1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{a4wide,axodraw}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{slashbox}
5:
6: \voffset0cm
7: \hoffset0cm
8: \oddsidemargin0cm
9: \evensidemargin0cm
10: \topmargin0cm
11: \textwidth16.cm
12: \textheight22cm
13: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
14:
15: %\newcommand{\max}{\mathop{\mathrm{max}}\nolimits}
16: \newcommand{\Li}{\mathop{\mathrm{Li}_2}\nolimits}
17: \newcommand{\agt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
18: \hbox {$>$}\,}
19: \newcommand{\alt}{\,\rlap{\lower 3.5 pt \hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}} \raise 1pt
20: \hbox {$<$}\,}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: %\boldmath
25: \title{
26: \vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
27: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 07-040\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
28: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0703239\hfill}
29: \centerline{\normalsize March 2007\hfill}}
30: \vskip1.5cm
31: Comparative analysis of non-perturbative effects in
32: $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays}
33: %\unboldmath
34:
35: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl, Gustav Kramer\\
36: {\normalsize\it
37: II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
38: }\\
39: {\normalsize\it
40: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany.}\\
41: \\
42: Ji-Feng Yang\\
43: {\normalsize\it
44: Department of Physics, East China Normal University,
45: }\\
46: {\normalsize\it
47: 3663th Zhong Shan Bei Road, Shanghai 200062, China}}
48:
49: \date{}
50:
51: \maketitle
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54: In order to extract the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{ub}|$
55: from $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays, the overwhelming background from
56: $B\to X_cl\overline{\nu}_l$ decays must be reduced by appropriate acceptance
57: cuts.
58: We study the non-perturbative effects due to the motion of the $b$ quark inside
59: the $B$ meson on the phenomenologically relevant decay distributions of
60: $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ in the presence of such cuts in a comparative
61: analysis based on shape functions and the parton model in the light-cone
62: limit.
63: Comparisons with recent data from the CLEO, BABAR, and BELLE collaborations
64: favor the shape-function approach.
65:
66: \medskip
67:
68: \noindent
69: PACS: 12.39.Hg, 13.20.He, 14.40.Nd, 14.65.Fy
70: \end{abstract}
71:
72: \newpage
73:
74: \section{\label{sec:one}Introduction}
75:
76: To test the predictions of the Standard Model for the simultaneous violation
77: of the charge conjugation and parity (CP) symmetries in $B$-meson decays, it
78: is very important to know the matrix element $|V_{ub}|$ of the
79: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa quark-mixing matrix \cite{Cabibbo:1963yz} very
80: accurately.
81: The uncertainties in existing measurements, by the CLEO
82: \cite{Bornheim:2002du}, BABAR
83: \cite{Aubert:2003zw,Aubert:2005im,Aubert:2005mg,Aubert:2006qi}, and BELLE
84: \cite{Kakuno:2003fk,Limosani:2005pi,Bizjak:2005hn} collaborations,
85: are dominantly due to uncertainties in the theoretical calculation of partial
86: decay rates to be compared with the experimental measurements.
87: Experimentally, the inclusive rate $\Delta\Gamma_{ul\nu}(\Delta\Phi)$ of
88: $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays in a restricted region $\Delta\Phi$ of
89: phase space is measured, where the dominant charm background is suppressed and
90: theoretical uncertainties are reduced.
91: The theoretical factor $R(\Delta\Phi)$ directly relates the inclusive rate to
92: $|V_{ub}|$ without extrapolation to the full phase space, as
93: \begin{equation}
94: |V_{ub}|^2=\frac{\Delta\Gamma_{ul\nu}(\Delta\Phi)}{R(\Delta\Phi)}.
95: \end{equation}
96: The uncertainties in the calculation of $R(\Delta\Phi)$ dominantly originate
97: from the modeling of the Fermi motion of the $b$ quark inside the $B$ meson.
98: Most of the recent analyses towards the determination of $|V_{ub}|$ from
99: measurements of $\Delta\Gamma_{ul\nu}(\Delta\Phi)$
100: \cite{Aubert:2005im,Aubert:2005mg,Limosani:2005pi,Bizjak:2005hn} rely on the
101: calculation of $R(\Delta\Phi)$ by Lange {\it et al.}\ \cite{Lange:2005yw}.
102: They use the so-called shape-function (SF) scheme, which is an extended
103: version of the original SF approach \cite{Neubert:1993ch,Bigi:1993ex} with
104: many effects due to renormalization-group-improved perturbation theory,
105: higher-order power corrections from subleading SF terms, {\it etc.}
106: But there are many more approaches known for describing the non-perturbative
107: $B\to b$ transition.
108: We mention the Altarelli-Cabibbo-Corbo-Maiani-Martinelli (ACCMM) model
109: \cite{Altarelli:1982kh}, one of the oldest models to describe the motion of
110: the $b$ quark inside the $B$ meson.
111: In this model, it is assumed that the $B$ meson consists of the $b$ quark and
112: a spectator quark, with definite mass $m_{\rm spec}$ and momentum
113: $p_{\rm spec}$, which is considered quasi-free.
114: The $b$ quark is treated as a virtual particle with a mass depending on
115: $p_{\rm spec}$.
116: Another popular model for describing the non-perturbative $B\to b$ transition
117: is the model of Bareiss, Jin, Palmer, and Paschos based on the parton model
118: approach in the light-cone (LC) limit \cite{Bareiss:1989my,Jin:1995hi}.
119: All these models, including the SF models, contain phenomenological functions
120: of the respective variables describing the motion of the $b$ quark inside the
121: $B$ meson with parameters fitted to the $b$-quark mass and one or two
122: characteristic moments of these functions.
123: Another approach tries to avoid these non-perturbative functions by assuming
124: that the fragmentation of the $B$ meson into the $b$ quark and the spectator
125: quark can be described as a radiation process off the $b$ quark with a proper
126: coupling inserted in the standard soft-gluon resummation formula
127: \cite{Aglietti:2006yb}.
128: For a similar approach, referred to as dressed-gluon exponentiation (DGE)
129: in the literature, see Ref.~\cite{Andersen:2005mj}.
130:
131: Given the variety of approaches for treating the non-perturbative transition,
132: it is desirable to make an attempt to compare these approaches with respect to
133: their predictions for $R(\Delta\Phi)$ and other physical observables.
134: In this work, we shall make such a comparison between the simple SF approach
135: and the parton model approach in the LC limit, which we shall refer to as the
136: LC approach in the following.
137: Such a comparison of the parton model and the ACCMM model has already been
138: done some time ago in Ref.~\cite{Kim:1998wx}.
139:
140: The outline of this work is as follows.
141: In Sect.~\ref{sec:two}, we give a short introduction to the SF and LC
142: approaches.
143: Section~\ref{sec:three} contains the results for $R(\Delta\Phi)$ for three
144: choices of $\Delta\Phi$ underlying recent experimental measurements by BABAR
145: and BELLE.
146: In addition to $R(\Delta\Phi)$, we also present in Sect.~\ref{sec:three}
147: distributions in several kinematical variables and compare them with measured
148: differential decay distributions.
149: Section~\ref{sec:four} contains a summary and the conclusions.
150:
151: \section{\label{sec:two}Theoretical ingredients}
152:
153:
154: \subsection{\label{sec:twoa}Perturbative differential decay rate}
155:
156: The differential decay width of $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ has been
157: calculated up to first order in the strong-coupling constant $\alpha_s$ by De
158: Fazio and Neubert \cite{DeFazio:1999sv} using a fictitious gluon mass to
159: regulate soft and collinear gluon contributions.
160: This result has been confirmed using dimensional regularization for the soft
161: and collinear singularities in Ref.~\cite{kim} and by us.
162: The quantity of interest is the triple differential decay rate
163: $d^3\Gamma/(dx\,dz\,d\hat p^2)$ of
164: \begin{equation}
165: b(p_b)\to X_u(p)+l(p_l)+\overline{\nu}_l(p_\nu),
166: \end{equation}
167: where $X_u=u$ or $X_u=u+g$ in the case of single-gluon emission and the
168: assigned four-momenta are displayed in parentheses.
169: Introducing $p=p_u+p_g$ and $q=p_l+p_\nu$, we have $p_b=p+q$.
170: The variables $x$, $z$, and $\hat p^2$ are defined as
171: \begin{equation}
172: x=\frac{2p_b\cdot p_l}{m_b^2},\qquad
173: z=\frac{2p_b\cdot p}{m_b^2},\qquad
174: \hat p^2=\frac{p^2}{m_b^2},
175: \end{equation}
176: and take the values
177: \begin{equation}
178: 0\le x\le 1,\qquad
179: \overline{x}\le z\le1+\overline{x},\qquad
180: \max(0,z-1)\le\hat p^2\le\overline{x}(z-\overline{x}),
181: \end{equation}
182: where $\overline{x}=1-x$.
183: The variable $\hat p^2$ measures the invariant mass square of the hadronic
184: system $X_u$ in units of $m_b^2$, while, in the $b$-quark rest frame, $x$ and
185: $z$ correspond to the energies of $l$ and $X_u$ in units of $m_b/2$,
186: respectively.
187: For fixed values of $z$ and $\hat p^2$, $\overline{x}$ varies in the range
188: \begin{equation}
189: \frac{z-\sqrt{z^2-4\hat p^2}}{2}\le\overline{x}
190: \le\frac{z+\sqrt{z^2-4\hat p^2}}{2}.
191: \end{equation}
192: Doubly and singly differential decay distributions are obtained by
193: appropriately integrating over $d^3\Gamma/(dx\,dz\,d\hat p^2)$.
194: The simplest distribution is the spectrum in $x$, which reads
195: \cite{DeFazio:1999sv,Jezabek:1988ja}:
196: \begin{equation}
197: \frac{1}{\Gamma_0}\,\frac{d\Gamma}{dx}=2x^2(3-2x)\left[1-
198: \frac{C_F\alpha_s}{2\pi}G(x)\right],
199: \label{eq:dgdx}
200: \end{equation}
201: where $C_F=4/3$,
202: \begin{equation}
203: \Gamma_0=\frac{G_F^2|V_{ub}|^2m_b^5}{192\pi^3},
204: \label{eq:gam0}
205: \end{equation}
206: with $G_F$ being Fermi's constant, is the total decay rate at leading order
207: (LO) and
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: G(x)&=&\ln^2(1-x)+2\Li(x)+\frac{2}{3}\pi^2+\frac{82-153x+86x^2}{12x(3-2x)}
210: \nonumber\\
211: &&{}+\frac{41-36x+42x^2-16x^3}{6x^2(3-2x)}\ln(1-x),
212: \end{eqnarray}
213: with $\Li$ being the Spence function.
214: By integrating over $x$, one obtains the well-known ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$
215: formula for the total decay rate of $b\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$:
216: \begin{equation}
217: \Gamma=\Gamma_0\left[1-\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{2\pi}
218: \left(\pi^2-\frac{25}{4}\right)\right].
219: \label{eq:gamtot}
220: \end{equation}
221: Formulas for other doubly differential distributions like
222: $d^2\Gamma/(dz\,d\hat p^2)$ and $d^2\Gamma/(dx\,dz)$ or singly differential
223: distributions like $d\Gamma/dz$ and $d\Gamma/d\hat p^2$ may be found in
224: Ref.~\cite{DeFazio:1999sv}.
225: From $d^2\Gamma/(dz\,d\hat p^2)$, also the distribution in the hadronic
226: invariant mass $M_X$ can be calculated.
227: In the heavy-quark limit, where $p_B=(M_B/m_b)p_b$, one has
228: \begin{equation}
229: M_X^2=\hat p^2m_b^2+zm_b\overline{\Lambda}+\overline{\Lambda}^2,
230: %M_X^2=p^2+\frac{\overline{\Lambda}}{m_b}2p_b\cdot p+\overline{\Lambda}^2,
231: \end{equation}
232: where $\overline{\Lambda}=M_B-m_b$.
233:
234: \subsection{\label{sec:twob}SF approach}
235:
236: In kinematic regions close to the phase space boundaries, the perturbative
237: spectra are infrared sensitive and expected to receive large non-perturbative
238: corrections.
239: Such corrections are due to the motion of the $b$ quark inside the $B$ meson
240: and are usually referred to as Fermi-motion corrections
241: \cite{Altarelli:1982kh}.
242: In the singly differential spectra, such regions are
243: $1-x={\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b)$ for the charged-lepton energy spectrum,
244: $1-z={\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b)$ for the hadronic energy spectrum, and
245: the low-hadronic-mass region $M_X^2={\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}m_b)$, where
246: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\approx0.5$~GeV is the asymptotic scale parameter of QCD.
247:
248: One popular method to incorporate Fermi-motion effects is the introduction of
249: a SF $F(k_+)$, which is supposed to describe light-cone momentum distribution
250: of the $b$ quark inside the $B$ meson \cite{Neubert:1993ch,Bigi:1993ex}.
251: The component $k_+$ of the $b$-quark light-cone momentum varies between $-m_b$
252: and $\overline{\Lambda}$ with a distribution centered around $k_+=0$ and having
253: a characteristic width of ${\cal O}\left(\overline{\Lambda}\right)$.
254: The physical $B$-meson decay distributions are calculated from a convolution
255: of the perturbative $b$-quark decay spectra with $F(k_+)$.
256: This is done by replacing the $b$-quark mass by the momentum-dependent mass
257: $m_b+k_+$.
258: Similarly, the parameter $\overline{\Lambda}$ is replaced by
259: $\overline{\Lambda}-k_+$ \cite{Neubert:1993ch}.
260: Introducing $q_+=\overline{\Lambda}-k_+$, the charged-lepton energy
261: distribution, for example, is modified to become \cite{DeFazio:1999sv}
262: \begin{equation}
263: \frac{d\Gamma}{dE_l}(B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l)=2\int_0^{M_B-2E_l}dq_+
264: \frac{F\left(\overline{\Lambda}-q_+\right)}{M_B-q_+}\,\frac{d\Gamma(x_q)}{dx},
265: \label{eq:dgde}
266: \end{equation}
267: where $d\Gamma/dx$ is the perturbative spectrum given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dgdx}),
268: $x_q=2E_l/(M_B-q_+)$, and the charged-lepton energy $E_l$ varies in the range
269: $0\le E_l\le M_B/2$.
270: The analogous formulas for the distributions in the total hadronic energy and
271: the hadronic mass may be found in Ref.~\cite{DeFazio:1999sv} and will not be
272: repeated here.
273: Since we wish to calculate the fractional decay rate with cuts on $E_l$ and
274: $M_X$, we need the doubly differential distribution $d^2\Gamma/(dE_l\,dM_X)$.
275: This and the triply differential distribution $d^2\Gamma/(dE_l\,dM_X\,dq^2)$
276: are derived analogously to Eq.~(\ref{eq:dgde}).
277: After the implementation of the SF, the kinematic variables take values in the
278: entire phase space determined by hadron kinematics.
279: For example, the maximum lepton energy is $E_l^{\rm max}=M_B/2$, whereas it is
280: equal to $m_b/2$ for the phase space of the perturbative decay rate.
281:
282: Several functional forms of $F(k_+)$ are available in the literature.
283: They are constrained through moments $A_n=\langle k_+^n\rangle$ of $F(k_+)$,
284: which are related to the forward matrix elements of local operators on the
285: light cone \cite{Lange:2005yw}.
286: The first three moments are
287: \begin{equation}
288: A_0=1,\qquad A_1=0,\qquad A_2=\frac{\mu_\pi^2}{3},
289: \end{equation}
290: where $\mu_\pi^2$ is the average momentum square of the $b$ quark inside the
291: $B$ meson \cite{Falk:1992wt}.
292: In our analysis, we adopt the exponential form \cite{Kagan:1998ym}
293: \begin{equation}
294: F(k_+)=N\overline{\Lambda}^{-c}(\overline{\Lambda}-k_+)^c
295: {\rm e}^{(1+c)k_+/\overline{\Lambda}},
296: \label{eq:shape}
297: \end{equation}
298: which obeys $A_1=0$ if one neglects terms exponentially small in
299: $m_b/\overline{\Lambda}$.
300: The condition $A_0=1$ fixes the normalization factor $N$, and the parameter
301: $c$ is related to the second moment as
302: \begin{equation}
303: A_2=\frac{\overline{\Lambda}^2}{1+c}.
304: \label{eq:a2}
305: \end{equation}
306: So, the $b$-quark mass $m_b$ (or $\overline{\Lambda}$) and the parameter $c$
307: (or $\mu_\pi^2$) are the two input parameters of $F(k_+)$.
308: Our choice of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and $\mu_\pi^2$ will be specified in
309: Sect.~\ref{sec:three}, when we present our results for the cut-dependent
310: partial decay rates $R(\Delta\Phi)$.
311:
312: \subsection{\label{sec:twoc}LC approach}
313:
314: Since the $B$ meson is heavy, the momentum transferred in the decay to the
315: final state is, in most regions of phase space, much larger than the energy of
316: hadronic binding, which is of ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD})$.
317: This suggests that the semileptonic decay of the $B$ meson can be treated in a
318: way analogous to deep-inelastic scattering (DIS) in lepton-proton collisions.
319: There, LC dynamics dominates DIS and leads to the well-known scaling of the
320: DIS structure functions.
321: This is implemented in the parton model, where in LO the structure functions
322: are given by the parton distribution functions.
323: These are functions of the scaling variable $\xi$, which relates the parton
324: four-momentum $p_q=\xi p_p$ to the proton four-momentum $p_p$.
325: In an analogous manner, the hadron decay process $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$
326: is modeled by convoluting the parton decay process
327: $b\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ with the distribution function $f(\xi)$ of the
328: momentum $p_b=\xi p_B$ of the $b$-quark inside the $B$ meson according to
329: \begin{equation}
330: d\Gamma(B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l)=\int d\xi\,f(\xi)
331: \left.d\Gamma(b\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l)\right|_{p_b=\xi p_B}.
332: \end{equation}
333: This has the consequence that $m_b=\xi M_B$ is also smeared with the variable
334: $\xi$.
335: The distribution function $f(\xi)$ can be expressed in terms of the matrix
336: element of the LC bilocal $b$-quark operator between $B$-meson states as
337: \cite{Jin:1999rs}
338: \begin{equation}
339: f(\xi)=\frac{1}{4\pi M_B^2}\int d(y\cdot p_B)\,{\rm e}^{i\xi y\cdot p_B}
340: \langle B|\overline{b}(0)\gamma\cdot p_B(1-\gamma_5)U(0,y)b(y)
341: |B\rangle|_{y^2=0},
342: \label{eq:fxi}
343: \end{equation}
344: where $U(0,y)$ is a gauge link associated with the background gluon field that
345: ensures the gauge invariance of $f(\xi)$.
346: The distribution function $f(\xi)$ is positive and has non-zero values for
347: $0\le\xi\le1$ only.
348: It fulfills three sum rules \cite{Jin:1999rs}.
349: One of them is due to $b$-quark number conservation and reads
350: \begin{equation}
351: \int_0^1d\xi\,f(\xi)=1.
352: \label{eq:nor}
353: \end{equation}
354: Reducing the bilocal operator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:fxi}) to a local one with the
355: help of the operator product expansion \cite{Jin:1999rs} in heavy-quark
356: effective theory (HEQT), one obtains two more sum rules.
357: They determine, up to ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/m_b^2)$, the mean value
358: $\mu$ and the variance $\sigma^2$ of $f(\xi)$, which characterize the position
359: of the maximum and the width of the distribution \cite{Jin:1999rs}:
360: \begin{eqnarray}
361: \mu&=&\int_0^1d\xi\,\xi f(\xi)=\frac{m_b}{M_B}\left(1+\frac{5}{3}E_b\right),
362: \nonumber\\
363: \sigma^2&=&\int_0^1d\xi\,(\xi-\mu)^2f(\xi)
364: =\frac{m_b^2}{M_B^2}\left[\frac{2}{3}K_b-\left(\frac{5}{3}E_b\right)^2\right],
365: \label{eq:musi}
366: \end{eqnarray}
367: where
368: \begin{eqnarray}
369: G_b&=&-\frac{1}{2M_B}\langle B|\overline{h}
370: \frac{g_sG_{\alpha\beta}\sigma^{\alpha\beta}}{4m_b^2}h|B\rangle,
371: \nonumber\\
372: K_b&=&-\frac{1}{2M_B}\langle B|\overline{h}
373: \frac{(iD)^2}{2m_b^2}h|B\rangle,
374: \nonumber\\
375: E_b&=&G_b+K_b.
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: Here, $g_s=\sqrt{4\pi\alpha_s}$, $h$ is the $b$-quark field, $G_{\alpha\beta}$
378: is the field strength tensor of the strong force, and $D$ is the covariant
379: derivative involving the gluon field.
380: The matrix elements $G_b$ and $K_b$ measure the chromomagnetic energy due to
381: the $b$-quark spin and the kinetic energy of the $b$ quark inside the $B$
382: meson, respectively.
383: Both are dimensionless HQET parameters of
384: ${\cal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/m_b^2)$ and are often related to the alternative
385: parameters
386: \begin{eqnarray}
387: \lambda_1&=&-2m_b^2K_b,
388: \nonumber\\
389: \lambda_2&=&-\frac{2}{3}m_b^2G_b.
390: \end{eqnarray}
391: The parameter $\lambda_2$ can be extracted from the $B^*$--$B$ mass splitting
392: yielding\break
393: $\lambda_2=\left(M_{B^*}^2-M_B^2\right)/4\approx0.12$~GeV$^2$.
394: Values for $\lambda_1=-\mu_\pi^2$, introduced earlier, will be specified in
395: Sect.~\ref{sec:three}, when we present our results.
396: If we introduce these two parameters in Eq.~(\ref{eq:musi}), we have
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: \mu&=&\frac{m_b}{M_B}\left(1-\frac{5(\lambda_1+3\lambda_2)}{6m_b^2}\right),
399: \nonumber\\
400: \sigma^2&=&
401: \frac{m_b^2}{M_B^2}\left[-\frac{\lambda_1}{3m_b^2}
402: -\left(\frac{5(\lambda_1+3\lambda_2)}{6m_b^2}\right)^2\right].
403: \label{eq:musig}
404: \end{eqnarray}
405: Of course, the three parameters $m_b$, $\lambda_1$, and $\lambda_2$ only
406: constrain the position of the maximum and the width of the distribution.
407: For numerical evaluations, one needs the whole function $f(\xi)$, for which we
408: adopt the ansatz \cite{Jin:1995hi,Jin:1997aj}
409: \begin{equation}
410: f(\xi)=N\frac{\xi(1-\xi)}{a^2+(\xi-b)^2}\theta(\xi)\theta(1-\xi).
411: \label{eq:ans}
412: \end{equation}
413: The parameters $a$ and $b$ are determined from the values of $\mu$ and
414: $\sigma^2$.
415: The normalization factor $N$ is fixed by Eq.~(\ref{eq:nor}).
416: For $b=m_b/M_B$ and $a\to0$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ans}) becomes a delta function,
417: namely $f(\xi)=\delta(\xi-m_b/M_B)$.
418: In the following, we shall always use $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ as input to
419: determine $a$ and $b$ via Eq.~(\ref{eq:musig}).
420:
421: \section{\label{sec:three}Numerical results}
422:
423: The large background from $B\to X_cl\overline{\nu}_l$ is the main limitation
424: for measuring $|V_{ub}|$.
425: To reject this background, kinematic cuts have to be applied.
426: Depending on these cuts, the acceptance for $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays
427: is reduced.
428: With such acceptance cuts applied, the calculation of the
429: $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decay rate is more complicated and, in particular,
430: influenced much more strongly by the modeling of the non-perturbative
431: $B\to b$ transition than without cuts.
432:
433: In recent experimental analyses, four types of cuts have been introduced to
434: separate $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays from the much more abundant
435: $B\to X_cl\overline{\nu}_l$ decays.
436: First, various cuts on the charged-lepton energy $E_l$ (with or without an
437: additional cut on the invariant mass $M_X$ of the hadronic system) were used
438: by the CLEO \cite{Bornheim:2002du}, BABAR \cite{Aubert:2005im,Aubert:2005mg},
439: and BELLE \cite{Limosani:2005pi} collaborations.
440: The three other cut scenarios, which were adopted by BABAR
441: \cite{Aubert:2003zw} and BELLE \cite{Kakuno:2003fk,Bizjak:2005hn} and which
442: we shall consider here, combine cuts on $E_l$ with cuts on $M_X$, the
443: invariant mass square $q^2$ of the leptonic system \cite{Bauer:2001rc}, and
444: the variable $P_+=E_X-|\vec{p}_X|$ \cite{Bosch:2004bt}, where $E_X$ and
445: $\vec{p}_X$ are the energy and three-momentum of the hadronic system $X_u$,
446: respectively.
447: Specifically, they are defined as:
448: (1) $E_l>1$~GeV, $M_X<1.7$~GeV, and $q^2>8$~GeV$^2$;
449: (2) $E_l>1$~GeV and $M_X<1.7$~GeV; and
450: (3) $E_l>1$~GeV and $P_+<0.66$~GeV.
451: The corresponding fractional decay rates will be denoted as $r_1$, $r_2$, and
452: $r_3$, respectively.
453: They all depend on the description of the non-perturbative $b\to B$
454: transition, for which we shall use the SF and LC approaches as discussed in
455: the previous section.
456:
457: Both the SF $F(k_+)$ and the distribution function $f(\xi)$ of the LC approach
458: depend strongly on the $b$-quark mass and much less on the parameters
459: $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, as we shall see below.
460: For these parameters, we choose $m_b=(4.72\pm0.08)$~GeV,
461: $\lambda_1=(-0.25\pm0.10)$~GeV$^2$, and $\lambda_2=0.12$~GeV$^2$.
462: Since the $b$ quark cannot be observed due to confinement, the value of $m_b$
463: can only be obtained indirectly from measurements other than that of
464: $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$.
465: The value of $m_b$ depends on the scheme, in which it is defined.
466: For simplicity, we take $m_b$ to be the pole mass.
467: The scale-invariant $b$-quark mass in the modified minimal-subtraction
468: ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme currently quoted by the
469: Particle Data Group \cite{Yao:2006px} as
470: $\overline{m}_b=\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=(4.20\pm0.07)$~GeV
471: corresponds to $m_b=(4.78\pm0.08)$~GeV at the two-loop level.
472: A determination of $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$ by fitting $B\to X_s\gamma$ decay
473: spectra may be found in Ref.~\cite{Aubert:2005cu}, with the result that
474: $m_b=\left(4.79_{-0.10}^{+0.06}\right)$~GeV and
475: $\lambda_1=\left(-0.24_{-0.18}^{+0.09}\right)$~GeV$^2$.
476: In the analysis of their data \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}, the BELLE Collaboration
477: used the values $m_b=4.60$~GeV and $\lambda_1=-0.20$~GeV$^2$ within the SF
478: scheme.
479: All these values are consistent with our above choice for $m_b$ and
480: $\lambda_1$.
481: With these parameters, we calculate the parameters $\overline{\Lambda}$ and
482: $c$ that fix the SF $F(k_+)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:shape}) as well as, via
483: Eq.~(\ref{eq:musig}), the parameters $a$ and $b$ that fix the distribution
484: function $f(\xi)$ of the LC approach in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ans}).
485: In the latter case, we also need as input the parameter $\lambda_2$, which we
486: fix as described above.
487: The values of $\overline{\Lambda}$ and $c$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:shape}) and those
488: of $a$ and $b$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ans}) are collected in Tables~\ref{tab:one} and
489: \ref{tab:two}, respectively, for $m_b=4.64$, 4.72, and 4.80~GeV and for
490: $\lambda_1=-0.35$, $-0.25$, and $-0.15$~GeV$^2$.
491: \begin{table}[ht]
492: \begin{center}
493: \caption{\label{tab:one}%
494: Values of $\overline{\Lambda}$ (in GeV) and
495: $c=-3\overline{\Lambda}/\lambda_1-1$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:shape}) for
496: various values of $m_b$ (in GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$).}
497: \medskip
498: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
499: \hline
500: $m_b$ & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 \\
501: \hline
502: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$\overline{\Lambda}$} & 0.6392 & 0.5592 & 0.4792 \\
503: \hline
504: $-0.35$ & 2.5021 & 1.6803 & 0.9683 \\
505: $-0.25$ & 3.9029 & 2.7525 & 1.7556 \\
506: $-0.15$ & 7.1715 & 5.2541 & 3.5927 \\
507: \hline
508: \end{tabular}
509: \end{center}
510: \end{table}
511: \begin{table}[ht]
512: \begin{center}
513: \caption{\label{tab:two}%
514: Values of $a$ and $b$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ans}) for various values of
515: $m_b$ (in GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$).}
516: \medskip
517: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|c|}
518: \hline
519: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 & \\
520: \hline
521: $-0.35$ & 0.007950 & 0.006940 & 0.005895 & $a$ \\
522: & 0.8941 & 0.9094 & 0.9245 & $b$ \\
523: $-0.25$ & 0.005911 & 0.005215 & 0.004493 & $a$ \\
524: & 0.8861 & 0.9014 & 0.9166 & $b$ \\
525: $-0.15$ & 0.003604 & 0.003212 & 0.002804 & $a$ \\
526: & 0.8780 & 0.8934 & 0.9087 & $b$ \\
527: \hline
528: \end{tabular}
529: \end{center}
530: \end{table}
531:
532: Before we can present our results for $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$, we need to know
533: the change of the fully integrated decay rate of $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$
534: due to the Fermi motion of the $b$ quark inside the $B$ meson.
535: Therefore, we write
536: \begin{equation}
537: \Gamma(B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l)=r_0\Gamma(b\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l),
538: \label{eq:r0}
539: \end{equation}
540: where $\Gamma(b\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l)$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:gamtot})
541: and the deviation of $r_0$ from unity measures the influence of the Fermi
542: motion.
543: The results for $r_0$ evaluated in the SF and LC approaches with the fixed
544: value $\alpha_s=0.22$ are given in Tables~\ref{tab:three} and \ref{tab:four},
545: respectively, for the same values of $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$ as in
546: Tables~\ref{tab:one} and \ref{tab:two}.
547: We see that, in both approaches, $r_0$ is approximately equal to one.
548: The variation with $m_b$ is very small; $r_0$ mostly depends on $\lambda_1$.
549: The deviation of $r_0$ from unity is because the factor $m_b$ in
550: $\Gamma_0$ [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:gam0})] is replaced by $\langle m_b+k_+\rangle^5$
551: in the SF case and by $\langle\xi m_b\rangle^5$ in the LC case.
552: It is instructive to approximate these expectation values by their lowest
553: non-vanishing moments.
554: In the SF case, we thus obtain for $r_0$:
555: \begin{equation}
556: r_0\approx1+\frac{10A_2}{m_b^2},
557: \end{equation}
558: where $A_2$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:a2}).
559: This yields $r_0=1.0374$ for $m_b=4.72$~GeV, almost the same value as in
560: Table~\ref{tab:three}.
561: The derivation comes from the higher moments, which must be even smaller.
562: Of course, these results do not imply that the integrated decay rate is almost
563: independent of $m_b$.
564: On the contrary, it is proportional to $m_b^5$ and, therefore, changes with
565: this factor.
566: Only the influence of the Fermi motion on this decay rate is small and feebly
567: depends on $m_b$, as one would expect.
568: Independently varying $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$, we have
569: $r_0=1.0353_{-0.0145}^{+0.0153}$.
570: Table~\ref{tab:four} exhibits a similar pattern for $r_0$ in the LC case.
571: For our central choice of $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$, it is almost one.
572: It changes very little with $m_b$ and more with $\lambda_1$.
573: Over the whole range of $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$, we have
574: $r_0=1.0044_{-0.0309}^{+0.0297}$.
575: Approximating $r_0$ by the first two non-vanishing moments, we obtain
576: \begin{equation}
577: r_0\approx1+\frac{25}{3}E_b+\frac{20}{3}K_b
578: =1-\frac{45\lambda_1}{6m_b^2}-\frac{25\lambda_2}{2m_b^2},
579: \end{equation}
580: which yields $r_0\approx1.0168$ for our default values of $m_b$, $\lambda_1$,
581: and $\lambda_2$.
582: Comparison with Table~\ref{tab:four} reveals that, in the LC case, the higher
583: moments are more important than in the SF case.
584: Since the error of $r_0$ is doubled as compared to the SF case, the error in
585: the integrated decay rate is also larger.
586: From Tables~\ref{tab:three} and \ref{tab:four}, we may also conclude that
587: parton-hadron duality is realized to good approximation for the total decay
588: rate, $r_0$ being close to unity.
589: \begin{table}[ht]
590: \begin{center}
591: \caption{\label{tab:three}%
592: Values of $r_0$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r0}) evaluated for various values of
593: $m_b$ (in GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$) in the SF approach.}
594: \medskip
595: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
596: \hline
597: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 \\
598: \hline
599: $-0.35$ & 1.0506 & 1.0484 & 1.0463 \\
600: $-0.25$ & 1.0369 & 1.0353 & 1.0338 \\
601: $-0.15$ & 1.0225 & 1.0217 & 1.0208 \\
602: \hline
603: \end{tabular}
604: \end{center}
605: \end{table}
606: \begin{table}[ht]
607: \begin{center}
608: \caption{\label{tab:four}%
609: Values of $r_0$ appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r0}) evaluated for various values of
610: $m_b$ (in GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$) in the LC approach.}
611: \medskip
612: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
613: \hline
614: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 \\
615: \hline
616: $-0.35$ & 1.0350 & 1.0335 & 1.0319 \\
617: $-0.25$ & 1.0049 & 1.0044 & 1.0041 \\
618: $-0.15$ & 0.9747 & 0.9755 & 0.9759 \\
619: \hline
620: \end{tabular}
621: \end{center}
622: \end{table}
623:
624: Next we present our results for the fractional decay rates $r_1$, $r_2$, and
625: $r_3$.
626: For the SF approach, they are listed in Table~\ref{tab:five} for the same
627: choices of $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$ as above.
628: The central values are $r_1=0.362$, $r_2=0.676$, and $r_3=0.602$.
629: The results for the LC approach are given in
630: Table~\ref{tab:six}, the central values being $r_1=0.360$, $r_2=0.694$, and
631: $r_3=0.667$.
632: They are similar to the SF case, expect for $r_3$, which is larger in the LC
633: case.
634: The SF to LC ratios read 1.00, 0.97, and 0.90.
635: Thus, the fractional decay rates are remarkably similar in the two approaches
636: and differ only little from the results $r_1=0.34$, $r_2=0.66$, and $r_3=0.57$
637: obtained in Ref.~\cite{Lange:2005yw}, which were used in
638: Ref.~\cite{Barberio:2006bi} to determine $|V_{ub}|$ through a global analysis
639: of the available experimental data.
640: As expected, the values of $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$ depend much more strongly
641: on $m_b$ than on $\lambda_1$, both in the SF and LC approaches.
642: The variations of $r_i$ with these two parameters are larger in the LC
643: approach than in the SF approach.
644: If we express these variations as errors, we have
645: $r_1=0.362_{-0.027}^{+0.024}$, $r_2=0.676_{-0.094}^{+0.064}$, and
646: $r_3=0.602_{-0.140}^{+0.089}$ in the SF approach and
647: $r_1=0.360_{-0.029}^{+0.026}$, $r_2=0.694_{-0.200}^{+0.094}$, and
648: $r_3=0.667_{-0.479}^{+0.098}$ in the LC approach.
649: We notice that, in the LC approach, $r_3$ becomes abnormally small for
650: $m_b=4.64$~GeV and $\lambda_1=-0.15$~GeV$^2$.
651: \begin{table}[ht]
652: \begin{center}
653: \caption{\label{tab:five}%
654: Values of $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$ evaluated for various values of $m_b$ (in
655: GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$) in the SF approach.}
656: \medskip
657: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|c|}
658: \hline
659: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 & \\
660: \hline
661: & 0.3438 & 0.3659 & 0.3860 & $r_1$ \\
662: $-0.35$ & 0.6283 & 0.6888 & 0.7398 & $r_2$ \\
663: & 0.5411 & 0.6223 & 0.6908 & $r_3$ \\
664: & 0.3386 & 0.3617 & 0.3824 & $r_1$ \\
665: $-0.25$ & 0.6082 & 0.6763 & 0.7330 & $r_2$ \\
666: & 0.5076 & 0.6016 & 0.6796 & $r_3$ \\
667: & 0.3347 & 0.3586 & 0.3795 & $r_1$ \\
668: $-0.15$ & 0.5828 & 0.6633 & 0.7290 & $r_2$ \\
669: & 0.4614 & 0.5779 & 0.6724 & $r_3$ \\
670: \hline
671: \end{tabular}
672: \end{center}
673: \end{table}
674: \begin{table}[ht]
675: \begin{center}
676: \caption{\label{tab:six}%
677: Values of $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$ evaluated for various values of $m_b$ (in
678: GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$) in the LC approach.}
679: \medskip
680: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|c|}
681: \hline
682: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 & \\
683: \hline
684: & 0.3476 & 0.3674 & 0.3856 & $r_1$ \\
685: $-0.35$ & 0.6201 & 0.7305 & 0.7878 & $r_2$ \\
686: & 0.5668 & 0.6997 & 0.7657 & $r_3$ \\
687: & 0.3395 & 0.3601 & 0.3788 & $r_1$ \\
688: $-0.25$ & 0.5578 & 0.6942 & 0.7743 & $r_2$ \\
689: & 0.4584 & 0.6674 & 0.7520 & $r_3$ \\
690: & 0.3313 & 0.3527 & 0.3720 & $r_1$ \\
691: $-0.15$ & 0.4945 & 0.6300 & 0.7557 & $r_2$ \\
692: & 0.1886 & 0.6192 & 0.7357 & $r_3$ \\
693: \hline
694: \end{tabular}
695: \end{center}
696: \end{table}
697:
698: The similarity of the fractional decay rates $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$ in the
699: two approaches considered here might be related to a fortunate choice of the
700: cut parameters $E_l^{\rm min}$, $M_X^{\rm max}$, $(q^2)^{\rm min}$, and
701: $P_+^{\rm max}$, whereas the distributions in $M_X$, $q^2$, and $P_+$ for a
702: fixed value of $E_l^{\rm min}=1$~GeV say, could differ significantly.
703: To elucidate this point, we calculate the partial decay fractions $r_1$,
704: $r_2$, and $r_3$ as functions of the cut parameters $M_X^{\rm max}$,
705: $(q^2)^{\rm min}$, and $P_+^{\rm max}$ for the default values of the input
706: parameters, $m_b=4.72$~GeV ($\overline{\Lambda}=0.5592$~GeV) and
707: $\lambda_1=-0.25$~GeV$^2$.
708: For this purpose, we define
709: \begin{eqnarray}
710: \tilde r_1\left((q^2)^{\rm max}\right)
711: &=&\frac{1}{\Gamma}\int_0^{(q^2)^{\rm max}}dq^2
712: \left.\frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}\right|_{E_l>1~{\rm GeV},\ M_X<1.7~{\rm GeV}},
713: \label{eq:r1}\\
714: \tilde r_2\left(M_X^{\rm max}\right)
715: &=&\frac{1}{\Gamma}\int_0^{M_X^{\rm max}}dM_X
716: \left.\frac{d\Gamma}{dM_X}\right|_{E_l>1~{\rm GeV}},
717: \label{eq:r2}\\
718: \tilde r_3\left(P_+^{\rm max}\right)
719: &=&\frac{1}{\Gamma}\int_0^{P_+^{\rm max}}dP_+
720: \left.\frac{d\Gamma}{dP_+}\right|_{E_l>1~{\rm GeV}},
721: \label{eq:r3}
722: \end{eqnarray}
723: which are related to $r_1$, $r_2$, and $r_3$ as
724: \begin{eqnarray}
725: r_1&=&\tilde r_1\left(26~{\rm GeV}^2\right)
726: -\tilde r_1\left(8~{\rm GeV}^2\right),
727: \nonumber\\
728: r_2&=&\tilde r_2(1.7~{\rm GeV}),
729: \nonumber\\
730: r_3&=&\tilde r_3(0.66~{\rm GeV}).
731: \end{eqnarray}
732: In Fig.~\ref{fig:one}, $\tilde r_1$ is plotted as a function of
733: $(q^2)^{\rm max}$ for the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line) approaches.
734: We observe that the difference between the two approaches is rather small over
735: the whole range of $(q^2)^{\rm max}$, way up to 25~GeV$^2$.
736: Later, when we compare with experimental measurements, we shall see that the
737: same holds true for the normalized distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dq^2$ with
738: the above cuts on $E_l$ and $M_X$.
739: The situation is very similar for $\tilde r_2$, which is shown as a function
740: of $M_X^{\rm max}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:two}.
741: Here, the difference between the two approaches is appreciable only for small
742: values of $M_X^{\rm max}$, for $M_X^{\rm max}\alt1.5$~GeV.
743: The situation is very different for $\tilde r_3$, which is depicted as a
744: function of $P_+^{\rm max}$ for the two approaches in Fig.~\ref{fig:three}.
745: We observe that the two distributions coincide at
746: $P_+^{\rm max}\approx0.6$~GeV, where their slopes are very different, however.
747: The result of the LC approach is somewhat larger above this value of
748: $P_+^{\rm max}$, way up to $P_+^{\rm max}\approx1.2$~GeV, while is
749: significantly smaller below.
750: As we shall illustrate below, this may be understood by considering the
751: normalized $P_+$ distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dP_+$ with the cut
752: $E_l>1$~GeV, which is very different for the two approaches.
753: It turns out that the choice of $E_l^{\rm min}$ is not responsible for this
754: difference.
755: \begin{figure}[ht]
756: \begin{center}
757: \includegraphics[bb=109 104 530 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1.ps}
758: \caption{\label{fig:one}%
759: Fractional decay rate $\tilde r_1$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r1}) evaluated as
760: a function of $(q^2)^{\rm max}$ in the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line)
761: approaches.}
762: \end{center}
763: \end{figure}
764: \begin{figure}[ht]
765: \begin{center}
766: \includegraphics[bb=109 104 530 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig2.ps}
767: \caption{\label{fig:two}%
768: Fractional decay rate $\tilde r_2$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r2}) evaluated as
769: a function of $M_X^{\rm max}$ in the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line)
770: approaches.}
771: \end{center}
772: \end{figure}
773: \begin{figure}[ht]
774: \begin{center}
775: \includegraphics[bb=109 104 541 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig3.ps}
776: \caption{\label{fig:three}%
777: Fractional decay rate $\tilde r_3$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r3}) evaluated as
778: a function of $P_+^{\rm max}$ in the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line)
779: approaches.}
780: \end{center}
781: \end{figure}
782:
783: As for measurements of fractional decay rates $R(\Delta\Phi)$, experimental
784: data for the normalized distributions $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dM_X$ and
785: $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dP_+$ with cuts on $E_l$ have been published and can be
786: compared to the respective distributions evaluated in the SF and LC approaches
787: (see Ref.~\cite{Aglietti:2006yb} for a similar comparison).
788: Specifically, $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dM_X$ distributions with $E_l>1$~GeV have
789: been published by BABAR \cite{Aubert:2003zw,Aubert:2006qi} and BELLE
790: \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}.
791: In Figs.~\ref{fig:four} and \ref{fig:five}, we compare these measured
792: distributions to our predictions in the SF and LC approaches.
793: Both the measured and predicted distributions are normalized to unity in the
794: signal region, which is defined by $M_X<2.5$~GeV for BABAR
795: \cite{Aubert:2006qi} and by $M_X<1.7$~GeV for BELLE \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}.
796: From Figs.~\ref{fig:four} and \ref{fig:five}, we see that the predictions in
797: the SF approach are in reasonable agreement with both measurements, whereas
798: the distributions of the LC approach are much too narrow and their peaks are
799: much higher than in the measured distributions.
800: A similar comparison is performed in Fig.~\ref{fig:six} for the normalized
801: distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dP_+$ with $E_l>1$~GeV measured by BELLE
802: \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}.
803: Both the measured and calculated distributions are normalized to unity in the
804: signal region defined by $P_+<0.66$~GeV.
805: Again, the distribution in the SF approach agrees more or less with the
806: experimental data, whereas the one in the LC approach is much too narrow.
807: BELLE \cite{Bizjak:2005hn} also presented experimental data on the
808: normalized distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dq^2$ with $E_l>1$~GeV normalized
809: to unity in the signal region defined by $M_X<1.7$~GeV and $q^2>8$~GeV$^2$.
810: These are compared in Fig.~\ref{fig:seven} with the predictions based on the
811: SF and LC approaches.
812: Here, the two theoretical distributions are very similar and both agree with
813: the measurement reasonably well.
814: \begin{figure}[ht]
815: \begin{center}
816: \includegraphics[bb=105 104 541 668,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig4.ps}
817: \caption{\label{fig:four}%
818: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dM_X$ with $E_l>1$~GeV normalized to
819: unity in the signal region ($M_X<2.5$~GeV) as predicted in the SF (solid line)
820: and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with BABAR data
821: \cite{Aubert:2006qi}.}
822: \end{center}
823: \end{figure}
824: \begin{figure}[ht]
825: \begin{center}
826: \includegraphics[bb=105 104 541 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig5.ps}
827: \caption{\label{fig:five}%
828: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dM_X$ with $E_l>1$~GeV normalized to
829: unity in the signal region ($M_X<1.7$~GeV) as predicted in the SF (solid line)
830: and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with BELLE data
831: \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}.}
832: \end{center}
833: \end{figure}
834: \begin{figure}[ht]
835: \begin{center}
836: \includegraphics[bb=105 104 546 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig6.ps}
837: \caption{\label{fig:six}%
838: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dP_+$ with $E_l>1$~GeV normalized to
839: unity in the signal region ($P_+<0.66$~GeV) as predicted in the SF (solid
840: line) and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with BELLE data
841: \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}.}
842: \end{center}
843: \end{figure}
844: \begin{figure}[ht]
845: \begin{center}
846: \includegraphics[bb=78 104 539 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig7.ps}
847: \caption{\label{fig:seven}%
848: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dq^2$ with $E_l>1$~GeV normalized to
849: unity in the signal region ($M_X<1.7$~GeV and $q^2>8$~GeV$^2$) as predicted in
850: the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with BELLE
851: data \cite{Bizjak:2005hn}.}
852: \end{center}
853: \end{figure}
854:
855: Finally, we turn to the charged-lepton energy distribution $d\Gamma/dE_l$.
856: In analogy to Eqs.~(\ref{eq:r1})--(\ref{eq:r3}), we define the fractional
857: decay rate
858: \begin{equation}
859: \tilde r_4\left(E_l^{\rm max}\right)=\frac{1}{\Gamma}
860: \int_0^{E_l^{\rm max}}dE_l\frac{d\Gamma}{dE_l}.
861: \label{eq:r4}
862: \end{equation}
863: In Tables~\ref{tab:seven} and \ref{tab:eight}, we present the values of
864: $\tilde r_4(2.3~{\rm GeV})$ evaluated for various values of $m_b$ and
865: $\lambda_1$ in the SF and LC approaches, respectively.
866: We notice that, for given values of $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$, the results in the
867: two approaches differ appreciably.
868: In particular, $\tilde r_4(2.3~{\rm GeV})$ depends much more strongly on $m_b$
869: for fixed $\lambda_1$ and vice versa in the LC approach as compared to the SF
870: approach.
871: This is due to the fact that the $E_l$ distribution falls off much more
872: rapidly towards the threshold at $E_l^{\rm max}=M_B/2$ in the LC approach as
873: compared to the SF approach (see Figs.~\ref{fig:nine}--\ref{fig:eleven}).
874: Of course, this effect diminishes if $E_l^{\rm max}$ is taken to be smaller
875: than 2.3~GeV.
876: In this case, also the sensitivity of $\tilde r_4\left(E_l^{\rm max}\right)$
877: on $m_b$ and $\lambda_1$ is reduced.
878: The SF result for $\tilde r_4(2.3~{\rm GeV})$ agrees quite well with the value
879: used by CLEO \cite{Bornheim:2002du} to determine $|V_{ub}|$ from the data
880: points in the range 2.3~GeV${}<E_l<{}$2.6~GeV.
881: \begin{table}[ht]
882: \begin{center}
883: \caption{\label{tab:seven}%
884: Values of $\tilde r_4(2.3~{\rm GeV})$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r4}) evaluated
885: for various values of $m_b$ (in GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$) in the SF
886: approach.}
887: \medskip
888: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
889: \hline
890: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 \\
891: \hline
892: $-0.35$ & 0.9307 & 0.9099 & 0.8874 \\
893: $-0.25$ & 0.9419 & 0.9210 & 0.8978 \\
894: $-0.15$ & 0.9558 & 0.9347 & 0.9107 \\
895: \hline
896: \end{tabular}
897: \end{center}
898: \end{table}
899: \begin{table}[ht]
900: \begin{center}
901: \caption{\label{tab:eight}%
902: Values of $\tilde r_4(2.3~{\rm GeV})$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r4}) evaluated
903: for various values of $m_b$ (in GeV) and $\lambda_1$ (in GeV$^2$) in the LC
904: approach.}
905: \medskip
906: \begin{tabular}{|c|ccc|}
907: \hline
908: \backslashbox{$\lambda_1$}{$m_b$} & 4.64 & 4.72 & 4.80 \\
909: \hline
910: $-0.35$ & 0.9646 & 0.9385 & 0.9106 \\
911: $-0.25$ & 0.9780 & 0.9524 & 0.9241 \\
912: $-0.15$ & 0.9910 & 0.9669 & 0.9382 \\
913: \hline
914: \end{tabular}
915: \end{center}
916: \end{table}
917: In Fig.~\ref{fig:eight}, $\tilde r_4$ is displayed as a function of
918: $E_l^{\rm max}$ for the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line) approaches.
919: We observe that, as $E_l^{\rm max}$ approaches its kinematical upper limit,
920: the LC result is saturated appreciably earlier than the SF one.
921: This would lead to an according difference in the value of $|V_{ub}|$
922: extracted from the data if a large $E_l^{\rm max}$ cut were imposed.
923: For $E_l^{\rm max}\alt2$~GeV, the SF and LC results for $\tilde r_4$ are very
924: similar.
925:
926: \begin{figure}[ht]
927: \begin{center}
928: \includegraphics[bb=109 104 530 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig8.ps}
929: \caption{\label{fig:eight}%
930: Fractional decay rate $\tilde r_4$ defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:r4}) evaluated as
931: a function of $E_l^{\rm max}$ in the SF (solid line) and LC (dashed line)
932: approaches.}
933: \end{center}
934: \end{figure}
935:
936: In Figs.~\ref{fig:nine}, \ref{fig:ten}, and \ref{fig:eleven}, we compare the
937: normalized $E_l$ distributions $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dE_l$ predicted by the
938: SF and LC approaches with measurements by CLEO \cite{Bornheim:2002du}, BABAR
939: \cite{Aubert:2005mg}, and BELLE \cite{Limosani:2005pi}, respectively.
940: Both the measured and calculated distributions are normalized to unity in the
941: signal region, which is defined by $E_l>2.30$~GeV for CLEO
942: \cite{Bornheim:2002du} and by $E_l>2.25$~GeV for BABAR \cite{Aubert:2005mg}
943: and BELLE \cite{Limosani:2005pi}.
944: In the signal region, where the background from $b\to c$ transitions is
945: expected to be minimal, the SF results agree with the CLEO, BABAR, and BELLE
946: data quite satisfactorily, while the LC results are clearly disfavored.
947: In fact, the $E_l$ distributions of the LC approach drop off much too strongly
948: towards the threshold at $E_l=M_B/2$ and deviate from the data throughout the
949: signal region.
950: This disagreement again points to the inadequacy of the LC approach to
951: describe the non-perturbative effects in $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays,
952: which was already noticed for the $M_X$ and $P_+$ distributions in
953: Figs.~\ref{fig:four}--\ref{fig:six}.
954: Finally, we should note that, in Figs.~\ref{fig:nine}--\ref{fig:eleven}, the
955: theoretical predictions refer to the rest frame of the $B$ meson, while the
956: experimental data refer to that of the $\Upsilon(4S)$ meson.
957: However, since the motion of the $B$ mesons in the $\Upsilon(4S)$ rest frame
958: is non-relativistic, this mismatch is rather insignificant in comparison with
959: the experimental errors.
960: \begin{figure}[ht]
961: \begin{center}
962: \includegraphics[bb=78 104 530 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig9.ps}
963: \caption{\label{fig:nine}%
964: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dE_l$ normalized to unity in the
965: signal region (2.30~GeV${}<E_l<2.60$~GeV) as predicted in the SF (solid line)
966: and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with CLEO data
967: \cite{Bornheim:2002du}.}
968: \end{center}
969: \end{figure}
970: \begin{figure}[ht]
971: \begin{center}
972: \includegraphics[bb=78 104 541 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig10.ps}
973: \caption{\label{fig:ten}%
974: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dE_l$ normalized to unity in the
975: signal region (2.25~GeV${}<E_l<2.60$~GeV) as predicted in the SF (solid line)
976: and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with BABAR data
977: \cite{Aubert:2005mg}.}
978: \end{center}
979: \end{figure}
980: \begin{figure}[ht]
981: \begin{center}
982: \includegraphics[bb=78 104 541 672,width=0.9\textwidth]{fig11.ps}
983: \caption{\label{fig:eleven}%
984: The decay distribution $(1/\Gamma)d\Gamma/dE_l$ normalized to unity in the
985: signal region (2.25~GeV${}<E_l<2.60$~GeV) as predicted in the SF (solid line)
986: and LC (dashed line) approaches is compared with BELLE data
987: \cite{Limosani:2005pi}.}
988: \end{center}
989: \end{figure}
990:
991: \section{\label{sec:four}Conclusions}
992:
993: We studied non-perturbative effects on $B\to X_ul\overline{\nu}_l$ decays due
994: to the motion of the $b$ quark inside the $B$ meson adopting two approaches
995: frequently discussed in the literature, namely the shape-function formalism
996: and the parton model in the light-cone limit.
997: While these effects are generally small for the total decay rate, they may
998: become substantial once kinematic acceptance cuts are applied.
999: In fact, such acceptance cuts are indispensable in practice in order to
1000: suppress the overwhelming background from $B\to X_cl\overline{\nu}_l$ decays.
1001: We considered three cut scenarios, involving the invariant mass $M_X$ of the
1002: hadronic system $X_u$, the variable $P_+=E_X-|\vec{p}_X|$ related to the
1003: energy $E_X$ and the three-momentum $\vec{p}_X$ of $X_u$, the invariant mass
1004: square $q^2$ of the leptonic system, and the charged-lepton energy $E_l$,
1005: that were adopted in recent experimental analyses by the CLEO, BABAR, and
1006: BELLE collaborations.
1007: Comparisons with decay distributions in $M_X$, $P_+$, and $E_l$ measured in
1008: these experiments disfavor the light-cone approach.
1009:
1010: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1011:
1012: The work of B.A.K. and G.K. was supported in part by the German Federal
1013: Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) through Grant No.\ 05~HT6GUA.
1014: The work of J.-F.Y. was supported in part by the National Natural Science
1015: Foundation of China through Grant Nos.\ 10205004 and 10475028.
1016:
1017: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1018:
1019: \bibitem{Cabibbo:1963yz}
1020: N.~Cabibbo,
1021: %``UNITARY SYMMETRY AND LEPTONIC DECAYS,''
1022: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 10}, 531 (1963);
1023: %
1024: M.~Kobayashi and T.~Maskawa,
1025: %``CP Violation In The Renormalizable Theory Of Weak Interaction,''
1026: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 49}, 652 (1973).
1027:
1028: \bibitem{Bornheim:2002du}
1029: A.~Bornheim {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
1030: %``Improved measurement of |V(ub)| with inclusive semileptonic B decays,''
1031: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 231803 (2002).
1032:
1033: \bibitem{Aubert:2003zw}
1034: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1035: %``Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching ratio of $B$
1036: %mesons and determination of $|V_{ub}|$,''
1037: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 071802 (2004);
1038: % B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1039: %``Measurement of the partial branching fraction for inclusive charmless
1040: %semileptonic B decays and extraction of |V(ub)|,''
1041: % arXiv:hep-ex/0507017.
1042: Report No.\ BABAR-CONF-05/11, SLAC-PUB-11310, hep-ex/0507017.
1043:
1044: \bibitem{Aubert:2005im}
1045: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1046: %``Determination of $|V_{ub}|$ from measurements of the electron and neutrino
1047: %momenta in inclusive semileptonic $B$ decays,''
1048: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 111801 (2005)
1049: [Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 97}, 019903 (2006)].
1050:
1051: \bibitem{Aubert:2005mg}
1052: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1053: %``Measurement of the inclusive electron spectrum in charmless semileptonic B
1054: %decays near the kinematic endpoint and determination of |V(ub)|,''
1055: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 012006 (2006).
1056:
1057: \bibitem{Aubert:2006qi}
1058: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1059: %``Determinations of |V(ub)| from inclusive semileptonic B decays with
1060: %reduced model dependence,''
1061: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 221801 (2006).
1062:
1063: \bibitem{Kakuno:2003fk}
1064: H.~Kakuno {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration],
1065: %``Measurement of |V(ub)| using inclusive B --> X/u l nu decays with a novel
1066: %X/u reconstruction method,''
1067: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92}, 101801 (2004).
1068:
1069: \bibitem{Limosani:2005pi}
1070: A.~Limosani {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration],
1071: %``Measurement of inclusive charmless semileptonic B-meson decays at the
1072: %endpoint of the electron momentum spectrum,''
1073: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 621}, 28 (2005).
1074:
1075: \bibitem{Bizjak:2005hn}
1076: I.~Bizjak {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration],
1077: %``Measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic partial branching
1078: %fraction of B mesons and determination of |V(ub)| using the full
1079: %reconstruction tag,''
1080: Report No.\ KEK-2005-19, BELLE-2005-20, hep-ex/0505088;
1081: published without Fig.~3(b) in
1082: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 241801 (2005).
1083:
1084: \bibitem{Lange:2005yw}
1085: B.~O.~Lange, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,
1086: %``Theory of charmless inclusive B decays and the extraction of V(ub),''
1087: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 073006 (2005).
1088:
1089: \bibitem{Neubert:1993ch}
1090: M.~Neubert,
1091: %``QCD Based Interpretation Of The Lepton Spectrum In Inclusive Anti-B $\to$
1092: %X(U) Lepton Anti-Neutrino Decays,''
1093: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 3392 (1994);
1094: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D
1095: {\bf 49}, 4623 (1994);
1096: T.~Mannel and M.~Neubert,
1097: %``Resummation of nonperturbative corrections to the lepton spectrum in
1098: %inclusive B $\to$ X lepton anti-neutrino decays,''
1099: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D
1100: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 50}, 2037 (1994).
1101:
1102: \bibitem{Bigi:1993ex}
1103: I.~I.~Bigi, M.~A.~Shifman, N.~G.~Uraltsev and A.~I.~Vainshtein,
1104: %``On The Motion Of Heavy Quarks Inside Hadrons: Universal Distributions And
1105: %Inclusive Decays,''
1106: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 9}, 2467 (1994);
1107: I.~Bigi, M.~Shifman, N.~Uraltsev and A.~Vainshtein,
1108: %``Heavy quark distribution function in QCD and the AC**2M**2 model,''
1109: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 328}, 431 (1994).
1110:
1111: \bibitem{Altarelli:1982kh}
1112: G.~Altarelli, N.~Cabibbo, G.~Corbo, L.~Maiani and G.~Martinelli,
1113: %``Leptonic Decay Of Heavy Flavors: A Theoretical Update,''
1114: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 208}, 365 (1982).
1115:
1116: \bibitem{Bareiss:1989my}
1117: A.~Bareiss and E.~A.~Paschos,
1118: %``SEMILEPTONIC B MESON DECAYS IN THE PARTON MODEL,''
1119: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 327}, 353 (1989);
1120: C.~H.~Jin, W.~F.~Palmer and E.~A.~Paschos,
1121: %``A Parton model for inclusive semileptonic B meson decays,''
1122: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 329}, 364 (1994).
1123:
1124: \bibitem{Jin:1995hi}
1125: C.~Jin and E.~A.~Paschos,
1126: in {\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Heavy Flavor and
1127: Electroweak Theory}, Beijing, China, 16--19 August 1995,
1128: edited by C.-H. Chang and C.-S. Huang (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996)
1129: p.~132.
1130:
1131: \bibitem{Aglietti:2006yb}
1132: U.~Aglietti, G.~Ferrera and G.~Ricciardi,
1133: %``Semi-inclusive B decays and a model for soft-gluon effects,''
1134: Report No.\ ROME1/1434/06, DSFNA/26/2006, hep-ph/0608047;
1135: and earlier papers by these authors cited therein.
1136:
1137: \bibitem{Andersen:2005mj}
1138: J.~R.~Andersen and E.~Gardi,
1139: %``Inclusive spectra in charmless semileptonic B decays by dressed gluon
1140: %exponentiation,''
1141: JHEP {\bf 0601}, 097 (2006);
1142: %\bibitem{Andersen:2006hr}
1143: % J.~R.~Andersen and E.~Gardi,
1144: %``Radiative B decay spectrum: DGE at NNLO,''
1145: {\bf 0701}, 029 (2007).
1146:
1147: \bibitem{Kim:1998wx}
1148: C.~S.~Kim, Y.~G.~Kim and K.~Y.~Lee,
1149: %``On the motion of b-quark inside B meson: The parton model vs. the ACCMM
1150: %model,''
1151: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 4002 (1998).
1152:
1153: \bibitem{DeFazio:1999sv}
1154: F.~De Fazio and M.~Neubert,
1155: %``B --> X/u l anti-nu/l decay distributions to order alpha(s),''
1156: JHEP {\bf 9906}, 017 (1999).
1157:
1158: \bibitem{kim}
1159: H. Kim, PhD thesis, University of Hamburg,
1160: Report No.\ DESY-THESIS-2002-048.
1161:
1162: \bibitem{Jezabek:1988ja}
1163: M.~Jezabek and J.~H.~K\"uhn,
1164: %``Lepton Spectra From Heavy Quark Decay,''
1165: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 320}, 20 (1989).
1166:
1167: \bibitem{Falk:1992wt}
1168: A.~F.~Falk and M.~Neubert,
1169: %``Second order power corrections in the heavy quark effective theory. 1.
1170: %Formalism and meson form-factors,''
1171: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 47}, 2965 (1993).
1172:
1173: \bibitem{Kagan:1998ym}
1174: A.~L.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,
1175: %``{QCD} anatomy of B --> X/s gamma decays,''
1176: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 7}, 5 (1999).
1177:
1178: \bibitem{Jin:1999rs}
1179: C.~Jin,
1180: %``Long distance effects on the B --> X/s gamma photon energy spectrum,''
1181: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 11}, 335 (1999).
1182:
1183: \bibitem{Jin:1997aj}
1184: C.~Jin and E.~A.~Paschos,
1185: %``Radiatively corrected semileptonic spectra in B meson decays,''
1186: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 1}, 523 (1998).
1187:
1188: \bibitem{Bauer:2001rc}
1189: C.~W.~Bauer, Z.~Ligeti and M.~E.~Luke,
1190: %``Precision determination of |V(ub)| from inclusive decays,''
1191: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 113004 (2001).
1192:
1193: \bibitem{Bosch:2004bt}
1194: S.~W.~Bosch, B.~O.~Lange, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,
1195: %``Proposal for a precision measurement of |V(ub)|,''
1196: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 221801 (2004).
1197:
1198: \bibitem{Yao:2006px}
1199: W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1200: %``Review of particle physics,''
1201: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
1202:
1203: \bibitem{Aubert:2005cu}
1204: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1205: %``Measurements of the $B \to X_s \gamma$ branching fraction and photon
1206: %spectrum from a sum of exclusive final states,''
1207: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 052004 (2005).
1208:
1209: \bibitem{Barberio:2006bi}
1210: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG)],
1211: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''
1212: Report No.\ SLAC-R-846, hep-ex/0603003.
1213:
1214: \end{thebibliography}
1215:
1216: \end{document}
1217: