text:
# High-energy spin effects and structure of elastic scattering amplitude

## 1 Introduction

One of the goals of modern physics is the exploration of internal structures of microscopic matter objects; the main attention being devoted to nucleons at present. Even if some characteristics of nucleon structure may be described on the basis of QCD there are still many open questions, as the most experimental data on diffractive scattering have been interpreted with the help of phenomenological models. The theory has concerned mainly the nucleon structure playing a role in deep inelastic nucleon scattering while a similar theory of diffractive collisions has not yet been practically available.

In the most phenomenological approaches to high-energy elastic hadron scattering one uses the elastic hadron scattering amplitude with a dominant imaginary part vanishing at the diffractive minimum ; its real part is introduced only to fill in the non-zero value of differential cross section $`d\sigma /dt`$ in the diffraction dip. The corresponding elastic phase remains very small in a rather broad interval of momentum transfers $`t`$. Performing Fourier-Bessel transformation of such an amplitude one always obtains a central behavior of elastic hadron scattering in the impact parameter space, i.e., with the majority of elastic hadronic collisions realized at impact parameter value $`b=0`$; colliding nucleons are interpreted as transparent objects .

However, the existence of diffractive minimum does not mean at all that the imaginary part of the hadronic amplitude should vanish in it; it means only that the sum of the squares of both its real and imaginary parts has a minimum. It has been shown  that experimental data may be well described with the help of amplitude giving a peripheral behavior (having maximum at a higher value of $`b`$). In such a case the imaginary part of hadronic amplitude is dominant in a much smaller region of $`t`$ only. The peripheral interpretation of elastic hadron scattering at high-energy enables a unified description of all diffractive processes, i.e., of both the elastic and diffractive production channels.

The behavior of high-energy elastic hadron collisions in the impact parameter space can be simply characterized by the values of root-mean-squares of impact parameters corresponding to the elastic, inelastic and as well as total scattering which can be easily calculated directly from the $`t`$ dependent elastic hadron scattering amplitude . These quantities characterize the ranges of forces responsible for all mentioned kinds of scattering. The values of elastic and inelastic root-mean-squares of impact parameters differ significantly in the case of the central and peripheral interpretations of elastic hadron scattering.

As the interference region of the Coulomb and hadronic interaction is very narrow the elastic scattering data themselwes do not allow to decide between mentioned different alternatives. And it is necessary to look for other kinds of experiments. One possibility may consist in experiments with polarized nucleons. Such experiments are planned to be performed at RHIC and LHC . They include the measurement of spin correlation parameters in the diffractive region of $`pp`$ elastic scattering. The goal of this paper is to investigate whether they might contribute to giving an answer to the given question. The individual spin components exhibit different $`t`$ dependence for peripheral or central behaviors which may manifest in different predictions concerning the analyzing power at higher $`|t|`$ values.

## 2 Elastic hadron scattering amplitudes

The differential cross sections determined in an experiment are described by the absolute square of the total scattering amplitude including the electromagnetic and hadronic forces

$`F(s,t)=F_C(s,t)\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \phi (s,t))+F_N(s,t),`$ (1)
where $`F_C(s,t)`$ stands for the Coulomb amplitude known from QED and $`F_N(s,t)`$ is the elastic hadronic amplitude; $`\alpha =1/137`$ is the fine structure constant. For the relative phase $`\phi (s,t)`$ between the Coulomb and hadronic amplitudes various expressions are used. In the usual approaches the West and Yennie simplified formula  valid for very small values of $`|t|`$ is used. However, for the analysis at higher values of $`|t|`$ more precise formula seems to be preferable

$`\phi (s,t)=\phi _C(s,t)\phi _{CN}(s,t),`$ (2)
where $`\phi _C(s,t)`$ stands for the second Born approximation of the pure Coulomb amplitude and the term $`\phi _{CN}(s,t)`$ is defined by the Coulomb-hadron interference. It has been found that the interference of the hadronic and electromagnetic amplitudes may give an important contribution not only at very small transfer momenta but also in the region of the diffraction minimum . For this purpose one should know the $`\phi (s,t)`$ at sufficiently large momentum transfers, too.

As a standard amplitude let us take the amplitudes proposed in Ref. . It has been shown on the basis of sum rules  that the main contribution to hadron interaction at large distances comes from the triangle diagram with $`2\pi `$ meson exchange in the $`t`$ channel. As a result, the hadron amplitude can be represented as a sum of central and peripheral parts of the interaction

$`F_N(s,t)T_c(s,t)+T_p(s,t),`$ (3)
where $`T_c(s,t)`$ describes the interaction between the central parts of hadrons; and $`T_p(s,t)`$ is the sum of contributions of diagrams corresponding to the interactions of the central part of one hadron with the meson cloud of the other. The contribution of these diagrams to the scattering amplitude with the $`N(\mathrm{\Delta }`$ isobar) in the intermediate state looks as follows :

$`T_{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}^{\lambda _1\lambda _2}(s,t)={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\pi NN(\mathrm{\Delta })}^2}{i(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4qT_{\pi N}(s\stackrel{´}{,}t)\zeta _{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}[(kq),q^2]\zeta _{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}[(pq),q^2]}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\lambda _1\lambda _2}(q,p,k,)}{[q^2M_{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}^2+iϵ][(kq)^2\mu ^2+iϵ][(pq)^2\mu ^2+iϵ]}}.`$ (4)
Here $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ are helicities of nucleons, $`g_{\pi NN(\mathrm{\Delta })}^2`$ is the coupling constant, $`T_{\pi N}`$ is the $`\pi N`$ scattering amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the matrix element of the numerator of the representation of the diagram and $`\zeta `$ are vertex functions chosen in the dipole form with the parameters $`\beta _{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}`$:

$`\zeta _{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}(l^2,q^2M_{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}^4}{(\beta _{N(\mathrm{\Delta })}^2l^2)^2}}.`$ (5)
The model with the $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contributions provides a self-consistent picture of the differential cross section of different hadron processes at high energies. Really, parameters in the amplitude determined from one reaction, for example, elastic $`pp`$ scattering, allow one to obtain a wide range of results for elastic meson-nucleon scattering and charge-exchange reaction $`\pi ^{}p\pi ^0n`$ at high energies.

The preceeding approach of separating the Coulomb and hadronic scattering is convenient in the case of usual weakly $`t`$ dependent phase giving the central description of elastic hadron collisions in the impact parameter space. However, when the $`t`$ dependent phase strongly increases with the increasing $`|t|`$ the more convenient method of separation of Coulomb and hadronic scattering consists in the application of the approach proposed in Refs.  valid at any $`s`$ and $`t`$ (up to the terms linear in $`\alpha `$). However, the dynamics of hadronic amplitude leading to peripherality has not been up to now theoretically specified. In principle it could be described in different ways, e.g., in the simple Regge pole model with the help of complex $`t`$ dependent residue functions, complex Regge trajectories, etc. Instead of it, in an analogy with the use of current analysis based on the West and Yennie amplitude  a convenient parameterization of both the modulus and the phase has been used (for detail, see Ref. ). Such an approach enables to specify the elastic hadron scattering amplitude $`F_N(s,t)`$ directly from the elastic scattering data.

The difference between the phases leading either to central or peripheral distributions of elastic hadron scattering in the impact parameter space can be seen in Fig. 1; the graphs correspond to $`\overline{p}p`$ scattering at energy of 541 GeV ; similar $`t`$ dependencies may be also exhibited by the phases corresponding to the $`pp`$ elastic scattering at energy of 53 GeV (see Ref. ).

Fig. 1. The $`t`$ dependent phases of elastic hadron scattering amplitudes leading to peripheral (solid line) and central (dashed line) distributions of elastic hadron scattering in the impact parameter space.

## 3 Analysis of $`A_N`$

Now, let us examine the form of analyzing power of $`pp`$ elastic scattering using the previous specifications of the scattering amplitudes. The differential cross section $`\frac{d\sigma }{dt}`$ and spin parameters $`A_N`$ are defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{s^2}}(|\mathrm{\Phi }_1|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_2|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_3|^2+|\mathrm{\Phi }_4|^2+4|\mathrm{\Phi }_5|^2),`$ (6)
$`A_N{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{s^2}}\mathrm{}[(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2+\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_4)\mathrm{\Phi }_5^{})],`$ (7)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j`$ are usual helicity amplitudes. It has been shown in Refs.  that due to presence of the Coulomb and hadronic interactions each total helicity amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(s,t)`$ can be written as the sum of the hadronic $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^N(s,t)`$ and electromagnetic $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{elm}(s,t)`$ helicity amplitudes bound with the same relative phase $`\phi (s,t)`$ valid for small $`|t|`$ values

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j(s,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_j^N(s,t)+\mathrm{\Phi }_j^{elm}(s,t)e^{\phi (s,t)},$$
(8)
where the electromagnetic helicity amplitudes can be explicitly determined within the framework of QED. Their limiting values at high energies have been given in Ref. ; only three of them are independent at asymptotic energies.

At present, the spin effects owing to the Coulomb-nucleon interference (CNI) at very small transfer momenta have been widely discussed in the relation to future spin experiments at RHIC and LHC. These effects had not been well understood in the domain of the diffraction minimum. This is due to the fact that the Coulomb-hadron interference phase at higher $`|t|`$ has not been known sufficiently. In , the phase $`\phi _c`$ of the pure Coulomb amplitude in the second Born approximation with the form factor in the monopole and dipole forms has been calculated in a broad region of $`t`$. It has been shown that the behavior of $`\phi _c`$ at higher values of $`t`$ sharply differs from the behavior of $`\phi _c`$ obtained in .

For the total phase factor that can be used in the whole diffraction region of elastic hadron scattering it has been found

$`\phi (s,t)=\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{4}}+2\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_N(s,q)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_c(\rho )(1\mathrm{exp}(\chi _h(\rho ,s))J_0(\rho ,q)d\rho ,`$ (9)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_c(\rho )=2\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho +2\rho K_0(\rho \mathrm{\Lambda })[1+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{24}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\rho ^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\rho }{12}}K_1(\rho \mathrm{\Lambda })[11+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\rho ^2].`$ (10)
Here $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are modified Bessel functions of the zero and first orders, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.71`$GeV2, $`\gamma =0.577`$ is Euler constant and $`t=q^2`$. Then the contributions of the Coulomb-hadron interference to the analyzing power $`A_N^{CN}`$ (including the two possible structures of spin-non-flip amplitude at small transfer momenta and in the diffraction dip domain) of the $`pp`$ elastic scattering at small $`|t|`$ for $`\sqrt{s}=540`$ GeV is shown in Fig. 2.

The obtained form of $`A_N^{CN}`$ at small momentum transfers differs for the two variants beginning at $`|t|>0.05`$ GeV2. The difference reach $`2\%`$ at $`t=0.15GeV^2`$ and, in principle, can be measured in accurate experiment.

Now, let us calculate the Coulomb-hadron interference effect in the analyzing power $`A_N^{CN}`$ in the two alternatives for higher $`|t|`$:
(i) the diffraction dip is created by the ”zero” of the imaginary part of the scattering amplitude and the real part fills it in
(ii) the diffraction dip is created by the ”zero” of the real part part of the scattering amplitude and the imaginary part fills it in

The results are shown in Fig. 3 for $`\sqrt{s}=50`$ GeV and in Fig. 4 at $`\sqrt{s}=540`$ GeV.

Fig. 2. Calculated analyzing power (the solid line) corresponds to the first variant characterized by zero of the real part at small $`|t|`$; the dashed line corresponds to the second variant with imaginary part vanishing at small $`|t|`$.

Fig. 3. Calculated analyzing power in the region of the diffraction minimum at $`\sqrt{s}=50`$ GeV (the solid line corresponds to the variant I with zero of $`\mathrm{}F_N`$ at dip; the dashed line shows the variant II, with the zero of the $`\mathrm{}F_N`$ at the dip).

Fig. 4. Calculated analyzing power in the region of the diffraction minimum at $`\sqrt{s}=540`$ GeV (the solid line corresponds to the variant I with zero of $`\mathrm{}F_N`$ at dip; the dashed line shows the variant II, with the zero of the $`\mathrm{}F_N`$ at the dip).

In the region below the diffraction minimum, we obtain in the first case a positive non-small contribution which changes (reduces) the size of the spin correlation parameter owing to the hadron-spin-flip amplitude. Especially it is to be noted that there is a heavy shift of the point where $`A_N`$ changes its sign. The calculations show that such additional contributions lead to the change of the position of the negative maximum of $`A_N`$ to larger $`|t|`$. In the other case, with the zero of the real part of the scattering amplitude, we obtain only negative contribution which enhanced the magnitude of $`A_N`$ owing to the hadron-spin-flip amplitude and change the position of maximum to the low $`|t|`$. Such a picture corresponds to the highest energy at RHIC. Of course, $`A_N^{CN}`$ has small magnitude but can be measured in an accurate experiment.

## 4 Conclusion

We have shown that the two different $`t`$ dependent phases of elastic hadron scattering amplitude giving the central and peripheral distributions of elastic hadron scattering in the impact parameter space can give also different predictions of the spin correlation parameter - the analyzing power $`A_N`$ at higher values of $`|t|`$; mainly in the region of diffractive minimum. This is due to the the interference of the spin-non-flip elastic scattering amplitude and the electromagnetic spin-flip amplitude. The measurement of the correction $`A_N^{CN}`$ in the domain of the diffraction minimum can give valuable information about the structure of the elastic scattering amplitude. In spite of the large contribution of the hadron-spin-flip amplitude, we can see that taking into account the odderon contributions leads to visible changes in spin correlation effects. So, the precise measurement of $`A_N`$ in the region of the diffraction minimum and the treatment of their energy dependence can give some additional information which would allow to define the sign and magnitude of the odderon contribution, too. One should mention the importance of the $`t`$ dependence of the odderon amplitude, and therefore, the possible bounds on the $`t`$ dependence of the odderon amplitude might be also revealed in the given experiments.


format: text

text:
# 1 "BR"((𝐵⁰)̄→𝐷_𝑠⁻𝜋⁺)/(𝑓_{𝐷𝑠}²|𝑉_{𝑢𝑏}𝑉_{𝑐𝑠}|²)

$`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ determination by $`BD_s\pi `$

Hideaki Hayakawa111e-mail: haya@jodo.sci.toyama-u.ac.jp, Kaoru Hosokawa222e-mail: kaoru@jodo.sci.toyama-u.ac.jp and Takeshi Kurimoto 333e-mail: krmt@sci.toyama-u.ac.jp

Department of Physics, Faculty of Science,

Toyama University,

Toyama 930-8555, Japan

Abstract

We investigate $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ decay in perturbative QCD approach which has recently been applied to $`B`$ meson decays. $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ decay (and its charge conjugated mode) can be one of the hopeful modes to determine $`|V_{ub}|`$ since it occurs through $`bu`$ transition only. We estimate both factorizable and non-factorizable contribution, and show that the non-factorizable contribution is much less than the factorizable one. Our calculation gives $`\text{BR}(\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+)=(5070)\times f_{Ds}^2|V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2`$.

Keywords: KM matrix; $`V_{ub}`$; non-leptonic B decay; pQCD approach.

PACS Nos. : 12.15.Hh, 12.38.Bx, 12.39.St, 13.25.Hw

The determination of all the elements of Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix  is important for the consistency check of the standard model and a search for new physics. Much extensive experimental efforts have been being done at $`B`$ meson dedicated facilities (B factories) to complete the determination of KM matrix elements to third generation. $`|V_{cb}|`$ has well been determined owing to heavy quark symmetry to the accuracy of less than 10 % error. But $`|V_{ub}|`$ has not yet been determined so precisely. The experimental error will be greatly reduced by the coming experiments in the very near future, while we need more effort to reduce the theoretical uncertainty. It is mainly due to hadronic effects which we do not yet have an precise method to calculate.

So far $`bu`$ semi-leptonic decays have been mainly used for the experimental determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$. It is interesting to investigate other modes involving non-leptonic decays to extract $`|V_{ub}|`$ for the consistency checks of the experimental value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ and the theoretical methods to estimate hadronic effects. More experimental information can be available and we can tune up the theoretical methods. We propose here $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ decay as one of good candidates to investigate. The final state $`D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ is composed of $`(s\overline{c})`$ $`(u\overline{d})`$ quark state. The $`b`$ quark in $`\overline{B^0}`$ meson cannot directly decay into $`\overline{c}`$ quark by $`W^{}`$ emission as the color quantum number is different. Also no penguin, exchange nor annihilation contributions exist since no $`q\overline{q}`$ state presents in the final state. Therefore, the decay occurs through $`bu`$ transition only, which makes $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ a good mode to determine $`|V_{ub}|`$.

$`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ and its charge conjugate mode are hopeful from experimental point of view also. Both $`D_s`$ and charged pion are relatively easy to be identified in the present experiments. Recently, BABAR and BELLE groups obtained the branching ratio, BR$`(B^0D_s^+\pi ^{})=3.2\pm 0.9\pm 1.0\times 10^5`$ (BABAR) , $`2.4\begin{array}{c}+1.0\hfill \\ 0.8\hfill \end{array}\pm 0.7\times 10^5`$ (BELLE) . With increasing statistics at B factories we can expect that the branching ratio is fixed more precisely in the very near future.

The $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ decay occurs through the effective Hamiltonian,

$`_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}{}_{}{}^{}[c_1(\overline{s}b)_{VA}(\overline{u}c)_{VA}+c_2(\overline{u}b)_{VA}(\overline{s}c)_{VA}]+\text{(h.c.)}`$ (1)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}{}_{}{}^{}[c_1O_1+c_2O_2]+\text{(h.c.)},`$ (2)
where $`c_{1,2}`$ are the Wilson coefficients obtained by solving renormalization group equations, and $`O_{1,2}`$ are 4-quark operators. We need to estimate $`D_s^{}\pi ^+|O_{1,2}|\overline{B^0}`$ to obtain the branching ratio theoretically. So far, factorization ansatz has often been used to estimate this kind of 2-body decay hadron matrix elements;

$`A[\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_{eff}}}\right)D_s^{}(P_2)|(\overline{s}c)_{VA}|0\pi ^+(P_3)|(\overline{u}b)_{VA}|\overline{B^0}(P_1)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`if_{Ds}{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ub}V_{cs}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(c_2+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{N_{eff}}}\right)M_B^2F_0(M_{Ds}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$
where $`N_{eff}`$ is the effective color number and $`f_{Ds}`$ is the $`D_s`$ meson decay constant. Pion mass is neglected. The $`B\pi `$ transition form factors are defined as follows;

$$\pi ^+(P_3)|\overline{u}\gamma _\mu b|\overline{B^0}(P_1)\left[(P_1+P_3)_\mu \left(\frac{M_B^2}{q^2}\right)q_\mu \right]F_1(q^2)+\left(\frac{M_B^2}{q^2}\right)q_\mu F_0(q^2),$$
(4)
where $`q=P_1P_3`$. Form factors are to be obtained from another theory or experimental data. The deviation of $`N_{eff}`$ from the number of color, $`N_C=3`$, accounts for so-called non-factorizable contributions. With the amplitude given by eq.(3) the $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ branching ratio is calculated as

$$\text{BR}(\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+)=\tau (\overline{B^0})\frac{(1r^2)}{32\pi }G_F^2M_B^3\left(c_2+\frac{c_1}{N_{eff}}\right)^2F_0(M_{Ds})^2f_{Ds}^2|V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2,$$
(5)
where $`rM_{Ds}/M_B`$. Below we first give estimations of the branching ratio based on the factorization ansatz by using the $`B\pi `$ transition form factor from light-cone sum rules and lattice QCD. Then we calculate $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ amplitude by using perturbative QCD (pQCD) approach to estimate non-factorizable contribution. pQCD approach has been applied to estimate pion electro-magnetic form factor, $`BD`$, $`B\pi `$ transition form factors and several decay amplitudes of 2-body decays of B meson ($`D\pi `$, $`\pi \pi `$, $`K\pi `$ and $`K^{}\gamma `$) . The results of pQCD approach nicely agree with experimental data. The advantage of pQCD approach lies in the point that the non-factorizable contribution can be calculated based on well-established perturbative QCD technique for heavy meson decays. We show that the non-factorizable contribution is about 10% or less of the factorizable one in $`BD_s\pi `$, so that naive factorization estimation gives a reasonable prediction for this decay mode.

In the evaluation of eq.(5) we consider the Wilson coefficients at two scales, $`\mu =M_B`$ and $`M_B/2`$, to estimate the ambiguity coming from the choice of the scale;

| $`\mu `$ | $`M_B`$ | $`M_B/2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`c_1(\mu )`$ | $`0.274`$ | $`0.393`$ |
| $`c_2(\mu )`$ | $`1.12`$ | $`1.19`$ |

The $`B\pi `$ transition form factor based on light-cone sum rules calculation can be parametrized as

$$F_0(q^2)=\frac{F_0(0)}{1a_F(q^2/M_B^2)+b_F(q^2/M_B^2)^2}$$
(6)
with $`F_0(0)=0.305`$, $`a_F=0.266`$ and $`b_F=0.752`$ . With the calculation by lattice QCD we make a fit for $`B\pi `$ transition form factor as

$$F_0(q^2)=\frac{F_0(0)}{1c_F(q^2/M_B^2)}$$
(7)
with $`F_0(0)=0.310`$, $`c_F=0.760`$. The estimated value of $`\text{BR}(\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+)/(f_{Ds}^2|V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2)`$ is given in Table 1.

By adopting $`f_{Ds}=0.241\pm 0.032`$ GeV obtained by taking average of several experimental data, we can summarize the naive factorization estimation as

$$\text{BR}(\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+)/|V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2=\{\begin{array}{cc}2.04.0& \text{(lattice }F_0\text{)}\hfill \\ 1.83.5& \text{(sum rules }F_0\text{)}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(8)
The ambiguity from the choice of $`N_{eff}`$ and $`\mu `$ is about 10% and 5%, respectively. The major ambiguity lies in $`f_{Ds}`$ value.

There are factorizable and non-factorizable contribution in $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$. When a gluon connects the spectator $`\overline{d}`$ quark and a quark in $`D_s`$ meson in Fig.1, the contribution cannot be factorized as in eq.(3).

The non-factorizable contribution is taken into account by changing the color number from $`N_C=3`$ to $`N_{eff}`$ in the calculation based on the factorization ansatz. However, the number to be taken as $`N_{eff}`$ is theoretically unclear. We have to rely on fit of $`N_{eff}`$ by using experimental data other than $`BD_s\pi `$. But, we cannot simply adopt the $`N_{eff}`$ in other decays because the topology of diagrams contributing to other decays is not necessary same as in the case of $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ decay. Here we calculate $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ amplitude in pQCD approach to estimate the non-factorizable contribution based on QCD.

Some of representative diagrams contributing to $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ in pQCD approach is shown in Fig.2. The point is that in 2 body decays of $`B`$ meson the spectator quark has to obtain high momentum to form a meson with one of the emitted rapid quarks from $`b`$ quark decay. The high momentum is carried by a gluon, so the perturbative QCD treatment is possible. The non-perturbative nature is put into meson wave functions. For more details refer the papers in . There is another approach of calculating non-leptonic 2-body decays of B meson by using perturbative QCD, the so-called QCD factorization method. One of the major differences between pQCD approach and QCD factorization lies in the treatment of the transverse momentum. It is taken into account in the pQCD approach while neglected in the QCD factorization. Without the transverse momentum the diagrams given in fig.2 have infrared singularities which makes the results of the calculation implausible. The calculation based on pQCD approach can be done in a similar way to calculate $`BD\pi `$ amplitude given in Li and Melić. The assignment of momenta is shown in Fig.3 where $`P_1=(M_B/\sqrt{2})(1,1,0_T)`$, $`P_2=(M_B/\sqrt{2})(r^2,1,0_T)`$, $`P_3=(M_B/\sqrt{2})(1r^2,1,0_T)`$ and $`k_1=(0,x_1(M_B/\sqrt{2}),k_{1T})`$, $`k_2=(0,x_2(M_B/\sqrt{2}),k_{2T})`$, $`k_3=(x_3(1r^2)(M_B/\sqrt{2}),0,k_{3T})`$ in light-cone coordinate. We obtain

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+]=\frac{G_F^2}{128\pi }|V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2M_B^3\frac{(1r^2)^3}{r}|f_{Ds}\xi _{\mathrm{int}}+_{\mathrm{int}}|^2.$$
(9)
The factorizable contribution, $`f_{Ds}\xi _{\mathrm{int}}`$, is given as

$`\xi _{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_F\sqrt{r}M_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_3{\displaystyle _0^{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }}}b_1𝑑b_1b_3𝑑b_3\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)`$ (10)
$`\times \alpha _s(t_{\mathrm{int}})\left(c_2(t_{\mathrm{int}})+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1(t_{\mathrm{int}})}{N_C}}\right)\mathrm{exp}[S_B(t_{\mathrm{int}})S_\pi (t_{\mathrm{int}})]`$
$`\times [[\{1+x_3(1r^2)\}\varphi _A(x_3)+r_0\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+r^2}{1r^2}}\right)2x_3\}\varphi _P(x_3)`$
$`r_0(2x_31)\varphi _T(x_3)]h(x_1,x_3,b_1,b_3,m_{\mathrm{int}})`$
$`+[x_1r^2\varphi _A(x_3)+2r_0\{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{1r^2}}\right)x_1\}\varphi _P(x_3)]h(x_3,x_1,b_3,b_1,m_{\mathrm{int}})],`$
where $`\mathrm{exp}[S_B(t_{\mathrm{int}})S_\pi (t_{\mathrm{int}})]`$ is Sudakov factor, $`m_{\mathrm{int}}=(1r^2)M_B^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{int}}=\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{x_1m_{\mathrm{int}}},\sqrt{x_3m_{\mathrm{int}}},1/b_1,1/b_3)`$. The parameter $`b_i`$ ($`i=13`$) is the conjugate variable of $`k_{iT}`$. The function $`h(x_1,x_3,b_1,b_3,m)`$ is defined as

$`h(x_1,x_3,b_1,b_3,m)`$ $`=`$ $`S_t(x_3)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_1x_3m}b_1\right)`$ (11)
$`\times [\theta (b_1b_3)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_3m}b_1\right)I_0\left(\sqrt{x_3m}b_3\right)`$
$`+\theta (b_3b_1)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_3m}b_3\right)I_0\left(\sqrt{x_3m}b_1\right)],`$
where

$$S_t(x)=\frac{2^{1+2c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(c+3/2)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(c+1)}[x(1x)]^c(c=0.30.4),$$
(12)
which comes from threshold resummation. The non-factorizable contribution is given as

$`_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`32\pi \sqrt{2N_C}C_F\sqrt{r}M_B^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑x_3{\displaystyle _0^{1/\mathrm{\Lambda }}}b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _{Ds}(x_2,b_2)`$ (13)
$`\times \alpha _s(t_d){\displaystyle \frac{c_1(t_d)}{N_C}}\mathrm{exp}[S(t_d)|_{b_3=b_1}]`$
$`\times [[(x_1x_2)(1+r^2)\varphi _A(x_3)+r_0\{x_3{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)r^2}{(1r^2)}}\}\varphi _P(x_3)`$
$`+r_0\{x_3+{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1x_2)r^2}{(1r^2)}}\}\varphi _T(x_3)]S^{(1)}_{\mathrm{int}}h^{(1)}_d(x_i,b_i)`$
$`+[\{1x_1x_2+(1r^2)x_3)\}\varphi _A(x_3)r_0\{x_3{\displaystyle \frac{(2+x_1+x_2)r^2}{(1r^2)}}\}\varphi _P(x_3)`$
$`r_0\{x_3+{\displaystyle \frac{(x_1+x_2)r^2}{(1r^2)}}\}\varphi _T(x_3)]S_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}h_d^{(2)}(x_i,b_i)],`$
where $`N_C=3`$, $`t_d=\mathrm{max}(DM_B,\sqrt{|D_1^2|}M_B,\sqrt{|D_2^2|}M_B,1/b_1,1/b_2)`$,

$`D^2`$ $`=`$ $`x_1x_3(1r^2),`$
$`D_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1x_2)x_3(1r^2),`$
$`D_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x_1+x_2)r^2(1x_1x_2)x_3(1r^2).`$ (14)
The functions $`h_d^{(1)}`$ and $`h_d^{(2)}`$ are defined as

$`h_d^{(j)}`$ $`=`$ $`[\theta (b_1b_2)K_0\left(DM_Bb_1\right)I_0\left(DM_Bb_2\right)`$ (17)
$`+\theta (b_2b_1)K_0\left(DM_Bb_2\right)I_0\left(DM_Bb_1\right)]`$
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}K_0(D_jM_Bb_2)& \text{for }D_j^20\\ \frac{i\pi }{2}H_0^{(1)}(\sqrt{|D_j^2|}M_Bb_2)& \text{for }D_j^20\end{array}\right).`$
The factor $`S_{\mathrm{int}}`$ accounts for threshold resummation in non-factorizable contribution investigated in the work by Li and Ukai. The effects of this factor shall be discussed later.

We have included twist 3 component into wave functions;

$`B(P)`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathit{}+M_B]\gamma _5\varphi _B(x),`$ (18)
$`D_s(P)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5[\mathit{}+M_{Ds}]\varphi _{Ds}(x),`$ (19)
$`\pi ^+(P)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _5[\mathit{}\varphi _A(x)+m_0\varphi _P(x)m_0(\mathit{}\mathit{}vn)\varphi _T(x)],`$ (20)
where $`m_0M_\pi ^2/(m_u+m_d)`$, $`r_0m_0/M_B`$, $`v=(1,0,0_T)`$ and $`n=(0,1,0_T)`$ in light-cone coordinate. We have adopted the following functions for $`B`$ meson and pion;

$`\varphi _B(x,b)`$ $`=`$ $`N_Bx^2(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xM_B}{\omega _B}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\omega _B^{}b)^2\right],`$ (21)
$`\varphi _A(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3f_\pi }{\sqrt{2N_C}}}x(1x)[1+a_2C_2^{3/2}(12x)+a_4C_4^{3/2}(12x)],`$ (22)
$`\varphi _P(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{2\sqrt{2N_C}}}[1+a_{2p}C_2^{1/2}(12x)+a_{4p}C_4^{1/2}(12x)],`$ (23)
$`\varphi _T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi }{2\sqrt{2N_C}}}(12x)[1+6a_{2t}(10x^210x+1)],`$ (24)
where $`N_B`$ is normalization constant to have $`_0^1\varphi _B(x,0)𝑑x=f_B/2\sqrt{6}`$, and $`C_j^k`$ is a Gegenbauer polynomial: $`C_2^{1/2}(x)=(1/2)(3x^21)`$, $`C_4^{1/2}(x)=(1/8)(35x^430x^2+3)`$, $`C_1^{3/2}(x)=3x`$, $`C_2^{3/2}(x)=(3/2)(5x^21)`$, $`C_4^{3/2}(x)=(15/8)(21x^414x^2+1)`$. The parameters in the pion wave functions are given in ref.;

$$a_2=0.44,a_4=0.25,a_{2p}=30\eta _3,a_{4p}=30\eta _3\omega _3,a_{2t}=5\eta _3\frac{1}{2}\eta _3\omega _3,$$
(25)
with $`\eta _3=0.015`$ and $`\omega _3=3.0`$. As for $`D_s`$ meson wave function we take;

$$\varphi _{Ds}=N_Dx(1x)[1+\frac{c_d}{3}C_1^{3/2}(12x)].$$
(26)
By analyzing $`B\pi `$ and $`BD`$ form factors we have obtained a set of parameters consistent with experimental data and other theoretical predictions;

$$\omega _B=\omega _B^{}=0.4\text{ for }B\text{ meson and }c_d=0.7\text{ for }D\text{ meson}.$$

The $`D_s`$ meson wave function is thought to be similar to $`D`$ meson wave function by $`SU(3)`$ flavor symmetry. The parameter $`c_d`$ are varied in the numerical analysis to see their effects;

$$c_d=0.5,0.7,0.9.$$

The numerical results on the $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$ branching ratio is given in Table 2 by taking $`c=0.35`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{int}}^{(1,2)}=1`$, i.e. without the threshold resummation effect in non-factorizable contribution. The results show that the branching ratio of this mode is almost insensitive to the $`D_s`$ meson wave function for a reasonable range of parameter $`c_d`$.

The effect of the threshold resummation is also investigated. The threshold resummation parameter $`c`$ in eq.(12) for the factorizable contributions is varied within the range consistent with the $`B\pi `$ form factor analysis. As for the non-factorizable contribution we take $`S_{\mathrm{int}}^{(1)}=S_t(x_3)`$ and $`S_{\mathrm{int}}^{(2)}=1`$ following the arguments given in ref.. The parameter $`c`$ is taken to be the same with that for factorizable contributions for the simplicity of the calculation. Two kinds of calculations have been made with or without threshold resummation factor in the non-factorizable contribution. The results are shown in Table 3. It is found that the branching ratio varies about 15% depending on the choice of the parameter $`c`$. But this parameter is just a numerical convenience to fit the true form of the following threshold resummation factor by eq.(12);

$$S_t(x)=_{ai\mathrm{}}^{ai\mathrm{}}\frac{dN}{2\pi i}\frac{J(N)}{N}(1x)^N,$$
(27)
where $`a`$ is an arbitrary real constant larger than all the real parts of the poles in the integrand and

$$J(N)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑z\frac{1z^{N1}}{1z}_{(1z)}^{(1z)^2}\frac{d\lambda }{\lambda }\gamma _K(\alpha _s)\right]$$
(28)
with $`\gamma _K(\alpha _s)`$ being the anomalous dimensions. Thus the parameter $`c`$ is absent in the more careful (but complicated) treatment of numerical calculation where the above equations are used. So this ambiguity does not lead to a true theoretical error. The effect of the existence of the threshold resummation in non-factorizable contribution is found to be small in this decay. This is because non-factorizable contribution is small, 10% or less in amplitude, in comparison with the factorizable one in this decay mode. But the effects of the threshold resummation in non-factorizable part can be significant in another modes such as color-suppressed decay like $`B^0\overline{D^0}\pi ^0`$.

The prediction by pQCD approach is given considering the ambiguity discussed before as

$`\text{BR}(\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+)`$ $`=`$ $`(5070)\times f_{Ds}^2|V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`(2.44.6)\times |V_{ub}V_{cs}|^2.`$ (30)
If we take the central values of parameters and the experimental data of $`BD_s\pi `$ branching ratio given by BABAR and BELLE, we obtain,

$$|V_{ub}|=(3\pm 1)\times 10^3,$$
(31)
which is in good agreement with the value of $`|V_{ub}|`$ obtained in $`bu`$ semi-leptonic decay. This agreement gives a support to our treatment of $`B`$ meson decays in pQCD approach. It also implies that the naive factorization ansatz works well also in this decay mode since our calculation has shown the dominance of factorizable contribution. The ambiguity will be reduced when $`f_{Ds}`$ value is fixed more precisely in the future experiments. In the near future high statistics of $`B`$ meson decay data will be available, then we can make pQCD prediction more precise by fitting parameters of the wave functions with rich experimental data. Then $`|V_{ub}|`$ can be determined as precise as those from semi-leptonic decay by using the branching ratio of $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Prof. M. Yamauchi at KEK for pointing out the possibility of $`|V_{ub}|`$ determination by $`\overline{B^0}D_s^{}\pi ^+`$. T.K thanks the members of pQCD working group for fruitful discussions and encouragement. The work of T.K was supported in part by Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under the Grant No. 11640265.