text:
# Ward Identities, 𝐵→𝜌 Form Factors and |𝑉_{𝑢𝑏}|

## 1 Introduction

The semileptonic and radiative decays of heavy mesons play an outstanding role for determination of the parameters of standard model, in particular the quark mixing parameters.

The upcomming and currently operating $`B`$ factories BaBar at SLAC, Belle at KEK, LHCB at CERN and B-TEV at Fermilab as well as the planned $`\tau `$-Charm factory CLEO at Cornell make precision tests of Standard Model (SM) and beyound SM ever more promising . Especially, a strigent test on the unitarity of the Cabibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) mixing matrix  in the SM will be made by these facilities. Accurate analysis of exclusive semileptonic $`B`$ decays are thus strongly demanded for such precision tests. Beauty decays proceeding through the flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) transition have been identified as a valuable source of information on standard model and its extensions  (for a review and complete set of refrences see ). One of the physics programs at the $`B`$ factories is the exclusive $`B`$ decays induced by FCNC transitions. These decays are forbidden at the tree level in the SM and occurs at the lowest order only through one-loop (penguin) diagrams. The experimental tests of exclusive decays are much easier than those of inclusive ones.

The theoretical understanding of weak decays of hadrons, and the measurements of the corresponding CKM matrix elements are consistently hampered by the presence of long distance QCD effects that are responsible for the binding of quarks into hadrons. These effects are hard to evaluate in a model independent way, and so tend to bring large uncertainities to the theoretical predictions for the weak decay amplitudes. They appear in the calculation of the matrix elements of the weak Hamiltonian operators, between the initial and final hadronic states.

The dynamical content of hadronic current matrix elements is described by Lorentz-invariant form factors. The calculation of these form factors requires a non-perturbative treatment and are source of large theoretical uncertainities. Knowledge of these form factors is essential for the description of semileptonic and non-leptonic weak decay processes and in particular for the experimental determination of CKM matrix elements . Many theoretical tools have been applied for the determination of form factors, i.e. quark models, QCD sum rule, and lattice calculations. The machinery of sum rules, lattice calculations has the advantage to be directly based on the QCD Lagrangian, but is quite involved. Quark models, on the other hand are less directly connected with the QCD Lagrangian, but give a vivid picture of what is going on and allow an easy application to different processes and at quite different kinematical regions. However, models presented so far lacked full relativistic covariance with respect to quark spins, and it is the spin structure which determines the ratio of different form factors we are concerned. The knowledge of these ratios is of paramount importance for the analysis of experimentally measured decays. So, the relations between different form factors that will hold under certain conditions or approximations can then be very useful. One of the motivations of the present work is to make use of Ward Identities to relate various form factors in a model independent way. Such relations will reduce the number of uncertain quantities, and improve the accuracy of the theoretical predictions. Moreover, they may help us understand better the general features of the underlying long distance QCD effects.

As mentioned earlier, the theoretical understanding of exclusive decays is complicated mainly due to the non-perturbative hadronic form factors entered in the long distance nonperturbative contributions. These calculations of hadronic form factors for semileptonic $`B`$ decays have been investigated by various theoretical approches. Form factors based on lattice calculations , and on light cone sum rules , currently have uncertainties in the 15% to 20% range. A variety of quark model calculations  exist. A number of other approaches , such as dispersive bounds and experimentally constrained models based on Heavy Quark Symmetry (HQS) also exists. In the standard model, the short distance contributions are dominated by the top-quark and long distance contributions by form factors.

The aim of the present work, as mentioned earlier, is to relate the various form factors in a model independent way through Ward identities. This enables us to make a clean separation between non–pole and pole type contributions, the $`q^20`$ behaviour of the former is known in terms of a universal function $`\xi _{}\left(q^2\right)g_+\left(q^2\right)`$ introduced in the large energy effective theory (LEET) of heavy $`\left(B\right)`$ to light $`\left(\rho \right)`$ form factors . The corrections of order $`(m/M)^2`$, where $`m`$ is the light meson mass and $`M`$ is the heavy meson mass, in LEET were obtained in . The LEET approach was first proposed by Dugan and Grinstein  and further developed by Aglietti .

The residue of the pole is then determined in a self consistent way in terms of $`g_+\left(0\right)`$ or $`\xi _{}\left(0\right)`$ \[a sort of duality\]. Thus our approach has a predictive power as the residue of the pole will give information about the couplings of $`B^{}\left(1^{}\right)`$ and $`B_A^{}\left(1^+\right)`$ with $`B\rho `$ channel. The form factors are then determined in terms of $`g_+\left(0\right)`$, $`A_0\left(0\right)`$ (for which much information is already known) and pole masses $`M_B^{}`$, $`M_{B_A^{}}`$ (where $`M_B^{}`$ is known and estimates exists for $`M_{B_A^{}}`$), and $`M^{}/M`$ \[where $`M^{}`$ is the radial excitation of $`M`$ ($`B^{}`$ and $`B_A^{}`$)\]. This ratio is 1.14 (1.12) .

The information about the hadronic form factors thus obtained are used to calculate the decay rates and the CKM matrix element $`V_{ub}`$. Because $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$, the smallest element in the CKM mixing matrix, plays a crucial role in the examination of the unitarity constraints and the fundamental questions on which the constraints can bear . To extract $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ from exclusive channel, the form factors for the channel must be known. The form factor normalization dominates the uncertainty on $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$. The $`q^2`$ dependence of the form factors, which is needed to determine the experimental efficiency, also contribute to the uncertainty, but at much reduced level. There have been two exclusive $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ analyses by the CLEO Collaboration: a simulatneous measurement of the $`B\pi l\overline{\nu }`$ and the $`B\rho l\overline{\nu }`$ transitions , and second measurement of the $`B\rho l\overline{\nu }`$ rate . The branching fractions obtained were

$`\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.5\pm 0.4_{0.7}^{+0.5}\pm 0.5\right)\times 10^4\text{[26]}`$
$`\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.69\pm 0.41_{0.40}^{+0.35}\pm 0.5\right)\times 10^4\text{[27]}.`$
The results of the two analyses are largely statistically independent, and they have been combined

$$\left|V_{ub}\right|=\left(3.25\pm 0.14_{0.29}^{+0.21}\pm 0.55\right)\times 10^3,$$

where the errors arise from statistical, experimental systematic, and form factor uncertainities, respectively. A recent study by BaBar , obtained the following results for the branching ratios and $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ and

$`\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3.29\pm 0.42\pm 0.47\pm 0.60\right)\times 10^4,`$
$`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\left(3.64\pm 0.22\pm 0.25_{0.56}^{+0.39}\right)\times 10^3,`$
where the uncertainities are statistical, systematic, and theoretical respectively; and CLEO ,

$`\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2.17\pm 0.34_{0.54}^{+0.47}\pm 0.41\pm 0.01\right)\times 10^4,`$
$`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`(3.00\pm 0.21_{0.35}^{+0.29}{}_{0.38}{}^{+0.49}\pm 0.28)\times 10^3,`$
where the errors in CLEO analyses are statistical, experimental systematic, theoretical systematicbased on lattice QCD and LCSR uncertainities, and $`\rho l\nu `$ form factor shape uncertainity, respectively.

The future for the exclusive determinations of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ appears promising. For both lattice and B factories, $`B\pi l\nu `$ appears to be a golden mode for future precise determination of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ while the $`B\rho l\nu `$ mode will be more problematic for high precision because the broad width introduces both experimental and theoretical difficulties.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we give the $`B\left(p\right)V(k,\epsilon )l\overline{\nu }`$ current matrix elements. In section 3, we discuss the Ward Identities and develop the relations between form factors which result in to reduce the number of unknown quantities. In section 4, pole contribution of various form factors are discussed and relations among different decay constants with the help of Ward Identities are obtained. In section 5, form factors are obtained which are necesary for the calculation of decay width and branching ratio. In section 6, we discuss the decay distribution in terms of helicity amplitudes and the extraction of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ from the experimental data. In section 7, numerical analyses is made and our predictions regarding various observables are compared with other approaches. Section 8, summarizes our conclusions and predictions.

## 2 Current Matrix Elements

We are interested in the exclusive semileptonic decays of pseudoscalar meson ($`B`$) into vector meson ($`\rho `$). The structure of hadronic current in semileptonic decay must be constructed from the available four-vectors, which are momenta and spin-polarization vectors. The Lorentz-vector or axial vector quantities thus formed have Lorentz invariant coefficients (form factors) that are functions of $`q^2=\left(pk\right)^2`$. The polarization vector of the meson $`\rho (k,\epsilon )`$ leads to a hadronic current with three form factors (in the limit of zero charged lepton mass).

In the case of $`B\left(p\right)\rho (k,\epsilon )l\overline{\nu }`$ decay, there are seven form factors for pseudoscalar to vector transitions, i.e. $`V`$, $`A_{0,1,2}`$, and $`F_{1,2,3}`$

$`V(k,\epsilon )\left|V^\mu \right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }}{M_B+M_V}}\epsilon _\nu ^{}k_\alpha p_\beta V\left(q^2\right)`$ (1)
$`V(k,\epsilon )\left|A^\mu \right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_B+M_V\right)\epsilon ^\mu A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}q}{M_B+M_V}}\left(k+p\right)^\mu A_2\left(q^2\right)`$
$`2M_V{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon ^{}q}{q^2}}q^\mu \left[A_3\left(q^2\right)A_0\left(q^2\right)\right]`$
where $`V^\mu =\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu b`$, $`A^\mu =\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5b`$, and

$$A_3\left(q^2\right)=\frac{M_B+M_V}{2M_V}A_1\left(q^2\right)\frac{M_BM_V}{2M_V}A_2\left(q^2\right)$$
(3)
with $`A_3\left(0\right)=A_0\left(0\right)`$,

$`V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\epsilon _\nu ^{}k_\alpha p_\beta F_1\left(q^2\right)`$ (4)
$`V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5q_\nu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)\epsilon ^\mu \left(\epsilon ^{}q\right)\left(k+p\right)^\mu \right]F_2\left(q^2\right)`$ (5)
$`+\left(\epsilon ^{}q\right)\left[q^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}\left(k+p\right)^\mu \right]F_3\left(q^2\right)`$
with $`F_1\left(0\right)=2F_2\left(0\right)`$.

Again the term proportional to $`q^\mu `$ in Eqs. (25) only plays an important role for the case $`l=\tau `$ and is not relevent for the rate in case of produced lepton pair $`l=\mu `$, $`e`$. The same is true for the form factor $`F_3`$. However, it does play a considerable role in the Ward identity.

## 3 Ward Identities

The Ward Identities, which are derived in appendix A, relate various form factors

$`V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_b+m_q\right)V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ (6)
$`V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma ^5q_\nu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_bm_q\right)V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ (7)
$`+\left(p+k\right)^\mu V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$
$`iq_\mu V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(m_b+m_q\right)V(k,\epsilon )\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ (8)
Using the Ward Identity (6) in Eqs. (1) and (4), and comparing the coefficient, we obtain

$$F_1\left(q^2\right)=\frac{m_b+m_q}{M_B+M_V}2V\left(q^2\right)$$
(9)
Again, using the Ward Identity (7) in Eqs. (2) and (5), and comparing the coefficients of $`ϵ^\mu `$ and that of $`q^\mu `$ \[we do not compare the coefficients of $`\left(p+k\right)^\mu `$ as heavy quark approximation has been used in obtaining the second term of Eq. (6b)\] we obtain

$`F_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_bm_q}{M_BM_V}}A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ (10)
$`F_3\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_bm_q\right){\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{q^2}}\left[A_3\left(q^2\right)A_0\left(q^2\right)\right]`$ (11)
The results given in Eqs. (10), (11) and (9) are model independent because these are derived by using Ward Identities.

In order to obtain a universal normalization of the above form factors at $`q^2=0`$, we define

$`V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\rho \left[\left(p+k\right)^\sigma g_++q^\sigma g_{}\right]q\epsilon ^{}\left(k\right)\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }\left(p+k\right)^\rho q^\sigma h`$ (12)
$`i[q_\alpha \epsilon _{\beta \rho \sigma \tau }\epsilon ^\rho (p+k)^\sigma q^\tau \alpha \beta ]h_1`$
$`i[(p+k)_\alpha \epsilon _{\beta \rho \sigma \tau }\epsilon ^\rho (p+k)^\sigma q^\tau \alpha \beta ]h_2`$
Since

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5=\frac{i}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\sigma _{\alpha \beta },$$
(13)
we can write

$$V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)=\frac{i}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }V\left(p^{}\right)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }b\right|B\left(p\right)$$
(14)
Using

$$\sigma ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ],\gamma ^5=i\gamma ^0\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3,ϵ^{0123}=1$$

and

ϵμναβϵμδρσ=|
gδαgραgσαgδβgρβgσβgδνgρνgσν|superscriptitalic-ϵ𝜇𝜈𝛼𝛽subscriptitalic-ϵ𝜇𝛿𝜌𝜎
gδαgραgσαgδβgρβgσβgδνgρνgσν\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon_{\mu\delta\rho\sigma}=-\left|\begin{tabular}[]{ccccc}$g_{\delta}^{\alpha}$&&$g_{\rho}^{\alpha}$&&$g_{\sigma}^{\alpha}$\\
&&&&\\
$g_{\delta}^{\beta}$&&$g_{\rho}^{\beta}$&&$g_{\sigma}^{\beta}$\\
&&&&\\
$g_{\delta}^{\nu}$&&$g_{\rho}^{\nu}$&&$g_{\sigma}^{\nu}$\end{tabular}\right|
we obtain from Eq. (12)

$`V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon ^\mu \left[\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)g_++q^2g_{}\right]`$ (15)
$`q\epsilon ^{}\left(k\right)\left[\left(p+k\right)^\mu g_++q^\mu g_{}\right]`$
$`+q\epsilon ^{}\left(k\right)\left[q^2\left(p+k\right)^\mu \left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)q^\mu \right]h`$
$`\epsilon ^\mu \left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)^2h_2`$
$`+\epsilon ^\mu \left(2M_B^2+2M_V^2q^2\right)q^2h_2`$
$`+q\epsilon ^{}\left(k\right)\left(p+k\right)^\mu \left(M_B^2M_V^2q^2\right)h_2`$
$`+q\epsilon ^{}\left(k\right)q^\mu \left(M_B^23M_V^2+q^2\right)h_2`$
Equating Eqs. (5) and (15) and comparing various coefficients

$`F_3\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{}\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)h\left(M_B^2+3M_V^2q^2\right)h_2`$ (16)
$`F_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+q^2h\left(M_B^2M_V^2q^2\right)h_2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}F_3\left(q^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`g_++{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}g_{}\left[M_B^2M_V^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}\left(2M_B^2+2M_V^2q^2\right)\right]h_2`$
Further, from Eq. (12)

$$V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }q^\beta b\right|B\left(p\right)=i\epsilon _{\alpha \beta \rho \sigma }\epsilon ^\rho p^\sigma q^\beta 2\left[g_+q^2h_1\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)h_2\right]$$
(18)
Comparing Eqs. (18) and (4), we obtain

$$F_1\left(q^2\right)=2\left[g_+q^2h_1\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)h_2\right]$$
(19)
Note that above relations ensure that $`F_2\left(0\right)=\left(1/2\right)F_1\left(0\right)`$. Equation (10), by using the value of $`F_2\left(q^2\right)`$, becomes

$`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_BM_V}{m_bm_q}}\{g_++{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}g_{}`$ (20)
$`[M_B^2M_V^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}(2M_B^2+2M_V^2q^2)]h_2\}`$
Equation (19), by using the value of $`F_1\left(q^2\right)`$ given in Eq. (9), becomes

$$V\left(q^2\right)=\frac{M_B+M_V}{m_b+m_q}\left[g_+q^2h_1\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)h_2\right]$$
(21)
Rearranging Eq. (3), we get

$`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_1\left(q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_3\left(q^2\right)`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_1\left(q^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}\left[A_3\left(q^2\right)A_0\left(q^2\right)\right]{\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_0\left(q^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{m_bm_q}}\left\{g_+q^2h\left[M_B^2M_V^2+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}\left(3M_B^2+5M_V^22q^2\right)\right]h_2\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_0\left(q^2\right)`$
where we have used Eqs. (11) and (16).

The merit of above relations is that the normalization of the form factors $`A_1`$, $`V`$, $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ at $`q^2=0`$ is determined by a single constant $`\left[g_+\left(0\right)\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)h_2\left(0\right)\right]`$ while those of $`A_2`$ and $`A_0`$ are determined by $`\left[g_+\left(0\right)\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)h_2\left(0\right)\right]`$ and $`A_0\left(0\right)`$.

## 4 Pole contribution

Only $`h_1`$, $`g_{}`$, $`h`$, and $`A_0`$ get pole contributions from $`B^{}\left(1^{}\right)`$, $`B_A^{}\left(1^+\right)`$, and $`B\left(0^{}\right)`$ mesons. These are given by

$`h_1|_{pole}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{B^{}B\rho ^{}}}{M_B^{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_T^B^{}}{1q^2/M_B^{}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_V}{M_B^{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2/M_B^{}^2}}`$ (23)
$`g_{}|_{pole}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_T^{B_A^{}}}{1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_A^S}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}`$ (24)
$`h|_{pole}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_{B_AB\rho ^{}}}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_T^{B_A^{}}}{1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{R_A^D}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}`$ (25)
$`A_0\left(q^2\right)|_{pole}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{BB\rho ^{}}}{M_\rho }}f_B{\displaystyle \frac{q^2/M_B^2}{1q^2/M_B^2}}=R_0{\displaystyle \frac{q^2/M_B^2}{1q^2/M_B^2}}`$ (26)
On the other hand, only $`g_+`$, $`g_{}`$, and $`A_0`$ get contribution from quark $`\mathrm{}`$–graph. Therefore we shall put $`h_2=0`$ in what follows.

The above coupling constants are defined as follows:

$`B^+(\eta ,q)\rho ^{}(ϵ,k)|B^0\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{B^{}B\rho ^{}}ϵ_{\alpha \rho \mu \sigma }ϵ^\alpha q^\rho p^\sigma \eta ^\mu `$
$`0\left|i\overline{u}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B^{}(\eta ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`f_T^B^{}\left(q_\mu \eta _\nu q_\nu \eta _\mu \right)`$ (27)
$`B_A^+(\eta ,q)\rho ^{}(ϵ,k)|B^0\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}ϵ^{}\eta ^{}f_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}qϵ^{}k\eta ^{}`$
$`0\left|i\overline{u}\sigma _{\mu \nu }b\right|B^{}(\eta ,q)`$ $`=`$ $`f_T^{B_A^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\eta ^\alpha q^\beta `$
Now if in the Ward Identity (6), we take the matrix elements between $`0|`$ and $`|B^{}`$, we obtain

$$0\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu b\right|B^{}(\eta ,q)=\left(m_b+m_q\right)f_B^{}\eta ^\mu $$
(28)
where $`0\left|i\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu b\right|B^{}(\eta ,q)=f_B^{}\eta ^\mu `$. Thus using Eq. (27), we obtain

$$f_T^B^{}=\frac{m_b+m_q}{M_B^{}^2}f_B^{}=\frac{m_b+m_q}{M_B^{}}f_B=\frac{M_B}{M_B^{}}f_B=f_B$$
(29)
It is easy to see that same relation is obtained if one uses heavy quark spin symmetry. Similarly, if in the Ward Identity (7), we take the matrix elements between $`0|`$ and $`|B_A^{}`$, we obtain on using that $`0\left|i\overline{u}\gamma _5b\right|B_A^{}(\eta ,q)=0,`$

$$0\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \gamma _5b\right|B_A^{}(\eta ,q)=\left(m_bm_q\right)f_{B_A^{}}\eta ^\mu ,$$
(30)
where $`0\left|i\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b\right|B_A^{}(\eta ,q)=f_{B_A^{}}\eta ^\mu `$. By using the identity (13), we obtain

$$f_T^{B_A^{}}=\frac{m_bm_q}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}f_{B_A^{}}$$
(31)
## 5 Form factors and determination of coupling constants

The form factors $`V\left(q^2\right)`$ \[Eq. (21)\], $`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ \[Eq. (20)\], and $`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$ \[Eq. (22)\] can be written as

$`V\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{m_b+m_q}}\left\{g_+\left(q^2\right)q^2h_1\left(q^2\right)\right\}`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{M_B}}\left\{g_+\left(q^2\right)R_V{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^{}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2/M_B^{}^2}}\right\}`$
$`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_BM_V}{m_bm_q}}\left\{g_+\left(q^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}g_{}\left(q^2\right)\right\}`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_BM_V}{m_bm_q}}\left\{g_+\left(q^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}\left(\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\left(q^2\right)+g_{}\left(q^2\right)|_{pole}\right)\right\}`$
$``$ $`g_+\left(q^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\left(q^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{R_A^S}{M_B^2M_V^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}`$
$`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{m_bm_q}}\left\{g_+\left(q^2\right)q^2h\left(q^2\right)\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_0\left(q^2\right)`$ (34)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{M_BM_V}}\left\{g_+\left(q^2\right)R_A^D{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_0\left(q^2\right)`$
The behaviour of $`g_+\left(q^2\right)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\left(q^2\right)`$ and $`A_0\left(q^2\right)`$ near $`q^20`$ is known from LEET

$`g_+\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{}\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)^2}}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\left(q^2\right)`$ (35)
$`A_0\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{M_BE_V}}\right)\xi _{}\left(q^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_V}{M_B}}\xi _{}\left(q^2\right)`$ (36)
$`A_0\left(0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2M_V^2}{M_B^2+M_V^2}}\xi _{}\left(0\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_V}{M_B}}\xi _{}\left(0\right)`$ (37)
$`E_V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{M_V^2}{M_B^2}}\right).`$ (38)
The pole terms in the relations (32), (33) and (34) are expected to dominate near $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$ or $`M_{B_A^{}}^2`$. Therefore, we cannot expect these relations, obtained from Ward identities, to hold for all $`q^2`$ for which we use the parametarization, suggested by above behavior, near $`q^2=0`$ and near the pole

$$F\left(q^2\right)=\frac{F\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M^2\right)\left(1q^2/M^2\right)},$$
(39)
where $`M^2`$ is $`M_B^{}^2`$ or $`M_{B_A^{}}^2`$ and $`M^{}`$ is the radial excitation of $`M`$. This parameterization takes into account potential corrections to single pole dominance, presumably arising from radial excitations of M , as suggested by dispersion relations  (a detailed discussion on this point one can find in ). It also takes care of off-mass-shell-ness of couplings of $`B^{}`$ or $`B_A^{}`$ with $`B\rho `$ channel  by replacing the pole contribution

$$\frac{R}{1q^2/M^2}with\frac{R\left(1M^2/M^2\right)}{\left(1q^2/M^2\right)\left(1q^2/M^2\right)}.$$
(40)
Since $`g_+\left(q^2\right)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\left(q^2\right)`$ do not have a pole at $`q^2=M_B^{}^2`$, we get

$$V\left(q^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_B^{}^2\right)|_{q^2=M_B^{}^2}=\frac{M_B+M_V}{M_B}R_V.$$

This becomes

$$R_V\frac{1}{2}g_{B^{}B\rho ^{}}f_T^B^{}=\frac{1}{2}g_{B^{}B\rho ^{}}f_B=\frac{g_+\left(0\right)}{1M_B^{}^2/M_B^{}^2}$$
(41)
Similarly, using parameterization (39) for the first term on the right hand side of Eq. (34),

$$R_A^D\frac{1}{2}f_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}f_T^{B_A^{}}=\frac{1}{2}f_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}\frac{M_BM_V}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}f_{B_A^{}}=\frac{g_+\left(0\right)}{1M_{B_A^{}}^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}$$
(42)
We cannot use the parameterization (39) for $`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ since near $`q^2=0`$, $`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ behaves as $`g_+\left(q^2\right)\left[1q^2/\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)\right]`$. This suggests the following

$$A_1\left(q^2\right)=\frac{g_+\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right)}\left(1\frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}\right)$$
(43)
so that, since $`g_+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}`$ do not have pole at $`q^2=M_{B_A^{}}^2`$,

$`A_1\left(q^2\right)\left[1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right]|_{q^2=M_{B_A^{}}^2}=g_+\left(0\right){\displaystyle \frac{1M_{B_A^{}}^2/\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)}{1M_{B_A^{}}^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{R_A^s}{M_B^2M_V^2}}M_{B_A^{}}^2=g_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_BM_V}{M_{B_A^{}}^2}}f_{B_A^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_B^2M_V^2}}`$ (44)
Most of the estimates of $`g_+\left(0\right)`$ suggest that

$$g_+\left(0\right)=0.29\pm 0.04\text{[11]}$$
(45)
For numerical work we shall use the $`B`$-meson masses given in Table 1. Thus we have the prediction from Eq. (41)

$$g_{B^{}B\rho ^{}}=\frac{2\left(1.26\pm 0.17\right)}{f_B}$$
(46)
This prediction \[$`f_B=180`$ MeV\] is consistant with its various estimates e.g. QCD sum rules give it $`\sqrt{2}\left(11\right)`$ GeV<sup>-1</sup> with $`g_{B^{}B\rho }=\sqrt{2}g_{B^{}B\rho ^0}`$ (where $`g_{B^{}B\rho ^0}`$ has been estimated in ) and the constituent quark model (CQM) predicts it to be

$$\sqrt{2}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{m_b}+\frac{1}{m_u}\right)\frac{M_\rho ^2}{f_\rho ^{}}\sqrt{2}\right\}\sqrt{2}\left(9.75\right)GeV^1.$$
(47)
The predictions (42) and (44) cannot be tested at present since we do not have any information on $`f_{B_A^{}}`$. However, the ratio of $`S`$-wave and $`D`$-wave couplings is predicted to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}}{f_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{B_A^{}}^2\left(M_B^2M_V^2\right)}{2}}`$
$`g_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`2.66\times f_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}GeV^2`$ (48)
The different values of $`F\left(0\right)`$’s are

$`V\left(0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{M_B}}g_+\left(0\right)`$ (49)
$`A_1\left(0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`g_+\left(0\right)`$ (50)
$`A_2\left(0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_B+M_V}{M_BM_V}}g_+\left(0\right){\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}A_0\left(0\right)`$ (51)
where $`g_+\left(0\right)`$ is given by (45). As far as $`A_0\left(0\right)`$ is concerned we can get some infor mation by writing

$`A_0\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0\left(q^2\right)+A_0\left(q^2\right)|_{pole}`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0\left(q^2\right)+R_0{\displaystyle \frac{q^2/M_B^2\left(1M_B^2/M_B^2\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)}}`$
Using the parameterization for $`A_0\left(q^2\right)`$ similar to (39) and the same argument as before \[cf. Eq. (41)\], we get

$`A_0\left(0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0\left(0\right)=R_0\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2}{M_B^2}}\right)`$ (53)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{BB\rho ^{}}}{M_\rho }}f_B\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M_B^2}{M_B^2}}\right)`$
Using the $`\rho `$-dominance

$$g_{BB\rho ^{}}=\frac{M_\rho ^2}{f_\rho ^{}}\frac{1}{F_\rho \left(0\right)}$$
(54)
so that

$$A_0\left(0\right)=f_B\frac{M_\rho }{f_\rho ^{}}\left(1\frac{M_B^2}{M_B^2}\right)\frac{1}{F_\rho \left(0\right)}$$
(55)
where $`F_\rho \left(0\right)`$ takes care off mass shell-ness of $`\rho `$-meson and is given by

$$F_\rho \left(0\right)=\left(\frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }f_\rho ^{}}{\sqrt{2}M_\rho ^2}\right)_{exp}^1=0.80,$$
(56)
where we have used

$$\left(\frac{g_{\rho \pi \pi }f_\rho ^{}}{\sqrt{2}M_\rho ^2}\right)_{exp}=1.22\pm 0.03.$$
(57)
Using $`f_B=180`$ MeV, $`f_\rho ^{}/M_\rho =198`$ MeV,

$$A_0\left(0\right)=0.26.$$
(58)
Although LEET does not give any relationship between $`\xi _{}\left(0\right)`$ and $`\xi _{}\left(0\right)`$ but due to some numerical coincidence in the LCSR expressions for $`\xi _{}`$ and $`\xi _{}`$

$$\xi _{}\left(0\right)\xi _{}\left(0\right)=g_+\left(0\right)$$
(59)
so that, from Eq. (37)

$$A_0\left(0\right)=1.10g_+\left(0\right)0.320\pm 0.044$$
(60)
consistent with the above estimate (58). Another estimate of $`A_0\left(0\right)`$ in light-cone sum rules (LCSR) approach is 0.372.

We summarise the form factors which we shall use for our numerical work \[$`M_V=M_\rho =0.770`$ GeV\]

$`V\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)}}`$ (61)
$`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_1\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right)}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2M_V^2}}\right)`$ (62)
$`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_2\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_{B_A^{}}^2\right)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M_V}{M_BM_V}}{\displaystyle \frac{A\left(0\right)}{\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)\left(1q^2/M_B^2\right)}}`$ (63)
where

| $`V\left(0\right)`$ | $`=`$ | $`0.332\pm 0.046,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`A_1\left(0\right)`$ | $`=`$ | $`0.29\pm 0.04,`$ |
| $`\stackrel{~}{A}_2\left(0\right)`$ | $`=`$ | $`0.389\pm 0.054`$. |

(64)
These form factors (1) are plotted in Fig. 1, where the comparison of the form factor vs. lattice data  and calculations within different approaches is given. Solid line–our result, dotted line–LCSR , dashed line–quark model , dash-dotted line–lattice constrained parametriation of .

## 6 Decay distribution

Four independent kinematical variables completely describe the semileptonic decay $`B\rho l\overline{\nu }`$, where the vector meson decays to two pseudoscalar mesons, $`\rho \pi \pi `$. The four variables commonly used are $`q^2=\left(pk\right)^2`$ and the three angles ($`\theta _l`$, $`\theta _\rho `$, and $`\chi `$). The angle $`\theta _l`$ is measured in the $`W^{}`$ (or $`l\overline{\nu }`$) rest frame, it is the polar angle between the charged lepton and the direction opposite to that of vector meson. The angle $`\theta _\rho `$ is measured in the rest frame of vector meson, where the pseudoscalar mesons are back to back, and it is the polar angle between one of these mesons. The angle $`\chi `$ is chosen to be azimuthal angle between the plane of flight of lepton and of pseudoscalar mesons.

The differential decay rate for $`B\rho l\nu `$, $`\rho \pi \pi `$ can be expressed in terms of these four variables $`q^2`$, $`\theta _l`$, $`\theta _\rho `$, and $`\chi `$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B\rho l\nu ,\rho \pi \pi \right)}{dq^2d\mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho d\mathrm{cos}\theta _ld\chi }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\left(4\pi \right)^4}}G_F^2\left|V_{ub}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\left|𝐤_\rho \right|q^2}{M_B^2}}\left(\rho \pi \pi \right)`$ (65)
$`\times \left\{(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _l)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho \right|H_+\left(q^2\right)|^2`$
$`+\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _l\right)^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho \left|H_{}\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\rho \left|H_0\left(q^2\right)\right|^2`$
$`4\mathrm{sin}\theta _l\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _l\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\chi H_+\left(q^2\right)H_0\left(q^2\right)`$
$`+4\mathrm{sin}\theta _l\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _l\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}\chi H_{}\left(q^2\right)H_0\left(q^2\right)`$
$`2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _l\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _\rho \mathrm{cos}2\chi H_+\left(q^2\right)H_{}\left(q^2\right)\}`$
where

$$\left|𝐤_\rho \right|=\sqrt{\frac{\left(M_B^2+M_\rho ^2q^2\right)^2}{4M_B^2}M_\rho ^2}$$
(66)
is the magnitude of three-momentum of $`\rho `$ in the rest frame of $`B`$ and is a function of $`q^2`$.

Bescause the parent meson has spin zero, the vector meson and the $`W^{}`$ must have the same helicity. The amplitudes for the helicities 0, +1, and –1 are proportional to $`H_0\left(q^2\right)`$, $`H_+\left(q^2\right)`$, and $`H_{}\left(q^2\right)`$. The detailed dynamics of the hadronic current are described by the variation of these helicity amplitudes with $`q^2`$. Equation (65) incorporates the $`VA`$ structure of the leptonic current, as well as the assumption that the mass of the charged lepton can be neglected.

The helicity amplitudes can in turn be related to the two axial form factors, $`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$ and $`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$, and the vector form factor $`V\left(q^2\right)`$, which appear in the hadronic current (2) and (1) respectively,

$$H_0\left(q^2\right)=\frac{1}{2M_\rho \sqrt{q^2}}\left[\left(M_B^2q^2M_\rho ^2\right)\left(M_B+M_\rho \right)A_1\left(q^2\right)\frac{4M_B^2\left|𝐤_\rho \right|^2}{M_B+M_\rho }A_2\left(q^2\right)\right]$$
(67)
and

$$H_\pm \left(q^2\right)=\left(M_B+M_\rho \right)A_1\left(q^2\right)\frac{2M_B\left|𝐤_\rho \right|}{M_B+M_\rho }V\left(q^2\right)$$
(68)
The form factors $`A_1\left(q^2\right)`$, $`A_2\left(q^2\right)`$, and $`V\left(q^2\right)`$ are dimensionless and relatively real, since CP is conserved in these decays and there are no final state strong interactions . We note that, while $`A_2`$ contributes only to $`H_0`$ and $`V`$ contributes only to $`H_\pm `$, $`A_1`$ contributes to all three helicity amplitudes. At high $`q^2`$ (small $`\left|𝐤_\rho \right|`$), each of the helicity amplitudes is dominated by $`A_1`$. At $`q^2=0`$, the over all factor of $`q^2`$ in (65) causes all the contributions to the decay rate to vanish except that from $`\left|H_0\left(q^2\right)\right|^2`$, since $`H_0`$ contains a factor of $`1/\sqrt{q^2}`$ and at $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2=\left(M_BM_\rho \right)^2`$, the over all factor of $`\left|𝐤_\rho \right|`$ vanishes, causing the rate to do likewise.

Integrating (65) over the angles $`\theta _\rho `$ and $`\chi `$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2dE_l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2\left|V_{ub}\right|^2}{128\pi ^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_B^2}}\left\{(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _l)^2\right|H_{}\left(q^2\right)|^2`$ (69)
$`+(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _l)^2|H_+\left(q^2\right)|^2+2(1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _l)|H_0\left(q^2\right)|^2\}`$
where $`\theta _l`$ is the polar angle between the $`\rho `$ and the lepton $`l`$ in the $`\left(l\overline{\nu }_l\right)`$ center of mass system, and

$$2M_B\left|𝐤_\rho \right|\mathrm{cos}\theta _l=M_B^2M_\rho ^2+q^24M_BE_l.$$
(70)
The $`E_l`$ (or $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _l`$) integration of Eq. (69) can be done trivially and results in the differential $`q^2`$-distribution

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dq^2}=\frac{G_F^2\left|V_{ub}\right|^2}{96\pi ^3}\left|𝐤_\rho \right|\frac{q^2}{M_B^2}\left(\rho \pi \pi \right)\left\{\left|H_{}\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+\left|H_+\left(q^2\right)\right|^2+\left|H_0\left(q^2\right)\right|^2\right\}$$
(71)
By numerically integrating Eq. (69) over lepton energy $`E_l`$ in the interval $`0E_l2.6`$ and over $`q^2`$ in the interval

$$0q^22E_l\left(\frac{M_B^2M_\rho ^22M_BE_l}{M_B2E_l}\right),$$

the width of $`B\rho l\nu `$ turns out to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B\rho l\nu \right)=15.82\pm 2.18\left|V_{ub}\right|^2ps^1,$$
(72)
where we have used the form factors given in Eqs. (1).

The branching ratio of $`B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu `$ is measured by CLEO collaboration , $`_{expt}(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu )=\left(2.57\pm 0.29_{0.46}^{+0.33}\pm 0.41\right)\times 10^4`$, where the errors are statistical, systematic, and theoretical. The CKM matrix element $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ can be obtained from the branching ratio $`_{expt}\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)`$ using

$`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{_{expt}\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{thy}\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)\tau _{B^0}}}}`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`3.24\times 10^3.`$
We use $`\tau _{B^0}=1.548\pm 0.032`$ ps . Recently, the BaBar Collaboration  predicted the branching ratio $`_{expt}(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu )=\left(3.29\pm 0.42\pm 0.47\pm 0.60\right)\times 10^4`$ and $`\left|V_{ub}\right|=\left(3.64\pm 0.22\pm 0.25_{0.56}^{+0.39}\right)\times 10^3`$, where the uncertainities are statistical, systematic, and theoretical respectively. By using the branching ratio predicted by BaBar, and decay width (72), we obtain

$$\left|V_{ub}\right|=3.67\times 10^3.$$
(74)
Another recent study by CLEO , gave the branching ratio $`\left(B^0\rho ^{}l^+\nu \right)=(2.17\pm 0.34_{0.54}^{+0.47}\pm 0.41\pm 0.01)\times 10^4`$, $`\left|V_{ub}\right|=(3.00\pm 0.21_{0.35}^{+0.29}{}_{0.38}{}^{+0.49}\pm 0.28)\times 10^3`$, where the errors in CLEO analyses are statistical, experimental systematic, theoretical systematicbased on lattice QCD and LCSR uncertainities, and $`\rho l\nu `$ form factor shape uncertainity, respectively. By using this branching ratio given by CLEO , we obtain

$$\left|V_{ub}\right|=2.98\times 10^3.$$

In this study of $`B\rho l\nu `$ decay, there is only one free parameter i.e. $`g_+\left(0\right)`$, and we have used the value of this predicted by a LCSR calculation  given in Eq. (45). The error appear in our calculation from this parameter. The error shown in our result of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B\rho l\nu \right)`$ in (72) is only 13.8%.

## 7 Numerical Analyses and Discussions

The values of the helicity amplitudes and form factors at $`q^2=0`$ and $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ are given in Tables 2, 3, and 4. The variation of form factors at $`q^2=0`$ and $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$ is shown in Table 4. None of the helicity amplitudes changes sign over the entire physical range of $`q^2`$ as shown in Fig. 2. Although $`H_+`$ and $`H_0`$ both get contributions from two form factors which enters with opposite signs. The sqaure of the helicity amplitudes is plotted in Fig. 3.

First, $`H_{}`$ is generally dominent over $`H_+`$, while the condition $`H_{}=H_+`$ is forced by kinematics at $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$; these two amplitudes go their own way and differ by more than a factor of 12.7 at $`q^2=0`$, a comparison over this point is given in Table 2.

Again kinematics forces $`H_0=H_{}=H_+`$ at $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$, but the amplitudes soon separate so that in the region near $`q^2=0`$ the amplitude $`H_0`$, which contain a factor of $`1/\sqrt{q^2}`$, very much dominates the others. This feature is independent of modest changes in the form factors.

We have used vector–current form factor pole at 5.33 GeV and axial–vector current form factor pole at 5.71 GeV. Note that the poles are very close to the edge of physical region. This means that on the one hand, they should indeed dominate the behavior of the form factors near $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$. The change in the $`q^2`$ range in different form factors give quite distinct results as shown in Table 4.

The $`H_+`$ $`\left(H_{}\right)`$ helicity amplitudes gets destructive (constructive) contributions from the $`A_1`$ and $`V`$ form factors. The near zero behavior in $`H_+`$ arises, since $`V`$ with its coefficient $`2M_B\left|𝐤_\rho \right|/\left(M_B+M_\rho \right)`$ in Eq. (68) causes its contribution to this halicity amplitude to quickly catch up to that of $`A_1`$ as we move away from $`q^2=q_{\mathrm{max}}^2`$. Of course this increases $`H_{}`$ correspondingly, according to Eq. (68).

A similar situation pertains to the helicity amplitude $`H_0`$, where $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ destructively interfere, as shown in Eq. (67). This pulls the whole longitudnal portion of the decay rate $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\right)`$ down and it is far smaller than the transverse one $`\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_T=\mathrm{\Gamma }_++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\right)`$, see Table 5. This agrees with the observations of Gilman and Singleton , and Körner and Schuler  (as shown in Eq. (19) of Ref. ) but contradicts the recent observation of Ali and Safir  in the LEET approach.

As an exercise, we check the relation among the form factors which holds true in large energy limit (LEL) (for a recent discussion see Refs. ), namely

$$\frac{A_1\left(q^2\right)}{V\left(q^2\right)}=\frac{2E_VM_B}{\left(M_B+M_V\right)^2}=\frac{M_B^2+M_V^2q^2}{\left(M_B+M_V\right)^2}.$$
(75)
In Fig. 4, we plot the ratio of $`B\rho `$ form factors $`A_1\left(q^2\right)/V\left(q^2\right)`$ and compare them with the LEL  Eq. (75) (dashed line), with the result of Ref.  (dotted line) and the lattice results , whereas the solid line is the result of this calculation. The knowledge of this ratio has important consequences: on the one hand, its measurment at $`q^2=0`$ will provide a test of various approaches; on the other hand it provides the ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ of the width to helicity eigenstates $`\lambda =\pm 1`$. In Table 6, the values of the $`V/A_1`$ at different $`q^2`$ is given and compared with HQET–LEET  approach and with recent Lattice data . Also ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ is given in Table 6.

## 8 Conclusions

We have studied $`B\rho l\nu _l`$ decay by using Ward Identities. The form factors have been calculated and found that their normalization is essentially determined by a single constant $`g_+\left(0\right)`$. Then we use a parametrazation \[Eq. (39)\] which take into account potential corrections to single pole dominance arising from radial excitations of $`M`$ (where $`M=M_B^{}`$ or $`M_{B_A^{}}`$), as suggested by dispersion relations . This also takes care of off mass shell–ness of couplings $`B^{}`$ or $`B_A^{}`$ with $`B\rho `$ channel  as indicated in Eq. (40). We took the value of $`g_+\left(0\right)=0.29\pm 0.04`$ from a recent LCSR calculations . And predict the value of $`g_{B^{}B\rho }=2\left(1.26\pm 0.17\right)/f_B`$ GeV<sup>-1</sup> \[cf. Eq. (46)\], which agrees very well with CQM calculation (47) and the value obtained by QCD sum rules $`\left[\sqrt{2}\left(11\right)GeV^1\right]`$. Also, we have predicted a relation between $`S`$-wave and $`D`$-wave couplings $`g_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}=2.66\times f_{B_A^{}B\rho ^{}}`$ GeV<sup>2</sup> given in Eq. (48). The estimate for $`A_0\left(0\right)0.320\pm 0.044`$ is consistant with the value given in Eq. (58) and with the LCSR value 0.372 . We summarize the form factors in Eq. (1) and their values at $`q^2=0`$ in Eq. (64).

A detailed analysis of form factors and helicity amplitudes is presented. Total decay rate is obtained which is $`15.82`$ $`\left|V_{ub}\right|^2`$ ps<sup>-1</sup> \[cf. Eq. 72\], which results in predicting the CKM matrix element $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$

$$\left|V_{ub}\right|=3.24\times 10^3$$

by using CLEO branching ratio result , and

$$\left|V_{ub}\right|=3.67\times 10^3$$

by using BaBar branching ratio result . While using the branching ratio of recent study of CLEO , we obtain the value of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$

$$\left|V_{ub}\right|=2.98\times 10^3.$$

Our results of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ agree very well with the respective results of $`\left|V_{ub}\right|`$ of CLEO , and the recent results of BaBar , and CLEO . The error shown in our result of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(B\rho l\nu \right)`$ in (72) is only 13.8%.

## Appendix A Derivation of Ward Identities

We start with the relation

$$V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)e^{i\left(pk\right)x}=V(k,ϵ)\left|_\nu \left(\overline{u}\left(x\right)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5b\left(x\right)\right)\right|B\left(p\right)$$
(76)
We can replace $`_\nu `$ by the covariant derivative $`D_\nu `$ to take into account the strong interaction of the the quark field. We can write the right hand side of Eq. (76) as

$$V(k,ϵ)\left|D_\nu \overline{u}\left(x\right)\left[i\gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu +ig^{\mu \nu }\right]\gamma _5b\left(x\right)\right|B\left(p\right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\left[i\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu ig^{\mu \nu }\right]\gamma _5D_\nu b\left(x\right)\right|B\left(p\right)$$
(77)
Using Dirac equation

$$\mathit{}b\left(x\right)=im_bb\left(x\right),\overline{u}\left(x\right)\mathit{}=im_u\overline{u}\left(x\right)$$
(78)
the relation (77) becomes

$`\left(m_bm_u\right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b\left(x\right)\right|B\left(p\right)`$ (79)
$`iV(k,ϵ)\left|D^\mu \overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _5b\left(x\right)\right|B\left(p\right)`$
$`+iV(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _5D^\mu b\left(x\right)\right|B\left(p\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(m_bm_u\right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)e^{iqx}`$
$`iV(k,ϵ)\left|D^\mu \left(\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _5b\left(x\right)\right)\right|B\left(p\right)`$
$`+2iV(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\left(x\right)\gamma _5D^\mu b\left(x\right)\right|B\left(p\right)`$
Using now the linear momentum commutation relation

$$[\widehat{P}^\mu ,O\left(x\right)]=iD^\mu O\left(x\right),\widehat{P}_q^\mu =d^3x:q^{}\left(x\right)D^\mu q\left(x\right):$$

and

$`V(k,ϵ)|\widehat{P}^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`k^\mu V(k,ϵ)|`$
$`\widehat{P}^\mu |B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`p^\mu |B\left(p\right),`$ (80)
the last two terms in Eq. (79) become

$$q^\mu V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)e^{iqx}+2V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\gamma _5bp_b^\mu \right|B\left(p\right)e^{iqx}$$
(81)
where in the last term we have used that $`P_b^\mu |V(k,ϵ)=0`$ as $`V(k,ϵ)`$ does not contain the quark $`b`$. In the heavy quark effective theory $`m_b`$ is taken to infinity in a way that $`p_b^\mu /m`$ is held fixed, but the four momentum of the light degree of freedom are neglected compared with $`m_b`$ . This enables us to identify $`p_b^\mu `$ with $`p^\mu `$. Hence from Eqs. (76), (79) and (81), we obtain the Ward identity \[Eq. (7)\] $`\left[2pq=pk\right]`$

$`V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_bm_u\right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$
$`+\left(p^\mu +k^\mu \right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\gamma _5b\right|B\left(p\right)`$
Similarly,

$`V(k,ϵ)\left|i\overline{u}\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(m_bm_u\right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}\gamma ^\mu b\right|B\left(p\right)`$
$`+\left(p^\mu +k^\mu \right)V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}b\right|B\left(p\right)`$
However, the matrix element $`V(k,ϵ)\left|\overline{u}b\right|B\left(p\right)`$ vanishes due to parity consideration. Thus, we obtain the Ward Identity (6) given in the text.

Acknowledgements: Two of us (R and A) would like to acknowledge the support of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. The work of G and R was supported by Pakistan Council for Science and Technology. One of us (G) like to thank Professor Fayyazuddin for many helpful discussions over the subject. (G) also thanks M.H. Nasim, Zahoor Ahmad, and M. Shafiq for their ever ready help at different stages of work.

## Appendix B Figure Captions

1. Comparison of the form factor vs. lattice data  and calculations within different approaches is given. Solid line–our result, dotted line–LCSR , dashed line–quark model , dash-dotted line–lattice constrained parametriation of .
2. Comparison of Helicity amplitudes vs calculations within different approaches is given. Line description is as in Fig. 1.
3. $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/dq^2`$ distribution for each of the three terms in Eq. (71): (a) the terms proportional to $`\left|H_{}\right|^2`$ and $`\left|H_+\right|^2`$, (b) the terms proportional to $`\left|H_0\right|^2`$. Line description is as in Fig. 1.
4. Ratio of $`B\rho `$ form factors, $`A_1\left(q^2\right)/V\left(q^2\right)`$, are plotted with lattice data points . The solid line is our result. The dashed line is the LEET prediction  and the dotted line is the prediction of .


format: text

text:
# Possible Observation of Nuclear Reactor Neutrinos Near the Oscillation Absolute Minimum. 24 April 2003

## 1 Introduction

In this note we would like to investigate a possible way to observe the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations near the absolute minimum of the survival probability $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)`$. If one uses the $`\nu _e`$ oscillation parameters deduced from a global analysis of the SNO solar neutrino events  combined with the reactor antineutrino events observed with the KamLAND detector , then the absolute minimum of $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)0.2`$ is reached for a reactor-detector distance $`70km`$. In comparison, the average distance $`180km`$ in the KamLAND experiment leads to a survival probability $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)0.6`$.

## 2 Basic Neutrino Oscillation Formalism

The neutrino oscillations are described  by the energy eigenstate $`|\nu _{\mathrm{}}Ez`$ associated with neutrinos propagating along the z axis and satisfying the boundary condition : $`|\nu _{\mathrm{}}EEz=0=|\nu _{\mathrm{}}E`$, where $`|\nu _{\mathrm{}}E`$ is the neutrino state emitted at $`z=0`$ by the charged lepton $`\mathrm{}`$ with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu ,\tau `$. The state $`|\nu _{\mathrm{}}Ez`$ is then written as a superposition of the mass matrix eigenstates $`|\nu _iE`$ relative to the mass $`m_i`$ :

$$|\nu _{\mathrm{}}Ez=\underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}|\nu _iE\mathrm{exp}(ip_{iz}z)U_{\mathrm{},i}^{}$$
(1)
where $`p_{iz}Em_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2E)`$ and $`U`$ the $`3\times 3`$ mixing matrix, which is usually written as follows :

$$U=U_1U_2U_3$$
(2)
$$U_3=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{12})& \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{12})\hfill & 0& \\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{12})& \mathrm{cos}(\theta _{12})\hfill & 0& \\ 0& 0\hfill & 1& \end{array}\right)$$
(3)
$$U_1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0\hfill & 0& \\ 0& \mathrm{cos}(\theta _{23})\hfill & \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{23})& \\ 0& \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{23})\hfill & \mathrm{cos}(\theta _{23})& \end{array}\right)$$
(4)
$$U_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta _{13})& 0\hfill & \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{13})& \\ 0& 1\hfill & 0& \\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{13})& 0\hfill & \mathrm{cos}(\theta _{13})& \end{array}\right)$$
(5)
( Note we have ignored, for the moment, the possibility of CP violation.) In the particular case of two neutrino oscillations, it is of interest to note the correspondence with the propagation of photons with energy E in a birefringent medium where the indices associated to the linear polarizations taken along the two optical axes are given by: $`n_i1m_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2E^2)(i=1,2)`$. The polarization eigenstates correspond to the mass matrix eigenstates $`|\nu _i`$. It is of convenience to introduce the oscillation length $`L_{osc}`$ which is defined as:

$$L_{osc}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)=\frac{4\mathrm{}cE}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}$$
(6)
Assuming no CP violation, the antineutrino survival probability at distance $`L`$ from the detector $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,L)=\nu _{\mathrm{}}EL|\nu _{\mathrm{}}E\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ can be written under the form:

$`P(3\nu |\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,E,L)`$ $`=`$ $`14\left(\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _{12})\mathrm{cos}^4(\theta _{13})\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{osc}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }_{12})}})\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{12})\right)`$ (7)
$`4\left(\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _{12})\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _{13})\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{osc}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }_{13})}})\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{13})\right)`$
$`4(\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _{13})\mathrm{sin}^2({\displaystyle \frac{L}{L_{osc}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }_{23})}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{13}))`$
In the above expression $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i_1i_2}`$ stands for the mass square difference $`m_{i_2}^2m_{i_1}^2`$.

Fogli et al  and Bahcall et al   have performed global analysis which combines the solar neutrino SNO  experimental results  with the reactor antineutrino events observed in the KamLAND  liquid scintillator detector, using essentially the survival probability given in eq. (7). We quote here the ”summary” of the current $`3\nu `$ situation, as given by Fogli et al  :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`(7.3\pm 0.8)\times 10^5eV^2`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{12})`$ $`=`$ $`0.315\pm 0.035`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{13})`$ $``$ $`0.017`$ (8)
The quoted errors correspond to one standard deviation. It should be said that a similar bound upon $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{13})`$ has been obtained by combining the results from the Chooz reactor experiment  with those from the atmospheric neutrino SK observations .

Fogli et al  have also analysed recently the atmospheric neutrinos SK  $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ flavor transition in combination with the preliminary results of the K2K  accelerator neutrino experiment . They arrive to the following determination of the relevant oscillation parameters:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}=(2.6\pm 0.4)\times 10^3eV^2;\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{23})=1.00_{0.05}^{+0.00}$$
(9)
It is easy to verify that with the above values of the oscillation parameters the survival probability $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)`$ can be replaced, up to corrections $`3\%`$, by the following two neutrino approximation:

$$P(2\nu |\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,E,L)=14\left(\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{L}{L_{osc}(E,\mathrm{\Delta }_{12})})\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{12})\right)$$
(10)
## 3 Survival Probability for Rhône Reactor Neutrinos with a Detector Located under the Mont Ventoux

We would like now to compute the probability $`P_D(E,L)dE`$ of an antineutrino to be observed at a distance $`L`$ from the nuclear reactor and having its energy in the range $`E,E+dE`$. The detector is assumed to be of the liquid scintillator type, as in the Chooz  and the KamLAND  experiments. $`P_D(E,L)`$ is given as the product of three factors. The first factor is the survival probability $`P(2\nu |\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,E,L)`$. The second one is the energy spectrum $`S_\nu (E)`$ of the antineutrino emitted by the reactor, obtained by combining with appropriate weights the spectra associated with the various $`\beta ^{}`$ decays involved in the the fission process. The third term is the cross section $`\sigma _\nu (E)`$ for the inverse $`\beta `$ decay reaction: $`\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n`$. The physical quantity measured in the detector is the prompt energy $`E_{pr}`$ resulting from the annihilation of the positron with the electrons of the liquid scintillator:

$$E_{pr}=E_{e^+}+m_ec^2=E_{\overline{\nu }_e}(m_nm_p)c^2+T_n+m_ec^2$$
(11)
where $`T_n`$ is the kinetic energy of the recoiling neutron which can be neglected in our approximate treatment. The antineutrino energy $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ is then given by $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}E_{pr}+0.78MeV`$. We have deduced the detection probability in the absence of oscillations: $`P_D(E,0)=P_{pr}(E0.78MeV)S_\nu (E)\sigma _\nu (E)`$, from the ”expected” prompt energy spectrum $`P_{pr}(E_{pr})`$ given in the KamLAMD paper . We have kept the same cut $`E_{pr}2.26MeV`$, introduced in order to eliminate the events associated with the ”geoantineutrinos”. In our computation, the log. of the neutrino spectrum, has been approximated by a polynomial fit: $`\mathrm{log}(P_D(E,0))=2.982+1.141E0.1611E^2`$ with $`P_D(E,0)`$ normalized to unity in the interval $`3.38MeVE8MeV`$. The energy-average survival probability is then obtained by a simple numerical quadrature:

$$P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,L)=𝑑EP(2\nu |\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,E,L)P_D(E,0)$$
(12)
The curve $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,L)`$ versus $`L`$ is plotted in Figure 1. The parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _{13})`$ used in the computation have the central values given in eq. (8) and (9).

|  | Distance to detector | Average Electric Power |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Bugey | 181 km | 2.66 GW |
| Saint Alban | 145 km | 1.92 GW |
| Cruas | 73 km | 2.84 GW |
| Tricastin | 59 km | 2.59 GW |

Table 1. Nuclear power plants in operation along the Rhône River with their distance to a detector supposed to be installed in the Mont Ventoux cavity and their average electric power.

In each of two easily accessible sites, located in the Vaucluse Department, there exists an identical network of $`3km`$ subterranean galleries, which were bored for the French Ministry of Defense. They are no longer used for military purposes. They both contain the same cavity with concrete inner $`2.1m`$ thick walls. The inside volume has the form of a cylinder with a $`8m`$ diameter, terminated by the two hemispherical end-caps. The total length of the cavity is $`28m`$. The limestone $`500m`$ vertical depth is equivalent to $`1500m`$ of water. The first site, accessible from the Rustrel village, is occupied by the LSBB laboratory ( Le Laboratoire Souterrain Bas Bruit; www.lsbb.univ-avignon.fr ) The second site is located near the Reilhanette village in the Mont Ventoux foothills. It is presently unoccupied. Most of the equipments necessary to run a laboratory have been removed and the gallery entrance is closed by a concrete wall. So a non negligible initial investment would be necessary if one wishes to install a neutrino detector in this cavity.

In the following, we shall assume that an antineutrino detector has been built in the Mont Ventoux cavity. The distances $`d_i(1i4)`$ from the Rhône valley four power plants are given in Table 1. The big points appearing on the curve in Figure 1. correspond to the survival probabilities $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,d_i)`$. We see clearly that the two closest reactors ( Tricastin and Cruas ) will allow the study of $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,L)`$ near the oscillation absolute minimum, a region which has not be explored by the previous reactor experiments. Is is also instructive to compute the survival probability averaged over the four nuclear power plants. We shall assume that the corresponding antineutrino flux is proportional to the average electric power $`W_i`$ delivered by each power plant, as given in Table 1.. We get in this way :

$$P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=\underset{1}{\overset{4}{}}W_id_i^2P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e,d_i)/(\underset{1}{\overset{4}{}}W_id_i^2)=0.3142$$
(13)
We see that adding the contributions of the two far away power plants leads to an average distance which is still in the vicinity of the absolute minimum.

## 4 Counting Rate Estimate

We would like to end this note by giving a rough estimate of the number of neutrino events per day, assuming that the liquid scintillator is contained in an horizontal cylinder having a $`6m`$ diameter terminated by two hemispheric end-caps.The total length is taken to be equal to be $`22m`$. The volume occupied by the liquid scintillator is then $`V_{Re}=565m^3`$. It is about one hundred times larger than the corresponding volume in the Chooz experiment  $`V_{Ch}=5.55m^3`$. ( Some experimenters will probably find that I am overoptimistic !) We use here the electric power instead of the thermal power so that the average signal given in the Chooz paper  eq.( 46) should read $`X_{Ch}=7.56`$ counts per day per GW . We are going to assume the Mont Ventoux detector to have the same efficiency as the Chooz one; this implies that the counting rate is proportional to the liquid scintillator volume. For a given reactor, the antineutrino flux, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$ is given, up to a factor assumed to be the same for all the French nuclear reactors, by the ratio of the electric power $`W_i`$ to the square of the distance $`d_i^2`$. The total flux is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e,Re}=_1^4W_id_i^2=0.0145GWkm^2`$. The antineutrino flux leading to the counting rate $`X_{Ch}`$ is equal to one if one uses the same units and remembers that the distance form the reactor is $`1km`$. The number of neutrino events per day $`X_{Re}`$ in the absence of oscillations is then given by :

$$X_{Re}=X_{Ch}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\nu }_e,Re}(V_{Re}/V_{Ch})=1.17d^1$$
(14)
Our computation predicts ( see eq.(13)) a counting rate about 3 times lower.

We are grateful to Georges Waysand for a very instructive conversation about the LSSB laboratory and for providing informations about the Reilhanette unoccupied cavity. We thank John Iliopoulos for his interest and encouragement.