text:
# On iterated forcing for successors of regular cardinals

## 1. Definitions

One of the mysteries of iterated forcing theory is the lack of a good solution to the following “equation” for an uncountable regular cardinal $`\lambda `$:

$$\frac{\text{proper forcing}}{\text{countable support iteration}}=\frac{x}{\lambda \text{–support iteration}}.$$

The goal of this paper is to present a generalization of properness to the context of larger cardinals. We make no claim that ours is the “right” generalization; however, the proof that our condition is preserved by $`\lambda `$–support iteration is close to the proof that properness is preserved by countable support iteration and seems quite natural.

Throughout this paper, we make the following assumptions:

* $`\lambda `$ is a regular cardinal satisfying $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }`$.
* $`𝔇`$ is a normal filter on $`\lambda `$ “with diamonds”, i.e., for every $`S𝔇^+`$, there is a sequence $`A_\delta :\delta S`$ such that for every $`A\lambda `$,

$$\{\delta S:A\delta =A_\delta \}𝔇^+.$$
* $`\chi `$ is a regular cardinal that is “large enough”.

We are going to be looking at when $`\lambda ^+`$ is preserved by $`()\lambda `$–support iterations of $`(<)\lambda `$–complete notions of forcing. Just as in the case of proper forcing, we will have to look at how our forcing notions interact with elementary submodels.

###### Definition 1.1.

Let $`N`$ be an elementary submodel of $`H(\chi )`$. We say that $`N`$ is relevant if

* $`N=\lambda `$
* $`N^{<\lambda }N`$
* $`N=_{\alpha <\lambda }N_\alpha `$, where $`N_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ is a continuous $``$–increasing sequence of elementary submodels of $`H(\chi )`$ such that $`N_\beta :\beta \alpha N_{\alpha +1}`$ and $`|N_\alpha |<\lambda `$. (We say that $`N_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ is a filtration of $`N`$.)

The natural attempt at generalizing properness results in a definition along the following lines:

###### Definition 1.2.

A notion of forcing $`P`$ is said to be $`\lambda `$–proper if for all sufficiently large regular cardinals $`\chi `$, there is some $`xH(\chi )`$ such that whenever $`M`$ is a relevant elementary submodel of $`H(\chi )`$ with $`\{P,x\}M`$ and $`p`$ is an element of $`MP`$, there is a condition $`qp`$ such that

$$q\text{}M[\dot{G}_P]\mathrm{Ord}=M\mathrm{Ord}\text{}.$$

Such a condition $`q`$ is said to be $`(M,P)`$–generic.

Some of the qualities of properness generalize in a straightforward fashion to this new context. For example, $`\lambda `$–proper notions of forcing do not collapse $`\lambda ^+`$, and it is easy to prove that both $`\lambda ^+`$–closed and $`\lambda ^+`$–c.c. notions of forcing are $`\lambda `$–proper. Unfortunately, $`\lambda `$–properness is not in general preserved in iterations; this paper presents a special case where some form of it is.

###### Definition 1.3.

1. A set $`AP`$ is $`<\lambda `$–linked if every $`A_0[A]^{<\lambda }`$ has a lower bound in $`P`$.
2. An $`(N,P)`$–diamond is a sequence $`\overline{A}=A_\delta :\delta S`$ such that

* $`S𝔇^+`$
    * $`A_\delta `$ is a subset of $`N_\delta P`$ with a lower bound in $`P`$
    * whenever $`ANP`$ is $`<\lambda `$–linked,

    (1.1)
    $$\{\delta S:N_\delta A=A_\delta \}𝔇^+.$$
3. In the context of (2), if $`N_\delta A=A_\delta `$ then we say that $`\overline{A}`$ guesses $`A`$ at $`\delta `$.

Our first observation is that that $`(N,P)`$–diamonds sequences are nothing mysterious – they are just regular diamond sequences that have been cosmetically altered.

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`N`$ be a relevant model with filtration $`N_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$. Further suppose $`𝔇`$ has diamonds. Then for $`S𝔇^+`$ we can find an $`(N,P)`$–diamond $`A_\delta :\delta S`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`B_\delta :\delta S`$ be a $`𝔇`$–diamond sequence, and let $`f:\lambda NP`$ be a bijection. Given $`\delta S`$, ask if $`f[B_\delta ]`$ is a $`\lambda `$–linked subset of $`N_\delta P`$. If so, then we let $`A_\delta =f[B_\delta ]`$; if not, then let $`A_\delta `$ be some arbitrary member of $`NP`$.

Now suppose $`A`$ is a $`\lambda `$–linked subset of $`NP`$. Since $`B_\delta :\delta S`$ is a diamond sequence, we know that the set of $`\delta `$ for which $`B_\delta =f^1(A)\delta `$ is in $`𝔇^+`$.

There is a closed unbounded set $`C`$ such that $`f\delta `$ is a bijection between $`\delta `$ and $`N_\delta P`$. If $`\delta C`$ and $`B_\delta =f^1(A)\delta `$, then $`A_\delta =N_\delta A`$. Since $`C𝔇`$, we see that $`A_\delta :\delta S`$ is an $`(N,P)`$–diamond. ∎

Starting with the next lemma, we use without mention that the filter $`𝔇`$ has a natural interpretation in generic extensions of the universe — in $`V[G]`$, we let $`𝔇`$ refer to the normal filter generated by $`𝔇V`$.

###### Lemma 1.5.

Let $`A_\delta :\delta S`$ be an $`(N,P)`$–diamond, and let $`Q`$ be a $`\lambda `$–complete notion of forcing. If $`\dot{A}`$ is a $`Q`$–name for a $`\lambda `$–linked subset of $`NP`$, then

(1.2)
$$_Q\{\delta S:N_\delta \dot{A}=A_\delta \}𝔇^+.$$

###### Proof.

If not, then we can find a condition $`q`$ as well as a $`Q`$–name $`\dot{A}`$ and a sequence $`\dot{C}_i:i<\lambda `$ of $`Q`$–names such that

* $`_Q\dot{A}\text{ is }\lambda \text{–linked}`$,
* $`_Q\dot{C}_i𝔇V`$, and
* $`q\delta S_{i<\lambda }\dot{C}_iA_\delta N_\delta \dot{A}`$.

Since $`Q`$ is $`\lambda `$–closed, we can find sequences $`q_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$, $`C_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$, and $`B_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ such that

* $`\alpha <\beta <\lambda q_\beta q_\alpha q`$ in $`Q`$
* $`C_\alpha 𝔇`$
* $`B_\alpha N_\alpha P`$
* $`q_\alpha \dot{C}_\alpha =C_\alpha \text{ and }N_\alpha \dot{A}=B_\alpha `$

Define $`C=_{\alpha <\lambda }C_\alpha `$. Since $`𝔇`$ is a normal filter, we know that $`C𝔇`$.

Note that the sequence $`B_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ increases with $`\alpha `$. Define

(1.3)
$$B=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}B_\alpha .$$

It is not hard to see that $`B`$ is $`\lambda `$–linked (in the ground model), so there is a $`\delta SC`$ where such that $`N_\delta B=A_\delta `$. This is a contradiction as $`q_\delta `$ is an extension of $`q`$, yet

(1.4)
$$q_\delta \delta S_{i<\lambda }\dot{C}_i\text{ and }N_\delta \dot{A}=B_\delta =A_\delta .$$

###### Corollary 1.6.

If $`\overline{A}`$ is an $`(N,P)`$–diamond and $`GP`$ is a generic subset of $`P`$, then

(1.5)
$$\{\delta S:N_\delta G=A_\delta \}𝔇^+.$$

###### Proof.

This follows because $`G`$ is $`\lambda `$–directed, hence $`\lambda `$–linked. ∎

###### Definition 1.7.

A sequence $`\overline{R}=(A_\delta ,q_\delta ):\delta S`$ is said to be an $`(N,P)`$–rule if

* $`A_\delta :\delta S`$ is an $`(N,P)`$–diamond,
* $`q_\delta `$ is a lower bound for $`A_\delta `$ in $`NP`$, and
* if $`DN`$ is a dense subset of $`P`$, then $`q_\delta D`$ for all sufficiently large $`\delta S`$.

###### Definition 1.8.

A notion of forcing $`P`$ is proper over $`𝔇`$–diamonds if for almost every relevant model $`N`$, whenever we are given an $`(N,P)`$–rule $`\overline{R}=(A_\delta ,q_\delta ):\delta S`$, for every $`pNP`$ there is $`qp`$

$$q\text{for some }C𝔇\text{, if }\delta SC\text{ and }A_\delta \dot{G}_P\text{, then }q_\delta \dot{G}_P\text{.}$$

We say that $`q`$ is $`(N,P,\overline{R})`$–generic.

In other words, $`q`$ is $`(N,P,\overline{R})`$–generic if $`q`$ forces that in the generic extension, for $`𝔇`$–almost all $`\delta S`$, if $`A_\delta `$ guesses $`N_\delta G`$, then $`q_\delta G`$. We say that $`q`$ forces $`NG`$ to obey the rule $`\overline{R}`$.

###### Proposition 1.9.

Suppose $`N`$ is a relevant model containing $`P`$, $`\overline{R}`$ is an $`(N,P)`$–rule, and $`q`$ is $`(N,P,\overline{R})`$–generic. Then $`q`$ is $`(N,P)`$–generic, i.e.,

(1.6)
$$qN[\dot{G}_P]\mathrm{Ord}=N\mathrm{Ord}.$$

In particular, if $`P`$ is proper over $`𝔇`$–diamonds, then forcing with $`P`$ preserves the cardinal $`\lambda ^+`$.

## 2. Iterations

We begin with an outline that shows how properness over $`𝔇`$–diamonds is preserved in a simple two–step iteration. Thus, suppose $`P`$ is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds and $`_P\text{}\dot{Q}`$ is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds”. In the following discussion we will show that the composition $`P\dot{Q}`$ is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds.

Suppose now that $`\overline{R}=(A_\delta ,p_\delta \dot{q}_\delta ):\delta S`$ is an $`(N,P\dot{Q})`$–rule and $`pNP`$. Let $`B_\delta `$ be the set of “first co–ordinates” of members of $`A_\delta `$. It is straightforward to prove that $`\overline{R}P:=(B_\delta ,p_\delta ):\delta S`$ is an $`(N,P)`$–rule. What we want to show is that $`(N,P,\overline{R}P)`$–generic conditions can be extended in a natural way to $`(N,P\dot{Q},\overline{R})`$–generic conditions.

To see how this can be accomplished, suppose that $`r`$ is $`(N,P,\overline{R}P)`$–generic with $`rp`$, and $`G`$ is a generic subset of $`P`$ containing $`r`$. In $`V[G]`$, let us define

$$S_0=\{\delta S:p_\delta G\}.$$

Prior considerations tell us that $`S_0𝔇^+`$.

Given $`\delta S_0`$, let $`B_\delta `$ be the set of interpretations of the “second coordinates” of members of $`A_\delta `$, i.e., for $`\delta S_0`$,

$$\dot{s}[G]B_\delta r\dot{s}A_\delta \text{ for some }rP.$$

Standard arguments show us that $`\overline{R}/G:=(B_\delta ,q_\delta [G]):\delta S_0`$ is an $`(N[G],\dot{Q}[G])`$–rule in $`V[G]`$.

Now suppose $`qN[G]\dot{Q}[G]`$ (note that $`N[G]\dot{Q}[G]=N\dot{Q}[G]`$ since $`rG`$). Since $`\dot{Q}[G]`$ is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds, we can find a condition $`sq`$ in $`\dot{Q}[G]`$ such that $`s`$ is $`(N[G],\dot{Q}[G],\overline{R}/G)`$–generic. Back in the ground model $`V`$, we can find a name $`\dot{s}`$ forced by $`r`$ to have the properties ascribed to $`s`$ in $`V[G]`$. It is straightforward to prove that $`r\dot{s}`$ is $`(N,P\dot{Q},\overline{R})`$–generic and $`r\dot{s}p\dot{q}`$. Thus we have shown that $`P\dot{Q}`$ is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds.

Now what happens with longer iterations? Assume now that $`=P_i,\dot{Q}_i:i<\kappa `$ is $`\lambda `$–support iteration of $`\lambda `$–closed notions of forcing such that

(2.1)
$$_{P_i}\dot{Q}_i\text{ is proper for }𝔇\text{–diamonds.}$$

We will show that $`P_\kappa `$, the limit of $``$, is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds, so in particular forcing with $`P_\kappa `$ preserves $`\lambda ^+`$.

###### Theorem 1 (Iteration Theorem).

Let $`P_i,\dot{Q}_i:i<\kappa `$ be a $`\lambda `$–support iteration such that $`_{P_i}\dot{Q}_i\text{ is proper over }𝔇\text{–diamonds.}`$ Then $`P_\kappa `$ is proper over $`𝔇`$–diamonds.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`N`$ be a relevant model with $`N`$, and suppose $`i<j`$ in $`N(\kappa +1)`$. Let $`\overline{A}=A_\delta :\delta S`$ be an $`(N,P_j)`$–diamond. Given $`\delta S`$, we define

(2.2)
$$A_\delta i=\{pi:pA_\delta \},$$

and

(2.3)
$$\overline{A}i=A_\delta i:\delta S.$$

Similarly, if $`\overline{R}=(A_\delta ,q_\delta ):\delta S`$ is an $`(N,P)`$–rule, we define

(2.4)
$$\overline{R}i=(A_\delta i,q_\delta i):\delta S.$$

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`N`$ be a relevant model containing $``$, and let $`i<j`$ in $`N(\kappa +1)`$. If $`\overline{A}`$ is an $`(N,P_j)`$–diamond, then $`\overline{A}i`$ is an $`(N,P_i)`$–diamond. If $`\overline{R}`$ is an $`(N,P_j)`$–rule, then $`\overline{R}i`$ is an $`(N,P_i)`$–rule.

###### Proof of the Iteration Theorem.

We prove by induction on $`jN\kappa +1`$ that whenever we are given objects $`i`$, $`\dot{p}`$, and $`r`$ such that

* $`i<j`$
* $`rP_i`$
* $`_{P_i}\dot{p}P_\kappa `$
* $`r\dot{p}i\dot{G}_{P_i}`$
* $`r`$ is $`(N,P_i,\overline{R}i)`$–generic

we can find a condition $`sP_j`$ such that

* $`si=r`$
* $`s`$ is $`(N,P_j,\overline{R}j)`$–generic
* $`s\dot{p}j\dot{G}_j`$

CASE 1: $`j`$ is a successor ordinal

Let $`j=j_0+1`$. Since $`j_0`$ must be in $`N(\kappa +1)`$, we may apply our induction hypothesis to obtain a condition $`s_0P_{j_0}`$ such that

* $`s_0i=r`$
* $`s_0`$ is $`(N,P_{j_0},\overline{R}j_0)`$–generic, and
* $`s_0`$ forces that $`\dot{p}j_0`$ is in $`\dot{G}_{j_0}`$.

At this point, we are essentially in the case where we are doing a two–step iteration – if we view $`P_j`$ as a two–step iteration $`P_{j_0}\dot{Q}_{j_0}`$, then the arguments presented at the beginning of this section show how to extend $`s_0`$ to the required $`(N,P_j,\overline{R}j)`$–generic condition $`s`$.

CASE 2: $`j`$ is a limit ordinal of cofinality $`<\lambda `$

###### Lemma 2.3.

Suppose $`ϵN(\kappa +1)`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)<\lambda `$, and we are given sequences $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)`$ and $`r_\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)`$ such that

* $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)`$ is a strictly increasing sequence of ordinals in $`Nϵ`$
* $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha },\overline{R}i_\alpha )`$–generic
* $`\alpha <\beta <\kappa r_\beta i_\alpha =r_\alpha `$.

Then the condition $`s:=_{\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)}r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_ϵ,\overline{R}ϵ)`$–generic.

###### Proof.

Clearly $`sP_ϵ`$ as we are using $`\lambda `$–support iteration. Let $`G`$ be any generic subset of $`P_ϵ`$ that contains $`s`$; we will work in the generic extension $`V[G]`$.

For $`\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)`$, let $`G_\alpha =GP_{i_\alpha }`$. Clearly $`r_\alpha G_\alpha `$ and $`G_\alpha `$ is a generic subset of $`P_{i_\alpha }`$, so there is a set $`C_\alpha 𝔇`$ such that

(2.5)
$$\delta SC_\alpha \text{ and }N_\delta G_\alpha =A_\alpha i_\alpha q_\delta i_\alpha G_\alpha .$$

Let $`C=_{\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)}C_\alpha 𝔇`$. Given $`\delta SC`$ if $`\overline{A}`$ guesses $`G`$ at $`\delta `$, then (2.5) implies that $`q_\delta i_\alpha G_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(ϵ)`$. Since $`G`$ is a generic subset of $`P_ϵ`$, it follows that $`q_\delta `$ is in $`G`$, as required. ∎

Now we return to the case where $`\mathrm{cf}(j)<\lambda `$. Let $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(j)`$ be increasing, continuous, and cofinal in $`Nj`$ — note that we can achieve continuity because $`N`$ is closed under sequences of length $`<\lambda `$. Without loss of generality we assume $`i_0=i`$.

By induction on $`\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(j)`$, we choose conditions $`r_\alpha P_{i_\alpha }`$ such that

* $`r_0=r`$
* $`r_\alpha \dot{p}_\alpha i_\alpha \dot{G}_{P_{i_\alpha }}`$
* if $`\beta <\alpha `$ then $`r_\alpha i_\beta =r_\beta `$
* if $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, then $`r_\alpha =_{\beta <\alpha }r_\beta `$
* $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha },\overline{R}i_\alpha )`$–generic

The construction of $`r_\alpha :\alpha <\mathrm{cf}(j)`$ is straightforward — at successor stages we apply our induction hypothesis, while at limit stages we invoke Lemma 2.3 to show that the construction continues.

Another application of Lemma 2.3 shows us that $`s`$ is $`(N,P_j,\overline{R}j)`$–generic; the other requirements for $`s`$ are also easily verified.

CASE 3: $`\mathrm{cf}(j)=\lambda `$

Let $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ be increasing, continuous, and cofinal in $`Nj`$ with $`i_0=i`$. Let $`D_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ list all dense open subsets of $`P_j`$ that are elements of $`N`$.

By induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$, we will define objects $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ and $`r_\alpha `$ such that

1. $`r_0=r`$, $`\dot{p}_0=\dot{p}j`$
2. $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha },\overline{R}i_\alpha )`$–generic
3. $`r_\alpha i_\beta =r_\beta `$ for $`\beta <\alpha `$
4. $`r_\alpha \dot{p}_\alpha NP_j\text{ and }\dot{p}_\alpha i_\alpha \dot{G}_{P_{i_\alpha }}`$
5. $`r_{\alpha +1}\dot{p}_{\alpha +1}D_\alpha `$
6. for $`\beta <\alpha `$, $`r_\alpha \dot{p}_\alpha \dot{p}_\beta `$
7. for $`\alpha S`$, $`r_\alpha `$ forces the statement

$$()\text{if }q_\alpha i_\alpha \dot{G}_{i_\alpha }\text{ and }q_\alpha \text{ is a lower bound for }\dot{p}_\beta :\beta <\alpha \text{, then }\dot{p}_\alpha =q_\alpha j\text{.}$$

Construction of $`\dot{p}_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ and $`r_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$:

Initial stage: We have already defined $`r_0`$ and $`\dot{p}_0`$. Successor stages:

Assume now that $`\alpha `$ is a successor ordinal, say $`\alpha =\beta +1`$. Our construction will give us objects $`r_\beta `$ and $`\dot{p}_\beta `$ satisfying the appropriate conditions. We apply our induction hypothesis with $`i_\alpha `$, $`i_\beta `$, $`\dot{p}_\beta i_\alpha `$, $`r_\beta `$, and $`\overline{R}i_\alpha `$ standing for the objects $`j`$, $`i`$, $`\dot{p}`$, $`r`$, and $`\overline{R}`$ appearing there. This gives us an object $`r_\alpha `$ such that

* $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha },\overline{R}i_\alpha )`$–generic,
* $`r_\alpha i_\beta =r_\beta `$, and
* $`r_\alpha \dot{p}_\beta i_\alpha \dot{G}_{i_\alpha }`$.

Now let $`G`$ be any generic subset of $`P_{i_\alpha }`$ that contains $`r_\alpha `$. We know that $`NG`$ is $`P_{i_\alpha }`$–generic over $`N`$ because $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha })`$–generic. Since $`D_\beta N`$, a standard genericity argument tells us that there is a condition $`p_\alpha N[G]P_j=NP_j`$ such that

* $`p_\alpha i_\alpha G`$,
* $`p_\alpha \dot{p}_\beta [G]`$, and
* $`p_\alpha D_\beta `$.

Back in $`V`$, we let $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ be a name for this $`p_\alpha `$; it should be clear that $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ is as required. Limit stages:

If $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, we know

$$r_\alpha =\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}r_\beta .$$

Since $`\mathrm{cf}(\alpha )<\lambda `$, Lemma 2.3 implies that $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha },\overline{R}i_\alpha )`$–generic. Also, our inductive assumptions imply that for all $`\beta <\alpha `$,

$$r_\alpha \dot{p}_\beta i_\alpha \dot{G}_{i_\alpha }.$$

Let $`G`$ be any generic subset of $`P_{i_\alpha }`$ with $`r_\alpha G`$. In the extension $`V[G]`$, each name $`\dot{p}_\beta `$ is interpreted as a condition in $`NP_j`$, and we know

* $`\beta <\alpha `$, $`p_\beta i_\alpha G`$, and
* $`p_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$ is decreasing.

Now we ask the question Is it the case that

* $`\alpha S`$
* $`q_\alpha i_\alpha G`$, and
* $`q_\alpha j`$ is a lower bound for $`p_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$ in $`P_j`$?

If the answer is yes, then we let $`p_\alpha =q_\alpha j`$. If the answer is no, then we let $`p_\alpha `$ be a lower bound for $`p_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$ in $`NP_j`$ with $`p_\alpha i_\alpha G`$.

Now back in the ground model, we let $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ be a name forced by $`r_\alpha `$ to be as above. Note that $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ is as required in $`()`$, and our construction continues.

Once we have defined $`r_\alpha `$ and $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ for every $`\alpha <\lambda `$, we define

$$s:=\underset{\alpha <\lambda }{}r_\alpha .$$

Clearly $`si=r`$ and $`s\dot{p}j\dot{G}_j`$, so we need only verify that $`s`$ is $`(N,P_j,\overline{R}j)`$–generic.

Let $`G`$ be any generic subset of $`P_j`$ that contains $`s`$, and step into the model $`V[G]`$. Each $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ is interpreted as some $`p_\beta NP_j`$ and our construction guarantees that the filter generated by $`p_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ is generic over $`N`$ and hence equal to $`NG`$. This tells us that $`s`$ is $`(N,P_j)`$–generic.

For each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, the condition $`r_\alpha `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\alpha },\overline{R}i_\alpha )`$–generic so in $`V[G]`$ we can find a set $`C_\alpha 𝔇`$ that witnesses this, i.e., if $`\delta C_\alpha S`$ and $`q_\delta i_\alpha `$ guesses $`N_\delta Gi_\alpha `$, then $`q_\delta i_\alpha Gi_\alpha `$.

Since $`p_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ generates $`NG`$ and $`NG`$ is generic over $`N`$, there is a closed unbounded set $`E\lambda `$ such that

(2.6)
$$\delta Ep_\alpha :\alpha <\delta \text{ generates a generic subset of }N_\alpha P.$$

Let $`C=E_{\alpha <\lambda }C_\alpha `$; since $`𝔇`$ is normal, we know that $`C𝔇`$.

###### Claim 2.4.

If $`\delta CS`$ and $`q_\delta j`$ guesses $`N_\delta G`$, then $`q_\delta jG`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose we are given such a $`\delta `$. It suffices to show that $`q_\delta i_\delta G_{i_\delta }`$ and $`q_\delta j`$ is a lower bound for $`p_\beta :\beta <\delta `$ — if this happens, then our construction guarantees $`p_\delta =q_\delta j`$ and $`p_\delta G`$.

Our definition of $`C`$ implies that $`\delta C_\beta `$ for all $`\beta <\delta `$. Since $`q_\delta j`$ guesses $`N_\delta G`$, we know that $`q_\delta i_\alpha `$ guesses $`NG_{i_\alpha }`$ for all $`\alpha <\lambda `$. Given $`\beta <\delta `$, we know that $`r_\beta G_{i_\beta }`$ and $`r_\beta `$ is $`(N,P_{i_\beta },\overline{R}i_\beta )`$–generic. Putting all this together, we may conclude that for all $`\beta <\delta `$, $`q_\delta i_\beta G_{i_\beta }`$, hence $`q_\delta i_\delta G_{i_\delta }`$.

Now why is $`q_\delta j`$ a lower bound for $`p_\beta :\beta <\delta `$? This follows because $`\delta C`$ — the sequence $`p_\beta :\beta <\delta `$ generates $`N_\delta G`$, and we have assumed that $`q_\delta j`$ guesses $`N_\delta G`$.

Since $`r_\delta `$ forces $`()`$ to hold, we know that $`\dot{p}_\delta [G]=q_\delta j`$, hence $`q_\delta jG`$.

We have therefore shown that $`s`$ is $`(N,P_j,\overline{R}j)`$–generic. Since $`si=r`$ and our construction guarantees that $`s\dot{p}j\dot{G}_{P_j}`$, so $`s`$ is as required.

CASE 4: $`\mathrm{cf}(j)>\lambda `$

The construction in this case is very similar to that of the previous case. Let $`k=sup(Nj)`$; since $`N`$ is closed under sequences of length $`<\lambda `$, it follows that $`\mathrm{cf}(k)=\lambda `$ and we can fix a continuous increasing sequence $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ of elements of $`Nj`$ cofinal in $`k`$.

The idea now is to mimic the construction given for the case where $`\mathrm{cf}(j)=\lambda `$. Let $`D_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ list all dense open subsets of $`P_j`$ that are elements of $`N`$. By induction on $`\alpha <\lambda `$, define objects $`\dot{p}_\alpha `$ and $`r_\alpha `$ satisfying exactly the same requirements as in the previous case — that construction did not require that $`j`$ was an element of $`N\kappa `$, only that a sequence along the lines of $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\lambda `$ exists. One then checks that the resulting condition $`s`$ defined as there has all the required properties. Note that what’s going on is that members of $`NP_j`$ are actually members of $`NP_k`$ — the support of a condition in $`NP_\kappa `$ is a subset of $`N\kappa `$ because $`\lambda N`$.

## 3. An Example

Let $`SS_{\omega _1}^{\omega _2}:=\{\delta <\omega _2:\mathrm{cf}(\delta )=\omega _1\}`$ be stationary. Recall that a continuous ladder system on $`S`$ is a family of functions $`\overline{\eta }=\eta _\delta :\delta S`$ such that $`\eta _\delta `$ is a strictly increasing and continuous from $`\omega _1`$ onto a cofinal subset of $`\delta `$.

A continuous ladder system $`\overline{\eta }`$ has the club uniformization property if whenever $`\overline{c}=c_\delta :\delta S`$ is a family of functions from $`\omega _1`$ to $`\{0,1\}`$, there is a function $`h`$ such that for all $`\delta S`$, the set $`\{i<\omega _1c_\delta (i)=h_\delta (i)\}`$ contains a closed unbounded subset of $`\omega _1`$.

Shelah  has shown that if the Continuum Hypothesis is true, then no continuous ladder system on (all of) $`S_{\omega _1}^{\omega _2}`$ has the club uniformization property. If we are looking at a stationary $`SS_{\omega _1}^{\omega _2}`$ such that $`S_{\omega _1}^{\omega _2}S`$ is stationary as well, then the techniques of  show how to build a model where the Continuum Hypothesis holds and continuous ladder systems on $`S`$ have the club uniformization property.

Let us fix a stationary, co–stationary $`E_0\omega _1`$ and let $`𝔇`$ be the club filter restricted to $`\omega _1E_0`$. Further assume that $`𝔇`$ has diamonds — this follows if $`V=L`$ or if, e.g., $`\mathrm{}^{}(\omega _1E_0)`$ holds.

We will force a weak version of the club uniformization property to hold for a continuous ladder system $`\overline{\eta }=\eta _\delta :\delta S`$ on $`S:=S_{\omega _1}^{\omega _2}`$; what we achieve is that for every family $`\overline{c}=c_\delta :\delta S`$ of functions mapping $`\omega _1`$ to $`\{0,1\}`$, there is a function $`h:\omega _22`$ such that for each $`\delta S`$,

(3.1)
$$\{iE_0:h(\eta _\delta (i))c_\delta (i)\}\text{ is non–stationary.}$$

Said another way, for each $`\delta S`$ there is a closed unbounded $`C_\delta \omega _1`$ such that

(3.2)
$$iC_\delta E_0h(\eta _\delta (i))=c_\delta (i);$$

i.e., $`h`$ achieves success at almost every point in $`\eta _\delta [E_0]`$.

Let us fix a continuous ladder system $`\overline{\eta }=\eta _\delta :\delta S`$. Suppose $`c_\delta :\delta S`$ is a family of functions each mapping $`\omega _1`$ to $`\{0,1\}`$. Our first goal is to define a notion of forcing that will adjoin a function $`h`$ such that (3.1) is satisfied for all $`\delta S`$.

A condition $`p`$ is simply an approximation to the desired $`h`$ of size $`\omega _1`$, i.e., $`pP`$ if $`p`$ is a function satisfying

* $`\mathrm{dom}(p)[\omega _2]^{\omega _1}`$
* $`\mathrm{ran}(p)\{0,1\}`$
* for all $`\delta S`$,

$$\{iE_0:p(\eta _\delta (i))c_\delta (i)\}\text{ is non–stationary.}$$

Clearly $`P`$ is $`<\omega _1`$–closed and for each $`\alpha <\omega _2`$, the set of conditions with $`\alpha `$ in their domain is dense in $`P`$. Thus forcing with $`P`$ adds no new countable sequences to the ground model and adjoins a function from $`\omega _2`$ to $`\{0,1\}`$.

###### Claim 3.1.

$`P`$ is proper for $`𝔇`$–diamonds.

###### Proof.

Let $`N`$ be a relevant model with filtration $`N_i:i<\omega _1`$ and let $`pNP`$ be arbitrary. Suppose $`E_1𝔇^+`$ and let $`\overline{R}=(A_\delta ,q_\delta ):\delta S`$ be an $`(N,P)`$–rule. Note that we may assume that $`E_0E_1=\mathrm{}`$ because of our definition of $`𝔇`$. We will construct a decreasing sequence $`p_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ of conditions in $`NP`$ in such a way that $`q:=_{\alpha <\omega _1}p_\alpha `$ is an $`(N,P,\overline{R})`$–generic extension of $`p`$.

Let $`\gamma =N\omega _2`$, and for $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ let $`\gamma _\alpha =N_\alpha \omega _2`$. The sequence $`\gamma _\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ is strictly increasing, continuous, and cofinal in $`\gamma `$.

As we build the sequence $`p_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$, we will also be defining a strictly increasing and continuous sequence of countable ordinals $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$.

We begin by letting $`i_0`$ be the least $`i<\omega _1`$ such that $`pN_i`$, and let $`p_0NP`$ be some totally $`(N_{i_0},P)`$–generic extension of $`p`$.

Given $`p_\beta :\beta \alpha `$ and $`i_\beta :\beta \alpha `$, we let $`i_{\alpha +1}`$ be the least ordinal $`i`$ such that both $`p_\beta :\beta \alpha `$ and $`i_\beta :\beta \alpha `$ are elements of $`N_i`$. Note that such an $`i`$ exists because $`N^{<\omega _1}N`$. We let $`p_{\alpha +1}`$ be a totally $`(N_{i_{\alpha +1}},P)`$–generic extension of $`p_\alpha `$ in $`NP`$.

Now what happens at limit stages of the construction? If $`\alpha `$ is a limit ordinal, we will be handed $`p_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$ and $`i_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$. We are committed to the continuity of $`i_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$, so this means that we are forced to choose

$$i_\alpha =\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}i_\beta .$$

Let us define

$$r_\alpha =\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}p_\beta .$$

Since $`\alpha `$ is a countable ordinal, we know that $`r_\alpha `$ is a condition in $`P`$, and the relevance of the model $`N`$ implies that $`r_\alpha NP`$. By our construction, we know that $`r_\alpha `$ is totally $`(N_{i_\alpha },P)`$–generic — this follows because

$$N_{i_\alpha }=\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}N_{i_\beta }.$$

Now we ask:

Is it the case that

* $`i_\alpha =\alpha `$,
* $`\gamma _\alpha =\eta _\gamma (i_\alpha )`$, and
* $`\alpha E_0E_1`$?

If not, we let $`p_\alpha =r_\alpha `$ and the construction continues. If the answer is yes, then we have two cases to consider — the case $`\alpha E_0`$ and the case $`\alpha E_1`$

If $`\alpha E_0`$, we note first that $`\mathrm{dom}(r_\alpha )\gamma _\alpha `$ — this is because $`p_\beta N_\alpha `$ for all $`\beta <\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{dom}(r_\alpha )=_{\beta <\alpha }\mathrm{dom}(p_\beta )`$. Thus we may define

$$p_\alpha =r_\alpha \{\delta _\alpha ,c_\gamma (\alpha )\},$$

and conclude that $`p_\alpha NP`$.

If $`\alpha E_1`$, then we ask if $`A_\alpha `$ is equal to the filter on $`N_\alpha P`$ generated by $`p_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$. If yes, then we let $`p_\alpha =q_\alpha `$ (note that $`q_\alpha r_\alpha `$ if this happens); if not, we let $`p_\alpha =r_\alpha `$.

In either case, the condition $`p_\alpha `$ will be in $`NP`$ and the construction can continue.

###### Claim 3.2.

The sequence $`p_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1`$ has a lower bound in $`P`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`q=_{\alpha <\omega _1}p_\alpha `$. It is clear that $`q`$ is a partial function from $`\omega _2`$ to $`\{0,1\}`$ with domain a set of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Since each $`p_\alpha `$ is an element of $`N`$, we know that $`\mathrm{dom}(q)\gamma `$.

What we need to show is that for every $`\delta S`$, (3.1) holds. If $`\delta >\gamma `$, then (3.1) holds because $`\mathrm{dom}(q)\gamma `$. If $`\delta <\gamma `$, we note that $`\delta N`$ (as $`N^{<\omega _1}N`$ implies $`N\omega _2`$ is an initial segment of $`\omega _2`$), and the set of conditions whose domain includes $`\delta \{\eta _\delta (i):i<\omega _1\}`$ is dense in $`P`$ and an element of $`N`$. Thus there is a stage $`\alpha `$ such that

$$\delta \{\eta _\delta (i):i<\omega _1\}\mathrm{dom}(p_\alpha ).$$

Since $`p_\alpha P`$, the definition of $`q`$ implies (3.1) holds for $`\delta `$.

The last case to consider is when $`\delta =\gamma `$. Note that there is a closed unbounded set of $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ for which $`i_\alpha =\alpha `$ and $`\eta _\gamma (\alpha )=\gamma _\alpha `$. If $`\alpha E_0`$ has these properties, then at stage $`\alpha `$ we ensured that $`q(\eta _\gamma (\alpha ))=c_\gamma (\alpha )`$. Thus (3.1) holds for $`\gamma =\delta `$, and we have established that $`q`$ is a condition in $`P`$. ∎

###### Claim 3.3.

The condition $`q`$ is $`(N,P,\overline{R})`$–generic.

###### Proof.

Again, there is a closed unbounded set of $`\alpha `$ for which $`i_\alpha =\alpha `$ and $`\eta _\gamma (\alpha )=\gamma _\alpha `$. Note that for such an $`\alpha `$, we automatically achieve that $`p_\beta :\beta <\alpha `$ generates an $`(N_\alpha ,P)`$–generic filter $`G_\alpha `$ — this follows because $`N_\alpha =_{\beta <\alpha }N_{i_\beta }`$. If for such an $`\alpha `$ it happens that $`G_\alpha =A_\alpha `$, then we made sure that $`p_\alpha =q_\alpha `$. Since

$$qN\dot{G}_P\text{ is generated by }p_\alpha :\alpha <\omega _1,$$

we have ensured that $`q`$ is $`(N,P,\overline{R})`$–generic. ∎


format: text

text:
# Fidelity Decay Saturation Level for Initial Eigenstates

## Abstract

We show that the fidelity decay between an initial eigenstate state evolved under a unitary chaotic operator and the same eigenstate evolved under a perturbed operator saturates well before the $`1/N`$ limit, where $`N`$ is the size of the Hilbert space, expected for a generic initial state. We provide a theoretical argument and numerical evidence that, for intermediate perturbation strengths, the saturation level depends quadratically on the perturbation strength.
PACS numbers

Over the past twenty years different phenomenon found in quantum systems that have chaotic classical analogs have been suggested as appropriate signatures of quantum chaos . Peres  conjectured that the initial rate and behavior of a system’s fidelity decay due to a small perturbation in the Hamiltonian may provide an appropriate signature of quantum chaos. This signature provides an analog to the sensitivity to initial conditions which characterizes classical chaos but, as a consequence of strictly unitary evolution, cannot emerge in quantum systems. Recent insights  have lead to a more detailed understanding of this signature.

For a unitary map, $`U`$, the fidelity compares the evolution of an initial state under unperturbed and perturbed dynamics. The fidelity is given by

$$F(n)=|\psi _i|(U^{})^n(U_pU)^n|\psi _i|^2$$
(1)
where $`U_p=exp(i\delta V)`$ is the perturbation operator of strength $`\delta `$, and $`\psi _i`$ is the initial state of the system. The fidelity decay behavior depends not only on whether the map is chaotic but also on the initial state of the system and the strength of the perturbation. For chaotic systems, the fidelity eventually approaches an asymptotic level. Here, we focus on the characteristics of this asymptotic level by studying

$$F_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{n}\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}F(n)dn.$$
(2)
For initial random states the fidelity saturates at $`1/N`$ , as we show below./ However, for eigenstates $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, the saturation level, in much larger and depends sensitively on the perturbation strength, $`\delta `$. The study of initial eigenstate fidelity decay is of particular interest since it is equivalent to the survival probability of a system eigenstate under the influence of a perturbation. Below we provide theoretical arguments showing a region where $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ depends quadratically on the perturbation strength. We also test this prediction numerically on quantum chaotic maps.

For chaotic systems and weak perturbation strengths the initial fidelity decay is Gaussian, as expected from perturbation theory and random matrix theory. For stronger perturbations the fidelity decay is exponential. The regime of exponential decay, known as the Fermi Golden Rule (FGR) regime , is reached when $`\sigma `$, a typical off-diagonal matrix element of perturbation Hamiltonian expressed in the ordered eigenbasis of the system Hamiltonian, is greater then the average system level spacing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It has been shown that for some perturbations the rate of the the exponential decay increases as $`\delta ^2`$, until saturating at a rate given by the corresponding classical system’s Lyapunov exponent , or the bandwidth of the system Hamiltonian .

Jacquod and coworkers  showed that the fidelity decay in the FGR regime is related to the local density of states (LDOS) for initial eigenstates. We define eigenvectors and eigenangles for the unperturbed operator $`U|v_j=exp(i\varphi _j)|v_j`$, and the perturbed operator $`U_pU|v_k^{}=exp(i\varphi _k^{})|v_k^{}`$. The LDOS is the spectral density of the original system under transition rules given by the perturbation. Hence, it is as a measure of the overlap between perturbed and unperturbed states separated by an angle $`(\varphi _j\varphi _k^{})`$

$$\eta (\varphi _j\varphi _k^{})=|v_j|v_k^{}|^2.$$
(3)
For an initial eigenstate of $`U`$, the fidelity decay is the Fourier transform of the LDOS

$$F(n)=\underset{m}{}\eta (\varphi _j\varphi _k^{})exp(i(\varphi _j\varphi _k^{})n).$$
(4)
Previous studies suggest that the LDOS of a complex system in the regime of strong perturbation is Lorentzian

$$\eta (\varphi _j\varphi _k^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{(\varphi _j\varphi _k^{})^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2)^2}$$
(5)
with a width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2\pi \sigma ^2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ where $`\sigma `$ is a typical off diagonal element of the perturbation operator. Thus, using the Fourier transform relation, the initial fidelity decay is exponential with a rate of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$$F(n)=exp(\mathrm{\Gamma }n).$$
(6)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be rewritten in terms of perturbation strength as follows: $`\sigma =\sqrt{\delta ^2\overline{V_{mn}^2}}`$ where $`\overline{V_{mn}^2}`$ is the second moment of the matrix elements $`V_{mn}`$. $`\overline{V_{mn}^2}`$ may be estimated by noting that for chaotic systems the eigenvectors are random, and, therefore, $`\overline{V_{mn}^2}=\overline{\lambda ^2}/N`$  where $`\overline{\lambda ^2}=N^1_{i=1}^N\lambda _i^2`$ is the variance of the eigenvalues of $`V`$. The average level spacing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is equal to $`2\pi /N`$. The rate of the exponential decay, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can now be evaluated as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\delta ^2\overline{\lambda ^2}`$.

We now turn to the study of the saturation level of the fidelity decay, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$. After a certain amount of time we would expect the initial state to become evenly spread out over a complete set of states. This implies that $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ should be of order $`1/N`$. $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ should also be independent of the perturbation strength. A weaker perturbation simply leads to a longer period of time until the saturation level is reached, but the saturation level should remain unchanged. For initial states that are eigenstates of the unperturbed system, however, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ depends on the perturbation strength. Weaker perturbations, even in the FGR regime, lead to saturation levels significantly higher then $`1/N`$.

Prosen  has noted that for initial eigenstates $`F_{\mathrm{}}1`$ in the limit of weak perturbation and $`F_{\mathrm{}}(4\beta )/N`$ for strong perturbation where $`\beta =1`$ for maps with circular orthogonal ensemble (COE) properties and $`\beta =2`$ for maps with circular unitary ensemble (CUE) properties. Here, we provide a theoretical argument and numerical evidence for a quadratic behavior for $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ of initial eigenstates versus perturbation strength for perturbation strengths between these two extremes.

To evaluate the dependence of the saturation level on the perturbation strength let us start by expressing the fidelity for an initial eigenstate, $`|v_m`$, as

$$F(n)=|v_m|\underset{l}{}a_{lm}e^{in(\varphi _l^{}\varphi _m)}|v_m|^2$$
(7)
where $`a_{lm}=v_l^{}|v_m`$. The above equation can be separated into a time independent term plus a time dependent term

$$F(n)=\underset{l}{}|a_{lm}|^4+\underset{lk}{}|a_{lm}|^2|a_{km}|^2\mathrm{cos}[(\varphi _l^{}\varphi _k^{})n].$$
(8)
The time average of the second term goes to zero while the first term determines $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ as an inverse participation ratio of the overlap between perturbed and unperturbed eigenvectors. In other words, the fidelity saturation level is simply the sum of the squared elements of the LDOS.

Using equation (8), we recover the $`1/N`$ saturation level of Prosen in the limit of strong perturbation. An extremely strong perturbation could cause the initial state (though an eigenstate of the system dynamics) to become evenly spread over all eigenstates of the system, such that $`|v_l^{}|v_m|1/\sqrt{N}`$ for all $`|v_l^{}|`$. $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ would then be $`_l|a_{lm}|^41/N`$. For weaker perturbations the saturation level will depend on the number of contributing eigenvectors, $`|v_l^{}`$ and the coefficients $`a_{lm}`$. This is equivalent to the width of the LDOS under the particular perturbation.

Hence, to estimate $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ for intermediate strengths we must have an idea of the number of contributing perturbed operator eigenvectors $`|v_l^{}|`$ to the initial eigenstate, $`|v_m`$. This can be estimated by the width of the LDOS, $`|a_{lm}|^2`$. We assume all eigenvectors within the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the approximate Lorentzian shaped LDOS to have equal weight. With this approximation,

$$F_{\mathrm{}}1/(\mathrm{\Gamma }N)=1/(\delta ^2\overline{\lambda ^2}N).$$
(9)
Thus, we expect a quadratic dependence of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ on the perturbation strength in the FGR regime until the saturation level reaches $`O(1/N)`$.

A similar analysis for an initial random state, $`|\psi _i=_mc_m|v_m`$, shows that $`F_{\mathrm{}}1/N`$ for all perturbation strengths. For random states the fidelity can be written as

$$F(n)=|\underset{mlj}{}c_m^{}c_ja_{lj}a_{lm}^{}e^{in(\varphi _l^{}\varphi _m)}|^2.$$
(10)
Once again, the right hand side can be divided to a time dependent term

$$\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{mlj}{}\underset{m^{}l^{}j^{}}{}a_{lj}a_{l^{}j^{}}^{}a_{lm}^{}a_{l^{}m^{}}\mathrm{cos}[(\varphi _l^{}\varphi _l^{}^{}+\varphi _m^{}\varphi _m)n]),$$
(11)
which vanishes under time average, and time independent term

$$F_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{mlj}{}|a_{lj}|^2|a_{lm}|^2$$
(12)
where, in the above equations, $`|c_j|^21/N`$ for a random state. For any non-zero perturbation strength, the time average of time dependent term will go to zero. The time independent term is easily seen to be approximately $`1/N`$ in the limits of weak and strong perturbation. For intermediate perturbation strengths we can estimate the contribution of the time independent term by analyzing the LDOS. Again, we approximate the Lorentzian LDOS with a rectangle of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and height $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Contributions to the sum will be non-zero only if the $`j`$th and $`m`$th eigenvectors are a distance of less than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2`$ from the $`l`$th perturbed eigenvector. Hence, for each of the $`N`$ values of $`l`$ there will be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ terms $`|a_{lj}|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ terms $`|a_{lm}|^2`$ each of magnitude $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The value of the time independent term is thus $`1/N`$.

The above predictions were first tested on random circular unitary ensemble (CUE) maps. Random matrix theory predicts the behavior of the fidelity decay in both the Gaussian and FGR perturbation strength regimes. The use of a random matrix as the evolution operator to study dynamical aspects of quantum chaos has been done in .

We assume that our system is composed of a collection of two-level subsystems or qubits. The perturbation used is a $`z`$-rotation of all of these qubits through an angle $`\delta `$

$$U_p=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n_q}{}}e^{i\delta \sigma _z^j/2}$$
(13)
where $`n_q=log_2N`$ is the number of qubits in the system. In the context of quantum information processing, this perturbation corresponds to an error in the phase of all the quantum bits in a quantum information processor. We note that this perturbation also arises in quantum control studies as a model of coherent far-field errors . For this perturbation, CUE maps exhibit exponential fidelity decay and a Lorentzian shaped LDOS  as shown in the insets of figure 1.

Figure 1 shows $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus perturbation strength for CUE maps, using initial eigenstates of the CUE matrix. We see that below the FGR regime there is very little decay while in the limit of strong perturbation $`F_{\mathrm{}}=2/N`$ as expected for CUE maps. Between these we see a power law decrease of $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ with increased perturbation strength. Since the LDOS is Lorentzian the discrepancy seen in figure 1 must be due to the approximation made by replacing the Lorentzian LDOS with a rectangle of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The actual slope of the data is between 1.8 and 1.9. The data is compared to $`F_{\mathrm{}}=C_{CUE}/(\delta ^2\overline{\lambda ^2}N)`$, where the proportionality constant, $`C_{CUE}=3.6`$ is chosen to best fit the data.

A similar analysis was carried out for random circular orthogonal ensemble (COE) maps. Random COE matrices can be created from CUE matrices, $`COE=CUEtranspose(CUE)`$ . Like the CUE maps, the COE maps have no classical analog and we introduce them here as models for the behavior of quantum chaotic maps with COE eigenvector statistics and energy level spacings. Figure 3 shows $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ versus perturbation strength for COE maps. Again, an approximate quadratic relationship emerges but with a different proportionality coefficient, $`C_{COE}=5.4`$.

The difference in proportionality constants is in line with the work of Prosen  who, using a random matrix theory argument, predicts a ratio of $`3/2`$ for $`F_{\mathrm{}}^{COE}/F_{\mathrm{}}^{CUE}`$ in the limit of strong perturbation. We observe that this ratio holds for all perturbation strengths in the FGR regime. The calculated numerical average of $`F_{\mathrm{}}^{COE}/F_{\mathrm{}}^{CUE}`$ for the three Hilbert space dimensions explored with perturbations in the FGR regime is $`1.483/2`$.

We next study $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ for a quantum system with a well defined classical analog, the quantum kicked top (QKT) . The QKT is an exemplary model of quantum chaos and has been used in previous studies of fidelity decay . The QKT is a unitary map $`U_{QKT}=exp(i\pi J_y/2)exp(ikJ_z^2/j)`$ acting on a Hilbert space of dimension $`N=2j+1`$. $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ is the angular momentum operator in the irreducible representation and $`k`$ is the kick strength. A kick strength of $`k=12`$ is used which is well in the chaotic region of the QKT. Since the QKT shows anti-unitary symmetry, it is part of the COE class. The QKT has COE-like nearest neighbor level spacings  and eigenvector statistics . The same perturbation, the collective $`z`$-rotation, is used.

It should be noted that the data for the QKT and COE maps are very similar. This is expected in that, as has been conjectured and demonstrated in a number of works, quantum chaotic systems have statistical  and dynamic features  similar to those of the canonical random matrix theory ensembles.

The QKT is a system with a classical analog and has symmetries not found in random matrices. It is interesting to see what effect these symmetries, or invariant subspaces have on $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$. To do this, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ is calculated for the oe subspace (odd under $`180^o`$ rotations around the $`y`$-axis ) of the QKT which has dimension $`N=j`$. The results are shown in figure 3 and again we see that $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$ approximately follows a quadratic decrease with increased perturbation strength. However, while the saturation level at the limit of strong perturbation does reach the expected $`3/N`$ at the same perturbation strength as for the full QKT, the intermediate perturbation strengths lead to a saturation level that is higher then for the full QKT. The coefficient $`C_{oe}`$ is significantly higher than that of the CUE or COE maps.

In conclusion, we have given a theoretical argument estimating the saturation level of fidelity decay, $`F_{\mathrm{}}`$, for initial states that are eigenstates of the system for intermediate perturbation strengths. Numerical simulations for systems with and without classical analogs agree with the theoretical predictions. However, the presence of invariant subspaces appears to influence the saturation level of the fidelity decay.

This work was supported by DARPA/MTO through ARO grant DAAG55-97-1-0342 and by the Cambridge-MIT Institute.


text:
# 𝑩 decay shape variables and the precision determination of |𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}| and 𝒎_𝒃

## I Introduction

The study of flavor physics and $`CP`$ violation is entering a phase when one is searching for small deviations from the standard model. Therefore it becomes important to revisit the theoretical predictions for inclusive decay rates and their uncertainties, which provide clean ways to determine fundamental standard model parameters and test the consistency of the theory.

Experimental studies of inclusive semileptonic and rare $`B`$ decays provide measurements of fundamental parameters of the standard model, such as the CKM elements $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`|V_{ub}|`$, and the bottom and charm quark masses. Inclusive and rare decays are also sensitive to possible new physics contributions, and the theoretical computations are model independent. The operator product expansion (OPE) shows that in the $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ limit inclusive $`B`$ decay rates are equal to the $`b`$ quark decay rates OPE ; book , and the corrections are suppressed by powers of $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$. High-precision comparison of theory and experiment requires a precise determination of the heavy quark masses, as well as the matrix elements $`\lambda _{1,2}`$, which parameterize the nonperturbative corrections to inclusive observables at $`𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^2`$. At order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^3`$, six new matrix elements occur, usually denoted by $`\rho _{1,2}`$ and $`𝒯_{1,2,3,4}`$. There are two constrains on these six matrix elements, which reduces the number of parameters that affect $`B`$ decays at order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^3`$ to four.

The accuracy of the OPE predictions depends primarily on the error of the quark masses, and to a lesser extent on the matrix elements of these higher dimensional operators. It was proposed that these quantities can be determined by studying shapes of $`B`$ decay spectra volo ; kl ; FLSmass1 ; gremmetal . Such studies have been recently carried out by the CLEO, BABAR and DELPHI collaborations cleohadron ; cleophoton ; dch ; marina ; Babarhadron ; DELPHIlepton ; DELPHIhadron . A potential source of uncertainty in the OPE predictions is the size of possible violations of quark-hadron duality NIdual . Studying the shapes of inclusive $`B`$ decay distributions may be the best way to constrain these effects experimentally, since it should influence the relationship between shape variables of different spectra. Thus, testing our understanding of these spectra is important to assess the reliability of the inclusive determination of $`\left|V_{cb}\right|`$, and also of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$.

In this paper we present expressions for lepton and hadronic invariant mass moments for the inclusive decay $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$, as well as photon energy moments in $`BX_s\gamma `$ decays. We give these results as a function of cuts on the lepton and photon energy, respectively. Most results in the literature have been given in terms of the pole mass, which introduces artificially large perturbative corrections in intermediate steps, making it difficult to estimate perturbative uncertainties. We present all results in four different mass schemes: the pole mass, the $`1S`$ mass, the PS mass, and the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass. We then carry out a combined fit to all currently available data and investigate in detail the uncertainties on the extracted parameters $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_b`$.

The results of this paper can be combined with independent determinations of the $`b`$ and $`c`$ quark masses from studies of $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states. We have chosen not to discuss those constraints here, since there exist many detailed analyses in the literature masspaper . Furthermore, the determinations of $`m_b`$ and $`m_c`$ from $`Q\overline{Q}`$ states have theoretical uncertainties which are totally different from the current extraction. Consistency between the extractions is therefore a powerful check on both determinations.

## II Shape variables

We study three different distributions, the charged lepton spectrum volo ; gremmetal ; GK ; GS  and the hadronic invariant mass spectrum FLSmass1 ; FLSmass2 ; GK  in semileptonic $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decays, and the photon spectrum in $`BX_s\gamma `$ FLS ; kl ; llmw ; bauer . Similar studies are also possible in $`BX_s\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`BX_s\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay raremoments , but at the present, such processes do not give competitive information.

The $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay rate is known to order $`\alpha _s^2\beta _0`$ LSW  and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3/m_b^3`$ GK , where $`\beta _0=112n_f/3`$ is the coefficient of the first term in the QCD $`\beta `$-function, and the terms proportional to it often dominate at order $`\alpha _s^2`$. For the charged lepton spectrum we define shape variables which are moments of the lepton energy spectrum with a lepton energy cut,

$`R_0(E_0,E_1)={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{E_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}E_{\mathrm{}}}}dE_{\mathrm{}}}{{\displaystyle _{E_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}E_{\mathrm{}}}}dE_{\mathrm{}}}},R_n(E_0)={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _{E_0}}E_{\mathrm{}}^n{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}E_{\mathrm{}}}}dE_{\mathrm{}}}{{\displaystyle _{E_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{d}E_{\mathrm{}}}}dE_{\mathrm{}}}},`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{d}E_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the charged lepton spectrum in the $`B`$ rest frame. $`R_n`$ has dimension $`\text{GeV}^n`$, and is known to order $`\alpha _s^2\beta _0`$ GS  and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3/m_b^3`$ GK . Note that these definitions differ slightly from those in Ref. gremmetal , and follow the CLEO dch ; marina  notation. The DELPHI collaboration DELPHIlepton  measures the mean lepton energy and its variance (both without any energy cut), which are equal to $`R_1(0)`$ and $`R_2(0)R_1(0)^2`$, respectively.

For the $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ hadronic invariant mass spectrum we define the mean hadron invariant mass and its variance, both with *lepton* energy cuts $`E_0`$,

$$S_1(E_0)=m_X^2\overline{m}_D^2|_{E_{\mathrm{}}>E_0},S_2(E_0)=(m_X^2m_X^2)^2|_{E_{\mathrm{}}>E_0},$$
(2)
where $`\overline{m}_D=(m_D+3m_D^{})/4`$ is the spin averaged $`D`$ meson mass. It is conventional to subtract $`\overline{m}_D^2`$ in the definition of the first moment $`S_1(E_0)`$. $`S_n`$ has dimension (GeV)2n, and is known to order $`\alpha _s^2\beta _0`$ FLSmass2  and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3/m_b^3`$ GK . For a given $`E_0`$, the maximal kinematically allowed hadronic invariant mass is $`m_X^{\mathrm{max}}=\sqrt{m_B^22m_BE_0}`$. Once $`m_X^{\mathrm{max}}\overline{m}_D\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, the OPE is expected to describe the data.

The above shape variables can be combined in numerous ways to obtain observables that may be more suitable for experimental studies because of reduced correlations. For example, $`S_1`$ and $`R_0`$ can be combined to obtain predictions for

$$m_X^2\overline{m}_D^2|_{E_1>E_{\mathrm{}}>E_0}=\frac{S_1(E_0)R_0(0,E_0)S_1(E_1)R_0(0,E_1)}{R_0(0,E_0)R_0(0,E_1)},$$
(3)
that allows comparing regions of phase space that do not overlap Oliver .

For $`BX_s\gamma `$, we define the mean photon energy and variance, with a photon energy cut $`E_0`$,

$$T_1(E_0)=E_\gamma |_{E_\gamma >E_0},T_2(E_0)=(E_\gamma E_\gamma )^2|_{E_\gamma >E_0},$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{d}E_\gamma `$ is the photon spectrum in the $`B`$ rest frame. Again, $`T_{1,2}`$ are known to order $`\alpha _s^2\beta _0`$ llmw  and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3/m_b^3`$ bauer . In this case the OPE is expected to describe $`T_i(E_0)`$ once $`m_B/2E_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. Precisely how low $`E_0`$ has to be to trust the results can only be decided by studying the data as a function of $`E_0`$; one may expect that $`E_0=2\text{GeV}`$ available at present is sufficient. Note that the perturbative corrections included are sensitive to the $`m_c`$-dependence of the $`bc\overline{c}s`$ four-quark operator ($`O_2`$) contribution. This is a particularly large effect in the $`O_2O_7`$ interference llmw , but its relative influence on the moments of the spectrum is less severe than that on the total decay rate. The variance, $`T_2`$, is very sensitive to any boost of the decaying $`B`$ meson; this contribution enhances $`T_2`$ by $`\beta ^2/3`$ at leading order llmw , where $`\beta `$ is the boost ($`\beta 0.064`$ if the $`B`$ originates from $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$ decay). This is absent if $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{d}E_\gamma `$ is reconstructed from a measurement of $`\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{d}E_{m_{X_s}}`$.

## III Mass schemes

The OPE results for the differential and total decay rates are given in terms of the $`b`$ quark mass, $`m_b`$, and the quark mass ratio, $`m_c/m_b`$. (Throughout this paper quark masses without other labels refer to the pole mass.) The pole mass can be related to the known meson masses via the $`1/m_Q`$ expansion

$$m_M=m_Q+\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{\lambda _1+d_M\lambda _2(m_Q)}{2m_Q}+\frac{\rho _1+d_M\rho _2}{4m_Q^2}\frac{𝒯_1+𝒯_3+d_M(𝒯_2+𝒯_4)}{4m_Q^2}+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`m_M`$ ($`M=P,V`$) is the hadron mass, $`m_Q`$ is the heavy quark mass, and $`d_P=3`$ for pseudoscalar and $`d_V=1`$ for vector mesons. The $`\lambda _i`$’s and $`\rho _i`$’s are matrix elements of local dimension-5 and 6 operators in HQET, respectively, while the $`𝒯_i`$’s are matrix elements of time ordered products of operators with terms in the HQET Lagrangian, and are defined in GK 111These are related to the parameters $`\rho _D^3`$, $`\rho _{LS}^3`$, $`\rho _{\pi \pi }^3`$, $`\rho _{\pi G}^3`$, $`\rho _S^3`$ and $`\rho _A^3`$ introduced in BSUV95 .. The ellipses denote $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4/m_Q^3`$ corrections, which can be neglected to the order we are working. Using Eq. (5), we can eliminate $`m_c`$ in favor of $`m_b`$ and the higher order matrix elements,

$$m_bm_c=\overline{m}_B\overline{m}_D\lambda _1\left(\frac{1}{2m_c}\frac{1}{2m_b}\right)+(\rho _1𝒯_1𝒯_3)\left(\frac{1}{4m_c^2}\frac{1}{4m_b^2}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\overline{m}_M=(m_P+3m_V)/4`$ denotes the spin averaged meson masses.

Only three linear combinations of $`𝒯_{14}`$ appear in the expressions for $`B`$ meson decays (a fourth linear combination would be required to describe $`B^{}`$ decays). The reason is that the $`𝒯_{14}`$ terms originate from two sources: (i) the mass relations in Eqs. (5) and (6) which depend on $`𝒯_1+𝒯_3`$ and $`𝒯_2+𝒯_4`$; and (ii) corrections to the order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_b^2`$ terms in the OPE, which amount to the replacement $`\lambda _1\lambda _1+(𝒯_1+3𝒯_2)/m_b`$ and $`\lambda _2\lambda _2+(𝒯_3+3𝒯_4)/(3m_b)`$. Since $`𝒯_1+3𝒯_2=(𝒯_1+𝒯_3)+3(𝒯_2+𝒯_4)(𝒯_3+3𝒯_4)`$, only three linear combinations are independent. Therefore, we may set $`𝒯_4=0`$, and the fit then projects on the linear combinations

$$𝒯_13𝒯_4,𝒯_2+𝒯_4,𝒯_3+3𝒯_4.$$
(7)
The mass splittings between the vector and pseudoscalar mesons,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_Mm_Vm_P=\frac{2\kappa (m_Q)\lambda _2(m_b)}{m_Q}\frac{\rho _2(𝒯_2+𝒯_4)}{m_Q^2}+\mathrm{},$$
(8)
constrain the numerical values of some of the HQET matrix elements. Here $`\kappa (m_c)=\left[\alpha _s(m_c)/\alpha _s(m_b)\right]^{3/\beta _0}1.2`$ is the scaling of the magnetic moment operator between $`m_b`$ and $`m_c`$. In terms of the measured $`B^{}B`$ and $`D^{}D`$ mass splittings, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_B`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_D`$,

$`\lambda _2(m_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_b^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bm_c^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_D}{2[m_b\kappa (m_c)m_c]}},`$ (9)
$`\rho _2(𝒯_2+𝒯_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_c[\kappa (m_c)m_b\mathrm{\Delta }m_Bm_c\mathrm{\Delta }m_D]}{m_b\kappa (m_c)m_c}}.`$ (10)
These equations differ slightly from those in Ref. GK , and are consistent to order $`1/m_Q^3`$. Since order $`\alpha _s(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_Q)^2`$ corrections in the OPE have not been computed, whether we set $`\kappa (m_c)`$ to its physical value, $`\kappa (m_c)1.2`$, or to unity is a higher order effect that cannot be consistently included at present. Using $`\kappa (m_c)=1.2`$ or 1 in the fits gives effects which are negligible compared with other uncertainties in the calculation.

It is well-known that the pole masses suffer from a renormalon ambiguity renormalon , which only cancels in physical observables against a similar ambiguity in the perturbative expansions luke\_renormalon . Although any quark mass scheme can be used to relate physical observables to one another, the neglected higher order terms may be smaller if a renormalon-free scheme is used. When using pole masses it is important to always work to a consistent order in the perturbative expansion, since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can have large changes at each order in perturbation theory, even though the relations between measurable quantities such as the shape variables and the total semileptonic decay rate have much smaller changes. Since $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ depends strongly on the order of the calculation in perturbation theory, one can get a misleading impression about the convergence of the calculation, and its uncertainties. The advantage of using renormalon-free mass schemes is that the convergence may be manifest.

Several mass definitions which do not suffer from this ambiguity have been proposed in the literature, and we consider here the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$, $`1S`$, and PS masses. (There is a renormalon ambiguity in the $`1S`$ and PS masses, but it is of relative order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4/m_b^4`$ and so is irrelevant for our considerations.) The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is related to the pole mass through

$$\frac{\overline{m}_b(m_b)}{m_b}=1ϵ\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)C_F}{\pi }ϵ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.562}\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)^2}{\pi ^2}\beta _0+\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
and $`C_F=4/3`$ in QCD. The parameter $`ϵ1`$ is a new expansion parameter, which for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is the same as the order in $`\alpha _s`$. While the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is appropriate for high energy processes, such as $`Z`$ or $`hb\overline{b}`$, it is less useful in processes where the typical momenta are below $`m_b`$. The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is defined in full QCD with dynamical $`b`$ quarks and is appropriate for calculating the scale dependence above $`m_b`$. However, it does not make sense to run the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass below $`m_b`$; this only introduces spurious logarithms that have no physical significance. Thus, although the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass is well-defined, it is not a particularly useful quantity to describe $`B`$ decays. Therefore, several “threshold mass” definitions have been introduced that are more appropriate for low energy processes.

The $`1S`$ mass is related to the pole mass through the perturbative relation ups1 ; ups2

$$\frac{m_b^{1S}}{m_b}=1\frac{[\alpha _s(\mu )C_F]^2}{8}\left[1ϵ+ϵ^2\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{\pi }\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{11}{6}\right)\beta _0+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(12)
where the right hand side is the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ $`\overline{b}b`$ bound state as computed in perturbation theory, and $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}[\mu /(\alpha _s(\mu )C_Fm_b)]`$. For the $`1S`$ mass there is a subtlety in the perturbative expansion due to a mismatch between the order in $`ϵ`$ and the order in $`\alpha _s`$, so that terms of order $`\alpha _s^{n+1}`$ in Eq. (12) are of order $`ϵ^n`$ ups1 .

The potential-subtracted (PS) mass 3loopPS  is defined with respect to a factorization scale $`\mu _f`$. It is related to the pole mass through the perturbative relation

$$\frac{m_b^{\mathrm{PS}}(\mu _f)}{m_b}=1\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )C_F}{\pi }\frac{\mu _f}{m_b}\left[1ϵ+ϵ^2\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{2\pi }\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{11}{6}\right)\beta _0+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(13)
where now $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{ln}(\mu /\mu _f)`$. In this paper we will choose $`\mu _f=2\text{GeV}`$.

Another popular definition is the kinetic, or “running”, mass $`m_b(\mu )`$ introduced in BSUV95 ; BSUV97 . The kinetic mass has properties similar to the PS mass, since it is defined with a cutoff that explicitly separates long- and short-distance physics. It should give comparable results, so we will not consider it here. We note, however, that in this scheme matrix elements such as $`\lambda _1`$ are also naturally defined with respect to a momentum cutoff. This has the advantage of absorbing some “universal” radiative corrections into the definitions of the matrix elements instead of the coefficients in the OPE, and is expected to improve the behavior of the perturbative series relating $`\lambda _1`$ to physical quantities. However, as usual, the perturbative relation between physical quantities is unchanged, and adopting this definition leaves our fits to $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_b`$ unchanged.

The results for the various shape variables are functions of the $`b`$ quark mass. To simplify the expressions, in analogy with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ defined in Eq. (5), we define new hadronic parameters by the following relations

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1S}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{2}}m_b^{1S},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{PS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{2}}m_b^{\mathrm{PS}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ $`=`$ $`4.2\mathrm{GeV}\overline{m}_b(m_b).`$ (14)
We will refer to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1S}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{PS}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ generically as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that the introduction of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is purely for computational convenience. The form Eq. (III) is chosen so that the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is numerically of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. We can therefore expand the radiative corrections in powers of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and keep only the leading term and the first derivative. This is convenient because it avoids having to compute the radiative corrections, which involve a lengthy numerical integration, for each trial value of the quark mass in the fit. Note also that in the $`1S`$, PS and $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ schemes the dependence on $`m_Bm_b`$ is purely kinematic and is treated exactly, although it is formally of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$.

Thus, the decay rates will be expressed in terms of 9 parameters: the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s in each mass scheme which we treat as order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, two parameters of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2`$, $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$, and six parameters of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3`$, $`\rho _1`$, $`\rho _2`$, and $`𝒯_{14}`$. Of these, only 6 are independent unknowns, as $`\lambda _2`$ is determined by Eq. (9), $`\rho _2(𝒯_2+𝒯_4)`$ is determined by Eq. (10), and $`𝒯_4`$ can be set to zero as explained preceding Eq. (7).

## IV Expansions and their convergence

The computations in this paper include contributions of order $`1/m_Q^2`$ and $`1/m_Q^3`$, as well as radiative contribution of order $`ϵ`$, and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2`$, the so-called BLM contribution at order $`ϵ^2`$ which is proportional to $`\beta _0`$. The dominant theoretical errors arise from the higher order terms which we have neglected. In the perturbative series, we have neglected the non-BLM part of the two-loop correction. We have also neglected the unknown order $`\alpha _s/m_b^2`$ and $`1/m_b^4`$ corrections in the OPE. The decay distributions depend on the charm quark mass, which is determined from $`\overline{m}_B\overline{m}_D`$ using Eq. (6). This formula introduces $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4/m_c^4`$ corrections. Since $`m_c`$ only enters inclusive decay rates in the form $`m_c^2/m_b^2`$, the largest $`1/m^4`$ corrections are of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4/(m_b^2m_c^2)`$. Finally, the $`O(ϵ\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})`$ corrections for $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ have only been calculated without a cut on the lepton energy FLSmass2 .

For the $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay rate and the shape variables defined in Eqs. (1), (2), and (4) we give results in the Appendix in the four different mass schemes discussed, for the coefficients $`X^{(117)}(E_0)`$ in the expansion

$`X(E_0)`$ $`=`$ $`X^{(1)}(E_0)+X^{(2)}(E_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }+X^{(3)}(E_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+X^{(4)}(E_0)\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$
$`+`$ $`X^{(5)}(E_0)\lambda _1+X^{(6)}(E_0)\lambda _2+X^{(7)}(E_0)\lambda _1\mathrm{\Lambda }+X^{(8)}(E_0)\lambda _2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`+`$ $`X^{(9)}(E_0)\rho _1+X^{(10)}(E_0)\rho _2+X^{(11)}(E_0)𝒯_1+X^{(12)}(E_0)𝒯_2`$
$`+`$ $`X^{(13)}(E_0)𝒯_3+X^{(14)}(E_0)𝒯_4+X^{(15)}(E_0)ϵ+X^{(16)}(E_0)ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2+X^{(17)}(E_0)ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
where $`X(E_0)`$ is any of $`R_0(0,E_0)`$, $`R_i(E_0)`$, $`S_i(E_0)`$, or $`T_i(E_0)`$ and $`i=1,2`$. Note that to obtain $`R_0(E_0,E_1)`$ one needs to reexpand $`R_0(0,E_1)/R_0(0,E_0)`$, but using $`R_0(0,E_0)`$ allows us to tabulate the results as a function of only one variable. The expressions for $`R_0(0,E_0)`$ are also convenient for deriving the predictions for other observables, such as those in Eq. (3).

Unfortunately there is no simple way to relate the results in different mass schemes, because a particular value of the physical $`E_0`$ cut corresponds to different limits of integrations in the dimensionless variables (such as $`2E_0/m_b`$) in different mass schemes. We list the coefficients of the expansions of the shape variables in the various mass schemes in the Appendix.

Before using these expressions, one has to assess the convergence of both the perturbative expansions and of the power suppressed corrections. As each shape variable arises from a ratio of two series, the result can be worse or better behaved than the individual series in the numerator and denominator. We have checked that this is the reason for the apparent poor behavior of, for example, $`R_1(1.5\mathrm{GeV})`$ in the $`1S`$ scheme, where one sees that order $`\alpha _s`$ term $`R_1^{(15)}(1.5\mathrm{GeV})=0.001`$, whereas the order $`\alpha _s^2`$ BLM term $`R_1^{(16)}(1.5\mathrm{GeV})=0.003`$ is larger. Since separately the numerator and denominator show good convergence, one should not conclude that $`R_1(1.5\mathrm{GeV})`$ is not a useful observable to constrain the HQET parameters. In general, one cannot conclude whether a series is poorly behaved or not by comparing the $`\alpha _s^2`$ term with the $`\alpha _s`$ term because of possible cancellations. Instead, one should compare with the expected size of terms based on a naive dimensional estimate.

In Refs. FLSmass1 ; FLSmass2  the second hadronic invariant mass moment defined as $`(m_X^2\overline{m}_D^2)^2`$ was studied, and it was observed that the size of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3/m_b^3`$ correction was comparable to both the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_b^2`$ and $`\alpha _s\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b`$ terms. The authors therefore concluded that the convergence of the OPE was suspect for this moment, and argued that useful constraints on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ could not be obtained. A very similar situation holds for the variance $`S_2`$. However, one can obtain more insight into the convergence of this moment by examining the behavior of the relevant terms in the OPE for $`m_X^2`$ and $`m_X^4`$ separately. In the pole scheme (for simplicity), the expressions are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_B^2}}m_X^2|_{E_{\mathrm{}}>0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2}{m_B^2}}+0.24{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_B}}+0.26{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{m_B^2}}+1.02{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{m_B^2}}+2.2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{m_B^3}}+0.21{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}+0.41{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_B}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_B^4}}m_X^4|_{E_{\mathrm{}}>0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^4}{m_B^4}}+0.07{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{m_B}}+0.14{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{m_B^2}}+0.15{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{m_B^2}}0.23{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _1}{m_B^3}}+0.08{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}+0.27{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\overline{m}_B}}.`$
The OPE for both observables is well behaved, with the canonical size of the $`\rho _1`$ term a factor of 5–10 smaller than the $`\lambda _1`$ term. The corresponding constraints in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\lambda _1`$ plane have slopes which differ by roughly a factor of two, and so constrain one linear combination of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ much better than the orthogonal combination.

If instead of the second moment we consider the variance, we may combine the two series to find

$$\frac{1}{m_B^4}m_X^4m_X^2^2|_{E_{\mathrm{}}>0}=0.01\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2}{\overline{m}_B^2}0.14\frac{\lambda _1}{\overline{m}_B^2}0.86\frac{\rho _1}{\overline{m}_B^3}+0.02\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }+0.06\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\overline{m}_B}.$$
(17)
The variance gives constraints in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\lambda _1`$ plane which are almost orthogonal to those of the first moment, but since it is simply a linear combination of the first and second moments, it cannot constrain the parameters any better. However, it is also no worse: none of the coefficients are larger than would be expected by dimensional analysis. The apparent poor convergence of the variance is due to a cancellation in the $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ (and to a lesser extent the $`\lambda _1`$) terms between the two series. Therefore, there is no reason to expect the $`O(1/m_B^4)`$ terms to be anomalously large. Constraints arising from $`S_2`$ (or from $`(m_X^2\overline{m}_D^2)^2`$) therefore need not be dismissed, although they are very sensitive to $`\rho _1`$ and so are of limited utility unless a sufficiently large number of observables is measured that $`\rho _1`$ is also constrained.

## V Experimental Data

The experimental data for the lepton spectrum from the CLEO collaboration are the three lepton moments dch ; marina

$`R_0(1.5\text{GeV},1.7\text{GeV})=0.6187\pm 0.0021,`$
$`R_1(1.5\text{GeV})=(1.7810\pm 0.0011)\text{GeV},`$
$`R_2(1.5\text{GeV})=(3.1968\pm 0.0026)\text{GeV}^2.`$ (18)
For $`R_0`$ and $`R_1`$, we used the averaged electron and muon values, with the full correlation matrix as given in Ref. dch . For $`R_2`$, we have used the weighted average of the electron and muon data marina . The DELPHI collaboration measures the lepton energy and variance DELPHIlepton ,

$`R_1(0)=(1.383\pm 0.015)\text{GeV},`$
$`R_2(0)R_1(0)^2=(0.192\pm 0.009)\text{GeV}^2.`$ (19)
For the hadronic invariant mass spectrum we have CLEO measurements of the mean invariant mass and variance with a lepton energy cut of 1.5 GeV cleohadron

$`S_1(1.5\text{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.251\pm 0.066)\text{GeV}^2,`$
$`S_2(1.5\text{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.576\pm 0.170)\text{GeV}^4,`$ (20)
and DELPHI measurements of the mean invariant mass and variance with no lepton energy cut DELPHIhadron

$`S_1(0)`$ $`=`$ $`(0.553\pm 0.088)\text{GeV}^2,`$
$`S_2(0)`$ $`=`$ $`(1.26\pm 0.23)\text{GeV}^4.`$ (21)
Both collaborations also measure the second moment $`(m_X^2\overline{m}_D^2)^2`$, but we do not use this result since it is not independent of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$.

The BABAR collaboration measures the first moment of the hadron spectrum for various values of the lepton energy cut Babarhadron . The data points are highly correlated, and the variation of the first moment with the energy cut appears to be in poor agreement with the OPE predictions. We will do our fits without the BABAR data, as well as including the BABAR data for the two extreme values of their lepton energy cut, $`E=0.9`$ and $`E=1.5`$ GeV Babarhadron , to avoid overemphasizing many points with correlated errors in the fit,

$`S_1(1.5\text{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.354\pm 0.080)\text{GeV}^2,`$
$`S_1(0.9\text{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.694\pm 0.114)\text{GeV}^2.`$ (22)
Note that we took into account that CLEO dch  and BABAR Babarhadron  used $`\overline{m}_D=1.975`$GeV to obtain the quoted values of $`S_1`$, whereas DELPHI DELPHIhadron  used $`\overline{m}_D=1.97375`$GeV.

For the photon spectrum we use the CLEO results cleophoton

$`T_1(2\text{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(2.346\pm 0.034)\text{GeV},`$
$`T_2(2\text{GeV})`$ $`=`$ $`(0.0226\pm 0.0069)\text{GeV}^2.`$ (23)
The final piece of data is the semileptonic decay width, for which we use the average of $`B^\pm `$ and $`B^0`$ data pdg ,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })=(42.7\pm 1.4)\times 10^{12}\mathrm{MeV}.$$
(24)
We do not average this with the $`B_s`$ and $`b`$-baryon semileptonic widths, as the power suppressed corrections can differ in these decays.

Eqs. (V)–(24) provide a total of 14 measurements that enter our fit.

## VI The Fit

In this section we perform a simultaneous fit to the various experimentally measured moments and the semileptonic rate. It is important to note that we do not include any correlations between experimental measurements beyond those presented in dch ; marina , and so the experimental uncertainties are not completely taken into account. Nevertheless, the fit demonstrates the importance of including the full correlation of the $`O(1/m_b^3)`$ terms in the different observables, and also indicates the relative importance of the theoretical and experimental uncertainties.

We use the fitting routine Minuit to fit simultaneously for the shape variables and the total semileptonic branching fraction, by minimizing $`\chi ^2`$, and present results for the fit in the $`1S`$ scheme (the other schemes give comparable results).

In addition to the experimental uncertainties, there are also uncertainties in the theory because the formulae used in the fit are not exact. From naive dimensional analysis we find the fractional theory errors $`0.0003`$ from $`\left(\alpha _s/4\pi \right)^2`$ terms, $`0.0002`$ from $`\left(\alpha _s/4\pi \right)\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^2/m_b^2`$ terms, and $`0.001`$ from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^4/(m_b^2m_c^2)`$ terms. In some cases, naive dimensional analysis underestimates the uncertainties, and an alternative is estimating the uncertainties by the size of the last term computed in the perturbation series. We combine these estimates by adding in quadrature half of the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2`$ term and a $`0.001m_B^n`$ theoretical error for quantities with mass dimension $`n`$. In computing $`\chi ^2`$, we add this theoretical error in quadrature to the experimental errors. This procedure avoids giving a large weight in the fit to a very accurate measurement that cannot be computed reliably. Because the perturbative results in the $`1S`$ scheme are not expected to be artificially badly behaved (as they are in, for example, the pole scheme) this estimate of the perturbative uncertainty should be reasonable. We will examine the convergence of perturbation theory later in this section.

The unknown matrix elements of the $`1/m_b^3`$ operators are the largest source of uncertainty in the fit. One expects these matrix elements to be of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}^3`$. To allow for this theoretical input, we include an additional contribution to $`\chi ^2`$ from the matrix elements of each $`1/m_b^3`$ operators, $`\rho _{1,2}`$ and $`𝒯_{14}`$, that we denote generically by $`𝒪`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2(m_\chi ,M_\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & |𝒪|m_\chi ^3\text{ ,}\hfill \\ \left[|𝒪|m_\chi ^3\right]^2/M_\chi ^6,\hfill & |𝒪|>m_\chi ^3\text{ ,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where $`(m_\chi ,M_\chi )`$ are both thought of as quantities of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. This way we do not prejudice $`𝒪`$ to have any particular value in the range $`|𝒪|m_\chi ^3`$. In the fit we take $`M_\chi =500\text{MeV}`$, and vary $`m_\chi `$ between $`500\text{MeV}`$ and $`1\text{GeV}`$ to test that our results for $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_b`$ are insensitive to this input (our final results are obtained with $`m_\chi =500\text{MeV}`$). The data are sufficient to constrain the $`1/m_b^3`$ operators in the sense that they can be consistently fit with reasonable values, but they are not determined with any useful precision. Finally, since only three linear combinations of $`𝒯_{14}`$ appear in the formulae, we fit setting $`𝒯_4=0`$, so that the fit values for $`𝒯_{13}`$ with this choice for $`𝒯_4`$ are the values of $`𝒯_13𝒯_4`$, $`𝒯_2+𝒯_4`$, and $`𝒯_3+3𝒯_4`$.

The fit results are summarized in Tables I and II. In Table 1 we show the results of the fit for $`|V_{cb}|`$, $`m_b^{1S}`$ and $`\lambda _1`$, as well as the “effective” combination $`\lambda _1+(𝒯_1+3𝒯_2)/m_b`$ which enters in the OPE, and which, due to correlated errors, is better constrained than $`\lambda _1`$. From these results we can also obtain an expression for $`|V_{cb}|`$ as a function of the semileptonic branching ratio and the $`B`$ meson lifetime. We find

$$|V_{cb}|=\left(40.8\pm 0.7\right)\times 10^3\eta _{\text{QED}}\left[\frac{(BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })}{0.105}\frac{1.6\text{ps}}{\tau _B}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(26)
The quoted error contains all uncertainties from $`m_b`$, $`\lambda _1`$, the $`1/m_b^3`$ matrix elements, as well as perturbative uncertainties. The parameter $`\eta _{\text{QED}}1.007`$ is the electromagnetic correction to the inclusive decay rate, which has been included in the values for $`|V_{cb}|`$ presented in Table I. Including the BABAR data increases the $`\chi ^2`$ by about a factor of two. Doubling the allowed range of the $`1/m_b^3`$ parameters increases the uncertainties only minimally and reduces $`\chi ^2`$ somewhat.

The reason we carried out separate fits excluding and including the BABAR data on $`S_1(E_0)`$ is because of its inconsistency at low $`E_0`$ with the fit done without it. To see this, note that on very general grounds $`S_1(E_0)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`E_0`$. The theoretical prediction corresponding to the fit in the first line of Table I is $`S_1(0)=(0.42\pm 0.03)\text{GeV}^2`$, which is significantly below the lowest BABAR data point, $`S_1(0.9\text{GeV})=(0.694\pm 0.114)\text{GeV}`$. Assuming that the branching ratio to nonresonant channels between $`D^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$ is negligible, this prediction for $`S_1(0)`$ implies an upper bound on the fraction of excited (i.e., non-$`D^{()}`$) states in $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay GK , which is below 25%, and is in contradiction with the measured $`BD^{()}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ branching fractions. To resolve this, either the assumption that low-mass nonresonant channels are negligible could be wrong, or some measurements or the theory have to be several standard deviations off. The $`X_c`$ spectrum effectively has this (assumed) feature in the CLEO and BABAR analyses but not in DELPHI. It is thus crucial to precisely and model independently measure the $`m_{X_c}`$ distribution in semileptonic $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay. A comparison of the BABAR hadronic moment data with our fit is given in Fig. 1.

To get more insight into the obtained uncertainties, we have performed several additional fits in which we turn off individual contributions to the errors. Here we present the results for the fits with $`m_\chi =0.5`$ and not including the BABAR data. Similar results are true when the BABAR values are included. Neglecting all $`1/m_b^3`$ terms, as well as the naive estimate of the theoretical uncertainties gives a fit with $`\chi ^2=81`$ for 9 degrees of freedom. Including only the $`1/m_b^3`$ terms gives $`\chi ^2=21`$ for 5 degrees of freedom. This is a vastly better fit, reducing $`\chi ^2`$ by about 60 by adding only 4 new parameters. Nevertheless, the fact that $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is about 5 shows that there is a statistically significant discrepancy between theory and experiment if other theoretical uncertainties are not included. Only after including this estimate do we get $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{dof}1`$. We also estimated the size of the theoretical uncertainties by setting all experimental errors to zero. This reduces all uncertainties by roughly a factor of three. Thus, the fit is dominated by experimental uncertainties.

The fit gives a value of the $`b`$ quark mass which is consistent with other extractions, and with an uncertainty at the 100 MeV level. For comparison, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ sum rules extractions in Refs. hoang ; benekesigner  give $`m_b^{1S}=4.69\pm 0.03\text{GeV}`$ and $`m_b^{1S}=4.78\pm 0.11\text{GeV}`$, respectively by a fit to the $`\overline{B}B`$ system near threshold. The error on $`\lambda _1`$ is larger than previous extractions from $`T_1`$ and $`S_1`$ cleohadron , because we are including more conservative estimates of the theoretical uncertainties. Despite this, the uncertainty on $`|V_{cb}|`$ is smaller than from previous extractions. Note that we have only used the value of the semileptonic branching ratio of $`B`$ mesons. It is inconsistent to combine the average semileptonic branching ratio of $`b`$ quarks (including $`B_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ states) with the moment analyses, since hadronic matrix elements have different values in the $`B/B^{}`$ system, and in the $`B_s/B_s^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$.

The fit results for the $`1/m_b^3`$ parameters are shown in Table 2. Clearly, one is not able to determine the values of the $`1/m_b^3`$ parameters from the present fit. All that can be said is that the preferred values are consistent with dimensional estimates. There is also some indication that $`\rho _2`$ is small, as is expected in some models GK .

One can also use the fits to predict other observables that can be measured. For example, we predict the values for the fractional moments $`R_{3a}`$, $`R_{3b}`$, $`R_{4a}`$, $`R_{4b}`$, $`D_3`$ and $`D_4`$ given by Bauer and Trott BT . The predicted values are given in Table 3.

The results are robust, and do not depend on the width chosen for the $`1/m^3`$ operators, or whether or not we include the BABAR data.

Finally, it is useful to study the convergence of perturbation theory by carrying out the fit at different orders in the perturbation expansion. In Figure 2 we show the $`1\sigma `$ error ellipse in the $`m_b^{1S}`$ vs. $`|V_{cb}|`$ plane, for the four different mass schemes. For each scheme we show three contours, obtained at tree level (dotted red curves), at order $`ϵ`$ (dashed blue curves), and including order $`ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2`$ corrections as well (solid black curves). For each of these curves, the conversion of the fitted mass to the $`1S`$ mass has been done at the consistent order in perturbation theory. One can see that the convergence of the perturbative expansion is slightly better for the $`1S`$ and the PS schemes compared with the pole scheme. This is because there is an incomplete cancellation of formally higher order terms, such as $`\alpha _s\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2`$, which are large in the pole scheme. The larger uncertainties in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme are due to large contributions at BLM order, which are included in the uncertainty estimate, as explained at the beginning of this section.

## VII Summary and conclusions

Experimental studies of the shape variables discussed in this paper are crucial in determining from experimental data the accuracy of the theoretical predictions for inclusive $`B`$ decays rates, which rest on the assumption of local duality. Detailed knowledge of how well the OPE works in different regions of phase space (and a precise value of $`m_b`$) will also be important for the determination of $`|V_{ub}|`$ from inclusive $`B`$ decays. A serious discrepancy between theory and data would imply, for example for $`|V_{cb}|`$, that only its determination from exclusive decays has a chance of attaining a reliable error below the $`5\%`$ level.

The analysis in this paper shows that at the present level of accuracy, the data from the lepton and photon spectra are consistent with the theory, with no evidence for any breakdown of quark-hadron duality in shape variables. Two related problems at present are the BABAR measurement of the average hadronic invariant mass as a function of the lepton energy cut and the total branching fraction to $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ states, both of which appear problematic to reconcile with the other measurements combined with the OPE. However, both problems depend on assumptions about the invariant mass distribution of the decay products, which needs to be better understood. Excluding the BABAR data and the problem of the $`BD^{()}\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ branching ratios, the fit provides a good description of the experimental results, with $`\chi ^2=5.0`$ for 12 data points and 7 fit parameters in the $`1S`$ scheme.

The main results (in the $`1S`$ scheme) are summarized in Fig. 3 where we compare our determination of $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_b^{1S}`$ with those from exclusive $`B`$ decays and upsilon sum rules. We obtain the following values:

$`|V_{cb}|`$ $`=`$ $`\left(40.8\pm 0.9\right)\times 10^3,`$
$`m_b^{1S}`$ $`=`$ $`(4.74\pm 0.10)\text{GeV}.`$ (27)
This corresponds to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass $`\overline{m}_b(\overline{m}_b)=4.22\pm 0.09\text{GeV}`$. We have also presented the value of $`|V_{cb}|`$ as a function of the semileptonic branching ratio and the $`B`$ meson lifetime

$$|V_{cb}|=\left(41.1\pm 0.7\right)\times 10^3\left[\frac{(BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })}{0.105}\frac{1.6\text{ps}}{\tau _B}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(28)
We have constrained the $`1/m^3`$ matrix elements and predicted the values for fractional moments of the electron spectrum to better than 1% accuracy.

Setting experimental errors to zero gives errors in $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_b^{1S}`$ of $`0.35\times 10^3`$ and $`35`$ MeV, respectively. These numbers indicate the theoretical limitations, although their precise values depend on details of how the theoretical uncertainties are estimated. If the agreement between the experimental results improve in the future, then a full two loop calculation of the total semileptonic rate and of $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay spectra would help to further reduce the theoretical uncertainty in $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`m_b`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank our friends at CLEO, BABAR and DELPHI for numerous discussions related to this work. C.W.B. thanks the LBL theory group and Z.L. thanks the LPT-Orsay for their hospitality while some of this work was completed. This work was supported in part by the US Department of Energy under contract DE-FG03-97ER40546 (C.W.B. and A.V.M.); by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and by a DOE Outstanding Junior Investigator award (Z.L.); and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (M.L.).

*

## Appendix A Coefficient functions in various mass schemes

In this Appendix we give numerical results for the the $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay rate and the shape variables defined in Eqs. (1), (2), and (4), in the four mass schemes discussed. For all quantities the coefficients of the expansions are defined as in Eq. (IV), and all numerical values are in units of GeV to the appropriate power. We use $`\alpha _s(m_b)=0.22`$ and the spin- and isospin-averaged meson masses, $`\overline{m}_B=5.314\text{GeV}`$ and $`\overline{m}_D=1.973\text{GeV}`$.

### A.1 The $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺`$ mass scheme

The $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay width in the $`1S`$ scheme is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{192\pi ^3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{2}}\right)^5[0.5340.232\mathrm{\Lambda }0.023\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+0.\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ (29)
$`0.11\lambda _10.15\lambda _20.02\lambda _1\mathrm{\Lambda }+0.05\lambda _2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`0.02\rho _1+0.03\rho _20.05𝒯_1+0.01𝒯_2`$
$`0.07𝒯_30.03𝒯_40.051ϵ0.016ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2+0.016ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }],`$
We tabulate the shape variables defined in Eq. (1) in Tables 4, 5, and 6, and those defined in Eq. (2) in Tables 7 and 8 in the $`1S`$ mass scheme. For $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ we do not show the $`E_0`$-dependence of the order $`ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms, as they are not known. For all quantities the coefficients of the expansions are defined as in Eq. (IV).

For the $`BX_s\gamma `$ shape variables defined in Eq. (4), only $`T_i^{(15)}`$, $`T_i^{(16)}`$, and $`T_i^{(17)}`$ are functions of $`E_0`$, once $`m_B/2E_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$. For the other $`T`$’s in the $`1S`$ scheme we find

$`T_1^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{4}},T_1^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},T_1^{(3)}=T_1^{(4)}=0,T_1^{(5)}=0.05,T_1^{(6)}=0.16,`$
$`T_1^{(7)}=0.01,T_1^{(8)}=0.03,T_1^{(9)}=0.02,T_1^{(10)}=0.18,`$
$`T_1^{(11)}=T_1^{(13)}=0.01,T_1^{(12)}=T_1^{(14)}=0.03,`$ (30)
and

$`T_2^{(1)}=T_2^{(2)}=T_2^{(3)}=T_2^{(4)}=T_2^{(6)}=T_2^{(7)}=T_2^{(8)}=T_2^{(13)}=T_2^{(14)}=0,`$ (31)
$`T_2^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},T_2^{(9)}=0.04,T_2^{(10)}=T_2^{(12)}=0.05,T_2^{(11)}=0.02.`$
The remaining, $`E_0`$-dependent coefficients of the perturbative corrections are listed in Table 9.

### A.2 The PS mass scheme

The expressions for the $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay rate and the shape variables in the PS scheme are almost identical to Eq. (29), Tables 48, and Eqs. (A.1) and (31), because we choose to expand $`m_b^{\mathrm{PS}}`$ about $`m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}/2`$ as well. The difference in the $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ rate compared with Eq. (29) is that the perturbation series is replaced by $`0.020ϵ0.003ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2+0.025ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and of course, the meaning of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ changes from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1S}`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{PS}}`$.

Next we tabulate the coefficients of the perturbation series of the shape variables defined in Eqs. (1) and (2), that differ from the entries in Tables 48, in Table 10 in the PS mass scheme. For $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ we do not show in the tables the order $`ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms again as their $`E_0`$-dependence is not known. For all quantities the coefficients of the expansions are defined as in Eq. (IV).

For the $`BX_s\gamma `$ shape variables defined in Eq. (4), the expressions for $`T_2`$ are identical in the $`1S`$ and PS schemes, and so only $`T_1^{(15)}`$, $`T_1^{(16)}`$, and $`T_1^{(17)}`$ differ between these two schemes. The results for these coefficients in the PS scheme are shown in Table 11.

### A.3 The $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass scheme

The $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay width in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{192\pi ^3}}(4.2\text{GeV})^5[0.7330.464\mathrm{\Lambda }0.036\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+0.01\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ (32)
$`0.22\lambda _10.22\lambda _20.04\lambda _1\mathrm{\Lambda }+0.1\lambda _2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`0.01\rho _1+0.05\rho _20.16𝒯_1+0.01𝒯_2`$
$`0.18𝒯_30.05𝒯_4+0.085ϵ+0.065ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2+0.022ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }],`$
We tabulate the shape variables defined in Eq. (1) in Tables 12, 13, and 14, and those defined in Eq. (2) in Tables 15 and 16 in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass scheme. For $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ we do not show the $`E_0`$-dependence of the order $`ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms, as they are not known. For all quantities the coefficients of the expansions are defined as in Eq. (IV).

For the $`BX_s\gamma `$ shape variables defined in Eq. (4), $`T_i^{(1)},\mathrm{}T_i^{(14)}`$ are independent of $`E_0`$, once $`m_B/2E_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, and are given in the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ scheme by

$`T_1^{(1)}=2.1\text{GeV},T_1^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},T_1^{(3)}=T_1^{(4)}=0,T_1^{(5)}=0.06,T_1^{(6)}=0.18,`$
$`T_1^{(7)}=0.01,T_1^{(8)}=0.04,T_1^{(9)}=0.02,T_1^{(10)}=0.37,`$
$`T_1^{(11)}=T_1^{(13)}=0.01,T_1^{(12)}=T_1^{(14)}=0.04,`$ (33)
and

$`T_2^{(1)}=T_2^{(2)}=T_2^{(3)}=T_2^{(4)}=T_2^{(6)}=T_2^{(7)}=T_2^{(8)}=T_2^{(13)}=T_2^{(14)}=0,`$ (34)
$`T_2^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},T_2^{(9)}=0.04,T_2^{(10)}=T_2^{(12)}=0.06,T_2^{(11)}=0.02.`$
The remaining, $`E_0`$-dependent coefficients of the perturbative corrections are listed in Table 17. Since in this case we are expanding the $`b`$ quark mass about $`4.2`$GeV, we are only showing results for $`E_02`$GeV. The large size of the perturbative corrections to $`T_1`$ (compared to its values in the $`1S`$ or PS schemes) occur to try to compensate for the bad choice of mass scheme.

### A.4 The pole mass scheme

The $`BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }`$ decay width in the pole scheme is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(BX_c\mathrm{}\overline{\nu })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2|V_{cb}|^2}{192\pi ^3}}\overline{m}_B^5[0.3700.115\mathrm{\Lambda }0.012\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+0.\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ (35)
$`0.04\lambda _10.10\lambda _20.01\lambda _1\mathrm{\Lambda }+0.02\lambda _2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`0.02\rho _1+0.02\rho _20.02𝒯_1+0.𝒯_2`$
$`0.03𝒯_30.02𝒯_40.040ϵ0.022ϵ_{\mathrm{BLM}}^2+0.007ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }],`$
We tabulate the shape variables defined in Eq. (1) in Tables 18, 19, and 20, and those defined in Eq. (2) in Tables 21 and 22 in the pole mass scheme. For $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ we do not show the $`E_0`$-dependence of the order $`ϵ\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ terms, as they are not known. For all quantities the coefficients of the expansions are defined as in Eq. (IV).

For the $`BX_s\gamma `$ shape variables defined in Eq. (4), $`T_i^{(1)},\mathrm{}T_i^{(14)}`$ are independent of $`E_0`$, once $`m_B/2E_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$, and are given in the pole mass scheme by

$`T_1^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_B}{2}},T_1^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},T_1^{(3)}=T_1^{(4)}=T_1^{(5)}=T_1^{(7)}=0,`$
$`T_1^{(6)}=0.14,T_1^{(8)}=0.03,T_1^{(9)}=0.02,T_1^{(10)}=0.11,`$
$`T_1^{(11)}=T_1^{(13)}=0.,T_1^{(12)}=T_1^{(14)}=0.03,`$ (36)
and

$`T_2^{(1)}=T_2^{(2)}=T_2^{(3)}=T_2^{(4)}=T_2^{(6)}=T_2^{(7)}=T_2^{(8)}=T_2^{(13)}=T_2^{(14)}=0,`$ (37)
$`T_2^{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},T_2^{(9)}=0.03,T_2^{(10)}=T_2^{(12)}=0.05,T_2^{(11)}=0.02.`$
The remaining, $`E_0`$-dependent coefficients of the perturbative corrections are listed in Table 23.