text:
# Construction of Supersymmetric Nonlinear Sigma Models on Noncompact Calabi-Yau Manifolds with Isometry

## 1 Introduction

Nonlinear sigma models (NL$`\sigma `$Ms) in two dimensions are interesting for several reasons. They help us to understand various non-perturbative phenomena in four dimensional gauge theories such as confinement or dynamical mass generation. They also provide the description of strings propagating in the curved space-time. In the latter case, the consistency of strings requires the conformal invariance of the NL$`\sigma `$Ms. In the case of superstrings, furthermore, NL$`\sigma `$Ms have to possess the $`𝒩=2`$ world sheet superconformal symmetry. Although all two-dimensional NL$`\sigma `$Ms with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry have $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal symmetry at the tree level, they suffer from superconformal anomaly at the quantum level. Since these anomalies are proportional to the Ricci curvatures $`R_{ab}`$ of the background (target) manifolds, $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric NL$`\sigma `$Ms taking values on the target manifolds with vanishing Ricci curvatures, provide the possible candidates of the consistent superstrings propagating in the curved space-time. They are also candidates of finite quantum field theories in two dimensions. $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry in two dimensions requires the target manifolds of NL$`\sigma `$Ms are Kähler manifolds. The Kähler manifolds with vanishing Ricci curvatures are called the Calabi-Yau manifolds. Therefore, it is important to study the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric NL$`\sigma `$Ms defined on the Calabi-Yau manifolds.

To find the metric of the Ricci-flat manifolds, we have to solve the Einstein equation $`R_{ab}=0`$ for the vacuum. If the manifold has enough symmetries, we can reduce the partial differential equation to an ordinary differential equation, which is usually easy to solve. In compact Calabi-Yau manifolds, however, there is no isometry and not a single explicit metric is known in this case. In some noncompact Calabi-Yau manifolds, the number of isometries is sufficient to reduce the Einstein equation to an ordinary differential equation. In this article, we report our recent progress to obtain the explicit metric for certain class of the noncompact Calabi-Yau manifolds .

## 2 NL$`\sigma `$Ms with $`𝒩=2`$ Supersymmetry in Two Dimensions

$`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry requires that both scalars $`A^a(x)`$ and fermions $`\psi ^a(x)`$ are complex fields. The scalar fields $`A^a(x)(a=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ are coordinates of the target manifold, whose metric is given by the Kähler potential $`K(A,\overline{A})`$ which characterizes the theory:

$$g_{a\overline{b}}(A,\overline{A})=\frac{^2K(A,\overline{A})}{A^a\overline{A}^{\overline{b}}}=K,_{a\overline{b}}(A,\overline{A}).$$
(1)
The lagrangian for $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric NL$`\sigma `$M is given by

$`(x)=`$ $`g_{a\overline{b}}_\mu A^a^\mu \overline{A}^{\overline{b}}+ig_{a\overline{b}}\overline{\psi }^{\overline{b}}(\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ D\hfill \end{array}\psi )^a`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}\psi ^a\psi ^c\overline{\psi }^{\overline{b}}\overline{\psi }^{\overline{d}},`$
where the covariant derivative and the Riemann curvature are defined by

$`(D_\mu \psi )^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \psi ^a+_\mu A^b\mathrm{\Gamma }^a{}_{bc}{}^{}\psi _{}^{c}`$ (6)
$`R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}`$ $`=`$ $`_c_{\overline{d}}g_{a\overline{b}}g^{e\overline{f}}_cg_{a\overline{f}}_{\overline{d}}g_{e\overline{b}},`$ (7)
with the connection being

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{c}{}_{ab}{}^{}=g^{c\overline{d}}g_{b\overline{d},a}=g^{c\overline{d}}K,_{ab\overline{d}}.$$
(8)
Since all geometrical quantities are derived from the Kähler potential $`K`$, all we have to do is to assume an appropriate symmetry of the scalar function $`K`$. Symmetries of a scalar function is far simpler than the symmetries of the tensor $`g_{a\overline{b}}`$.

## 3 Noncompact Calabi-Yau Manifolds

Although the NL$`\sigma `$M defined by (5) is conformally invariant at the tree level, it suffers from the conformal anomaly proportional to the Ricci curvature at the quantum level. To obtain the conformally invariant theory at the quantum level, we impose the Ricci-flatness condition

$$R_{a\overline{b}}=0$$
(9)
to the target manifold.

In order to reduce an Einstein equation to an ordinary differential equation of single variable, we assume our target manifold $`M_1`$ has a symmetry, which carries each point of the manifold to a certain point on a line, which is parameterized by a single variable. In other word, any point of our manifold $`M_1`$ can be reached from a point on a line by a suitable action of some symmetry group $`G`$. If any point of the manifold can be reached from a single point, say the origin, by appropriate action of a symmetry group $`G`$, the manifold is a homogeneous coset space $`G/H`$ where $`H`$ denotes a subgroup of $`G`$. The local structure of our manifold is, therefore, the product of a homogeneous space $`M=G/H`$ and a line. Since $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry requires the manifold $`M_1`$ to be a Kähler manifold, we assume that the homogeneous space $`M=G/H`$ is Kähler by itself and the line is a complex line. Furthermore, we assume the Kähler coset space $`M=G/H`$ is a compact Einstein manifold, which satisfies the Einstein equation with a positive cosmological constant $`h>0`$

$$R_{m\overline{n}}=hg_{m\overline{n}},$$
(10)
where we use the indices $`m,n`$ for the compact Kähler manifold $`M=G/H`$ whose complex dimension is $`d=dim(G/H)/2`$. The complex dimension of the Ricci-flat manifold $`M_1`$ is $`D=1+d`$.

Our total space $`M_1`$ is parameterized by the complex coordinates $`\varphi _m(m=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ and a complex number $`\rho `$ that represents the complex line. We denote the Kähler potential of the compact Kähler-Einstein manifold $`M`$ by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })`$. Our assumption for the Kähler potential of the Ricci-flat manifold $`M_1`$ is as follows:

$$K(A,\overline{A})=K(X),$$
(11)
where

$$X=\mathrm{log}|\rho |^2+h\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi }).$$
(12)
Now, if we notice

$$R_{a\overline{b}}=g^{c\overline{d}}R_{a\overline{b}c\overline{d}}=_a_{\overline{b}}\mathrm{log}det(g_{c\overline{d}})$$
(13)
the Ricci-flat condition (9) takes a very simple form

$$det(g_{c\overline{d}})=|\mathrm{hol}.|^2,$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{hol}.`$ is a holomorphic function of the coordinates $`\varphi `$ and $`\rho `$.

Components of the metric for the whole space $`M_1`$

$$g_{a\overline{b}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\rho \overline{\rho }}& g_{\rho \overline{n}}\\ g_{m\overline{\rho }}& g_{m\overline{n}}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
are given by

$`g_{\rho \overline{\rho }}`$ $`=`$ $`K^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\overline{\rho }}},`$ (16)
$`g_{\rho \overline{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`K^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{n}}}},`$ (17)
$`g_{m\overline{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`K^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\varphi ^m}}{\displaystyle \frac{X}{\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{n}}}}+K^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^2X}{\varphi ^m\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{n}}}},`$ (18)
where the prime denotes the differentiation with respect to the argument $`X`$. Using equations

$$X/\rho =1/\rho (\rho 0),\frac{^2X}{\varphi ^m\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{n}}}=hg_{m\overline{n}},$$
(19)
we can express the determinant of the metric of $`M_1`$ in terms of the determinant of the metric of $`M=G/H`$

$`detg_{a\overline{b}}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\rho \overline{\rho }}det(g_{m\overline{n}}g_{\rho \overline{\rho }}^1g_{m\overline{\rho }}g_{\rho \overline{n}})`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\rho |^2}}K^{\prime \prime }(K^{})^ddet(hg_{m\overline{n}}).`$ (21)
Since we have assumed that the Kähler coset space is an Einstein space, we can easily calculate the determinant of its metric. By substituting the expressions of the Ricci curvature (13) and the metric $`g_{m\overline{n}}`$ in terms the Kähler potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (1) to the Einstein equation (10), we obtain

$$R_{m\overline{n}}=_m_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{log}det(g_{k\overline{l}})=h\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi ,\overline{\varphi })}{\varphi ^m\overline{\varphi }^{\overline{n}}},$$
(22)
which can be integrated to give a convenient formula for the determinant of the metric in Kähler-Einstein manifold $`M`$

$$det(g_{m\overline{n}})=e^{h\mathrm{\Psi }}|\mathrm{hol}.|^2.$$
(23)
Combining the formula (21), (23) and (14), we obtain the Ricci-flatness condition for the Kähler potential of the manifold $`M_1`$

$$det(g_{a\overline{b}})=e^XK^{\prime \prime }(K^{})^d|\mathrm{hol}.|^2=(const.)|\mathrm{hol}.|^2,$$

from which we find an ordinary differential equation for the Kähler potential:

$$e^X\frac{d}{dX}(K^{})^D=a,$$
(24)
where $`a`$ is a constant.

The equation (24) is easily solved to yield

$$K^{}=\left(\lambda e^X+b\right)^{\frac{1}{D}},$$
(25)
where $`\lambda `$ is a constant related to $`a`$ and $`D`$, and $`b`$ is an integration constant, interpreted as a resolution parameter. To calculate the metric (16)(17)(18) of the Ricci-flat manifold $`M_1`$, the Kähler potential itself is not necessary, though it is easily obtained by integrating (25).

Our method can be applied to any Kähler-Einstein coset manifold $`M`$, however, we need the Kähler potential $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of $`M`$ to obtain the explicit expression for the metric of the noncompact Calabi-Yau manifold $`M_1`$. Fortunately, the general prescription to calculate $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by Ito, Kugo and Kunitomo. In this respect, our results gives the explicit realization of the method of Page and Pope, who constructed Ricci-flat manifolds by introducing a complex line as a fibre over a Kähler-Einstein manifold.

Here, we further require that the Kähler coset space $`M`$ is a symmetric space, called the hermitian symmetric space, then the Kähler potential can be explicitly obtained by the gauge theory technique. Therefore, we find a new class of Ricci-flat manifolds corresponding to various hermitian symmetric spaces with $`h=C_2(G)/2`$. For $`M=CP^{N1}`$, $`M_1`$ reduces to the manifold obtained by Calabi.


format: text

text:
# Tail states in superconductors with weak magnetic impurities

## Abstract

We analyse the behavior of the density of states in a singlet $`s`$-wave superconductor with weak magnetic impurities in the clean limit by using the method of optimal fluctuation. We show that the density of states varies as $`\mathrm{ln}N(E)|E\mathrm{\Delta }_0|^{(7d)/4}`$ near the mean field gap edge $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in a $`d`$-dimensional superconductor. The optimal fluctuation in $`d>1`$ is strongly anisotropic. We compare the density of states with that obtained in other recent approaches.

, , ,

thanks: Corresponding author. E-mail: vekhter@lanl.gov

Studies of spectral properties of disordered superconductors remain an active area of research as they help advance our understanding of the competition between disorder and interactions. Recent years witnessed a renewed interest in the behavior of the density of states (DOS) in singlet $`s`$-wave superconductors with magnetic impurities. Such impurities are pairbreaking, and are characterized, in the weak scattering limit, by the spin flip scattering time, $`\tau _s`$. In the self-consistent Born approximation (SCB) , the dimensionless parameter controlling the suppression of the single particle spectral gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _s`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the amplitude of the superconducting order parameter. In this paper we consider the clean limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _s1`$, where the SCB approach yields a finite spectral gap, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with the DOS $`N(E)=0`$ at energies $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

It was argued in Ref. that rare regions where local impurity concentration is high enough to locally destroy superconductivity lead to a finite density of states at the Fermi level. The argument was similar to the method of optimal fluctuation (OF), well known from studies of doped semiconductors : in averaging over all the realizations of the impurity distribution, the probability of finding the realization which locally destroys the gap determines the residual DOS. Later, Lamacraft and Simons  considered in detail the energy dependence of the DOS below the mean field gap in a dirty superconductor, where the scattering rate due to potential scattering greatly exceeds the spin-flip pairbreaking scattering rate, $`1/\tau _s`$.

Very recently we analysed the subgap DOS in a clean $`s`$-wave superconductor, where the spin-flip scattering is dominant ; we argued that at least in some cases this limit is relevant experimentally. Here we briefly review the results of Ref. and then present a more detailed comparison of the DOS obtained in Refs..

We consider a mean field hamiltonian

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{\xi }\tau _3+\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)\tau _1\sigma _2+\widehat{U},$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{\xi }=^2/(2m)\mu `$, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential, $`\tau _i`$ and $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices in the particle-hole and the spin space respectively. The potential due to magnetic impurities $`\widehat{U}=𝐔(𝐫)𝐬`$, where $`𝐬`$ is the electron spin operator, $`𝐔(𝐫)=_iJ𝐒_i\delta (𝐫𝐫_i)`$, $`J`$ is the exchange constant, and $`𝐒_i`$ is the impurity spin at a site $`i`$.

For an energy, $`E<\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, OF is the most probable configuration of impurities that creates a state at $`E`$, and therefore contributes the most to the DOS . OF provides nonperturbative corrections to the DOS determined in the framework of SCB. In essentially all the energy range below the gap the size of the OF is significantly greater than the distance between impurities, so that the exact impurity potential can be replaced by a smooth function, and its probability density is well approximated by a Gaussian  with a width $`U_0^2=n_{imp}J^2S(S+1)/3`$, so that $`\tau _s^1=2\pi N_0U_0^2`$, where $`n_{imp}`$ is the impurity concentration, and $`N_0`$ is the normal state DOS. The DOS is then given by $`\mathrm{ln}\left[N(E)/N_0\right]\text{S}[𝐔_{opt}]`$, where $`\text{S}[𝐔_{opt}]`$ is obtained by minimizing

$$\text{S}[𝐔]=\frac{1}{2U_0^2}d^d\mathrm{𝐫𝐔}^2(𝐫)+\lambda \left(\text{E}[𝐔]E\right)$$
(2)
with respect to both the potential $`𝐔`$ and the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$. We assume OF to be ferromagnetic , so that $`\text{E}[𝐔]=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{\xi }\tau _3+\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _1+U|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the normalized spinor wave function of the particle in the OF, and $`U(x)=\lambda U_0^2(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }(x))`$ is now scalar.

In $`d=1`$ we find ($`ϵ=|E|/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{U(x)}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ^2}{ϵ+\mathrm{cosh}(2x\sqrt{1ϵ^2}/\xi _0)}},`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{S}_0\text{S}[U_{opt}]=8\pi (\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)\left[\sqrt{1ϵ^2}ϵ\mathrm{arccos}ϵ\right],`$ (4)
where $`\xi _0=v_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is the coherence length and $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity. The size of the OF, $`L_x\xi _0/\sqrt{1ϵ^2}\xi _0`$, and the depth of the potential $`|U|2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. In particular, near the gap edge, $`1ϵ1`$, when $`|U|\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`L_x\xi _0`$, we find $`\mathrm{S}_0(8\pi /3)(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)(1ϵ^2)^{3/2}`$, which allows for a simple interpretation. In an OF of depth $`U`$ and size $`L_x`$ the energy of the bound state is $`EU+\mathrm{\Delta }_0+v_F^2/L_x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, subject to optimization of Eq.(2). This means $`|E\mathrm{\Delta }_0|v_F^2/L_x^2\mathrm{\Delta }_0|U|`$, from which an estimate for $`\text{S}_0L_xU^2/U_0^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)(1ϵ^2)^{3/2}`$ follows immediately.

In $`d>1`$ and for $`1ϵ1`$ we must compare the action for the isotropic OF with $`L\xi _0/\sqrt{1ϵ^2}`$ (when kinetic energy is $`v_F/L`$), and for an anisotropic OF with $`L_xL`$, and transverse size $`L_t(L_x/k_F)^{1/2}`$ (corresponding to a wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫)=\mathrm{exp}(ik_Fx)\mathrm{\Phi }(x,𝐲)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a slowly varying function, so that $`1/(mL_t^2)v_F/L_x`$). The anisotropic OF is favored by a factor $`(E_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^{(d1)/2}(1ϵ)^{(d1)/4}`$ and gives

$$\mathrm{S}_0L_xL_t^{d1}\frac{U^2}{U_0^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)\left(\frac{E_F}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}\right)^{\frac{d1}{2}}\left(1ϵ\right)^{\frac{7d}{4}}.$$
(5)
We now compare this result with that of Ref. for the diffusive propagation of the states within OF. It is clear that even in the clean case considered here, with dilute magnetic impurities, a transition to the diffusive regime occurs when the size of OF $`Lv_F\tau _s`$, or $`1ϵ(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^2`$. In our notations the result of Ref. for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s1`$ reads $`\mathrm{S}_D=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^{5/3}(E_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^{d1}(1ϵ)^{(6d)/4}`$. Consequently, at the crossover point the action from Eq. (5) is smaller, $`\mathrm{S}_D/S_0(E_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)^{(d1)/2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^{7/6}1`$, and the OF found here corresponds to a greater DOS. As the size of the OF increases even further, the anisotropic fluctuation becomes insupportable due to diffusive motion. Nonetheless, even for an isotropic fluctuation, we find $`\mathrm{S}_D/S_{iso}(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^{2/3}(1ϵ)^{(d2)/4}`$, which, at the crossover, gives $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^{(103d)/6}1`$ for $`d3`$. Consequently, the OF discussed here still yields a higher DOS than that for purely diffusive motion. Therefore we expect that the structure of the OF near the crossover between the ballistic and diffusive regimes still resembles closely that given by us above, and that our results remain at least qualitatively valid there.

Balatsky and Trugman  considered only the DOS at $`E=0`$, where they needed a large volume fluctuation, $`V\xi ^d`$, which is less probable and yields lower DOS than that of Eq. (5). However, in the same spirit we should investigate whether local suppression of the gap from $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ to $`E`$ due to a large number of impurities with uncorrelated spins (as opposed to a ferromagnetic OF above) is advantageous. For $`1ϵ1`$ the local pairbreaking rate, $`\gamma `$, needed to reduce the gap to $`E`$ is $`\gamma \tau _s1+(1ϵ)(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^{2/3}`$, and the volume of the region has to be at least equal to that of the anisotropic OF to avoid high kinetic energy cost (this is an underestimate since it ignores proximity coupling to bulk). In that case we obtain the optimal action $`\mathrm{S}_{BT}/\mathrm{S}_0(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\tau _s)^{1/3}(E_F/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)\overline{c}`$, where $`\overline{c}=n_{imp}\lambda _F^d`$ is the atomic concentration of impurity atoms. As a result, for realistic values of $`\overline{c}`$ and clean samples $`\mathrm{S}_{BT}\mathrm{S}_0`$, and the DOS given by the action in Eq.(5) is higher.

We conclude that the action obtained in our approach gives the most optimal fluctuation and the highest DOS compared to other analyses.

This research was supported by the DOE under contract W-7405-ENG-36, by the NSF Grant PHY-94-07194, and by Pappalardo Fellowship. We are grateful to the ITP Santa Barbara and Aspen Center for Physics for hospitality and support.


text:
# I INTRODUCTION

## I INTRODUCTION

Recently, we have made theoretical progress in the perturbative QCD (PQCD) approach to heavy-to-light decays, such as the proof of $`k_T`$ factorization theorem , the construction of power counting rules for various topologies of decay amplitudes , the derivation of $`k_T`$ and threshold resummations , and the application to heavy baryon decays  and to three-body nonleptonic decays . Important dynamics in the decays $`BK\pi `$ and $`B\pi \pi `$ has been explored, including penguin enhancement and large CP asymmetries . It is worthwhile to investigate to what extent this formalism can be generalized to charmful decays, such as the semileptonic decay $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ and the nonleptonic decay $`BD^{()}\pi (\rho )`$. $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors in the large-recoil region of the $`D^{()}`$ meson can be proved following the procedure in , which are expressed as the convolution of hard amplitudes with $`B`$ and $`D^{()}`$ meson wave functions. A hard amplitude, being infrared-finite, is calculable in perturbation theory. The $`B`$ and $`D^{()}`$ meson wave functions, collecting the infrared divergences in the decays, are not calculable but universal.

The $`BD^{()}`$ transitions are more complicated than the $`B\pi `$ ones, because they involve three scales: the $`B`$ meson mass $`M_B`$, the $`D^{()}`$ meson mass $`M_{D^{()}}`$, and the heavy meson and heavy quark mass difference $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=M_Bm_bM_{D^{()}}m_c`$, where $`m_b`$ ($`m_c`$) is the $`b`$ ($`c`$) quark mass, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of order of the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. There are several interesting topics in the large-recoil region of the $`BD^{()}`$ transitions. (1) How to construct reasonable power counting rules for these decays with the three scales? (2) What is the qualitative behavior of the wave function for an energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson? Is it dominated by soft dynamics the same as a $`B`$ meson wave function, or by collinear dynamics the same as a pion wave function? (3) How different are the end-point singularities in the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors from those in the $`B\pi `$ ones? (4) what is the effect of Sudakov ($`k_T`$ and threshold) resummation in the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors? (5) How are the relations for the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors in the heavy-quark limit modified by the finite $`B`$ and $`D^{()}`$ meson masses? (6) What is the hard scale for the $`BD^{()}`$ transitions? Is it large enough to make sense out of perturbative evaluation of hard amplitudes? These questions will be answered in this work.

We attempt to develop PQCD formalism for the $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ decays in the heavy-quark and large-recoil limits based on $`k_T`$ factorization theorem . We argue that the following hierachy must be postulated:

$`M_BM_{D^{()}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}.`$ (1)
The relation $`M_BM_{D^{()}}`$ justifies the perturbative analysis of the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors at large recoil and the definition of light-cone $`D^{()}`$ meson wave functions. The relation $`M_{D^{()}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ justifies the power expansion in the parameter $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}`$. We shall calculate the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors as double expansions in $`M_{D^{()}}/M_B`$ and in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}`$. The small ratio $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B=(M_{D^{()}}/M_B)(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}})`$ is regarded as being of higher power. Whether the hierachy is reasonable can be examined by the convergence of high-order corrections in the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s`$ and of higher-power corrections in $`1/M_B`$ and in $`1/M_{D^{()}}`$. Note that Eq. (1) differs from the small-velocity limit considered in , where the ratio $`M_{D^{()}}/M_B`$ is treated as being of $`O(1)`$.

Under the hierachy, the wave function for an energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson absorbs collinear dynamics, but with the $`c`$ quark line being eikonalized. That is, its definition is a mixture of those for a $`B`$ meson dominated by soft dynamics and for a pion dominated by collinear dynamics. We examine the behavior of the heavy meson wave functions in the heavy-quark and large-recoil limits. For $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}1`$, only a single $`B`$ meson wave function $`\varphi _B(x)`$ and a single $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function $`\varphi _{D^{()}}(x)`$ are involved in the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors, $`x`$ being the momentum fraction associated with the light spectator quark. Equations of motion for the relevant nonlocal matrix elements imply that $`\varphi _B(x)`$ and $`\varphi _{D^{()}}(x)`$ exhibit maxima at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$ and at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}`$, respectively. Since PQCD is reliable in the large-recoil region, it is powerful for the study of two-body nonleptonic $`B`$ meson decays. After determining the $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function (the $`B`$ meson and pion wave functions have beed fixed in our previous works), we can make predictions for the $`BD^{()}\pi (\rho )`$ decays. Preliminary results for the $`BD\pi `$ modes will be presented in Sec. IV.

Similar to the heavy-to-light transitions, the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors also suffer singularities from the end-point region with a momentum fraction $`x0`$ in collinear factorization theorem. When the end-point region is important, the parton transverse momenta $`k_T`$ are not negligible, and $`k_T`$ factorization is a tool more appropriate than collinear factorization. It has been proved that predictions for a physical quantity derived from $`k_T`$ factorization are gauge-invariant . Because of the inclusion of parton transverse degrees of freedom, the large double logarithmic corrections $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2k_T`$ appear and should be summed to all orders. It turns out that the resultant Sudakov factor for an energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson is similar to that for a $`B`$ meson. Including the Sudakov effects from $`k_T`$ resummation and from threshold resummation for hard amplitudes , the end-point singularities do not exist, and soft contributions can be suppressed effectively.

We shall identify the leading-power and next-to-leading-power (down by $`1/M_B`$ or by $`1/M_{D^{()}}`$) contributions to the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors, which are equivalent to the expansion in heavy quark effective theory . It will be shown that the leading-power factorization formulas satisfy the heavy-quark relations defined in terms of the Isgur-Wise (IW) function . These contributions are characterized by the scale $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{M_B/M_{D^{()}}}`$, indicating that the applicability of PQCD to the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors may be marginal. The next-to-leading-power corrections to the heavy-quark relations, characterized by a scale larger than $`\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}`$, can be evaluated more reliablly. These corrections amount only up to 20% of the leading contribution, indicating that the power expansion in $`1/M_B`$ and in $`1/M_{D^{()}}`$ works well. It should be stressed that the above percentage is only indicative, since we have not yet been able to explore the complete next-to-leading-power sources with the current poor knowledge of nonperturbative inputs.

In Sec. II we define kinematics and explain $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ decay. The power counting rules are constructed. In Sec. III we discuss the behavior of the $`B`$ and $`D^{()}`$ meson wave functions, and perform $`k_T`$ resummation associated with an energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson. The leading-power and next-to-leading-power contributions to the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors are calculated in Sec. IV. Section V is the conclusion.

## II KINEMATICS AND FACTORIZATION

We discuss kinematics of the $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ decay in the large-recoil region. The $`B`$ meson momentum $`P_1`$ and the $`D^{()}`$ meson momentum $`P_2`$ are chosen, in the light-cone coordinates, as

$`P_1={\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}}(1,1,0_T),P_2={\displaystyle \frac{r^{()}M_B}{\sqrt{2}}}(\eta ^+,\eta ^{},0_T),`$ (2)
with the ratio $`r^{()}=M_{D^{()}}/M_B`$. The factors $`\eta ^\pm =\eta \pm \sqrt{\eta ^21}`$ is defined in terms of the velocity transfer $`\eta =v_1v_2`$ with $`v_1=P_1/M_B`$ and $`v_2=P_2/M_{D^{()}}`$. The longitudinal polarization vector $`ϵ_L`$ and the transverse polarization vectors $`ϵ_T`$ of the $`D^{}`$ meson are then given by

$`ϵ_L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\eta ^+,\eta ^{},0_T),ϵ_T=(0,0,1).`$ (3)
The partons involved in hadron wave functions are close to the mass shell . Assume that the heavy meson, the heavy quark, and the light spectator quark carry the momenta $`P_H`$, $`P_Q=P_Hk`$, and $`k`$, respectively. The on-shell conditions lead to

$`k^2=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2),`$ (4)
$`P_Q^2m_Q^2=M_H^2m_Q^22P_Hk=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2),`$ (5)
$`M_H`$ ($`m_Q`$) being the heavy meson (quark) mass. For the $`B`$ meson, we have $`2P_1k_1=2M_Bk_1^0M_B^2m_b^2=2M_B\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ from Eq. (5), namely, $`k_1^0\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. The order of magnitude of the light spectator momentum is then, from Eq. (4),

$`k_1^\mu (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}).`$ (6)
For the $`D^{()}`$ meson, we have $`2P_2k_2=2P_2^+k_2^{}+2P_2^{}k_2^+2M_{D^{()}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, which implies

$`k_2^\mu ({\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{M_{D^{()}}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},{\displaystyle \frac{M_{D^{()}}}{M_B}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),`$ (7)
for $`\eta ^+1/r^{()}`$ and $`\eta ^{}r^{()}`$. With the above parton momenta, the exchanged gluon in the lowest-order diagrams is off-shell by

$`(k_1k_2)^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{M_{D^{()}}}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2,`$ (8)
which is identified as the characteristic scale of the hard amplitudes. To have a meaningful PQCD formalism, the large-recoil limit in Eq. (1), $`M_BM_{D^{()}}`$, is necessary.

We have proved $`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the semileptonic decay $`B\pi l\nu `$ . Soft divergences from the region of a loop momentum $`l`$, where all its components are of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$, are absorbed into a light-cone $`B`$ meson wave function. Collinear divergences from the region with $`l`$ parallel to the pion momentum in the plus direction, whose components scale like

$`l^\mu (M_B,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2/M_B,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),`$ (9)
are absorbed into a pion wave function. The above meson wave functions, defined as nonlocal hadronic matrix elements, are gauge-invariant and universal.

$`k_T`$ factorization theorem for the semileptonic decay $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ is similar. In the limit $`M_BM_{D^{()}}`$ we have $`k_2^+k_{2T}k_2^{}`$ from Eq. (7), indicating that the $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function is dominated by collinear dynamics. The leading infrared divergences in this decay are then classfied as being soft, if a loop momentum $`l`$ vanishes like $`l^\mu (\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$, and as being collinear, if $`l`$ scales like $`k_2`$ in Eq. (7). The former (latter) are collected into a light-cone $`B`$ ($`D^{()}`$) meson wave function. The collinear gluons defined by Eq. (9) do not lead to infrared divergences.

Though the $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function absorbs the collinear configuration, similar to the pion wave function, the heavy-quark expansion applies to the $`c`$ quark in the same way as to the $`b`$ quark in a $`B`$ meson. This is the reason we claim that the energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson dynamics is a mixture of those of the $`B`$ meson at rest and of the energetic pion. Because $`P_2lM_{D^{()}}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is much larger than $`l^2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$ according to Eq. (1), we have the eikonal approximation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_2+\mathit{}m_c}{(P_2k_2+l)^2m_c^2}}\gamma ^\alpha c(P_2k_2){\displaystyle \frac{v_2^\alpha }{v_2l}}c(P_2k_2),`$ (10)
where $`c(P_2k_2)`$ is the $`c`$ quark spinor, and the factor $`v_2^\alpha /(v_2l)`$ the Feynman rule for a rescaled $`c`$ quark field. The physics involved in the above approximation is that the kinematics of the spectator quark and of the $`c`$ quark is dramatically different in the limit $`M_{D^{()}}\mathrm{}`$. Hence, a gluon moving parallel to $`k_2`$ can not resolve the details of the $`c`$ quark, from which its dynamics decouples.

According to $`k_T`$ factorization theorem , the light spectator momenta $`k_1`$ in the $`B`$ meson and $`k_2`$ in the $`D^{()}`$ meson are parametrized as

$`k_1=(0,x_1{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}},𝐤_{1T}),k_2=(x_2\eta ^+r^{()}{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{\sqrt{2}}},0,𝐤_{2T}),`$ (11)
where the momentum fractions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ have the orders of magnitude,

$`x_1\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B,x_2\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}.`$ (12)
The smallest component $`k_2^{}`$ has been dropped. The neglect of $`k_1^+`$ is due to its absence in the hard amplitudes shown below.

The lowest-order diagrams for the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors are displayed in Fig. 1. The factorization formula is written as

$`D^{()}(P_2)|\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu c|B(P_1)`$ $`=`$ $`g^2C_FN_c{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2d^2k_1d^2k_2\frac{dz^+d^2z_{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{dy^{}d^2y_{}}{(2\pi )^3}}`$ (14)
$`\times e^{ik_2y}D^{()}(P_2)|\overline{d}_\gamma (y)c_\beta (0)|0e^{ik_1z}0|\overline{b}_\alpha (0)d_\delta (z)|B(P_1)H_\mu ^{\gamma \beta ;\alpha \delta },`$
with the hard amplitude,

$`H_\mu ^{\beta \gamma ;\delta \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`[\gamma _\sigma ]^{\gamma \delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_2k_1)^2}}\left[\gamma ^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_2\mathit{}_1+m_b}{(P_1k_2)^2m_b^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \right]^{\alpha \beta }`$ (16)
$`+[\gamma _\sigma ]^{\gamma \delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k_2k_1)^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}_1\mathit{}_2+m_c}{(P_2k_1)^2m_c^2}}\gamma ^\sigma \right]^{\alpha \beta },`$
for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu `$ or $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$. It is obvious that the large component $`k_2^+`$ picks only up the component $`k_1^{}`$ in the denominators of the internal particle propagators. The first and second terms in $`H_\mu `$ behave like $`M_{D^{()}}^2/(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^3M_B^2)`$ and $`M_{D^{()}}/(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^3M_B)`$, respectively. Therefore, for a leading-power formalism, we keep $`O(1)`$ coefficients of the first term, and $`O(r^{()})`$ coefficients ($`O(1)`$ coefficients are absent) of the second term.

## III HEAVY MESON WAVE FUNCTIONS

In this section we discuss the qualitative behavior of the $`B`$, $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ meson wave functions in the heavy-quark and large-recoil limits, and derive $`k_T`$ resummation associated with the $`D^{()}`$ meson.

### A $`B`$ Meson Wave Functions

According to , the two leading-twist $`B`$ meson wave functions defined via the nonlocal matrix element,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4w}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ikw}0|\overline{b}_\alpha (0)d_\delta (w)|B^0(P)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}\left\{(\mathit{}+M_B)\gamma _5\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{)\overline{n}}}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi _B^+(k)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}}{\sqrt{2}}}\varphi _B^{}(k)\right]\right\}_{\alpha \delta },`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}\{(\mathit{}+M_B)\gamma _5[\varphi _B(k)+\mathit{}\overline{\varphi }_B(k)]\}_{\alpha \delta },`$ (18)
with the dimensionless vectors $`\overline{n}=(1,0,0_T)`$ and $`n=(0,1,0_T)`$ on the light cone, and the wave functions,

$`\varphi _B=\varphi _B^+,\overline{\varphi }_B=(\varphi _B^{}\varphi _B^+)/\sqrt{2}.`$ (19)
We have shown that the contribution from $`\overline{\varphi }_B`$ starts from the next-to-leading-power $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$. This contribution, which may be numerically relevant , should be included together with other next-to-leading-power contributions in order to form a complete analysis. On this point, our opinion is contrary to that in .

The investigation based on equations of motion  shows that the distribution amplitude $`\varphi _B^+(x)=d^2k_T\varphi _B^+(x,k_T)`$ vanishes at the end points of the momentum fraction $`x=k^{}/P^{}0`$, 1. Hence, we adopt the model in the impact parameter $`b`$ space ,

$`\varphi _B(x,b)=N_Bx^2(1x)^2\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xM_B}{\omega _B}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _B^2b^2}{2}}\right],`$ (20)
where the shape parameter $`\omega _B`$ has been determined as $`\omega _B=0.4`$ GeV. The normalization constant $`N_B`$ is related to the decay constant $`f_B`$ through

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\varphi _B(x,b=0)}={\displaystyle \frac{f_B}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}.`$ (21)
It is easy to find that $`\varphi _B`$ in Eq. (20) has a maximum at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$ as claimed in Sec. II.

### B $`D`$ Meson Wave Functions

Consider the nonlocal matrix elements associated with the $`D`$ meson,

$`0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu d(w)|D^{}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`if_DP_\mu {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}\varphi _D^v(x)`$ (23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}f_DM_D^2{\displaystyle \frac{z_\mu }{Pz}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}g_D(x),`$
$`0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5d(w)|D^{}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`if_Dm_0{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}\varphi _D^p(x),`$ (24)
$`0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }d(w)|D^{}(P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6}}f_Dm_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M_D^2}{m_0^2}}\right)(P_\mu z_\nu P_\nu z_\mu )`$ (26)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{i(Pk)yikw}\varphi _D^\sigma (x),`$
with $`z=yw`$ and the $`D`$ meson decay constant $`f_D`$. The light spectator $`d`$ quark carries the momentum $`k`$ with the momentum fraction $`x=k^+/P^+`$ and the $`\overline{c}`$ quark carries the momentum $`Pk`$. In the heavy-quark limit we have

$`m_0={\displaystyle \frac{M_D^2}{m_c+m_d}}=M_D+O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}),`$ (27)
implying that the contribution from the distribution amplitude $`\varphi _D^\sigma `$ is suppressed by $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D)`$ compared to those from $`\varphi _D^v`$ and $`\varphi _D^p`$. The distribution amplitude $`g_D`$, appearing at $`O(r^2)`$, is negligible.

Rewrite the pseudo-tensor matrix element as

$`0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5\sigma _{\mu \nu }d(w)|D^{}(P)=i0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu d(w)|D^{}(P)ig_{\mu \nu }0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5d(w)|D^{}(P),`$ (28)
and differentiate both sides with respect to $`w`$ and $`y`$. The differentiation on the left-hand side gives a result suppressed by $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D)`$. The relations

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xx\varphi _D^p(x)e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D),`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x[\varphi _D^p(x)\varphi _D^v(x)]e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D),`$ (30)
arise from the differentiation with respect to $`w_\nu `$ for $`\mu =`$ and to $`y_\mu `$ for $`\nu =+`$, respectively. Equation (29) states that the distribution amplitude $`\varphi _D^p`$ possesses a maximum at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D`$. Equation (30) states that the moments of $`\varphi _D^p`$ and $`\varphi _D^v`$ differ by $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D)`$ (they have the same normalizations).

Neglecting the $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D)`$ difference according to Eq. (1), only a single $`D`$ meson wave function is involved in the evaluation of the $`BD`$ form factors,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4w}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ikw}0|\overline{c}_\beta (0)d_\gamma (w)|D^{}(P)}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}[(\mathit{}+M_D)\gamma _5]_{\gamma \beta }\varphi _D(x),`$ (31)
where the distribution amplitude,

$`\varphi _D={\displaystyle \frac{f_D}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}\varphi _D^v={\displaystyle \frac{f_D}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}\varphi _D^p,`$ (32)
satisfies the normalization,

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\varphi _D(x)={\displaystyle \frac{f_D}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}.`$ (33)
For the purpose of numerical estimate, we adopt the simple model,

$`\varphi _D(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}f_Dx(1x)[1+C_D(12x)].`$ (34)
The free shape parameter $`C_D`$ is expected to take a value, such that $`\varphi _D`$ has a maximum at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D0.3`$. We do not consider the intrinsic $`b`$ dependence of the $`D`$ meson wave function, which can be introduced along with more free parameters. Note that Eq. (34) differs from the one of the Gaussian form proposed in .

### C $`D^{}`$ Meson Wave Functions

The information of the $`D^{}`$ meson distribution amplitudes is extracted from equations of motions for the nonlocal matrix elements,

$`0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _\mu d(w)|D^{}(P,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`f_D^{}M_D^{}[P_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{ϵz}{Pz}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{i(Pk)yikw}\varphi _{}(x)`$ (37)
$`+ϵ_{T\mu }{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}g_{}^{(v)}(x)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{ϵz}{(Pz)^2}}M_D^{}^2{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{i(Pk)yikw}g_3(x)]`$
$`0|\overline{c}(y)\sigma _{\mu \nu }d(w)|D^{}(P,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`if_D^{}^T[(ϵ_{T\mu }P_\nu ϵ_{T\nu }P_\mu ){\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{i(Pk)yikw}\varphi _{}(x)`$ (40)
$`+(P_\mu z_\nu P_\nu z_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{ϵz}{(Pz)^2}}M_D^{}^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}h_{}^{(t)}(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_{T\mu }z_\nu ϵ_{T\nu }z_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{M_D^{}^2}{Pz}}{\displaystyle _0^1}dxe^{i(Pk)yikw}h_3(x)],`$
$`0|\overline{c}(y)d(w)|D^{}(P,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(f_D^{}^Tf_D^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_c+m_d}{M_D^{}}}\right)ϵzM_D^{}^2{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}h_{}^{(s)}(x),`$ (41)
$`0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _5\gamma _\mu d(w)|D^{}(P,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(f_D^{}f_D^{}^T{\displaystyle \frac{m_c+m_d}{M_D^{}}}\right)M_D^{}ϵ_\mu ^{\nu \alpha \beta }ϵ_{T\nu }P_\alpha z_\beta {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xe^{i(Pk)yikw}g_T^{(a)}(x),`$ (42)
where the $`D^{}`$ meson decay constant $`f_D^{}`$ ($`f_D^{}^T`$) is associated with the longitudinal (transverse) polarization.

In the heavy-quark limit we have

$`f_D^{}^Tf_D^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_c+m_d}{M_D^{}}}f_D^{}f_D^{}^T{\displaystyle \frac{m_c+m_d}{M_D^{}}}O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}).`$ (43)
Hence, the contributions from the various distribution amplitudes are characterized by the powers,

$`\varphi _{}(x),\varphi _{}(x)`$ $`:`$ $`O(1),`$ (44)
$`g_{}^{(v)}(x),h_{}^{(t)}(x)`$ $`:`$ $`O(r^{}),`$ (45)
$`g_3(x),h_3(x)`$ $`:`$ $`O(r^2),`$ (46)
$`h_{}^{(s)}(x),g_T^{(a)}(x)`$ $`:`$ $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B).`$ (47)
To the current accuracy, we shall consider the distribution amplitudes $`\varphi _{}(x)`$ and $`h_{}^{(t)}(x)`$ for the longitudinal polarization, and $`\varphi _{}(x)`$ and $`g_{}^{(v)}(x)`$ for the transverse polarization of the $`D^{}`$ meson.

Rewrite the tensor matrix element as

$`0|\overline{c}(y)\sigma _{\mu \nu }d(w)|D^{}(P)=i0|\overline{c}(y)\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu d(w)|D^{}(P)ig_{\mu \nu }0|\overline{c}(y)d(w)|D^{}(P),`$ (48)
and differentiate both sides with respect to $`w`$ and $`y`$. The relations,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xxh_{}^{(t)}(x)e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}),`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑xx[\varphi _{}(x)+h_3(x)]e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}),`$ (50)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x[\varphi _{}(x)h_{}^{(t)}(x)]e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}),`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x[\varphi _{}(x)g_3(x)]e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}),`$ (52)
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x[\varphi _{}(x)+h_3(x)2g_{}^{(v)}(x)]e^{i(Pk)yikw}}=O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}),`$ (53)
come from the derivatives with respect to $`w_\nu `$ for $`\mu =`$, to $`w_\nu `$ for $`\mu =`$, to $`y_\mu `$ for $`\nu =`$, to $`y_\mu `$ for $`\nu =+`$, and to $`y_\mu `$ for $`\nu =`$, respectively. Equations (49) and (50) indicate that the $`D^{}`$ meson distribution amplitudes have maxima at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}`$. Equations (51) and (52) state that $`\varphi _{}`$, $`h_{}^{(t)}`$ and $`g_3`$ are identical up to corrections of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{})`$. Similarly, $`\varphi _{}`$, $`h_3`$ and $`g_{}^{(v)}`$ are also identical up to corrections of $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{})`$ from Eq. (53).

Neglecting the $`O(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{})`$ difference, we consider the structure for a $`D^{}`$ meson,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4w}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ikw}0|\overline{c}_\beta (0)d_\gamma (w)|D^{}(P)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}[(\mathit{}+M_D^{})\mathit{ϵ̸}_L\varphi _D^{}^L(x)+(\mathit{}+M_D^{})\mathit{ϵ̸}_T\varphi _D^{}^T(x)]_{\gamma \beta },`$ (54)
with the definitions,

$`\varphi _D^{}^L={\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}\varphi _{}={\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}^T}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}h_{}^{(t)},`$ (55)
$`\varphi _D^{}^T={\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}^T}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}\varphi _{}={\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}}g_{}^{(v)}.`$ (56)
The $`D^{}`$ meson distribution amplitudes satisfy the normalizations,

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\varphi _D^{}^L(x)={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x\varphi _D^{}^T(x)={\displaystyle \frac{f_D^{}}{2\sqrt{2N_c}}},`$ (57)
where we have assumed $`f_D^{}=f_D^{}^T`$. Note that equations of motion do not relate $`\varphi _D^{}^L`$ and $`\varphi _D^{}^T`$. In this work we shall simply adopt the same model,

$`\varphi _D^{}^L(x)=\varphi _D^{}^T(x)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}f_D^{}x(1x)[1+C_D^{}(12x)].`$ (58)
Similarly, the free shape parameter $`C_D^{}`$ is expected to take a value, such that $`\varphi _D^{}`$ has a maximum at $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_D^{}0.3`$.

### D Sudakov Resummation

Radiative corrections to the meson wave functions and to the hard amplitudes generate double logarithms from the overlap of collinear and soft enhancements. The double logarithmic corrections $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2k_T`$ to the heavy and light meson wave functions and their Sudakov resummation have been analyzed in . The property of the $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function is special, since its dynamics is a mixture of the soft one in the $`B`$ meson wave function and the collinear one in the pion wave function. In this section we derive $`k_T`$ resummation for the $`b`$-dependent $`D`$ meson wave function,

$`\varphi _D(x,b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2N_c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw^{}}{2\pi }e^{ik_2^+w^{}}0|\overline{c}_{v_2}(0)\frac{\gamma _5\gamma ^+}{2}P\mathrm{exp}\left[ig_0^w𝑑sA(s)\right]d(w)|D^{}(P_2)},`$ (59)
with the coordinate $`w=(0,w^{},𝐛)`$. The path for the Wilson link is composed of three pieces: from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$ along the direction of $`n`$, from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}+𝐛`$, and from $`\mathrm{}+𝐛`$ back to $`w`$ along the direction of $`n`$ . The derivation for the $`D^{}`$ meson is the same. The $`D^{()}`$ meson distribution amplitude $`\varphi _{D^{()}}(x)`$ discussed in the previous two subsections is regarded as the initial condition of the Sudakov evolution in $`b`$.

In the axial gauge the double logarithms appear in the two-particle reducible corrections, such as Figs. 2(b) and 2(c). Figure 2(a) gives only single soft logarithms. To implement the resummation technique, we allow the direction $`n`$ of the Wilson line to vary away from the light cone. Because of the rescaled $`\overline{c}`$ quark field, $`P_2`$ does not lead to a large scale, and the only large scale is $`k_2`$. Due to the scale invariance in $`n`$ and in $`v_2`$, $`k_2`$ appears in the ratios $`(k_2n)^2/n^2`$ and $`(k_2v_2)^2/v_2^2`$. However, the second ratio is of $`O(r^2)`$ compared to the first one, and negligible. Therefore, $`\varphi _D`$ depends only on the single large scale $`(k_1n)^2/n^2`$. The rest part of the derivation then follows that in . The Sudakov factor from $`k_T`$ resummation is given by

$`\mathrm{exp}[S_{D^{()}}(\mu )]=\mathrm{exp}\left[s(k_2^+,b)2{\displaystyle _{1/b}^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\mu }}{\overline{\mu }}}\gamma (\alpha _s(\overline{\mu }))\right],`$ (60)
with the quark anomalous dimension $`\gamma =\alpha _s/\pi `$. For the explicit expression of the Sudakov exponent $`s`$, refer to . It is found that Eq. (60) has the same functional form as the Sudakov factor for the $`B`$ meson.

The double logarithms $`\alpha _s\mathrm{ln}^2x`$ produced by the radiative corrections to the hard amplitudes are the same as in the $`B\pi ,\rho `$ decays at leading power in $`1/M_B`$ and in $`1/M_{D^{()}}`$. . Threshold resummation of these logarithms leads to

$`S_t(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2^{1+2c}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/2+c)}{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+c)}}[x(1x)]^c,`$ (61)
with the constant $`c=0.30.4`$. The factor $`S_t(x_2)`$ ($`S_t(x_1)`$), associated with the first (second) term of $`H_\mu `$ in Eq. (16), suppresses the end-point region with $`x_20`$ ($`x_10`$). In the numerical study below we shall adopt $`c=0.35`$.

## IV $`BD,D^{}`$ FORM FACTORS

The $`BD^{()}`$ transitions are defined by the matrix elements,

$`D(P_2)|\overline{b}(0)\gamma _\mu c(0)|B(P_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{M_BM_D}\left[\xi _+(\eta )(v_1+v_2)_\mu +\xi _{}(\eta )(v_1v_2)_\mu \right],`$ (62)
$`D^{}(P_2,ϵ^{})|\overline{b}(0)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5c(0)|B(P_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{M_BM_D^{}}\left[\xi _{A1}(\eta )(\eta +1)ϵ_\mu ^{}\xi _{A2}(\eta )ϵ^{}v_1v_{1\mu }\xi _{A3}(\eta )ϵ^{}v_1v_{2\mu }\right]`$ (63)
$`D^{}(P_2,ϵ^{})|\overline{b}(0)\gamma _\mu c(0)|B(P_1)`$ $`=`$ $`i\sqrt{M_BM_D^{}}\xi _V(\eta )ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ_\nu ^{}v_{2\alpha }v_{1\beta }.`$ (64)
The form factors $`\xi _+`$, $`\xi _{}`$, $`\xi _{A_1}`$, $`\xi _{A_2}`$, $`\xi _{A_3}`$, and $`\xi _V`$ satisfy the relations in the heavy-quark limit,

$$\xi _+=\xi _V=\xi _{A_1}=\xi _{A_3}=\xi ,\xi _{}=\xi _{A_2}=0,$$
(65)
where $`\xi `$ is the IW function .

We write the form factors as the sum of the leading-power and next-to-leading-power contributions,

$$\xi _i=\xi _i^{(0)}+\xi _i^{(1)},$$
(66)
for $`i=+`$, $``$, $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`A_3`$, and $`V`$. The leading-power factorization formulas are given by

$`\xi _+^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_F\sqrt{r}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D(x_2)}`$ (68)
$`\times \left[E(t^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)+rE(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right],`$
$`\xi _{,A2}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (69)
$`\xi _{A1,A3,V}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_F\sqrt{r^{}}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D^{}(x_2)}`$ (71)
$`\times \left[E(t^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)+r^{}E(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right],`$
with the color factor $`C_F=4/3`$. Obviously, the above expressions obey the heavy-quark relations in Eq. (65), if we assume

$`M_D=M_D^{},\varphi _D=\varphi _D^{}.`$ (72)
The hard function is written as

$`h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`K_0\left(\sqrt{x_1x_2r^{()}\eta ^+}M_Bb_1\right)S_t(x_2)`$ (75)
$`\times [\theta (b_1b_2)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_2r^{()}\eta ^+}M_Bb_1\right)I_0\left(\sqrt{x_2r^{()}\eta ^+}M_Bb_3\right)`$
$`+\theta (b_2b_1)K_0\left(\sqrt{x_2r^{()}\eta ^+}M_Bb_2\right)I_0\left(\sqrt{x_2r^{()}\eta ^+}M_Bb_1\right)].`$
In the evolution factor,

$`E(t)=\alpha _s(t)\mathrm{exp}[S_B(t)S_{D^{()}}(t)],`$ (76)
we keep the Sudakov factor associated with the $`B`$ meson, and allow the behavior of the $`B`$ meson wave function to determine whether this effect is important. For the model $`\varphi _B(x,b)`$ in Eq. (20), the Sudakov effect is not important because of $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$. The hard scales $`t`$ are defined as

$`t^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{x_2r^{()}\eta ^+}M_B,1/b_1,1/b_2),`$ (77)
$`t^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}(\sqrt{x_1r^{()}\eta ^+}M_B,1/b_1,1/b_2).`$ (78)
Equations (68) and (71) contain at most the logarithmic end-point singularities in the collinear factorization, which are weaker than the linear singularities in the $`B\pi `$ form factors. We conclude that Sudakov resummation is also crucial for the $`BD^{()}`$ transitions.

The next-to-leading-power corrections are given by

$`\xi _+^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi C_F\sqrt{r}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D(x_2)}`$ (80)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^+1)(\eta ^+2)}{\sqrt{\eta ^21}}}\left[rx_2E(t^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)+x_1E(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right],`$
$`\xi _{}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi C_F\sqrt{r}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D(x_2)}`$ (82)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\eta ^++1)(\eta ^+2)}{\sqrt{\eta ^21}}}\left[rx_2E(t^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2)x_1E(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right],`$
$`\xi _{A1}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_F\sqrt{r^{}}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D^{}(x_2)}`$ (84)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^+2}{\eta +1}}r^{}x_2E(t^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2){\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{\eta +1}}E(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right],`$
$`\xi _{A2}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`16\pi C_F\sqrt{r^{}}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D^{}(x_2)}`$ (86)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^+x_1}{\sqrt{\eta ^21}}}E(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1),`$
$`\xi _{A3,V}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi C_F\sqrt{r^{}}M_B^2{\displaystyle 𝑑x_1𝑑x_2b_1𝑑b_1b_2𝑑b_2\varphi _B(x_1,b_1)\varphi _D^{}(x_2,b_2)}`$ (88)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta ^+2}{\sqrt{\eta ^21}}}r^{}x_2E(t^{(1)})h(x_1,x_2,b_1,b_2){\displaystyle \frac{x_1}{\sqrt{\eta ^21}}}E(t^{(2)})h(x_2,x_1,b_2,b_1)\right].`$
whose hard amplitudes are consistent with those obtained in . The additional powers in $`x_2`$ and in $`x_1`$ provide stronger suppression in the end-point region with $`x_1`$, $`x_20`$. Hence, the characteristic hard scales of the corresponding terms increase to $`\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}`$ and to $`M_B\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}}`$, respectively.

Consider the expansion of the currents to $`O(1/m_b)`$ and $`O(1/m_c)`$ ,

$$\overline{b}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ic\overline{b}_{v_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }c_{v_2}+\frac{1}{2m_c}\overline{b}_{v_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ii\mathit{}_2c_{v_2}\frac{1}{2m_b}\overline{b}_{v_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ii\mathit{}_1c_{v_2}+\mathrm{},$$
(89)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ stand for the terms, which are further suppressed by $`\alpha _s`$. Compared to the right-hand side of Eq. (89), $`\xi _i^{(0)}`$ and the terms proportional to $`x_2`$ ($`x_1`$) in $`\xi _i^{(1)}`$ are identified as the first term and the second (third) term. We do not distinguish $`M_B`$ and $`m_b`$, and $`M_{D^{()}}`$, $`m_c`$ and $`m_0`$, and employ only one single wave function for the $`B`$ and $`D^{()}`$ mesons. The differences of the above quantities are also the sources of $`1/m`$ corrections. However, their estimation requires more information of nonperturbative inputs, and can not be performed in this work. Equations (80)-(88) will be employed to obtain an indication of the order of magnitude of next-to-leading-power corrections to the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors.

It is observed from Fig. 3(a) that most of the contribution to the form factor $`\xi _+^{(0)}`$ comes from the range of $`\alpha _s/\pi <0.3`$, implying that the applicability of PQCD to the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors is acceptable, and not worse than that to the $`B\pi `$ ones . This is attributed to the fact that the hard scales $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{M_B/M_{D^{()}}}`$ and $`\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}`$ in the two cases do not differ very much. The applicability improves for the next-to-leading-power contributions as shown in Fig. 3(b): most of them arise from $`\alpha _s/\pi <0.2`$. We emphasize that the above percentage analysis is only indicative, and that the convergence of higher-order corrections needs to be justified by explicit calculation. We estimate from Fig. 4 that next-to-leading-power contributions are less than 20% of the leading one. In fact, they are small except $`\xi _{A2}^{(1)}`$, implying that the power expansion in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$ and in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}`$ is reliable. Our results are smaller than those obtained from QCD sum rules at large recoil .

The next step is to determine the $`D^{()}`$ meson distribution amplitudes, i.e., the free parameters $`C_{D^{()}}`$, by fitting the leading-power PQCD predictions to the measured decay spectra at large recoil . The IW function extracted from the $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ decay is parametrized as

$`\xi (\eta )=F_{D^{()}}(1)[1\widehat{\rho }_{D^{()}}^2(\eta 1)+\widehat{c}_{D^{()}}(\eta 1)^2+O((\eta 1)^3)],`$ (90)
with the factors $`F_D(1)=0.98\pm 0.07`$  and $`F_D^{}(1)=0.913\pm 0.042`$ . The above values are consistent with those derived from lattice calculations . The linear and quadratic fits give

$`\widehat{\rho }_D^2=0.69\pm 0.14,\widehat{c}_D=0,\widehat{\rho }_D^{}^2=0.81\pm 0.12,\widehat{c}_D^{}=0,`$ (91)
$`\widehat{\rho }_D^2=0.69_{0.15}^{+0.42},\widehat{c}_D=0.00_{0.00}^{+0.59},`$ (92)
respectively. Choosing the decay constants $`f_B=190`$ MeV and $`f_D=f_D^{}=240`$ MeV, we find that $`C_DC_D^{}=0.7`$ leads to an excellent agreement with the data at large recoil as exhibited in Fig. 5. For these values, the corresponding $`D^{()}`$ meson distribution amplitude exhibits a maximum at $`x0.36`$, consistent with our expectation. The rough equality of $`C_D`$ and $`C_D^{}`$ hints that the heavy-quark symmetry holds well.

Note that our aim is not to extract the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $`|V_{cb}|`$ from experimental data. This extraction is best done in the zero-recoil region, where the heavy-quark symmetry defines unambiguously the normalization of the $`BD^{()}`$ transition form factors. It has been emphasized that the PQCD formalism is reliable at large recoil, and appropriate for two-body nonleptonic decays. Therefore, one of the purposes of this work is to determine the unknown $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function. The $`B`$ meson and pion wave functions have been fixed already in the literature. With these meson wave functions being available, we are able to predict the branching ratios of two-body nonleptonic charmful decays, such as $`BD^{()}\pi (\rho )`$. Our predictions for the $`BD\pi `$ branching ratios ,

$`B(B^{}D^0\pi ^{})5.5\times 10^3,`$ (93)
$`B(\overline{B}^0D^+\pi ^{})2.8\times 10^3,`$ (94)
$`B(\overline{B}^0D^0\pi ^0)2.6\times 10^4,`$ (95)
are in agreement with experimental data . The above results correspond to the phenomenological coefficients $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$  with the ratio $`|a_2|/a_10.5`$ and the phase $`57^o`$ of $`a_2`$ relative to $`a_1`$. The point is, from the view point of PQCD, that the phase is of short distance and generated from hard amplitudes. This is contrary to the conclusion drawn from naive factorization : the phase comes from long-distance final-state interaction.

If the $`D^{()}`$ meson decay constant is known from, for example, lattice QCD calculation, it is then possible to extract the matrix element $`|V_{cb}|`$ from the measured semileptonic decay spectra at large recoil using the PQCD formalism. The experimental data of the product $`[|V_{cb}|\xi (\eta )]_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ for the $`BDl\nu `$ mode  are listed in Table I. The region with the large velocity transfer $`\eta >1.35`$ is regarded as the one, where PQCD analyses are reliable. We compute the following $`\chi `$-square as a function of the two parameters, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and the shape parameter $`C_D`$ ($`N_{\mathrm{para}}=2`$):

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2\frac{1}{N_{\mathrm{data}}N_{\mathrm{para}}}\underset{k}{}\left|\frac{[|V_{cb}|\xi (\eta _k)]_{\mathrm{exp}}|V_{cb}|\xi _+^{(0)}(\eta _k,C_D)}{\sigma _k}\right|^2,$$
(96)
where $`N_{\mathrm{data}}=4`$, $`\sigma _k`$ are assumed to be 10% of the data (considering only the systematic errors for illustration), and $`\xi _+^{(0)}`$ has been defined in Eq. (68). The band in Fig. 6 stands for the allowed $`|V_{cb}|`$-$`C_D`$ range with $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^21`$. It is found that taking $`C_D=0.7`$, $`V_{cb}=(0.0350.0036)(240\mathrm{MeV}/f_D)`$ is consistent with the value extracted in  from the zero-recoil data. Choosing $`V_{cb}=0.04`$, $`C_D=0.40.5`$ is allowed.

## V CONCLUSION

In this paper we have developed the PQCD formalism for the $`BD^{()}`$ transitions in the heavy-quark and large-recoil limits based on $`k_T`$ factorization theorem. The reasonable power counting rules for these decays with the three scales $`M_B`$, $`M_{D^{()}}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ have been constructed following the hierachy in Eq. (1). Under this hierachy, only a single $`B`$ meson wave function and a single $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function are involved, which possess maxima at the spectator momentum fractions $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_B`$ and $`x\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}/M_{D^{()}}`$, respectively. Dynamics of an energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson is the mixture of those of a $`B`$ meson at rest and of an energetic light meson: it absorbs collinear divergences but the heavy-quark expansion applies to the $`c`$ quark. The Sudakov factor from $`k_T`$ resummation for an energetic $`D^{()}`$ meson is similar to that associated with a $`B`$ meson. The end-point singularities, being logarithmic in collinear factorization theorem, do not exist in $`k_T`$ factorization theorem. Including also the Sudakov effect from threshold resummation for hard amplitudes, the PQCD approach to the $`BD^{()}`$ transitions becomes more reliable.

The factorization formulas for the $`BD^{()}`$ form factors have been expressed as the sum of leading-power and next-to-leading-power contributions, which is equivalent to the heavy-quark expansion in both $`1/m_b`$ and $`1/m_c`$. The leading-power formulas, respecting the heavy-quark symmetry, are identified as the IW function. This contribution, characterized by the scale $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\sqrt{M_B/M_{D^{()}}}`$, is calculable marginally in PQCD. The next-to-leading-power corrections, characterized by a scale larger than $`\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}M_B}`$, can be estimated more reliably, and found to be less than 20% of the leading contribution. That is, the heavy-quark expansion makes sense. Note that the next-to-leading-power corrections considered here, which can be analyzed under the current knowledge of nonperturbative inputs, are not complete. The conclusion drawn in this paper provides a solid theoretical base for the PQCD analysis of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ baryon charmful decays .

We have determined the $`D^{()}`$ meson wave function from the $`BD^{()}l\nu `$ decay spectrum, which has a maximum at the spectator momentum fraction $`x0.36`$ as expected. This wave function is useful for making predictions for the two-body nonleptonic decays in the PQCD formalism. The results of the $`BD\pi `$ branching ratios have been presented in Eq. (95), which are consistent with the experimental data. The detail of this subject will be published elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

The work of H.N.L. was supported in part by the National Science Council of R.O.C. under the Grant No. NSC-91-2112-M-001-053, by National Center for Theoretical Sciences of R.O.C., and by Theory Group of KEK, Japan. The work of T.K was supported in part by Grant-in Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan under the Grant No. 11640265.