text:
# Transverse Momentum in Semi-Inclusive Polarized Deep Inelastic Scattering and the Spin-Flavor Structure of the Proton

## Abstract

The non-valence spin-flavor structure of the proton extracted from semi-inclusive measurements of polarized deep inelastic scattering depends strongly on the transverse momentum of the detected hadrons which are used to determine the individual polarized sea distributions. This physics may explain the recent HERMES observation of a positively polarized strange sea through semi-inclusive scattering, in contrast to the negative strange sea polarization deduced from inclusive polarized deep inelastic scattering.

Understanding the internal spin structure of the proton is one of the most challenging problems facing subatomic physics: How is the spin of the proton built up out from the intrinsic spin and orbital angular momentum of its quark and gluonic constituents ? A key issue is the contribution of polarized sea quarks (up, down and strange) in building up the spin of the proton. Fully inclusive polarized deep inelastic scattering experiments suggest that the sea carries significant negative polarization (polarized in the opposite direction to the spin of the proton) windm . In contrast, new semi-inclusive measurements performed by the HERMES hermessemi ; miller  and SMC smcsemi  experiments with final state particle identification suggest that the light-flavored (up and down) sea contributes close to zero to the proton’s spin, and that the strange sea is positively polarized.

Here we argue that the transverse momentum of the detected final-state hadrons in semi-inclusive scattering may be essential to understanding these results. The first moment of the $`g_1`$ spin structure function for polarized photon-gluon fusion $`(\gamma ^{}gq\overline{q})`$ receives a positive contribution proportional to the mass squared of the struck quark or antiquark which originates from low values of quark transverse momentum, $`k_t`$, with respect to the photon-gluon direction. It also receives a negative contribution from $`k_t^2Q^2`$, where $`Q^2`$ is the virtuality of the hard photon — see Eqs (5-8) below. Thus, the spin-flavor structure of the sea extracted from semi-inclusive measurements depends strongly on the $`k_t`$ distribution of the detected hadrons. Understanding this physics is essential to ensure that the theory and experimental acceptance are correctly matched when extracting new information from present and future experiments. We first give a brief overview of the experimental situation and then explain the importance of transverse momentum, including calculations in the kinematics of the HERMES and SMC experiments.

Following pioneering experiments at SLAC slac , recent experiments in fully inclusive polarized deep inelastic scattering have extended measurements of the nucleon’s $`g_1`$ spin dependent structure function to lower values of Bjorken $`x`$ where the nucleon’s sea becomes important windm . From the first moment of $`g_1`$, these experiments have revealed a small value for the flavour-singlet axial-charge:

$$g_A^{(0)}|_{\mathrm{pDIS}}=\mathrm{\Delta }u+\mathrm{\Delta }d+\mathrm{\Delta }s=0.20.35.$$
(1)
This result is particularly interesting spinrev  because $`g_A^{(0)}`$ is interpreted in the parton model as the fraction of the proton’s spin which is carried by the intrinsic spin of its quark and antiquark constituents. The value (1) is about half the prediction of relativistic constituent quark models ($`60\%`$). It corresponds to a negative strange-quark polarization

$$\mathrm{\Delta }s=0.10\pm 0.04.$$
(2)
The small value of $`g_A^{(0)}`$ measured in polarized deep inelastic scattering has inspired vast experimental and theoretical activity to understand the spin structure of the proton. New experiments are underway or being planned to map out the proton’s spin-flavor structure and to measure the amount of spin carried by polarized gluons in the polarized proton. These include semi-inclusive polarized deep inelastic scattering miller , polarized proton-proton collisions at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) rhic , and polarized $`ep`$ collider studies bassdr .

Here we focus on semi-inclusive measurements of fast pions and kaons in the current fragmentation region. These measurements are being used by the HERMES experiment hermessemi ; miller  (following earlier work by SMC smcsemi ) to reconstruct the individual up, down and strange quark contributions to the proton’s spin. In contrast to inclusive polarized deep inelastic scattering where the $`g_1`$ structure function is deduced by detecting only the scattered lepton close , the detected particles in the semi-inclusive experiments are high-energy (greater than 20% of the energy of the incident photon) charged pions and kaons in coincidence with the scattered lepton. For large energy fraction $`z=E_h/E_\gamma 1`$ the most probable occurence is that the detected $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`K^\pm `$ contain the struck quark or antiquark in their valence Fock state. They therefore act as a tag of the flavor of the struck quark close . In leading order (LO) QCD:

$$A_{1p}^h(x,Q^2)\frac{\underset{q,h}{}e_q^2\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,Q^2)_{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^1D_q^h(z,Q^2)}{_{q,h}e_q^2q(x,Q^2)_{z_{\mathrm{min}}}^1D_q^h(z,Q^2)}$$
(3)
where $`z_{\mathrm{min}}0.2`$. Here

$$D_q^h(z,Q^2)=𝑑k_t^2D_q^h(z,k_t^2,Q^2)$$
(4)
is the fragmentation function for the struck quark or antiquark to produce a hadron $`h`$ ($`=\pi ^\pm ,K^\pm `$) carrying energy fraction $`z=E_h/E_\gamma `$ in the target rest frame; $`\mathrm{\Delta }q(x,Q^2)`$ is the quark (or antiquark) polarized parton distribution and $`e_q`$ is the quark charge. Note the integration over the transverse momentum $`k_t`$ of the final-state hadrons closem . (In practice this integration over $`k_t`$ is determined by the acceptance of the experiment.) Since pions and kaons have spin zero, the fragmentation functions are the same for both polarized and unpolarized leptoproduction. NLO corrections to Eq. (3) are discussed in Ref. defl .

The semi-inclusive data reported by HERMES and SMC suggest that the (measured) light-flavored (up and down quark) sea contributes close to zero to the spin of the proton hermessemi ; miller ; smcsemi  and that the (measured) strange sea polarization is positive miller , in contrast with the result (2) deduced from inclusive scattering. The mean $`Q^2`$ for these experiments is 2.5GeV2 (HERMES) and 10GeV2 (SMC). For HERMES the average transverse momentum of the detected fast hadrons is less than about 0.5 GeV hermespriv , whereas for SMC the $`k_t`$ of the detected fast pions was less than about 1 GeV smcpriv . Further semi-inclusive measurements are planned with the COMPASS experiment at CERN and the proposed future Electron-Ion Collider (EIC), extending the kinematic range to smaller Bjorken $`x`$.

Transverse momentum is essential to understanding polarized semi-inclusive data. Consider the polarized photon-gluon fusion process $`\gamma ^{}gq\overline{q}`$. We evaluate the $`g_1`$ spin structure function for this process as a function of the transverse momentum squared of the struck quark, $`k_t^2`$, with respect to the photon-gluon direction. We use $`q`$ and $`p`$ to denote the photon and gluon momenta and use the cut-off $`k_t^2\lambda ^2`$ to separate the total phase space into “hard” ($`k_t^2\lambda ^2`$) and “soft” ($`k_t^2<\lambda ^2`$) contributions. One finds bnt ; bassbs :

$`g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{hard}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\frac{4(m^2+\lambda ^2)}{s}}}{1\frac{4x^2P^2}{Q^2}}}[(2x1)(1{\displaystyle \frac{2xP^2}{Q^2}})\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{4(m^2+\lambda ^2)}{s}}\sqrt{1\frac{4x^2P^2}{Q^2}}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1\frac{4x^2P^2}{Q^2}}\sqrt{1\frac{4(m^2+\lambda ^2)}{s}}}{1\sqrt{1\frac{4x^2P^2}{Q^2}}\sqrt{1\frac{4(m^2+\lambda ^2)}{s}}}}\right)\}`$
$`+(x1+{\displaystyle \frac{xP^2}{Q^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\left(2m^2(1\frac{4x^2P^2}{Q^2})P^2x(2x1)(1\frac{2xP^2}{Q^2})\right)}{(m^2+\lambda ^2)(1\frac{4x^2P^2}{Q^2})P^2x(x1+\frac{xP^2}{Q^2})}}]`$ (5)
for each flavor of quark liberated into the final state. Here $`m`$ is the quark mass, $`Q^2=q^2`$ is the virtuality of the hard photon, $`P^2=p^2`$ is the virtuality of the gluon target, $`x`$ is the Bjorken variable ($`x=\frac{Q^2}{2p.q}`$) and $`s`$ is the centre of mass energy squared, $`s=(p+q)^2=Q^2\left(\frac{1x}{x}\right)P^2`$, for the photon-gluon collision. When $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ the expression for $`g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ simplifies to the leading twist (=2) contribution:

$$g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{hard}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\left[(2x1)\left\{\mathrm{ln}\frac{Q^2}{\lambda ^2}+\mathrm{ln}\frac{1x}{x}1+\mathrm{ln}\frac{\lambda ^2}{x(1x)P^2+(m^2+\lambda ^2)}\right\}+(1x)\frac{2m^2P^2x(2x1)}{m^2+\lambda ^2P^2x(x1)}\right].$$
(6)
Here we take $`\lambda `$ to be independent of $`x`$. Note that for finite quark masses, phase space limits Bjorken $`x`$ to $`x_{max}=Q^2/(Q^2+P^2+4(m^2+\lambda ^2))`$ and protects $`g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{hard}}`$ from reaching the $`\mathrm{ln}(1x)`$ singularity in Eq. (6). For this photon-gluon fusion process, the first moment of the “hard” contribution is bnt :

$$_0^1𝑑xg_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{hard}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\left[1+\frac{2m^2}{P^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4(m^2+\lambda ^2)/P^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+4(m^2+\lambda ^2)/P^2}1}{\sqrt{1+4(m^2+\lambda ^2)/P^2}+1}\right)\right].$$
(7)
The “soft” contribution to the first moment of $`g_1`$ is then obtained by subtracting Eq. (7) from the inclusive first moment (obtained by setting $`\lambda =0`$):

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑xg_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{soft}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{2m^2}{P^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4(m^2+\lambda ^2)/P^2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+4(m^2+\lambda ^2)/P^2}1}{\sqrt{1+4(m^2+\lambda ^2)/P^2}+1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+4m^2/P^2}}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+4m^2/P^2}1}{\sqrt{1+4m^2/P^2}+1}}\right)\right].`$ (8)
Eq. (8) measures the contribution to the polarized sea from $`k_t`$ less than the cut-off $`\lambda `$ in the limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$.

For fixed gluon virtuality $`P^2`$ the photon-gluon fusion process induces two distinct contributions to the first moment of $`g_1`$. Consider the leading twist contribution, Eq. (7). The first term, $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }`$, in Eq.(7) is mass-independent and comes from the region of phase space where the struck quark carries large transverse momentum squared $`k_t^2Q^2`$. It measures a contact photon-gluon interaction and is associated ccm ; bint  with the axial anomaly adler . The second mass-dependent term comes from the region of phase-space where the struck quark carries transverse momentum $`k_t^2m^2,P^2`$. This positive mass dependent term is proportional to the mass squared of the struck quark. The mass-dependent in Eqs. (7) and (8) can safely be neglected for light-quark flavor (up and down) production. It is very important for strangeness (and charm bbs2 ; fms ) production. For vanishing cut-off ($`\lambda ^2=0`$) this term vanishes in the limit $`m^2P^2`$ and tends to $`+\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }`$ when $`m^2P^2`$ (so that the first moment of $`g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}`$ vanishes in this limit) 111 Note that there is no contribution to the first moment from the intermediate region of $`k_t^2`$, between the soft scale set by $`m^2`$ and $`P^2`$ and the hard scale set by $`Q^2`$, because the first moment of the spin-dependent Altarelli-Parisi splitting function for $`gq\overline{q}`$ vanishes: $`_0^1𝑑x(2x1)=0`$.  .

Eq. (7) leads to the well known formula etar ; ccm ; bint

$$g_A^{(0)}|_{\mathrm{pDIS}}=\left(\underset{q}{}\mathrm{\Delta }q3\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }g\right)_{\mathrm{partons}}$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ is the amount of spin carried by polarized gluon partons in the polarized proton and $`\mathrm{\Delta }q_{\mathrm{partons}}`$ measures the spin carried by quarks and antiquarks carrying “soft” transverse momentum $`k_t^2m^2,P^2`$, with $`P^2`$ a typical gluon virtuality in the proton wavefunction. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }g1/\alpha _s`$ under QCD evolution etar , the two terms in Eq. (9) both scale as $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$.

We now evaluate the effect of the strange quark mass on the $`k_t`$ distribution of the final-state hadrons produced in photon-gluon fusion. In Figs. 1 and 2 we show the first moment of $`g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}|_{\mathrm{soft}}`$ for the strange and light (up and down) flavors respectively as a function of the transverse momentum cut-off (acceptance) $`k_t^2<\lambda ^2`$. Here we set $`Q^2=2.5`$GeV2 (corresponding to the HERMES experiment) and 10GeV2 (SMC) and integrate the full expression in Eq. (5). Following ccm , we take $`P^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{qcd}}^2`$ and set $`P^2=0.1`$GeV2. We take the strange quark mass $`m=0.2`$GeV. Observe the small value for the light-quark polarization at low transverse momentum and the positive value for the integrated strange sea polarization at low $`k_t^2`$: $`k_t<1.5`$GeV at the HERMES $`Q^2=2.5`$GeV2. When we relax the cut-off, increasing the acceptance of the experiment, the measured strange sea polarization changes sign and becomes negative (the result implied by fully inclusive deep inelastic measurements).

For $`P^2=0.1`$GeV2 the fully inclusive first moment of $`g_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}`$ for strange quark production is 0.26 times $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }`$ at $`Q^2=2.5`$GeV2, and 0.28 times $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }`$ at $`Q^2=10`$GeV2 (and also in the scaling limit $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$). In practice a full calculation of the $`k_t`$ dependence of the polarized sea would involve integrating over the distribution of gluon virtualities in the proton wavefunction bbs2 . While this distribution is strongly peaked at small $`P^2`$, it is interesting to investigate the effect of increasing the value of $`P^2`$. For $`Q^2=2.5`$ (10) GeV2 the contribution to the total polarized strangeness from $`k_t<\lambda `$ changes sign and becomes negative at $`\lambda =0.7`$ (1.4) GeV for a gluon with $`P^2=0.5`$GeV2 and $`\lambda =0.5`$ (1.0) GeV for a highly virtual gluon with $`P^2=1.0`$GeV2. For $`Q^2=2.5`$ (10) GeV2 the total, inclusive, polarized strangeness $`_0^1𝑑xg_1^{(\gamma ^{}g)}`$ induced by photon-gluon fusion increases to 0.52 (0.61) times $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }`$ for $`P^2=0.5`$GeV2 and 0.54 (0.71) times $`\frac{\alpha _s}{2\pi }`$ for $`P^2=1.0`$GeV2.

We summarize our results. The small value for the light-quark sea polarization and the positive strange sea polarization observed in semi-inclusive measurements of polarized deep inelastic scattering may have a simple interpretation in terms of the transverse momentum dependence of polarized photon-gluon fusion. It would be very interesting to extend the present measurements to include final-state hadrons with the highest values of transverse momentum, $`k_t`$, to look for the growth in the (negative) polarization of the light-(up and down) flavor sea and the sign change for the polarized strangeness that are expected at large $`k_t`$. Finally, we note that an independent measurement of the strange quark axial-charge, $`\mathrm{\Delta }s`$, could be obtained from a precision measurement of elastic $`\nu p`$ scattering nup . (The elastic $`\nu p`$ process is independent of assumptions about the behaviour of spin structure functions at $`x0`$). Semi-inclusive and inclusive polarized deep inelastic scattering together with elastic $`\nu p`$ scattering provide complementary information about the transverse momentum and Bjorken $`x`$ distributions of strange quark polarization in the nucleon.

###### Acknowledgements.

SDB is supported by a Lise Meitner Fellowship, M683, from the Austrian FWF. It is a pleasure to thank A.W. Thomas for stimulating discussions and B. Badelek, A. Deshpande, N. Makins and A. Miller for helpful communications about experimental data.


format: text

text:
# Strong interaction effects in semileptonic 𝐵 decaysTalk given at ICHEP-2002, July 24-31 2002, Amsterdam.

## Abstract

Strong interaction effects are addressed in connection to extracting $`|V_{cb}|`$. A comprehensive approach is described not relying on a $`1/m_c`$ expansion; it allows a percent accuracy without ad hoc assumptions about higher-order effects. An alternative to the $`M_X^2`$ variable is proposed improving convergence. Intrinsic hardness of integrated observables with a cut on $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is discussed; it can be responsible for the behavior of $`M_X^2`$ reported by BaBar. Consequences of the proximity to the ‘BPS’ limit are considered.

Bicocca-FT-02-20

UND-HEP-02-BIG 10

hep-ph/0210044

The heavy quark (HQ) expansion, a first-principle QCD application of the Wilsonian OPE to heavy quarks has yielded novel insights into the dynamics of heavy flavor hadrons. (For a review, see  and references therein.) An important phenomenological application of the heavy quark expansion is extracting $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ub}|`$ from measured decay rates with high accuracy and little model dependence. This requires a genuine control over nonperturbative effects in $`B`$ decays.

A popular method to determine $`|V_{cb}|`$ uses the decay rate $`BD^{}\mathrm{}\nu `$ near zero recoil. At this kinematic point the $`BD^{}`$ formfactor $`F_D^{}(0)`$ is unity when $`m_b,m_c\mathrm{}`$. Driven by the charm mass scale, power corrections are still significant: $`F_D^{}0.9`$ to order $`1/m_Q^2`$ , and the $`1/m_c^3`$ effects were estimated to be in the $`3\%`$ range . Relying on expansion in $`1/m_c`$ makes it difficult to overcome a $`5\%`$ level of accuracy here without compromising reliability of theoretical predictions.

These estimates were supported by recent lattice studies which yielded, as central values, surprisingly close numbers, $`F_D^{}0.88`$ and $`F_D^{}0.91`$ to order $`1/m_Q^2`$ and $`1/m_Q^3`$, respectively . Since the method is based on $`1/m_Q`$ expansion for both $`b`$ and $`c`$, an important issue is higher-order as well as exponential in $`m_c`$ terms. This sophisticated lattice approach will hopefully be refined in the future. Presently a large fraction of the corrections to $`F_D^{}(0)=1`$ is still added theoretically rather than emerges directly in the lattice simulations.

On experimental side, extrapolating the decay amplitude to zero recoil introduces additional uncertainty. (A parametrization relied upon is alleged to be rigorously derived from QCD. This is not true.) It can be reduced incorporating the model-independent inequalities for the slope of the IW function stemming from the set of the HQ sum rules; however this has not yet been implemented in the experimental analyses.

Inclusive decays and HQ expansion. More extensive opportunities are provided by inclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decays. Total semileptonic decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)`$ is now one of the best measured quantities in $`B`$ physics. Theory-wise nonperturbative effects are controlled by the 10 year old QCD theorem  which established absence of the leading $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ power corrections to total decay rates. It applies to all sufficiently inclusive decay probabilities, not only semileptonic. Moreover, the theorem relates the inclusive $`B`$ widths to (short-distance) quark masses and expectation values of local $`b`$-quark operators in actual $`B`$ mesons. The general expansion parameter for inclusive decays is energy release, in $`bc\mathrm{}\nu `$ it constitutes $`m_bm_c3.5\text{GeV}`$.

Heavy quark masses are full-fledged QCD parameters entering various hadronic processes. The expectation values like $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ determining the width in the OPE likewise enjoy the status of observable parameters. As pointed out shortly after, the masses and relevant nonperturbative parameters can be determined from the $`B`$ decay distributions themselves . Nowadays this strategy is being implemented in a number of experimental studies.

The new generation of data provides accurate measurements of many inclusive characteristics in $`B`$ decays. It is also encouraging that proper theoretical formalism gradually finds its way into their analyses. Recent theoretical findings allow to shrink theoretical uncertainties – among them constraints from the exact HQ sum rules and the consequences of the proximity to the so-called ‘BPS’ regime signified by the hierarchy $`\mu _\pi ^2\mu _G^2\mu _\pi ^2`$ suggested by experiment.

Present theory allows to aim a percent accuracy in $`|V_{cb}|`$. Such a precision becomes possible due to a number of theoretical advances. The low-scale running masses $`m_b(\mu )`$, $`m_c(\mu )`$, the expectation values $`\mu _\pi ^2(\mu )`$, $`\mu _G^2(\mu )`$… are completely defined and can be determined from experiment with an in principle unlimited accuracy. Violation of local duality potentially limiting theoretical predictability, has been scrutinized and found to be negligibly small in total semileptonic $`B`$ widths . Present-day perturbative technology makes computing $`\alpha _s`$-corrections to the Wilson coefficients of nonperturbative operators feasible. It is also understood how to treat higher-order power corrections.

High accuracy can be achieved in a comprehensive approach where many observables are measured in $`B`$ decays to extract necessary ‘theoretical’ input parameters. This can be compared with early days of the heavy quark expansion when experiment aimed mainly at measuring $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)`$, while the rest had to be supplied by theory. This limited the accuracy of $`|V_{cb}|`$ in the mid 1990s by about $`5\%`$.

With $`bc`$ widths depending strongly on $`m_bm_c`$, previous analyses to some extent relied on expansion in $`1/m_c`$ since employed the relation

$`m_bm_c`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{M}_B\overline{M}_D+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\pi ^2}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b}})+`$ (1)
$`\text{ }{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _D^3(\rho _{\pi \pi }^3+\rho _S^3)}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_b^2}})+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Q^3}}).`$
Reliability of the $`1/m_c`$ expansion is however questionable. Already for the $`1/m_Q^2`$ terms above one has $`\frac{1}{m_c^2}>14\frac{1}{m_b^2}`$; even for the worst mass scale in the width expansion, $`\frac{1}{(m_bm_c)^2}`$ is at least $`8`$ times smaller than $`\frac{1}{m_c^2}`$. On top of that there are indications  that the nonlocal correlators affecting meson masses can be particularly large – a pattern also observed in the ’t Hooft model . This expectation is supported by the pilot lattice study  which – if taken at face value – suggests a very large value of $`\rho _{\pi \pi }^3+\rho _S^3`$. On the other hand, non-local correlators are not measured in inclusive $`B`$ decays.

A partial cure to this problem was suggested recently : The proximity to the ‘BPS’ limit leads to much smaller power corrections for the analogue of the mass relation (1) applied to ground-state mass difference $`M_BM_D`$ than in the standard spin-averaged masses. Since in the conventional approach this is the major source of uncertainty, pseudoscalar meson masses should be rather used to constrain $`m_bm_c`$.

Many recent extractions of $`|V_{cb}|`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)`$ relied on strong – and probably unjustified – assumptions about “six hadronic $`D=6`$ parameters” appearing in order $`1/m_Q^3`$. This led to the lore that the uncertainties in $`|V_{cb}|`$ are by far dominated by theory. In fact this depends on the perspective adopted, and could be traced to the ‘eclectic’ approach where only $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ are relegated to experiment, whereas all the remaining information must come from theory. Since theory itself warns that the mass relation (1) for charm is the weakest point, and a number of rigorous theoretical constraints are disregarded here, such an approach clearly cries for improvement.

Fortunately, there is a way totally free from relying on charm mass expansion; the validity of the latter can rather be examined a posteriori. It was put forward some time ago  to utilize the power of the comprehensive approach and makes full use of a few key facts :
$``$ Total width to order $`1/m_b^3`$ is affected by a single new Darwin operator (its expectation value is $`\rho _D^3`$); the moments also weakly depend on $`\rho _{LS}^3`$.
$``$ No nonlocal correlators ever enter per se.
$``$ Deviations from the HQ limit in the expectation values are driven by the full scale $`1/m_b`$ (and are additionally suppressed by proximity to the BPS limit); they are negligible in practice.
$``$ Exact sum rules and inequalities which hold for properly defined Wilsonian parameters.

Some of the HQ parameters like $`\mu _G^2`$ are known beforehand. Proper field-theoretic definition allows its accurate determination from the $`B^{}B`$ mass splitting: $`\mu _G^2(1\text{GeV})=0.35_{.02}^{+.03}\text{GeV}^2`$ . A priori less certain is $`\mu _\pi ^2`$. However, the inequality $`\mu _\pi ^2>\mu _G^2`$ valid for any definition of kinetic and chromomagnetic operators respecting the QCD commutation relation $`[D_j,D_k]=ig_sG_{jk}`$, and the corresponding sum rules essentially limit its range: $`\mu _\pi ^2(1\text{GeV})=0.45\pm 0.1\text{GeV}^2`$.

Running $`b`$ quark mass was accurately extracted from $`\sigma \left(e^+e^{}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(nS)\right)`$ in the end of the 1990s: $`m_b(1\text{GeV})=4.57\pm 0.06\text{GeV}`$ for the “kinetic” $`m_b(\mu )`$. However, considering all available constraints, I think that $`4.57\text{GeV}`$ is on the lower side of the $`m_b`$ range centered rather around $`4.63\text{GeV}`$.

Often extracted from the data are the “HQET parameters” ($`\lambda _1,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$) – they actually correspond to extrapolating the $`\mu `$-dependent quantities down to $`\mu =0`$. They are ill-defined and make no sense out of the context of a concrete computation; they are meaningful only as intermediate stage entries. However, a translation can often be made into properly defined parameters. Say, in the context of the recent CLEO analyses it reads

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{\mathrm{HQET}}`$ $``$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1\text{GeV})0.255\text{GeV}`$
$`\lambda _1`$ $``$ $`\mu _\pi ^2(1\text{GeV})0.18\text{GeV}^2.`$ (2)
The central values quoted by CLEO  thus correspond to $`m_b(1\text{GeV})=4.62\text{GeV}`$, $`\mu _\pi ^2(1\text{GeV})=0.43\text{GeV}^2`$, surprisingly close to the theoretical expectations!

Lepton and hadron moments. Moments of the charged lepton energy in the semileptonic $`B`$ decays are traditional observables to measure heavy quark parameters. New at this conference are DELPHI results for the first three moments. Two moments with the lower cut at $`E_{\mathrm{}}=1.5\text{GeV}`$ or $`E_{\mathrm{}}=1.7\text{GeV}`$ are presented by CLEO, who also measured average photon energy $`E_\gamma `$ subject to constraint $`E_\gamma >2\text{GeV}`$.

Another useful set of observables are moments of the invariant hadronic mass squared $`M_X^2`$ in semileptonic decays. Their utility follows from the fact  that, at least if charm were heavy enough the first, second and third moments would more or less directly yield $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\rho _D^3`$. The hadronic moments were measured in different settings by DELPHI, CLEO and BaBar. The details can be found in the original experimental talks .

Let me now illustrate how this strategy works number-wise. Lepton energy moments, for instance, are given by the following approximate expressions ($`bu`$ decays are neglected):

$`\text{ }E_{\mathrm{}}=1.38\text{GeV}+0.38[(m_b4.6\text{GeV})`$
$`\text{ }0.7(m_c1.15\text{GeV})]+0.03(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2)`$
$`\text{ }0.09(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3),\text{}`$
$`\text{ }(E_{\mathrm{}}E_{\mathrm{}})^2=0.18\text{GeV}^2+0.1[(m_b4.6\text{GeV})`$
$`\text{ }0.6(m_c1.15\text{GeV})]+0.045(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2)`$
$`\text{ }0.06(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3),`$
$`\text{ }(E_{\mathrm{}}E_{\mathrm{}})^3=0.033\text{GeV}^30.03[(m_b`$
$`\text{ }4.6\text{GeV})0.8(m_c1.15\text{GeV})]+0.024(\mu _\pi ^2`$
$`\text{ }0.4\text{GeV}^2)0.035(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3).`$ (3)
The moments depend basically on one and the same combination of masses $`m_b0.65m_c`$; dependence on $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ is rather weak. To even larger extent this applies to the CLEO’s cut moments $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$ and the ratio $`R_0`$ – they depend practically on a single combination $`m_b0.63m_c+0.3\mu _\pi ^2`$. The effect of the spin-orbital average $`\rho _{LS}^3`$ is negligible.

Now take a look at $`|V_{cb}|`$. Its value extracted from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)`$ has the following dependence on the HQ parameters:

$`\text{ }\frac{\left|V_{cb}\right|}{0.042}=10.65\left[\left(m_b4.6\text{GeV}\right)0.61\left(m_c1.15\text{GeV}\right)\right]`$
$`\text{ }+0.013\left(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2\right)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3\right)`$
$`\text{ }+0.06\left(\mu _G^20.35\text{GeV}^2\right)0.01\left(\rho _{LS}^3+0.15\text{GeV}^3\right)=\text{}`$
$`\text{ }1\frac{0.65}{0.38}\left[E_{\mathrm{}}1.38\text{GeV}\right]\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.06}\left(m_c1.15\text{GeV}\right)`$
$`\text{ }0.07\left(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2\right)0.05\left(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3\right)`$
$`\text{ }0.08\left(\mu _G^20.35\text{GeV}^2\right)0.005\left(\rho _{LS}^3+0.15\text{GeV}^3\right);`$ (4)
a combination of the parameters has been replaced by the first lepton moment in Eq. (3), and the sensitivity to $`\mu _G^2`$ and $`\rho _{LS}^3`$ is illustrated. If we do a similar exercise for the lepton moment $`R_1`$ with the cut at $`E_{\mathrm{}}>1.5\text{GeV}`$, the coefficients giving the remaining sensitivity of $`|V_{cb}|`$ to $`m_c`$, $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3`$ will become $`0.02`$, $`0.19`$ and $`0.13`$, respectively. We see that the precise value of charm mass is irrelevant, but reasonable accuracy in $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3`$ is required.

The first hadronic moment takes the form

$`\text{ }M_X^2=4.54\text{GeV}^25.0[(m_b4.6\text{GeV})`$
$`\text{ }0.62(m_c1.15\text{GeV})]`$
$`\text{ }0.66(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2)+(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3),`$ (5)
i.e., given by nearly the same combination $`m_b0.7m_c+0.1\mu _\pi ^20.2\rho _D^3`$ as the lepton moment. Not very constraining, it provides, however a highly nontrivial check of the HQ expansion. These two first moments together, for example verify the heavy quark sum rule for $`M_Bm_b`$ with the accuracy about $`40\text{MeV}`$! In this respect it is more elaborate than the higher lepton moments.

The dependence expectedly changes for higher hadronic moments:

$`\text{ }(M_X^2M_X^2)^2=1.2\text{GeV}^40.003(m_b4.6\text{GeV})`$
$`\text{ }0.68(m_c1.15\text{GeV})+4.5(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2)`$
$`\text{ }5.5(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3),`$
$`\text{ }(M_X^2M_X^2)^3=4\text{GeV}^6+(m_b4.6\text{GeV})`$
$`\text{ }3(m_c1.15\text{GeV})+5(\mu _\pi ^20.4\text{GeV}^2)`$
$`\text{ }+13(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^30.12\text{GeV}^3).`$ (6)
Ideally, they would measure the kinetic and Darwin expectation values separately. At the moment, however, we have only an approximate evaluation and informative upper bound on $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3`$. The current sensitivity to $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_D^3`$ is about $`0.1\text{GeV}^2`$ and $`0.1\text{GeV}^3`$, respectively.

We see that measuring the second and third hadronic moments is the real step in implementing the comprehensive program of extracting $`|V_{cb}|`$. Clearly, more work – both theoretical and experimental – is required to fully use its power. It is crucial that this extraction carries no hidden assumptions, and at no point we rely on $`1/m_c`$ expansion. Charm quark could be either heavy, or light as strange or up quark, without deteriorating – and even improving the accuracy!

Experimental cuts and hardness. There is a problem, however, which should not be underestimated. The intrinsic ‘hardness’ of the moments deteriorates when the cut on $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is imposed. As a result, say the extraordinary experimental accuracy of CLEO’s $`R_0`$$`R_2`$ cannot be even nearly utilized by theory, whether or not the expressions we use make this explicit.111An instructive example of how naive analysis can miss such effects was given in , Sect. 5.

For total widths the effective energy scale parameter is generally $`𝒬=m_bm_c`$. When OPE applies we can go beyond purely qualitative speculations about hardness. Then it is typically given by $`𝒬<\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$, with $`\omega _{\mathrm{max}}`$ the threshold energy at which the decay process disappears once $`m_b`$ is replaced by $`m_b\omega `$. With the $`E_{\mathrm{}}>E_{\mathrm{min}}`$ cut then

$$𝒬m_bE_{\mathrm{min}}\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{min}}^2+m_c^2}$$
(7)
constituting only meager $`1.25\text{GeV}`$ for $`E_{\mathrm{min}}=1.5\text{GeV}`$, and falls even below $`1\text{GeV}`$ for the decays with $`E_{\mathrm{}}>1.7\text{GeV}`$. This may explain the unexpected behavior of the first hadronic moment with respect to the cut on $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ reported by BaBar earlier at this session .

In $`bs+\gamma `$ decays one has $`𝒬m_b2E_{\mathrm{min}}`$, once again a rather soft scale $`1.2\text{GeV}`$ if the lower cut is set at $`E_\gamma =2\text{GeV}`$. Hence, the reliability of theory can be questioned when one aims for maximum precision. For higher moments the hardness further deteriorates in either decays. A high premium then should be placed for lowering the cuts .

On the theoretical side, the higher hadronic moments can be affected by nonperturbative physics formally scaling as powers of $`1/m_b`$ greater than $`3`$. At the same time, these moments are instrumental for a truly model-independent comprehensive studies of $`B`$ mesons; improvement is needed already for the third moment, its expression given above is not too accurate. Considering alternative kinematic variables will help to improve the convergence. Namely, it is advantageous to trade the traditional hadronic mass $`M_X^2`$ for the observable more closely corresponding to the quark virtuality $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, defined as

$$𝒩_X^2=M_X^22\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}E_X,$$
(8)
where $`E_X=M_Bq_0`$ is the total hadronic energy in the $`B`$ restframe, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ a fixed mass parameter. Its preferred values are about $`M_Bm_b(1\text{GeV})`$ and can be taken $`600700\text{MeV}`$. The higher moments $`(𝒩_X^2𝒩_X^2)^2`$, $`(𝒩_X^2𝒩_X^2)^3`$… should enjoy better theoretical stability.

The kinematic variable $`𝒩_X^2`$ is not well constrained inclusively at LEP experiments, however can be used in the $`B`$ threshold production at CLEO and $`B`$ factories.222I am grateful to experimental colleagues for discussing this point. This possibility should be carefully explored.

BPS limit. An intriguing theoretical environment opens up if $`\mu _\pi ^2(1\text{GeV})`$ is eventually confirmed to be close enough to $`\mu _G^2(1\text{GeV})`$ as currently suggested by experiment, say it does not exceed $`0.45\text{GeV}^2`$. If $`\mu _\pi ^2\mu _G^2\mu _\pi ^2`$ it is advantageous to analyze strong dynamics expanding around the point $`\mu _\pi ^2=\mu _G^2`$ . This is not just one point of a continuum in the parameter space, but a quite special ‘BPS’ limit where the heavy flavor ground state satisfies functional relations $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{\pi }|B=0`$. This limit is remarkable in many respects, for example, saturates the bound  $`\varrho ^2\frac{3}{4}`$ for the slope of the IW function. In some instances like the $`BD`$ zero-recoil amplitude it extends the heavy flavor (but not spin) symmetry to higher orders in $`1/m_Q`$. One of its practical application has been mentioned – the robust relation for $`m_bm_c`$ via $`M_BM_D`$. Exclusive $`BD^{}`$ decay can also benefit from the proximity to BPS. The exact spin sum rules yield a constraint on the IW slope

$$\mu _\pi ^2\mu _G^2=3\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^2(\varrho ^2\frac{3}{4}),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}0.45}\text{GeV}<\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }<1\text{GeV}$$
(9)
thus leaving only a small room for the slope of the actual $`BD^{}`$ formfactor, excluding values of $`\widehat{\varrho }^2`$ exceeding $`1.151.2`$. This would be a very constraining result for a number of experimental studies.

Conclusions. Experiment has entered a new era of exploring $`B`$ physics at the nonperturbative level, with qualitative improvement in $`|V_{cb}|`$. The comprehensive approach will allow to reach a percent level of reliable accuracy in translating $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}(B)`$ to $`|V_{cb}|`$. Recent experiments have set solid grounds for dedicated future studies at $`B`$ factories. We already observe a nontrivial consistency between quite different measurements, and between experiment and QCD-based theory.

There are obvious lessons to infer. Experiment must strive to weaken the cuts in inclusive measurements used in extracting $`|V_{cb}|`$. Close attention should be paid to higher moments or their special combinations, as well as exploring complementary kinematic observables.

The theory of heavy quark decays is now a mature branch of QCD – still there are a number of directions where it can be developed further. I believe that the analyses presented at the Conference should provide theorists with substantial motivation to refine it at least in the following:
$``$ Calculating perturbative corrections to Wilson coefficients of subleading operators.
$``$ Scrutiny of higher-order power corrections.
$``$ A thorough study of alternative kinematic variables, for instance moments of $`𝒩_X^2`$.

To fully realize the physical information in the quest for the ultimate precision, a truly comprehensive analysis must implement all theoretical constraints on HQ parameters; the suitable framework uses well-defined running parameters having physical meaning. Heavy quark sum rules appear to yield strong constraints on the parameter space; it is important to study the question of their saturation. If a low $`\mu _\pi ^2`$ around $`0.45\text{GeV}^2`$ is confirmed by experiment, the BPS expansion will play an important role in analyzing nonperturbative effects – in particular, guide us through higher-order corrections.

Acknowledgments: It is a pleasure to thank
M. Artuso, M. Battaglia, I. Bigi, M. Calvi, P. Gambino, V. Luth and P. Roudeau for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grant number PHY-0087419.