

525:   \frac{d^3p}{(2\pi)^3} \bar\Psi_{D}\left({\bf p}+

526:     2\epsilon_q(p)\sqrt{\frac{w-1}{w+1}} {\bf

527:       e_\Delta}\right)\Psi_B({\bf p}),

528: \end{equation} 

529: where $ {\bf e_\Delta}={\bf \Delta}/\sqrt{{\bf \Delta}^2}$ is the unit

530: vector in the direction of ${\bf \Delta}=M_D{\bf v}'-M_B{\bf v}$. In order

531: to fulfill the HQET relations (\ref{cffgs}) in the first order of the heavy

532: quark $1/m_Q$ expansion it is necessary to set

533: $(1-\varepsilon)(1+\kappa)=0$, which leads to the vanishing long-range

534: chromomagnetic interaction.  This condition is satisfied by our choice

535: of the anomalous chromomagnetic quark moment $\kappa=-1$. To fulfill the HQET

536: relations at second order in  $1/m_Q$ it is necessary to set

537: $\varepsilon=-1$ \cite{fg}. This gives an additional justification, based

538: on the heavy quark symmetry and heavy quark expansion in QCD, of the

539: choice of the characteristic parameters of our model.  In the infinitely

540: heavy quark mass limit the wave functions of initial $\Psi_B$ and

541: final $\Psi_D$ heavy mesons coincide. As the result the HQET

542: normalization condition \cite{n} $$\xi(1)=1$$ is exactly

543: reproduced. The first order Isgur-Wise functions are given by

544: \cite{fg}  

545: \begin{eqnarray}

546: \label{fo}

547: \xi_3(w) &=& (\bar\Lambda -m_q) \left(1+

548: \frac{2}{3}\frac{w-1}{w+1}\right)\xi(w), \nonumber\\

549: \chi_1(w)&=&\bar\Lambda\frac{w-1}{w+1}\xi(w), \nonumber\\

550: \chi_2(w)&=&-\frac{1}{32}\frac{\bar\Lambda}{w+1}\xi(w), \nonumber\\

551: \chi_3(w)&=&\frac{1}{16}\bar\Lambda\frac{w-1}{w+1}\xi(w),

552: \end{eqnarray}

553: where the HQET parameter $\bar \Lambda =M-m_Q$ is equal to the mean energy

554: of a light quark in a heavy meson $$\bar 

555: \Lambda=\langle \varepsilon_q\rangle\simeq0.56\ \mbox{GeV}.$$

556: The functions $\chi_1$ and $\chi_3$ explicitly satisfy normalization

557: conditions at the zero recoil point  \cite{luke} 

558: $$\chi_1(1)=\chi_3(1)=0,$$

559: arising from vector current conservation.

560: 

561: 

562: 

563: 

564: \begin{figure}%[tb]

565:   \centering

566:   \includegraphics[width=10cm]{xi.eps}\\

567: \vspace*{-0.2cm}\hspace*{0.8cm}$ w$

568:  \caption{The Isgur-Wise function $\xi(w)$.}

569:   \label{fig:xi}

570: \end{figure}

571: \begin{figure}%[tbh]

572:   \centering

573:   \includegraphics[width=10cm]{xi3chi1.eps}\\

574: \vspace*{-0.2cm}\hspace*{0.8cm}$ w$

575:  \caption{The first order functions $\xi_3(w)/\bar\Lambda$ (bold line)

576:    and $\chi_1(w)/\bar\Lambda$ (solid line).} 

577:   \label{fig:xi3chi1}

578: \end{figure}

579: \begin{figure}%[tbh]

580:   \centering

581:   \includegraphics[width=10cm]{chi23.eps}\\

582: \vspace*{-0.4cm}\hspace*{1.3cm}$ w$

583:  \caption{The first order functions $-\chi_2(w)/\bar\Lambda$ (bold

584:    line) and $\chi_3(w)/\bar\Lambda$ (solid line).} 

585:   \label{fig:chi23}

586: \end{figure}

587: In Figs.~\ref{fig:xi}--\ref{fig:chi23} we plot the Isgur-Wise

588: functions calculated with numerical wave functions determined in the

589: process of their mass calculations \cite{hlm}.  Near the zero recoil

590: point of the final meson $w=1$ the Isgur-Wise function can be written

591: as  

592: \begin{equation}

593:   \label{eq:iwexp}

594:   \xi(w)=1-\rho^2(w-1)+c(w-1)^2+\cdots,

595: \end{equation}

596: where  $\rho^2=-[d\xi(w)/dw]_{w=1}\simeq1.04$ is the slope and 

597: $c=(1/2)[d^2\xi(w)/d^2w]_{w=1}\simeq1.36$ is the curvature of the

598: Isgur-Wise function. The slope $\rho^2$ can be compared to the recent

599: quenched lattice QCD evaluation \cite{ukqcd}: $\rho^2

600: =0.83^{+15+24}_{-11-22}$. Note that both the slope and curvature of

601: the calculated Isgur-Wise function satisfy all known lower bounds (see

602: Ref.~\cite{lor} and references therein). 

603: 

604: 

605: The differential semileptonic decay  rate $B\to D\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ for

606: the massless leptons is given by \cite{n} 

607: \begin{eqnarray}

608: \label{dgbd}

609: \frac{d\Gamma}{d w}=\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi^3}\,|V_{cb}|^2\,M_D^3\,

610: (w^2-1)^{3/2}(M_B+M_D)^2\ F_D^2(w),                                       

611: \end{eqnarray}

612: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, and the form factor $F_D(w)$ is defined by

613: \begin{eqnarray}

614: F_D(w)=\bigg[h_+(w)-\frac{1-r}{1+r}\,h_-(w)\bigg],  \qquad r=\frac{M_D}{M_B}.

615: \end{eqnarray}

616: Near the zero recoil point the form factor $F_D(w)$ has the following

617: expansion

618: \begin{equation}

619:   \label{eq:fdexp}

620:   F_D(w)=F_D(1)[1-\rho_D(w-1)+c_D(w-1)^2+\cdots],

621: \end{equation}

622: where the value of $F_D(1)$, calculated by using the unexpanded in

623: $1/m_Q$ expressions (A1)--(A3) of Ref.~ \cite{fgmslhh}, is equal to

624: \begin{equation}

625:   \label{eq:fd1}

626:   F_D(1)=0.966.

627: \end{equation}

628: Quenched lattice QCD calculations \cite{hkkmrs} give the value

629: $F_D(1)=1.058\pm0.016\pm0.03^{+0.014}_{-0.005}$, while Ref.~\cite{cln}

630: predicts $F_D(1)=0.98\pm0.07$.

631: 

632: The slope of the form factor $F_D(w)$ at zero recoil $w=1$ in our model 

633: \begin{equation}\label{rhod}

634: \rho_D^2=\left.-\frac{1}{F_D(w)}\frac{d F_D(w)}{d w}\right|_{w=1}=

635: 0.88,

636: \end{equation}

637: is in good agreement with experimental values

638: \hbox{$\rho_D^2=0.76\pm0.16\pm0.08$}~\cite{cleofbd} and

639: \hbox{$\rho_D^2=0.69\pm0.14$}~\cite{bellefbd}, obtained by using the

640: linear fit of the data. The curvature of the form factor $F_D(w)$ is

641: equal to  

642:  $c_D=[1/(2F_D(1))][d^2F_D(w)/d^2w]_{w=1}\simeq0.75$.

643: 

644: 

645: \begin{figure}%[tb]

646:   \centering

647:   \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=-90]{fbd.eps}

648:  \caption{Comparison of experimental data and predictions of our model

649:    for the product 

650:  $F_D(w)|V_{cb}|$. Dots represent  CLEO data

651:    \cite{cleofbd} and diamonds  show Belle data \cite{bellefbd}. Solid lines are

652:    predictions of our model for 

653:    $|V_{cb}|=0.044,\ 0.039,\ 0.034$ (from top to bottom, respectively).}

654:   \label{fig:fdb}

655: \end{figure}

656: 

657: In Fig.~\ref{fig:fdb} we compare the results of our model for the

658: product $F_D(w)|V_{cb}|$ with the recent experimental data of CLEO

659: \cite{cleofbd} and  Belle \cite{bellefbd}.  It is seen that the form

660: factor $F_D(w)$ dependence on $w$ in our model is in good agreement

661: with measurements. The combined fit of CLEO 

662: ($F_D(1)|V_{cb}|=0.039\pm0.002$) and  Belle

663: ($F_D(1)|V_{cb}|=0.041\pm0.003$) data leads to the value of the

664: product of the form factor and CKM matrix element

665: $$F_D(1)|V_{cb}|=0.040\pm0.002.$$  

666: Using our prediction (\ref{eq:fd1}) for the form factor $F_D(1)$ 

667: we find the value of CKM matrix element 

668: \begin{equation}

669:   \label{eq:bdvcb}

670:   |V_{cb}|=0.0415\pm0.0020.

671: \end{equation}

672: 

673:  The differential semileptonic decay rate $B\to

674: D^*\,l\,\bar{\nu}$ is defined by \cite{n}

675: \begin{eqnarray}

676: \label{dgbdstar}

677: \frac{d\Gamma}{d w}&=&\frac{G_F^2}{48\pi^3}\,|V_{cb}|^2\,(M_B-M_{D^*})^2\,M_{D^*}^3\,

678: \sqrt{(w^2-1)}\,(w+1)^2\cr

679: &&\times\bigg[

680: 1+\frac{4w}{w+1}\ \frac{1-2wr^*+r^{*2}}{(1-r^*)^2}

681: \bigg]\ F_{D^*}^2(w),       \qquad r^*=\frac{M_{D^*}}{M_B} ,                     

682: \end{eqnarray}

683: where the form factor  $F_{D^*}(w)$ is given by

684: \begin{eqnarray}

685: F_{D^*}(w)=h_{A_1}(w)\sqrt{\frac{\tilde{H}_+^2(w)+

686: \tilde{H}_-^2(w)+\tilde{H}_0^2(w)}

687: {\displaystyle 1+\frac{4w}{w+1}\ \frac{1-2wr^*+r^{*2}}{(1-r^*)^2}}} .

688: \end{eqnarray}

689: The helicity amplitudes $\tilde{H}_j(w)$ 

690: \begin{eqnarray}

691: \tilde{H}_\pm(w)&=&\frac{\sqrt{1-2wr^*+r^{*2}}}{1-r^*}\left[

692: 1\mp\sqrt{\frac{w-1}{w+1}}\ R_1(w)

693: \right],\nonumber\\

694: \tilde{H}_0(w)&=&1+\frac{w-1}{1-r^*}\,[1-R_2(w)]

695: r\end{eqnarray}

696: are expressed through form factor ratios

697: \begin{eqnarray}

698: &&R_1(w)=\frac{h_V(w)}{h_{A_1}(w)},\nonumber\\

699: &&R_2(w)=\frac{h_{A_3}(w)+r^*\,h_{A_2}(w)}{h_{A_1}(w)}.

700: \end{eqnarray}

701: In the limit $m_Q\to\infty$, $R_1=R_2=1$ due to spin-flavour symmetry 

702: \cite{n}. Taking into account of $1/m_Q$ corrections breaks down this

703: symmetry relation. In our model using unexpanded in $1/m_Q$ formulas for the

704: form factors \cite{fgmslhh} we get the following expressions near the zero 

705: recoil point  $w=1$  

706:  \begin{eqnarray}

707:   \label{eq:ffexp}

708:   &&h_{A_1}(w)=0.918[1-0.86(w-1)+0.72(w-1)^2+\cdots],\cr

709: &&F_{D^*}(w)=0.918[1-0.66(w-1)+0.17(w-1)^2+\cdots],\cr

710: &&R_1(w)=1.39-0.23(w-1)+0.21(w-1)^2+\cdots,\cr

711: &&R_2(w)=0.92+0.12(w-1)-0.07(w-1)^2+\cdots.

712: \end{eqnarray}

713: It is necessary to note that the behaviour of the form factor $h_{A_1}(w)$

714: predicted by our model agrees, in general, with the parameterization  \cite{bgl} in

715: the whole kinematical range. On the other hand, the expansion of 

716: the form factor ratios  $R_1$ and $R_2$ is close to the QCD sum rule

717: results \cite{n}. Lattice QCD calculation \cite{hkmrs} gives the value

718: of $h_{A_1}(1)=0.9130^{+0.0238+0.0171}_{-0.0173-0.0302}$. Our

719: result for the difference of the slope parameters

720: $$\rho_{A_1}^2-\rho_{D^*}^2=0.20$$ is in agreement with previous calculations 0.21

721: \cite{cln} and 0.17 \cite{gl}. Comparing Eqs. (\ref{rhod}) and (\ref{eq:ffexp}) we

722: find the value of the slope difference 

723: $$\rho_{A_1}^2-\rho_{D}^2=-0.02,$$ which coincides with the one found in

724: Ref.~\cite{gl}.     

725: 

726: 

727: \begin{figure}%[tb]

728:   \centering

729:   \includegraphics[width=10cm,angle=-90]{fbdstar.eps}

730:  \caption{Comparison of experimental data and predictions of our model

731:    for the product $F_{D^*}(w)|V_{cb}|$. Dots show CLEO data for

732:    $B^+\to D^{*0} l^-\nu$, triangles -- CLEO data for $B^0\to D^{*+}

733:    l^-\nu$  \cite{cleofbdst}, diamonds --  Belle data 

734:    \cite{bellefbdst}, squares --  BaBar data \cite{babarfbdst}. Solid

735:    lines show predictions of our model for $|V_{cb}|=0.044,\ 0.039,\

736:    0.034$ (from top to bottom, respectively).} 

737:   \label{fig:fbdstar}

738: \end{figure}

739: 

740: 

741: \begin{table}

742: \caption{Comparison of our model predictions for the ratios $R_1(1)$,

743:   $R_2(1)$, the slope of the form factor $h_{A_1}$ for $w=1$ and

744:   values of the product  $F_{D^*}(1)|V_{cb}|$ with experimental data.} 

745: \label{tab:r1r2}

746: \begin{ruledtabular}

747: %\hspace*{-0.5cm}

748: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}

749:   & our & CLEO~\cite{cleofbdst} & BaBar~\cite{babarfbdst} & Belle

750:   ~\cite{bellefbdst}& DELPHI~\cite{delphifbdst}\\ 

751: \hline

752: $R_1$ & 1.39 &1.18(30)(12) &1.396(60)(44)& & \\

753: $R_2$ & 0.92 &0.71(22)(7)  &0.885(40)(26) & &\\

754: $\rho_{h_{A_1}}^2$& 0.86 &$\left\{\begin{array}{l}0.91(15)(6)^a\cr

755:     1.61(9)(21)^{b}\end{array}\right.$

756: &$\left\{\begin{array}{l}0.79(6)^a\cr

757:     1.145(59)(46)^{b}\end{array}\right.$

758: &$\left\{\begin{array}{l}0.81(12)^a\cr

759:     1.35(17)^{b}\end{array}\right.$ &1.39(10)(33)$^{b}$\\

760: $F_{D^*}|V_{cb}|$ &0.0343(12) &$\left\{\begin{array}{l}0.0360(20)^c\cr

761:     0.0431(13)(18)^{b}\end{array}\right.$

762: &$\left\{\begin{array}{l}0.0328(5)^c\cr 

763:     0.0376(3)(16)^{b}\end{array}\right.$

764:  &$\left\{\begin{array}{l}0.0315(12)^c\cr

765:     0.0354(19)(18)^{b}\end{array}\right.$

766: &0.0377(11)(19)$^b$\\

767: \end{tabular}

768: \begin{flushleft}

769: ${}^a$ linear fit of experimental data.\\

770: ${}^{b}$ fit using the form factor $h_{A_1}$ parameterization \cite{bgl}.\\

771: ${}^c$ fit using form factor predictions of our model.

772: \end{flushleft}

773: \end{ruledtabular}

774: \end{table}

775: 

776: \begin{table}

777: \caption{Comparison of theoretical predictions for the ratios $R_1(1)$,

778:   $R_2(1)$ and their derivatives $R_1'(1)$, $R_2'(1)$.} 

779: \label{tab:r1r2t}

780: \begin{ruledtabular}

781: %\hspace*{-0.5cm}

782: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}

783: Ref. & $R_1(1)$ & $R_1'(1)$ & $R_2(1)$ & $R_2'(1)$\\

784: \hline

785: our       & 1.39 & $-0.23$ & 0.92 & 0.12\\

786: \cite{gl} & 1.25 & $-0.10$ & 0.81 & 0.11\\

787: \cite{cln}& 1.27 & $-0.12$ & 0.80 & 0.11\\

788: \cite{n}  & 1.35 & $-0.22$ & 0.79 & 0.15\\

789: \cite{melstech} & 1.15 &  & 0.94&  \\

790: \cite{ahnv}     &1.01(2)& & 1.04(1)& \\

791: \end{tabular}

792: \end{ruledtabular}

793: \end{table}

794: 

795: In Table~\ref{tab:r1r2} we give our predictions for  $R_1(1)$,

796: $R_2(1)$ and for the slope of the form factor $h_{A_1}$ and available

797: experimental data

798: \cite{cleofbdst,babarfbdst,bellefbdst,delphifbdst}. Our results for

799: $R_1$ and $R_2$  agree well with data. The calculated slope

800: $\rho_{h_{A_1}}^2$ is within experimental error bars for the values

801: obtained by using a linear fit. Comparison of our predictions for the

802: product $F_{D^*}(w)|V_{cb}|$ with the experimental data from CLEO

803: \cite{cleofbdst},  Belle \cite{bellefbdst} and BaBar \cite{babarfbdst}

804: is given in Fig.~\ref{fig:fbdstar}. In general there is good agreement

805: between the calculated form factor behaviour and available experimental

806: data. The values of the product $F_{D^*}(1)|V_{cb}|$, obtained by using

807: our form factors are compared in Table~\ref{tab:r1r2}

808: with the ones based on the parameterization of the form factor $h_{A_1}$

809: from Ref.~\cite{bgl}. Our model leads to the values

810: of the product $F_{D^*}(1)|V_{cb}|$ approximately 10--15\% lower, than

811: the values obtained using the parameterization \cite{bgl}. A combined fit of

812: all above mentioned experimental data in the framework of our model

813: gives  

814: $$F_{D^*}(1)|V_{cb}|=0.0343\pm0.012.$$

815: Using our value of  $F_{D^*}(1)=h_{A_1}(1)=0.918$ (see (\ref{eq:ffexp})) we get

816: \begin{equation}

817:   \label{eq:bdstvcb}

818:   |V_{cb}|=0.0375\pm0.0015.

819: \end{equation}

820: The theoretical results for the ratios $R_1(1)$,

821: $R_2(1)$ and their derivatives $R_1'(1)$, $R_2'(1)$ are confronted in

822: Table~\ref{tab:r1r2t}. In general there is a reasonable agreement both for the

823: form factor ratios and their slopes. Our values are very close to the

824: ones found using HQET and QCD sum rules \cite{n}.  

825: 

826: By integrating the expressions for the differential decay rates (\ref{dgbd}),

827: (\ref{dgbdstar}), we get predictions for the total decay rates in our model

828: \begin{eqnarray}

829:   \label{eq:gtot}

830:   \Gamma(B\to D l\nu)&=&9.48|V_{cb}|^2\ {\rm ps}^{-1},\cr

831: \Gamma(B\to D^* l\nu)&=&24.9|V_{cb}|^2\ {\rm ps}^{-1}.

832: \end{eqnarray}

833: Taking mean values of lifetimes \cite{pdg}:

834: $\tau_{B^0}=1.530\times 10^{-12}$~s and $\tau_{B^+}=1.671\times

835: 10^{-12}$~s, we find

836:  \begin{eqnarray}

837:   \label{eq:brtot}

838:   BR(B^0\to D^+ l^-\nu)&=&14.5|V_{cb}|^2,\cr

839: BR(B^+\to D^0 l^+\nu)&=&15.8|V_{cb}|^2,\cr

840:  BR(B^0\to D^{*+} l^-\nu)&=&38.0|V_{cb}|^2,\cr

841: BR(B^+\to D^{*0} l^+\nu)&=&41.3|V_{cb}|^2.

842: \end{eqnarray}

843: The comparison of theoretical and experimental branching ratios

844: \cite{pdg} leads to the following values of the CKM matrix element

845: $|V_{cb}|$: 

846:  \begin{eqnarray}

847:   \label{eq:brtotexp}

848:   BR(B^0\to D^+ l^-\nu)^{\rm exp}=0.0214\pm0.0020 &\qquad& |V_{cb}|=0.038\pm0.002,\cr

849: BR(B^+\to D^0 l^+\nu)^{\rm exp}=0.0215\pm0.0022 &\qquad& |V_{cb}|=0.037\pm0.002,\cr

850:  BR(B^0\to D^{*+} l^-\nu)^{\rm exp}=0.0544\pm0.0023 &\qquad& |V_{cb}|=0.038\pm0.001,\cr

851: BR(B^+\to D^{*0} l^+\nu)^{\rm exp}=0.065\pm0.005\quad &\qquad& |V_{cb}|=0.040\pm0.002,

852: \end{eqnarray}

853: which are in good agreement with each other and with values 

854: (\ref{eq:bdvcb}), (\ref{eq:bdstvcb}), found from the form factor

855: analysis. Thus the averaged $|V_{cb}|$  over all presented experimental

856: measurements of semileptonic decays $B\to De\nu$ and $B\to D^*e\nu$ is

857: equal to  

858: \begin{equation}

859:   \label{eq:bdavvcb}

860:   |V_{cb}|=0.0385\pm0.0015

861: \end{equation}

862: in good agreement with  PDG \cite{pdg}

863: \[|V_{cb}|=0.0409\pm0.0018\quad ({\rm exclusive}). \]

864: 

865: 

866: 

867: 

868: \section{Semileptonic $B$ decays to light mesons}

869: \label{sec:blsd}

870: 

871: The matrix elements of weak current $J^W$ governing the weak

872: $B$ decays to the light pseudoscalar meson ($P=\pi$) is parameterized by

873: two invariant form factors. It is convenient to use the following

874: decomposition: 

875: \begin{equation}

876:   \label{eq:pff1}

877:   \langle P(p_F)|\bar q \gamma^\mu b|B(p_{B})\rangle

878:   =f_+(q^2)\left[p_{B}^\mu+ p_F^\mu-

879: \frac{M_{B}^2-M_P^2}{q^2}\ q^\mu\right]+

880:   f_0(q^2)\frac{M_{B}^2-M_P^2}{q^2}\ q^\mu,

881: \end{equation}

882: where $q=p_{B}-p_F$; $M_{B}$ is the $B$ meson and $M_P$ is the final

883: pseudoscalar meson mass.  

884: 

885: The corresponding matrix elements for the weak $B$ decays to the light

886: vector meson 

887: ($V=\rho$) can be parameterized by four form factors: 

888: \begin{eqnarray}

889:   \label{eq:vff1}

890:   \langle V(p_F)|\bar q \gamma^\mu b|B(p_{B})\rangle&=

891:   &\frac{2iV(q^2)}{M_{B}+M_V} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\epsilon^*_\nu

892:   p_{B\rho} p_{F\sigma},\\ \cr

893: \label{eq:vff2}

894: \langle V(p_F)|\bar q \gamma^\mu\gamma_5 b|B(p_{B})\rangle&=&2M_V

895: A_0(q^2)\frac{\epsilon^*\cdot q}{q^2}\ q^\mu

896:  +(M_{B}+M_V)A_1(q^2)\left(\epsilon^{*\mu}-\frac{\epsilon^*\cdot

897:     q}{q^2}\ q^\mu\right)\cr\cr

898: &&-A_2(q^2)\frac{\epsilon^*\cdot q}{M_{B}+M_V}\left[p_{B}^\mu+

899:   p_F^\mu-\frac{M_{B}^2-M_V^2}{q^2}\ q^\mu\right], 

900: \end{eqnarray}

901: where

902: $M_V$ and $\epsilon_\mu$ are the mass and polarization vector of the

903: final vector meson. At the maximum recoil point ($q^2=0$) these form

904: factors satisfy the relations: 

905: \[f_+(0)=f_0(0),\]

906: \[A_0(0)=\frac{M_{B}+M_V}{2M_V}A_1(0)

907: -\frac{M_{B}-M_V}{2M_V}A_2(0).\]

908: For massless leptons form factors $f_0$ and $A_0$ do not contribute to

909: the semileptonic decay rates. However they give contributions to the

910: nonleptonic decay rates in the factorization approximation. Note that

911: this parameterization is completely equivalent to the one of HQET (\ref{ff}),

912: and corresponding form factors can be easily expressed through each other.   

913: 

914: In this section we calculate semileptonic decay rates of the heavy $B$

915: meson into light meson, $B\to \pi(\rho)e\nu$. The final meson in these

916: decays contains light quarks ($u$, $d$, $s$) only, thus in contrast to

917: decays to heavy $D$ mesons, considered previously, the application of

918: the expansion in inverse powers of the final active quark is not

919: justified. The calculation of the  contribution of the vertex function $\Gamma^{(1)}$

920: (\ref{gamma1}) to the decay matrix element of the weak

921: current (\ref{mxet}) can, as it was already in detail discussed above,

922: be carried out exactly, due to the presence of 

923: $\delta$-function, and does not require any expansion. The

924: calculation of the contribution $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is significantly

925: more difficult, since the expansion only in inverse powers of the

926: heavy $b$-quark mass from  the initial $B$ meson retains the dependence on

927: the relative momentum in the energy of the final light quark. Such

928: dependence does not  allow one to

929: perform one of the integrals in the decay matrix element

930: (\ref{mxet}) using the quasipotential equation. However the final light

931: meson has a large (compared to its mass) recoil momentum

932: (${\bf\Delta}\equiv{\bf p}_F-{\bf p}_B$, $|{\bf\Delta}_{\rm

933:   max}|=(M_{B}^2-M_F^2)/(2M_{B})\cong M_B/2\sim 2.6$~çÜ÷)  almost in

934: the whole kinematical range except the small region near  

935: $q^2=q^2_{\rm max}$ ($|{\bf\Delta}|=0$).  This also means that the

936: recoil momentum of the final meson is large with respect to the mean

937: relative quark momentum $|{\bf p}|$ in the meson  ($\sim 0.5$~GeV).

938: Thus one can neglect  $|{\bf p}|$ compared to $|{\bf\Delta}|$ in  the

939: final light quark energy

940: $\epsilon_{q}(p+\Delta)\equiv\sqrt{m_{q}^2+({\bf 

941: p}+{\bf\Delta})^2}$, replacing it by  $\epsilon_{q}(\Delta)\equiv

942: \sqrt{m_{q}^2+{\bf\Delta}^2}$  in expressions for the

943: $\Gamma^{(2)}$ contribution in accord with the large-energy expansion (see

944: Introduction).  This replacement removes the relative

945: momentum dependence in the energy of the light quark and thus permits

946: to perform one of the integrations in the $\Gamma^{(2)}$

947: contribution using the quasipotential equation. Note that the relatively

948: small value of this contribution, related to its proportionality to

949: the binding energy in the meson, and its predictable momentum dependence

950: allow us to extrapolate it to the whole kinematical range. The

951: numerical analysis (see below) shows that such extrapolation induces insignificant

952: uncertainties in the final results for decay rates. 

953: 

954: It is convenient to consider semileptonic decays $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$

955: in the $B$ meson rest frame. Then calculating decay matrix elements it

956: is necessary to take into account the relativistic transformation

957: (\ref{wig}) of the final meson wave function from the rest frame to

958: the moving one with the momentum  ${\bf \Delta}$. Applying the method

959: described above, we find expressions for the decay matrix element and

960: determine the corresponding form factors. They have the following structure: 

961: 

962: (a) $B\to \pi$ transitions  

963: \begin{equation}

964:   \label{eq:f+}

965:   f_+(q^2)=f_+^{(1)}(q^2)+\varepsilon f_+^{S(2)}(q^2)

966: +(1-\varepsilon) f_+^{V(2)}(q^2),

967: \end{equation}

968: \begin{equation}

969:   \label{eq:f0}

970:   f_0(q^2)=f_0^{(1)}(q^2)+\varepsilon f_0^{S(2)}(q^2)

971: +(1-\varepsilon) f_0^{V(2)}(q^2),

972: \end{equation}

973: 

974: (b) $B\to \rho$ transitions

975: \begin{equation}

976:   \label{eq:V}

977:   V(q^2)=V^{(1)}(q^2)+\varepsilon V^{S(2)}(q^2)

978: +(1-\varepsilon) V^{V(2)}(q^2),

979: \end{equation}

980: \begin{equation}

981:   \label{eq:A1}

982:   A_1(q^2)=A_1^{(1)}(q^2)+\varepsilon A_1^{S(2)}(q^2)

983: +(1-\varepsilon) A_1^{V(2)}(q^2),

984: \end{equation}

985: \begin{equation}

986:   \label{eq:A2}

987:   A_2(q^2)=A_2^{(1)}(q^2)+\varepsilon A_2^{S(2)}(q^2)

988: +(1-\varepsilon) A_2^{V(2)}(q^2),

989: \end{equation}

990: \begin{equation}

991:   \label{eq:A0}

992:   A_0(q^2)=A_0^{(1)}(q^2)+\varepsilon A_0^{S(2)}(q^2)

993: +(1-\varepsilon) A_0^{V(2)}(q^2),

994: \end{equation}

995: where expressions for  $f_{+,0}^{(1)}$, $f_{+,0}^{S,V(2)}$, $A_{0,1,2}^{(1)}$,

996: $A_{0,1,2}^{S,V(2)}$, $V^{(1)}$ and $V^{S,V(2)}$  are rather cumbersome

997: and can be found in the Appendix to Ref.~\cite{fgmslhl}.

998: The subscripts ``(1)'' and ``(2)'' correspond to Figs.~\ref{d1} and

999: \ref{d2}, $S$ and $V$ denote scalar and vector potentials of the $q\bar

1000: q$-interaction. Let us remind that the mixing coefficient $\varepsilon$ of vector

1001: and scalar confining potentials is equal to $-1$  in our model.

1002: Note that form factors (\ref{eq:f+})--(\ref{eq:A0}) in the

1003: limit of the infinitely heavy $b$ quark mass and large recoil of the final light

1004: meson explicitly satisfy all symmetry relations  \cite{clopr,efgfr} imposed

1005: by the large energy effective theory.

1006: 

1007: 

1008: In order to increase the precision and reliability  of our calculations

1009: compared to our previous consideration \cite{fgmslhl} we do not

1010: perform a further expansion of form factors in inverse powers of the

1011: heavy quark mass. Moreover, the $q^2$ dependence of form factors is

1012: explicitly determined by these formulas and thus no  ad hoc

1013: parameterization is necessary. We also use the numerical wave

1014: functions found in the meson mass spectrum calculations \cite{hlm,lmm} instead of

1015: trial (Gaussian) wave functions used in Ref.~\cite{fgmslhl}. To check

1016: the precision of the extrapolation of the form factors in the region of small

1017: recoil of the final light meson (${\bf\Delta}=0$, $q^2=q^2_{\rm max}$)

1018: we perform the additional consideration of  form factors in this region.

1019: In this analysis the simplifying substitution of the light quark

1020: energy $\epsilon_q(p)=\sqrt{p^2+m_q^2}$ by the on-shell center of mass

1021: energy $E_q=(M^2-m_Q^2+m_q^2)/(2M)$  (\ref{ee}) in the contribution of

1022: the vertex function   

1023: $\Gamma^{(2)}$ is used. Such replacement is valid in the small region

1024: around the zero recoil point. As a result in this point one gets expressions for

1025: the form factors similar to the formulas given in the Appendix of

1026: Ref.~\cite{efgslbcb} with obvious substitutions. Such calculation

1027: showed that the obtained values of form factors for semileptonic

1028: decays $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ as well as their slopes at zero recoil

1029: $q^2=q^2_{\rm  max}$ are in good agreement with the results found from

1030: the extrapolation of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:f+})--(\ref{eq:A0}). The

1031: deviations are less than  1\% confirming the reliability of such

1032: extrapolation and of final results which are based on it. 

1033:   

1034: The semileptonic $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ decay from factors in our model can

1035: be approximated with good accuracy by the following expressions \cite{melstech}:

1036: 

1037: (a) $F(q^2)= f_+(q^2),V(q^2),A_0(q^2)$ 

1038: \begin{equation}

1039:   \label{fitfv}

1040:   F(q^2)=\frac{F(0)}{\displaystyle\left(1-\frac{q^2}{\tilde M^2}\right)

1041:     \left(1-\sigma_1 

1042:       \frac{q^2}{M_{B^*}^2}+ \sigma_2\frac{q^4}{M_{B^*}^4}\right)},

1043: \end{equation}

1044: 

1045: (b) $F(q^2)= A_1(q^2),A_2(q^2)$

1046: \begin{equation}

1047:   \label{fita12}

1048:   F(q^2)=\frac{F(0)}{\displaystyle \left(1-\sigma_1

1049:       \frac{q^2}{M_{B^*}^2}+ \sigma_2\frac{q^4}{M_{B^*}^4}\right)},

1050: \end{equation}

1051: where $\tilde M=M_{B}$ for $A_0$ and $\tilde M=M_{B^*}$ for all other

1052: form factors; the values  $F(0)$ and $\sigma_{1,2}$ are given in 

1053: Table~\ref{hlff}. The difference of fitted form factors from the

1054: calculated ones does not exceed  1\%.

1055: 

1056: In Table~\ref{compbpiff} we give a comparison of the predictions

1057: for the form factors of semileptonic decays  $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ at

1058: maximum recoil point $q^2=0$, calculated in our model with 

1059: the results of light cone QCD sum rules (LCSR)

1060: \cite{bzpi,bzrho,kmo}, the quark model (QM) \cite{melstech}, using

1061: relativistic dispersion relations and two recent lattice QCD (LQCD)

1062: calculations  \cite{okamoto,hpqcdhl} with dynamical light quarks. Note

1063: that our new results for form factors at this point coincide with previous

1064: calculations  \cite{fgmslhl} within errors caused by the Gaussian

1065: parameterization of the heavy-light meson wave functions used in

1066: Ref.~\cite{fgmslhl}.  In Ref.~\cite{agrs} a model independent

1067: constraint for the product $|V_{ub}|f_+(0)=(7.2\pm1.8)\times 10^{-4}$

1068: was obtained using the soft-collinear effective theory and

1069: $B\to\pi\pi$ data, which for their final value of $|V_{ub}|$ yields

1070: $f_+(0)=0.227\pm 0.047$. 

1071: 

1072: 

1073: \begin{table}%[bth]

1074: \caption{From factors of semileptonic decays $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ 

1075:   calculated in our model. Form factors $f_+(q^2)$, $V(q^2)$,

1076:   $A_0(q^2)$ are fitted by Eq.~(\ref{fitfv}), and form factors

1077:   $A_1(q^2)$, $A_2(q^2)$ are fitted by Eq.~(\ref{fita12}).  }

1078: \label{hlff}

1079: \begin{ruledtabular}

1080: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}

1081:    &\multicolumn{2}{c}{{$B\to\pi$}}&\multicolumn{4}{c}{{\  $B\to\rho$\

1082:      }}\\

1083: \cline{2-3} \cline{4-7}

1084: & $f_+$ & $f_0$& $V$ & $A_0$ &$A_1$&$A_2$ \\

1085: \hline

1086: $F(0)$&0.217&0.217 &  0.295 & 0.231& 0.269 & 0.282\\

1087: $\sigma_1$&0.378&-0.501& 0.875 &  0.796& 0.54&1.34\\

1088: $\sigma_2$ &-0.41& -1.50&0&-0.055&0&0.21\\

1089: \end{tabular}

1090: \end{ruledtabular}

1091: \end{table} 

1092: 

1093: \begin{table}%[bth]

1094: \caption{Comparison of theoretical predictions for the form factors of 

1095:   semileptonic decays $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$  at maximum

1096:   recoil point $q^2=0$.  }

1097: \label{compbpiff}

1098: \begin{ruledtabular}

1099: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}

1100:   & $f_+(0)$ & $V(0)$ & $A_0(0)$ &$A_1(0)$&$A_2(0)$ \\

1101: \hline

1102: our&0.217 & 0.295 & 0.231& 0.269 & 0.282\\

1103: LCSR \cite{bzpi,bzrho}&0.258(31)&0.323(29)&0.303(28)& 0.242(24) &

1104: 0.221(23)\\

1105: LCSR \cite{kmo} &0.25(5) &0.32(10) & & 0.24(8)& 0.21(9)\\

1106: QM \cite{melstech} &0.29& 0.31&0.29&0.26&0.24\\

1107: QM \cite{fgmslhl} &0.20(2) & 0.29(3) & & 0.26(3) &0.31(3)\\

1108: LQCD(FNAL)\cite{okamoto}& 0.23(2)&\\

1109: LQCD(HPQCD)\cite{hpqcdhl}& 0.27(5)&\\ 

1110: \end{tabular}

1111: \end{ruledtabular}

1112: \end{table} 

1113: 

1114: The  $q^2$ form factor dependence is plotted in Figs.~\ref{fig:fplf0}

1115: and \ref{fig:ffrho}.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:fplf0} we also show recent lattice

1116: results for the form factors  $f_+(q^2)$ and $f_0(q^2)$

1117: \cite{okamoto,hpqcdhl}.  It is clearly seen from this figure that the

1118: behaviour of the form factor $f_+(q^2)$  agrees with lattice computations

1119: within errors, while our form factor $f_0(q^2)$ lies somewhat lower

1120: than lattice data.  In this figure we also show the LCSR result

1121: for the value of form factors at $q^2=0$ \cite{bzpi}. It agrees with

1122: our model prediction within errors. 

1123: 

1124: We can also check the consistency of the obtained $q^2$ behaviour of the

1125: form factor $f_+$ by comparing its calculated value at $q_{\rm max}^2$

1126: with model independent results of chiral perturbation theory

1127: (ChPT). For the pion recoil energy $E_\pi\sim m_\pi$ ChPT

1128: predicts \cite{agrs}

1129: \begin{equation}

1130:   \label{eq:fchpt}

1131:   f_+(q^2(E_\pi))=\frac{gf_B M_B}{2f_\pi(E_\pi+M_{B^*}-M_B)}

1132: \left[1+O\left(\frac{E_\pi}{\Delta}\right)\right],

1133: \end{equation}

1134: where $g\sim 0.5$ is $B^*B\pi$ coupling \cite{agrs}, the decay

1135: constant $f_B$ is equal 189~MeV in our model \cite{efgdc}. The

1136: first corrections scale as $E_\pi/\Delta$, where $\Delta\sim 600$~MeV

1137: is the mass splitting to the first radially excited $1^-$ state above

1138: the $B^*$. Substituting these values one gets the following prediction \cite{agrs} 

1139: \begin{equation}

1140:   \label{eq:fpchm}

1141:   f_+(q_{\rm max}^2)=10.38\pm 3.63,

1142: \end{equation}

1143: which is in  agreement with our model result $f_+(q_{\rm

1144:   max}^2)=10.9$. 

1145: 

1146: On the other hand, the form factor $f_0$ in the soft-pion

1147: limit $p\to 0$ and $m_\pi^2\to 0$ is related to the ratio of  

1148: the $B$ and $\pi$ decay constants \cite{bzpi, voloshin}

1149: \begin{equation}

1150:   \label{eq:f0ch}

1151:   f_0(q_{\rm max}^2)=\frac{f_B}{f_\pi}. 

1152: \end{equation}

1153: This relation with the above values of the decay constants gives the result

1154: $f_0(q_{\rm max}^2)= 1.45$ again in good agreement with the prediction of

1155: our model $f_0(q_{\rm max}^2)= 1.36$.

1156:  

1157: 

1158: \begin{figure}

1159: \centering

1160:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{fpf0pi.eps}\vspace*{-0.2cm}\\

1161: \hspace*{0.8cm} $q^2$

1162: \caption{Form factors of the semileptonic decay $B\to\pi e\nu$  in comparison

1163:   with lattice calculations: $f_+(q^2)$ is given by the upper plot (our), 

1164:   squares (FNAL)\cite{okamoto}, diamonds (HPQCD)\cite{hpqcdhl};

1165:   $f_0(q^2)$ is given by the lower plot (our), stars (FNAL)\cite{okamoto},

1166:   triangles (HPQCD)\cite{hpqcdhl}. The LCSR value for from factors at

1167:   $q^2=0$ is plotted by a circle \cite{bzpi}.    } 

1168: \label{fig:fplf0}

1169: \end{figure}

1170: 

1171: \begin{figure}

1172: \centering

1173:   \includegraphics[width=8cm]{ffrho2.eps}\vspace*{-0.5cm}\\

1174: \hspace*{0.8cm} $q^2$

1175: \caption{Form factors of the semileptonic decay $B\to\rho e\nu$: $V(q^2)$ is

1176:   plotted by the solid line, $A_1(q^2)$ -- by the bold line,

1177:   $A_2(q^2)$ -- by dashed line, and $A_0(q^2)$ -- by long-dashed line.     } 

1178: \label{fig:ffrho}

1179: \end{figure}

1180: 

1181: The differential semileptonic decay rates can be expressed in terms of

1182: these form factors by 

1183: 

1184: (a) $B\to Pe\nu$ decay  ($P=\pi$)

1185: \begin{equation}

1186:   \label{eq:dgp}

1187:   \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma}{{\rm d}q^2}(B\to Pe\nu)=\frac{G_F^2 

1188:   \Delta^3 |V_{qb}|^2}{24\pi^3} |f_+(q^2)|^2.

1189: \end{equation}

1190: 

1191: (b) $B\to Ve\nu$ decay ($V=\rho$)

1192: \begin{equation}

1193:   \label{eq:dgv}

1194: \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma}{{\rm d}q^2}(B\to Ve\nu)=\frac{G_F^2

1195: \Delta|V_{qb}|^2}{96\pi^3}\frac{q^2}{M_{B}^2}

1196: \left(|H_+(q^2)|^2+|H_-(q^2)|^2   

1197: +|H_0(q^2)|^2\right),

1198: \end{equation}

1199: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $V_{qb}$ is CKM matrix element ($q=u$),

1200: \[\Delta\equiv|{\bf\Delta}|=\sqrt{\frac{(M_{B}^2+M_{P,V}^2-q^2)^2}

1201: {4M_{B}^2}-M_{P,V}^2}.

1202: \]

1203: Helicity amplitudes are given by the following expressions

1204: \begin{equation}

1205:   \label{eq:helamp}

1206:   H_\pm(q^2)=\frac{2M_{B}\Delta}{M_{B}+M_V}\left[V(q^2)\mp

1207: \frac{(M_{B}+M_V)^2}{2M_{B}\Delta}A_1(q^2)\right],

1208: \end{equation}

1209: \begin{equation}

1210:   \label{eq:h0a}

1211:   H_0(q^2)=\frac1{2M_V\sqrt{q^2}}\left[(M_{B}+M_V)

1212: (M_{B}^2-M_V^2-q^2)A_1(q^2)-\frac{4M_{B}^2\Delta^2}{M_{B}

1213: +M_V}A_2(q^2)\right].

1214: \end{equation}

1215: 

1216: 

1217: The decays rate in transversally and longitudinally polarized vector

1218: mesons are defined by

1219: \begin{equation}

1220:   \label{eq:dgl}

1221: \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_L}{{\rm d}q^2}=\frac{G_F^2

1222: \Delta|V_{qb}|^2}{96\pi^3}\frac{q^2}{M_{B}^2}

1223: |H_0(q^2)|^2,  

1224: \end{equation}

1225: \begin{equation}

1226:   \label{eq:dgt}

1227: \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_T}{{\rm d}q^2}=

1228: \frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_+}{{\rm d}q^2}+\frac{{\rm d}\Gamma_-}{{\rm d}q^2}

1229: =\frac{G_F^2\Delta|V_{qb}|^2}{96\pi^3}\frac{q^2}{M_{B}^2}

1230: \left(|H_+(q^2)|^2+|H_-(q^2)|^2\right). 

1231: \end{equation}

1232: Integration over $q^2$ of these formulas gives the total rate

1233: of the corresponding semileptonic decay. These rates are presented in

1234: Table~\ref{comphlff}.  In this Table we also give the values of the partial decay

1235: rates integrated over two intervals $q^2<16$ GeV$^2$ and

1236: $q^2>16$ GeV$^2$ in comparison with the evaluations of LCSR in the

1237: first interval and  LQCD in the second interval \cite{hfag}. This is

1238: related to the fact that the predictions of these approaches are

1239: reliable only in the above mentioned regions. The results presented in

1240: Table~\ref{comphlff} show that our calculations agree well with the

1241: lattice evaluations, while our values are somewhat lower than LCSR

1242: ones which have relatively large errors. Note that our model gives the

1243: ratio of semileptonic $B$ decay rates into $\rho$ meson with

1244: longitudinal polarization to the corresponding rate with transverse

1245: polarization  $\Gamma_L/\Gamma_T=0.46$.   

1246: 

1247: 

1248: 

1249: \begin{table}%[bth]

1250: \caption{Comparison of theoretical predictions for the  rates of semileptonic

1251:   decays $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ (in $|V_{ub}|^2$ps$^{-1}$).  }

1252: \label{comphlff}

1253: \begin{ruledtabular}

1254: \begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}

1255: & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\Gamma$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{{$\Gamma^{q^2<16\ {\rm GeV}^2}$}}&\multicolumn{3}{c}{{$\Gamma^{q^2>16\ {\rm GeV}^2}$

1256:      }}\\

1257: \cline{2-5}\cline{6-7} \cline{8-10}

1258: Decay  & our &LCSR & FNAL &HPQCD  & our & LCSR  &our &

1259: FNAL&HPQCD\\

1260:  &   &  \cite{bzpi} &  \cite{okamoto} & \cite{hpqcdhl} & & \cite{bzpi}

1261:  &  & \cite{okamoto} &  \cite{hpqcdhl}\\

1262: \hline

1263: $B\to\pi e\nu$ & 5.45 & 7.74(2.32)& 6.24(2.12)&6.03(1.94) & 3.68 & 5.44(1.43) & 1.77 & 1.83(50) &

1264: 1.46(35)\\

1265: $B\to\rho e\nu$ & 13.1& & & &  10.5& & 2.60 & & \\ 

1266: \end{tabular}

1267: \end{ruledtabular}

1268: \end{table} 

1269: 

1270: 

1271: Using mean lifetimes of $B$ mesons \cite{pdg}:

1272: $\tau_{B^0}=1.530\times 10^{-12}$~s and $\tau_{B^+}=1.671\times

1273: 10^{-12}$~s, we find 

1274:  \begin{eqnarray}

1275:   \label{eq:brtot1}

1276:   BR(B^0\to \pi^+ l^-\nu)&=&8.34|V_{ub}|^2,\cr

1277: BR(B^+\to \pi^0 l^+\nu)&=&4.47|V_{ub}|^2,\cr

1278:  BR(B^0\to \rho^+ l^-\nu)&=&20.1|V_{ub}|^2,\cr

1279: BR(B^+\to \rho^0 l^+\nu)&=&10.7|V_{ub}|^2.

1280: \end{eqnarray}

1281: Comparison of these predictions with experimental data \cite{pdg}

1282: leads to the following values of $|V_{ub}|$:

1283:  \begin{eqnarray}

1284:   \label{eq:brtotexp1}

1285:   BR(B^0\to \pi^+ l^-\nu)^{\rm exp}=(1.36\pm0.15)\times 10^{-4} &\qquad& |V_{ub}|=(4.04\pm0.25)\times 10^{-3},\cr

1286: BR(B^+\to \pi^0 l^+\nu)^{\rm exp}=(7.4\pm1.1)\times 10^{-4} &\qquad& |V_{ub}|=(4.07\pm0.30)\times 10^{-3},\cr

1287:  BR(B^0\to \rho^+ l^-\nu)^{\rm exp}=(2.3\pm0.4)\times 10^{-4} &\qquad& |V_{ub}|=(3.38\pm0.30)\times 10^{-3},\cr

1288: BR(B^+\to \rho^0 l^+\nu)^{\rm exp}=(1.24\pm0.23)\times 10^{-4} &\qquad& |V_{ub}|=(3.39\pm0.33)\times 10^{-3}.\qquad

1289: \end{eqnarray}

1290: Decays of the neutral and charged $B$ mesons give very close results for

1291: $|V_{ub}|$, while the averaged values of 

1292: $|V_{ub}|$, extracted form the decay $B\to\rho e\nu$ are approximately

1293: 16\% lower than corresponding values, found from decay $B\to\pi

1294: e\nu$. Note that the recent CLEO \cite{picleo06} measurement of the decay branching ratio $BR(B^0\to \rho^+ l^-\nu)^{\rm exp}=(2.91\pm0.54)\times

1295: 10^{-4}$ gives  $|V_{ub}|=(3.81\pm0.35)\times 10^{-3}$ which is close

1296: to the one extracted from the  $B\to\pi e\nu$ decay.

1297: 

1298: Recently significant progress has been achieved in the experimental

1299: determination of the differential decay   $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ rate

1300: dependence on   $q^2$.  CLEO

1301: \cite{rhocleo03,picleo06}, BaBar

1302: \cite{pibabar06-2,pibabar05,pibabar06}, Belle \cite{pibelle06}

1303: measured partial decay rates in relatively narrow intervals of $q^2$. In

1304: Figs.~\ref{fig:dgammapi} and \ref{fig:dgammarho} we present the comparison

1305: of  our model predictions  for partial branching ratios of $B\to(\pi,\rho)

1306: e\nu$ decays with experimental data. Plotting histograms in

1307: Figs.~\ref{fig:dgammapi}(a)-(c) and 

1308: Figs.~\ref{fig:dgammarho}(a),(b) we used the value of $|V_{ub}|$,

1309: extracted from the total rate in the corresponding experiments. It is

1310: clearly seen that our predictions agree well with almost all data for

1311: decays of neutral as well as charged  $B$ mesons. Using these experimental

1312: data on partial and total semileptonic $B\to(\pi,\rho) e\nu$ decay

1313: rates it is possible to extract averaged values of  

1314: $|V_{ub}|$:

1315:  \begin{eqnarray}

1316:   \label{eq:vubm}

1317:  B\to\pi e\nu \qquad \quad &&|V_{ub}|=(4.02\pm0.10)\times 10^{-3},\cr

1318:  B\to\rho e\nu \qquad \quad &&|V_{ub}|=(3.33\pm0.20)\times 10^{-3},

1319: \end{eqnarray}

1320: which are in good agreement with the ones, extracted from averaged total

1321: decay rates (\ref{eq:brtotexp1}). 

1322: 

1323: 

1324: \begin{figure}

1325: %\centering

1326: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dGpibelle06.eps} $\quad$

1327: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dGpibabar06-2.eps}\vspace*{-0.2cm}\\

1328: \hspace*{-3cm}\hspace*{4.cm} $q^2$ \hspace*{7.4cm} $q^2$\vspace*{-0.3cm}\\

1329: \hspace*{-6cm}\hspace*{.2cm}(a) \hspace*{7.4cm} (b)\vspace*{0.5cm}

1330: 

1331: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dGpicleo06.eps} $\quad$

1332: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dGpibabar05.eps}\vspace*{-0.2cm}\\

1333: \hspace*{-3cm}\hspace*{4.cm} $q^2$ \hspace*{7.4cm} $q^2$\vspace*{-0.3cm}\\

1334: \hspace*{-6cm}\hspace*{.2cm}(c) \hspace*{7.4cm} (d)\vspace*{0.5cm}

1335: 

1336: %\hspace*{4.cm}

1337: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dGpibabar06.eps}\vspace*{-0.2cm}\\

1338: \hspace*{-7cm}\hspace*{8.2cm}$q^2$\vspace*{-0.3cm}\\

1339: \hspace*{-10cm}\hspace*{4.5cm}(e)

1340: 

1341: \caption{Comparison of theoretical predictions for partial decay rates

1342:   with experimental data: (a)--(c)

1343:   $(1/\Gamma_{\rm tot})(\int_{\Delta q^2}(d\Gamma(B\to\pi

1344:   e\nu)/dq^2)dq^2)\times 10^4$ from Refs.~\cite{pibelle06,pibabar06-2,picleo06};  (d), (e) $\Delta

1345:   BR(B\to\pi e\nu)/BR(B\to\pi e\nu)$ from

1346:   Refs.~\cite{pibabar05,pibabar06}, respectively.  Lower histograms on

1347:   (a), (b) and diamonds are theoretical and experimental values for

1348:   decays of charged $B$ meson $B^+\to\pi^0e^+\nu$. All other

1349:   histograms and squares are theoretical predictions and experimental

1350:   data for decays of neutral $B$ meson $B^0\to\pi^+e^-\nu$. }

1351: \label{fig:dgammapi}

1352: \end{figure}

1353: 

1354: 

1355: \begin{figure}[tb]

1356: %\centering

1357: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dgrhocleo03.eps} $\quad$

1358: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dgrhobelle06.eps}\vspace*{-0.2cm}\\

1359: \hspace*{-3cm}\hspace*{4.cm} $q^2$ \hspace*{7.4cm} $q^2$\vspace*{-0.3cm}\\

1360: \hspace*{-6cm}\hspace*{.2cm}(a) \hspace*{7.4cm} (b)\vspace*{0.5cm}

1361: 

1362: 

1363: %\hspace*{4.cm}

1364: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{dgrhobabar05.eps}\vspace*{-0.2cm}\\

1365: \hspace*{-7cm}\hspace*{8.2cm}$q^2$\vspace*{-0.3cm}\\

1366: \hspace*{-10cm}\hspace*{4.5cm}(c)

1367: 

1368: \caption{Comparison of theoretical predictions for partial decay rates

1369:   with experimental data: (a), (b)

1370:   $(1/\Gamma_{\rm tot})(\int_{\Delta q^2}(d\Gamma(B\to\rho

1371:   e\nu)/dq^2)dq^2)\times 10^4$ from Refs.~\cite{rhocleo03,pibelle06};  (c) $\Delta

1372:   BR(B\to\rho e\nu)/BR(B\to\rho e\nu)$ from Ref.~\cite{pibabar05},

1373:   respectively. Lower histograms on (b) and diamonds are theoretical

1374:   and experimental values for 

1375:   decays of charged $B$ meson $B^+\to\rho^0e^+\nu$.  All other

1376:   histograms and squares are theoretical predictions and experimental

1377:   data for decays of neutral $B$ meson $B^0\to\rho^+e^-\nu$. }

1378: \label{fig:dgammarho}

1379: \end{figure}

1380: 

1381: Finally, averaging over all above mentioned experimental data we get the value

1382: of  $|V_{ub}|$ in our model 

1383: \begin{equation}

1384:   \label{eq:vubfinal}

1385:   |V_{ub}|=(3.82\pm0.20)\times 10^{-3}

1386: \end{equation}

1387: in good agreement with PDG \cite{pdg}

1388: \[|V_{ub}|=(3.84^{+0.67}_{-0.49})\times  10^{-3}\quad ({\rm exclusive}). \]

1389: 

1390: 

1391: \section{Conclusion}

1392: \label{sec:concl}

1393: 

1394: We calculated weak decay form factors and decay rates of

1395: different semileptonic $B$ decays. Decays both into heavy $D^{(*)}$ and

1396: light $\pi(\rho)$ mesons were considered. 

1397: 

1398: First, it was shown that our

1399: relativistic quark model gives a reliable description of the

1400: heavy-to-heavy semileptonic transitions  $B\to D^{(*)}

1401: l\nu$. All model independent HQET relations are reproduced. The model

1402: allows to express corresponding leading and subleading order

1403: Isgur-Wise functions through overlap integrals of meson wave

1404: functions. These wave functions were determined previously in the

1405: process of the meson mass spectrum calculations. From 

1406: the comparison with the experiment and 

1407: predictions of other theoretical approaches it follows that our model correctly

1408: reproduces the $q^2$ behaviour of form factors. Calculated decay

1409: rates and branching fractions are in good agreement with data and give

1410: very close values of the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ extracted from

1411: different decay processes. 

1412: 

1413: Secondly, the form factors of the heavy-to-light semileptonic $B$ decays

1414: were calculated. The consideration was done with the systematic

1415: treatment of all relativistic effects, which are very important for

1416: such transitions. Particular attention was paid to the inclusion of

1417: negative-energy contributions and to the relativistic transformation

1418: of the meson wave function from the rest to the moving reference

1419: frame. The $q^2$ dependence of the form factors was explicitly

1420: determined without using any ad hoc assumptions. The validity of the form

1421: factor extrapolation, which is necessary only within the small region

1422: near the point of zero recoil of the final light meson,  was

1423: crosschecked by an additional 

1424: calculation of the form factor values in this particular point. The

1425: decay form factors are again given by the overlap integrals of the $B$

1426: and $\pi$, $\rho$ meson wave functions, which are know from the

1427: previous calculations of the meson mass spectra. The $q^2$ behaviour

1428: of the form factors is in agreement with both unquenched

1429: lattice QCD calculations and predictions of light cone QCD sum rules

1430: within the ranges of the validity of these approaches. All this

1431: significantly improves the reliability  of the obtained

1432: results. The comprehensive comparison of the predictions with recent

1433: experimental data both on total and partial decay rates allowed the

1434: extractions of the CKM matrix element $|V_{ub}|$ which values are

1435: rather close in different decay channels.

1436: 

1437: The evaluation of the theoretical uncertainties represents an

1438: important problem. Unfortunately, it is not easy to estimate them in

1439: the framework of the adopted approach. The theoretical errors within the

1440: model, which come from  the neglected higher order terms in the $1/m_Q$

1441: expansion for heavy-to-heavy transitions and from the form factor

1442: extrapolation in the region of zero recoil for heavy-to-light

1443: transitions, can be easily estimated and are less than 3\%. The main

1444: difficulty is related to the uncertainty of the quark model

1445: itself. However, our previous experience in calculating a vast set of different

1446: properties of hadrons within our model indicates that such

1447: uncertainties should not exceed 5\%. Therefore, adding these errors in

1448: quadrature we find for the CKM matrix elements the following final

1449: values in our model:

1450: \begin{eqnarray}

1451:   \label{eq:vf}

1452:    |V_{cb}|&=&(3.85\pm0.15\pm 0.20)\times 10^{-2},\cr

1453:   |V_{ub}|&=&(3.82\pm0.20\pm0.20)\times 10^{-3},

1454: \end{eqnarray}

1455: where the first error is experimental and the second one is theoretical.

1456: 

1457: 

1458: \acknowledgments

1459: The authors are grateful to M. A. Ivanov, 

1460: M. M\"uller-Preussker and V. I. Savrin  

1461: for support and useful discussions.  Two of us

1462: (R.N.F. and V.O.G.)  were supported in part by the {\it Deutsche

1463: Forschungsgemeinschaft} under contract Eb 139/2-4 and by the {\it Russian

1464: Foundation for Basic Research} under Grant No.05-02-16243. 

1465: 

1466: 

1467: 

1468: 

1469: \begin{thebibliography}{00}

1470: \bibitem{kowal} R.V. Kowalewski, hep-ex/0610059.

1471: \bibitem{iw} N. Isgur and M. B. Wise,  Phys. Lett. B {\bf 232}, 113

1472:   (1989); Phys. Lett. B {\bf 237}, 527 (1990).

1473: 

1474: \bibitem{iw1} N. Isgur and M. B. Wise,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 43}, 819 (1991).

1475: \bibitem{n} M. Neubert,  Phys. Rep. {\bf 245}, 259 (1994);

1476:   Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 11}, 4273 (1996).

1477: \bibitem{dg} M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 255},

1478:   583 (1991).

1479: \bibitem{clopr} J. Charles {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 014001

1480:   (1999).

1481: \bibitem{efgfr}  D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, 

1482:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}, 094022 (2001).

1483: \bibitem{fg} R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin,  Z. Phys. C {\bf 66}, 119

1484: (1995).

1485:  \bibitem{fgmslhh} R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and A. Yu. Mishurov,

1486:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 1391 (1996).

1487: \bibitem{fgmslhl} R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin and A. Yu. Mishurov,

1488:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 6302 (1996).

1489: \bibitem{hlm} D. Ebert, V. O. Galkin and R. N. Faustov,  {Phys. Rev. D}

1490:   {\bf 57}, 5663 (1998) [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 59}, 019902 (1999)]. 

1491: \bibitem{lmm}

1492:   D.~Ebert, R.~N.~Faustov and V.~O.~Galkin,

1493:   Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf 20}, 1887 (2005);  Eur. Phys. J. C, {\bf

1494:     47}, 745 (2006). 

1495: \bibitem{3} A. A. Logunov and A. N. Tavkhelidze, Nuovo Cimento {\bf29},

1496: 380 (1963).

1497: \bibitem{4} A. P. Martynenko and R. N. Faustov, Theor. Math. Phys. {\bf

1498:     64}, 765 (1985) [Teor. Mat. Fiz. {\bf 64}, 179 (1985)].

1499: \bibitem{mass1} V. O. Galkin, A. Yu. Mishurov and R. N. Faustov, Yad. Fiz.

1500: {\bf 55}, 2175 (1992) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 55}, 1207 (1992)].

1501: \bibitem{mass}  D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D

1502:   {\bf 62}, 034014 (2000); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 014027 (2003).

1503: \bibitem{ef} E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23},

1504: 2724 (1981).

1505: \bibitem{gf} V. O. Galkin and R. N. Faustov, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 44}, 1575

1506: (1986) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 44}, 1023 (1986)]; D. Ebert,

1507: R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 537}, 241 (2002).

1508: \bibitem{schn} H. J. Schnitzer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 18}, 3482 (1978).

1509: \bibitem{f} R. N. Faustov, Ann. Phys. {\bf 78}, 176 (1973); Nuovo

1510: Cimento A {\bf 69}, 37 (1970).

1511: \bibitem{luke} M. E. Luke, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 252}, 447 (1990).

1512: \bibitem{ukqcd} UKQCD Collaboration, K.C. Bowler {\it et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B

1513:   {\bf 637}, 293 (2002).

1514: \bibitem{lor} A.~Le Yaouanc, L.~Oliver and J.~C.~Raynal,

1515:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 094022 (2004)

1516: \bibitem{cleofbd} CLEO Collaboration, J. Bartelt {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev.

1517: Lett. {\bf 82}, 3746 (1999).

1518: \bibitem{bellefbd} BELLE Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. 

1519: B {\bf 526}, 258 (2002).

1520: 

1521: \bibitem{hkkmrs}

1522:   S.~Hashimoto, A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie,

1523:   S.~M.~Ryan and J.~N.~Simone,  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 014502

1524:   (2000).

1525: \bibitem{cln} I. Caprini, L. Lellouch and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B

1526:   {\bf 530}, 153 (1998). 

1527: \bibitem{bgl} C. G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R. F. Lebed,  Phys. Rev. D

1528: {\bf 56}, 6895 (1997).

1529: 

1530: \bibitem{hkmrs}

1531:   S.~Hashimoto, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie, S.~M.~Ryan and J.~N.~Simone,

1532:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 014503 (2002).

1533: \bibitem{gl} B. Grinstein and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 526}, 345 (2002).

1534: 

1535: \bibitem{cleofbdst} CLEO Collaboration,  N. E. Adam {\it et al.},

1536:     Phys. Rev. D  {\bf 67}, 032001 (2003).

1537: \bibitem{bellefbdst} BELLE Collaboration,  K. Abe {\it et al.},

1538:   Phys. Lett. B {\bf 526}, 247 (2002).

1539: \bibitem{babarfbdst} BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.}, 

1540:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 051502 (2005);  hep-ex/0602023.

1541: \bibitem{delphifbdst} DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah {\it et al.},

1542:     Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 33}, 213 (2004).

1543: \bibitem{melstech} D. Melikhov and B. Stech,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 014006

1544: (2000).

1545: \bibitem{ahnv} C. Albertus, E. Hernandez, J. Nieves and

1546:   J. M. Verde-Velasco, Phys. Re. D {\bf 71}, 113006 (2005).

1547: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, W.-M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G {\bf

1548:     33}, 1 (2006).

1549: \bibitem{efgslbcb}  D. Ebert, R. N. Faustov and V. O. Galkin, 

1550:   Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 32}, 29 (2003).

1551: \bibitem{bzpi} P. Ball and R. Zwicky,  Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 014015 (2005).

1552: \bibitem{bzrho} P. Ball and R. Zwicky, 

1553:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 014029 (2005).

1554: \bibitem{kmo} A. Khodjamirian, T. Mannel and N. Offen, hep-ph/0611193.

1555: \bibitem{okamoto} FNAL Collaboration, M. Okamoto {\it et al.}, 

1556:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 140}, 461 (2005)

1557:   [hep-lat/0409116].

1558: \bibitem{hpqcdhl}  HPQCD Collaboration, E. Gulez {\it et al.},  Phys. Rev. D

1559:   {\bf 73}, 074502 (2006).

1560: \bibitem{agrs} C. M. Arnesen, B. Grinstein, I. Z. Rothstein and

1561:   I. W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 071802 (2005).

1562: \bibitem{efgdc}

1563:   D.~Ebert, R.~N.~Faustov and V.~O.~Galkin,

1564:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 635}, 93 (2006).

1565: \bibitem{voloshin} M. B. Voloshin, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 50}, 166 (1989)

1566:   [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 50}, 105 (1989)].

1567: \bibitem{hfag} Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG),  hep-ex/0603003.

1568: \bibitem{picleo06} CLEO Collaboration, Y. Gao,  talk at ICHEP

1569:   2006, 26 Jul--2 Aug 2006, Moscow, Russia.

1570: \bibitem{rhocleo03} CLEO Collaboration, S. B. Athar {\it et al.}, 

1571:   Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 072003 (2003). 

1572: \bibitem{pibabar06-2} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.}, 

1573: hep-ex/0607089.

1574: \bibitem{pibabar05} BaBar Collaboration,  B. Aubert {\it et al.}, 

1575:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 051102 (2005). 

1576: \bibitem{pibabar06} BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert {\it et al.}, 

1577: hep-ex/0607060. 

1578: \bibitem{pibelle06} BELLE Collaboration, K. Hokuue {\it et al.},

1579: hep-ex/0604024.

1580: 

1581: 

1582: \end{thebibliography}

1583: 

1584: \end{document}

1585: 

1586: 

1587: 

1588: 

1589: