Semileptonic B a ℓν decay in QCD 1 → 9 9 9 T. M. Aliev ∗, M. Savcı † 1 n Physics Department, Middle East Technical University a J 06531 Ankara, Turkey 4 2 1 v Abstract 5 9 3 The form factors and the branching ratio of the B a ℓν decay are calculated 1 1 → 0 in framework of QCD sum rules. A comparison of our results on form factors and 9 9 branching ratio with the results from constituent quark model is presented. / h p - p e h : v i X r a ∗e-mail: [email protected] †e-mail: [email protected] 1 Introduction Inclusive and exclusive decays of heavy flavors play a complementary role in determina- tion of fundamental parameters of the Standard Model and of a deeper understanding the dynamics QCD. Among of all these decays the semileptonic decays occupy a special place, since their theoretical description is relatively simple and due to the possibility of a more precise determination of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements experimentally. The new experimental results in studying B meson decays, which have been carried in recent years, has improved the values of the CKM matrix elements and CP violation parameter. The experimental prospects at future B factories Belle [1] and BaBar [2], where manyinclusiveandexclusive channelsareexpectedtobemeasuredmoreprecisely, pushesto make further analysis on the theoretical side. One of the main goals in these investigations is a more accurate determination of the CKM matrix element V . For this aim, both ub exclusive and inclusive b u transitions will be analyzed. Studying inclusive decays → theoretically is easy, but their measurement in experiments are difficult. Using inclusive decays in determining V , implies the need of using perturbative QCD methods in the ub region near the end–point of the lepton spectrum, where many resonances are present and perturbative results are less reliable. This problem can be avoided by considering exclusive channels for which measurements in experiments are easy. But unfortunately theoretical description of the exclusive decays is not as easy as the inclusive decays. This is due to the fact that, in investigating the exclusive decays there appears the problem of calculating the hadronic matrix elements, which is directly related to the non–perturbative sector of QCD. So in an investigation of the exclusive decays, we need non–perturbative methods, such as QCD sum rules, lattice calculations, etc. The relevant semileptonic exclusive decays in determining V are B πℓν, B ρℓν ub → → and B a ℓν. The decays B πℓν and B ρℓν, have been extensively studied 1 → → → theoretically in a series of papers, in framework of non–perturbative approaches such as QCD sum rules [3]–[7], light cone QCD sum rules [8]–[11], lattice calculations [12]–[13], quark model [14]. Note that the B πℓν and B ρℓν decays have already been observed → → in experiments conducted by the CLEO Collaboration [15]. The semileptonic decay B → a ℓν was investigated in framework of the constituent quark model (CQM) in [16]. Yet, this 1 decay has not been observed in experiments that have been conducted so far, but expected tobedetected infutureB–factories. Forthese reasons, itistherighttimetoinvestigate this decay in framework of different methods and a comparison of the predictions of different approaches is necessary. In this work we investigate the semileptonic decay B a ℓν in 1 → framework of the three point QCD sum rules method. The present paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we formulate the sum rules for B a transition form factors. Section 3 is devoted to the numerical analysis of the sum 1 → rules, and a comparison of our results with the quark model predictions. 1 2 Sum rules for B a transition form factors 1 → In calculation of the B a transition form factors, we start by considering the following 1 → correlator Π (p,p′,q) = i2 d4xd4yeip′x−ipy 0 T d¯(x)γ γ u(x)J (0)¯b(x)γ d(y) , (1) µν ν 5 µ 5 Z D (cid:12) n o(cid:12)E (cid:12) (cid:12) where J = u¯γ (1 γ )b is the weak curren(cid:12)t, with momentum q, d¯γ γ u and(cid:12)¯biγ d are the µ µ 5 ν 5 5 − currents with quantum numbers of the final a and initial B mesons with four–momentum 1 p′ and p, respectively. The correlator is expressed through the invariant amplitudes as follows: Π = ig Π i(p+p′) p Π iq p Π ε pαp′βΠ + (2) µν µν 0 µ ν + µ ν − µναβ V − − − ··· In what follows we calculate the correlator (1) at negative values of p2 and p′2 with the help of the operator product expansion in QCD, on one side, and saturating (1) by the lowest meson states in the pseudoscalar and axial vector channels, on the other side. Both representations areequatedusing Boreltransformationsinp2 andp′2, whichsuppress higher resonance and continuum contributions, as well as higher dimension operator contributions. Firstly let us consider the physical part of (1). Saturating (1) by the contributions coming from B and a mesons, we have 1 1 1 Π (p,p′) = 0 d¯γ γ u a a u¯γ (1 γ )b B B ¯biγ u 0 .(3) µν p2 m2 p′2 m2 ν 5 1 h 1| µ − 5 | i 5 − B − a1 D (cid:12) (cid:12) E D (cid:12) (cid:12) E (cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12) The weak matrix element B a can b(cid:12)e writte(cid:12)n as (q = p p′) (cid:12) (cid:12) 1 → − a (ε,p′) u¯γ (1 γ )b B(p) = 1 µ 5 h | − | i 2A(q2) (p+p′) ǫ ε∗νpαp′β iε∗(m +m )V (q2)+i(ε∗p) µ V (q2) m +m µναβ − µ B a1 1 m +m 2 B a1 B a1 2m q +i(ε∗p) a1 µ V (q2) V (q2) , (4) q2 3 − 0 h i where m and ε are the mass and the four–polarization vector of the a meson. Note that a1 1 form factor V can be related to V and V in the following way 3 1 2 m +m m m V (q2) = B a1V (q2) B − a1V (q2) , (5) 3 1 2 2m − 2m a1 a1 and with initial condition V (0) = V (0) . 3 0 The vacuum–to–meson transition matrix elements are are defined in standard way, namely m2 B ¯biγ d 0 = f B , 5 B m b D (cid:12) (cid:12) E (cid:12) (cid:12) √2m2 0 d¯γ(cid:12) γ u (cid:12)a = a1ε . (6) ν 5 1 ν g D (cid:12) (cid:12) E a1 (cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12) 2 Secondly, let us now consider the theoretical part of the sum rules. The theoretical part of the sum rules is calculated by means of the operator product expansion for the correlator (1). Up to dimension 6, the operators are determined by the contribution of the bare loop, and power corrections coming from dimension–3 ψ¯ψ , dimension–4 G2 dimension– 5 m2 ψ¯ψ , and dimension–6 ψ¯ψ 2 operators. Our calcuhlatiions show that thhe ciontributions com0inhg friom G2 and ψ¯ψ 2h arei negligibly small, and for this reason we don’t take their h i h i contribution into consideration in the present analysis. The double dispersion relation, for the perturbative contribution, can be written as follows ρ (s,s′,q2) Π = dsds′ i +sub. terms , (7) i (s p2)(s′ p′2) ZZ − − where index i describes the necessary invariant amplitudes ((i = 0; +; ; V) (see Eq. − (2)), and ρ is the corresponding spectral density. The spectral density is obtained from i the usual Feynman integral for the bare loop by replacing 1 2πiδ(p2) . p2 → − After standard calculations for the spectral densities, we have 3m s′(s 2m2 s′ +q2) ρ = b − b − , V 4π2 λ3/2 3m s′ 2s′ ρ = b + m4 +sq2 m2(s+q2 s′) , 0 −8π2 "λ1/2 λ3/2 b − b − # (cid:16) (cid:17) 3m 1 2s′ ρ = b s′(s′ q2 s+2m2)+ s′ 6m4 +λ+6sq2 6m2(s+q2 s′) ± 8π2 (− λ3/2 − − b λ5/2" b − b − (cid:16) (cid:17) 3m4(s+s′ q2) λ(s+2m2) 6m2s(s′ +q2 s) 3sq2(s+s′ q2) , (8) ∓ b − ∓ b ∓ b − ∓ − #) where λ = s2 +s′2 +q4 2sq2 2s′q2 2ss′ is the usual triangle function. For the power − − − correction contributions we get ¯ ψψ (3) Π = , V (p2D mE2)p′2 − b (m2 q2) ψ¯ψ Π(3) = b − , 0 2(p2 mD2)p′2E − b ¯ ψψ (3) Π = , ± ± 2(p2D mE2)p′2 − b 1 m2 m2 q2 Π(5) = m2 ψ¯ψ + b + b − , V − 0 "3(p2 m2)2p′2 2(p2 m2)3p′2 3(p2 m2)2(p′2)2# D E − b − b − b 3 1 (m2 q2)2 m2 q2 Π(5) = m2 ψ¯ψ + b − + b − 0 − 0 "− 6(p2 m2)p′2 6(p2 m2)2(p′2)2 6(p2 m2)(p′2)2 D E − b − b − b 3m2 4q2 m4 m2q2 + b − + b − b , 12(p2 m2)2p′2 4(p2 m2)3p′2# − b − b 1 m2 m2 q2 Π(5) = m2 ψ¯ψ b b − , + 0 "6(p2 m2)2p′2 − 4(p2 m2)3p′2 − 6(p2 m2)2(p′2)2# D E − b − b − b 1 m2 m2 q2 Π(5) = m2 ψ¯ψ + b + b − . (9) − 0 "2(p2 m2)2p′2 4(p2 m2)3p′2 6(p2 m2)2(p′2)2# D E − b − b − b In Eqs. (8) and (9) subscripts within the parentheses denote the dimension of the cor- responding operators. Using Eqs. (3), (4), (6), (7), (8) and (9) and using double Borel transformation in variables p2 and p′2 and equating two different representations of the cor- relator (1) we get the following sum rules for the form factors describing B a transition: 1 → m g (m +m ) A(q2) = b a1 B a1 e(m2B/M12+m2a1/M22) 2√2f m2 m2 B B a1 dsds′ρ (s,s′,q2)e−s/M12−s′/M22 + ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 V × ( ZZ D E 1 m2 m2 q2 m2 ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 + b + b − , − 0 "− 3M12 4M14 3M12M22#) D E m g V (q2) = b a1 e(m2B/M12+m2a1/M22) 1 √2f m2 m2 (m +m ) B B a1 B a1 m2 q2 dsds′ρ (s,s′,q2)e−s/M12−s′/M22 + ψ¯ψ b − e−m2b/M12 0 × ( 2 ZZ D E 1 (m2 q2)2 m2 q2 + m2 ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 b − + b − 0 "6 − 6M12M22 6M22 D E 3m2 4q2 m4 m2q2 + b − b − b , 12M12 − 8M14 #) m g (m +m ) V2(q2) = b a1 B a1 e(m2B/M12+m2a1/M22) √2f m2 m2 B B a1 1 dsds′ρ (s,s′,q2)e−s/M12−s′/M22 + ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 + × ( 2 ZZ D E 1 m2 m2 q2 m2 ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 + b + b − , − 0 "6M12 8M14 6M12M22#) D E m g q2 V (q2) V (q2) = b a1 e(m2B/M12+m2a1/M22) 3 0 − 2√2f m2 m3 B B a1 4 1 dsds′ρ (s,s′,q2)e−s/M12−s′/M22 ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 − × ( − 2 ZZ D E 1 m2 m2 q2 + m2 ψ¯ψ e−m2b/M12 + b + b − . (10) 0 "− 2M12 8M14 6M12M22#) D E The region of integration, which appears in calculation of the perturbative contribution, is determined by the following inequalities: 0 < s′ < s′ , 0 m2 m2 + b s′ < s < s , (11) b m2 q2 0 b − where s and s′ are the continuum thresholds in the B and a meson channels, respectively. 0 0 1 In Eq. (10), the continuum contribution is modeled as the bare loop contribution starting from the thresholds s and s′ and subtracted from bare loop contribution. 0 0 Finally, using the expressions for the form factors, we present the differential decay width dΓ/dq2 for the B a ℓν, which can be written in terms of the helicity amplitudes 1 → λ1/2(m2 ,m2 ,q2) H (q2) = (m +m )V (q2) B a1 A(q2) , ± B a1 1 ∓ m +m B a1 1 λ(m2 ,m2 ,q2) H (q2) = (m2 m2 q2)(m +m )V (q2) B a1 V (q2) , 0 2ma1√q2" B − a1 − B a1 1 − mB +ma1 2 # in the following way dΓ G2 V 2 ± = | ub| q2λ1/2(m2 ,m2 ,q2) H 2 , dq2 192π3m3 B a1 | ±| B dΓ G2 V 2 0 = | ub| q2λ1/2(m2 ,m2 ,q2) H 2 , (12) dq2 192π3m3 B a1 | 0| B where , 0 refers to the a helicities. Note that the difference of the form factors V V 1 3 0 ± − does not give any contribution to the B a ℓν decay, since it is proportional to the lepton 1 → mass (in our case electron or muon). 3 Numerical analysis In calculation of the form factors A(q2), V (q2), V (q2) and V (q2), we use the following 1 2 0 values of the input parameters: m = 4.8 GeV, m = 1.26 GeV, g = 8.9 [17], m = b a1 a1 B 5.28 GeV, s′ = 3 GeV2, ψ¯ψ = (0.24 GeV)3 [18], m2 = (0.8 0.2) GeV2 [19] (at the 0 − 0 ± normalization point µ = D1 GeEV). For the value of the leptonic decay constant, we shall use f = 140 GeV. This value of f corresponds to the case where (α ) corrections are B B s O not taken into account (see [20, 21]). Since the bare loop contribution does not involve (α ) corrections, they are not taken into consideration in calculation of the leptonic decay s O constant as well, for sake of a consistent procedure. 5 The expressions for the form factors involves two independent parameters M2 and M2. 1 2 According to the QCD sum rules ideology, the problem is to find a region where the results are practically independent of M2 and M2, while at the same time, the power corrections 1 2 andcontinuum contributions remain under control. Onevidence ofthe existing calculations (see [22]), we expect the regionof stability for three–point correlator to be at values of Borel parameters twice as large as in the corresponding two–point functions. From an analysis of the two–point functions, it follows that the stability region is 4 GeV2 < M2 < 8 GeV2 ((see 1 [20]). Therefore we find it convenient to evaluate in the range 8 GeV2 < M2 < 15 GeV2. In 1 determining the range of the other independent parameter M2, we have used the following 2 relation, M2 m2 1 2 a1 , (13) M2 ≃ m2 m2 ≃ 3 1 B − b from which it follows that M2 M2/3. We have checked our results weak dependence on 2 ≃ 1 this ratio. InFigs. 1 (a)–(d),we present theM2 dependence of theformfactorsA(q2 = 0), V (q2 = 1 1 0), V (q2 = 0) and V (q2 = 0) at fixed values M2/M2 = 1/3, s′ = 3 GeV2 and at three 2 0 2 1 0 different values of the threshold, s = 33 GeV2, s = 35 GeV2, s = 37 GeV2 . From 0 0 0 these figures we observe that the variations in the results, with changing s , are about 0 5%. It should be noted here that, in all cases of interest, the main contribution comes ∼ ¯ from the dimension 3 operator ψψ . Our final results for the values of the form factors at q2 = 0 are presented in TableD1, iEn which we present the CQM predictions at q2 = 0 as well. A comparison of these results yields that the magnitude of the form factor A(q2 = 0) is approximately five times larger, while the magnitude of the form factors V (q2 = 0) and 0 V (q2 = 0) are five and two times smaller, respectively, in our case, than the ones predicted 1 by the CQM (the errors in form factors predicted by CQM is about 15%, see [16]). The magnitude of the form factor V (q2 = 0) is practically the same in both approaches. Figs. 2 2 (a)–(d), depict the q2 dependence of the form factors at fixed values M2 = 10 GeV2 1 and M2 = 12 GeV2, under the condition M2/M2 = 1/3, and at s = 35 GeV2, in the 1 2 1 0 range 0 < q2 < 10 GeV2. The reason why we consider this region of q2 is that the non– perturbative contribution becomes large and hence the operator product expansion breaks down. In order to extend our results to the full physical region q2 16 GeV2, we max ≃ have used the following extrapolation formula for the form factors in such a way that they reproduce the sum rules prediction up to 10 GeV2 region. We have found that the best fits, which satisfy the above–mentioned condition, can be expressed as F (0) F (q2) = i . i 1 a (q2/m2 )+b (q2/m2 )2 − F B F B The values of the constant fit parameters a and b , for different form factors, are listed in F F Table 1. After integrating Eq. (12) over q2, and using V = 0.032, τ = 1.56 10−12 s, one ub B × can obtain the decay width and branching ratio of the B a ℓν process. These results, 1 → together with CQM predictions, are summarized in Table 2, which constitute the main results of this work. From a comparison of these results we see that, the CQM’s prediction of branching ratio is approximately five times larger than the QCD sum rules prediction. 6 This work a b CQM [16] F F A(0) 0.67 0.10 0.72 0.20 0.14 − ± − V (0) 0.42 0.05 0.44 0.45 0.81 1 − ± − V (0) 0.53 0.05 0.45 0.13 0.56 2 − ± V (0) 0.23 0.05 0.86 0.38 1.20 0 − ± − Table 1: This work CQM [16] Γ (B a ℓν) 5.1 105 s−1 (4.6 0.9) 107 s−1 + 1 → × ± × Γ (B a ℓν) 7.5 107 s−1 (0.98 0.18) 108 s−1 − 1 → × ± × Γ (B a ℓν) 2.7 107 s−1 (4.0 0.7) 108 s−1 0 1 → × ± × (B a ℓν) 1.6 10−4 (8.4 1.6) 10−4 1 B → × ± × Table 2: 7 References [1] Belle Progress Report, Belle Collaboration, KEK–PROGRESS–REPORT–97–1 (1997). [2] Status of the BaBar Detector, BaBar Collaboration, SLAC–PUB–7951, presented at 29th International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP–98), Vancouver, Canada, 1998. [3] A. A. Ovchinnikov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 50 (1989) 519. [4] P. Ball, V. M. Braun, and H. G. Dosch, Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 316; ibid. B259 (1991) 481. [5] P. Colangelo, P. Santorelli, Phys. Lett. B237 (1994) 123. [6] P. Ball, Phys. Rev. D48 (1993) 3190. [7] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev D51 (1995) 2137. [8] V. M. Belyaev, A. Khodjamirian, and R. Ru¨ckl, Z Phys. C60 (1993) 349. [9] A. Khodjamirian, R. Ru¨ckl, and C. Winhart, Phys. Rev D58 (1998) 054013. [10] P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev D58 (1998) 094016. [11] P. Ball, V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev D55 (1997) 5561. [12] J. M. Flynn., In Proc. of 28th ICHEP (Warsaw), eds. Z. Ajduk and A. K. Wroblewski, (World Scientific, Singapore) 1996, p. 335. [13] L. Del Debbio et al., UKQCD Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B416 (1998) 392. [14] P. Colangelo, F. De Fazio, M. Ladisa, G. Nardulli, P. Santorelli, and A. Tricarico, prep. hep-ph/9809372 (1998). [15] J. P. Alexander, et al., CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 5000. [16] A. Deandrea, R. Gatto, G. Nardulli and A. D. Polosa, prep. hep/ph/9811259 (1998). [17] L. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Reports 127C (1985) 1. [18] M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainstein, and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B147 (1979) 385. [19] V. M. Belyaev and B. L. Ioffe, Sov. J. JETP 56 (1982) 493. [20] T. M. Aliev, V. L. Eletsky, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 38 (19830 936. [21] V. M. Belyaev, V. M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian and R. Ru¨ckl, Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 6177. [22] B. L. Ioffe and A. V. Smilga, Phys. Lett. B114 (1982) 353; Nucl. Phys. B216 (1983) 373. 8 Figure captions Fig. 1 The dependence of the form factors A(q2 = 0), V (q2 = 0), V (q2 = 0), and 1 2 V (q2 = 0) on Borel parameter M2. In all figures (a)–(d), the dotted line corresponds to 0 1 value of threshold s = 33 GeV2, the solid line corresponds to s = 35 GeV2, and dash– 0 0 dotted line corresponds to s = 37 GeV2, respectively. 0 Fig. 2 The dependence of the form factors A(q2) ,V (q2) ,V (q2) and V (q2) on q2 at 1 2 0 fixed value of threshold s = 35 GeV2. In all figures (a)–(d), the solid line corresponds to 0 thefixedvalueoftheBorelparameterM2 = 10GeV2, andthedash–dottedlinecorresponds 1 to M2 = 12 GeV2, respectively. 1 9