text:
# Contents

## Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION

M. Battaglia, A.J. Buras, J. Flynn, R. Forty, P. Gambino, P. Kluit, P. Roudeau, O. Schneider, A. Stocchi

### 1.1 Setting the scene

The understanding of flavour dynamics, and of the related origin of quark and lepton masses and mixings, is among the most important goals in elementary particle physics. In this context, weak decays of hadrons, and in particular the CP violating and rare decay processes, play an important role as they are sensitive to short distance phenomena. Therefore the determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix  that parametrizes the weak charged current interactions of quarks is currently a central theme in particle physics. Indeed, the four parameters of this matrix govern all flavour changing transitions involving quarks in the Standard Model (SM). These include tree level decays mediated by W bosons, which are essentially unaffected by new physics contributions, as well as a vast number of one-loop induced flavour changing neutral current (FCNC) transitions responsible for rare and CP violating decays in the SM, which involve gluons, photons, W±, Z0 and H0, and are sensitive probes of new physics. This role of the CKM matrix is preserved in most extensions of the SM, even if they contain new sources of flavour and CP violation.

An important goal is then to find out whether the SM is able to describe the flavour and CP violation observed in nature. All the existing data on weak decays of hadrons, including rare and CP violating decays, can at present be described by the SM within the theoretical and experimental uncertainties. On the other hand, the SM is an incomplete theory: some kind of new physics is required in order to understand the patterns of quark and lepton masses and mixings, and generally to understand flavour dynamics. There are also strong theoretical arguments suggesting that new physics cannot be far from the electroweak scale, and new sources of flavour and CP violation appear in most extensions of the SM, such as supersymmetry. Consequently, for several reasons, it is likely that the CKM picture of flavour physics is modified at accessible energy scales. In addition, the studies of dynamical generation of the baryon asymmetry in the universe show that the size of CP violation in the SM is too small to generate a matter-antimatter asymmetry as large as that observed in the universe today. Whether the physics responsible for the baryon asymmetry involves only very short distance scales like the GUT or the Planck scales, or it is related to CP violation observed in experiments performed by humans, is an important question that still has to be answered.

To shed light on these questions the CKM matrix has to be determined with high accuracy and well understood errors. Tests of its structure, conveniently represented by the unitarity triangle, have to be performed; they will allow a precision determination of the SM contributions to various observables and possibly reveal the onset of new physics contributions.

The major theoretical problem in this program is the presence of strong interactions. Although the gluonic contributions at scales $`𝒪(M_\mathrm{W},M_\mathrm{Z},m_\mathrm{t})`$ can be calculated within the perturbative framework, owing to the smallness of the effective QCD coupling at short distances, the fact that hadrons are bound states of quarks and antiquarks forces us to consider QCD at long distances as well. Here we have to rely on the existing non-perturbative methods, which are not yet fully satisfactory. On the experimental side, the basic problem in extracting CKM parameters from the relevant rare and CP violating transitions is the smallness of the branching ratios, which are often very difficult to measure. As always in the presence of large theoretical and systematic uncertainties, their treatment in the context of global fits is a problematic and divisive issue.

In the last decade considerable progress in the determination of the unitarity triangle and the CKM matrix has been achieved through more accurate experiments, short distance higher order QCD calculations, novel theoretical methods like Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE), and progress in non-perturbative methods such as lattice gauge simulation and QCD sum rules. It is the purpose of these proceedings to summarize the present status of these efforts, to identify the most important remaining challenges, and to offer an outlook for the future.

While many decays used in the determination of the CKM matrix are subject to significant hadronic uncertainties, there are a handful of quantities that allow the determination of the CKM parameters with reduced or no hadronic uncertainty. The prime examples are the CP asymmetry $`a_{\psi K_S}`$, certain strategies in B decays relevant for the angle $`\gamma `$ in the unitarity triangle, the branching ratios for $`\mathrm{K}^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{L}\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$, and suitable ratios of the branching ratios for rare decays $`\mathrm{B}_{d,s}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{B}X_{d,s}\nu \overline{\nu }`$ relevant for the determination of $`|V_{td}|/|V_{ts}|`$. Also the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_d/\mathrm{\Delta }M_s`$ is important in this respect.

The year 2001 opened a new era of theoretically clean measurements of the CKM matrix through the discovery of CP violation in the B system $`(a_{\psi K_S}0)`$ and further evidence for the decay $`\mathrm{K}^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu }`$. In 2002 the measurement of the angle $`\beta `$ in the unitarity triangle by means of $`a_{\psi K_S}`$ has been considerably improved. It is an exciting prospect that new data on CP violation and rare decays as well as $`\mathrm{B}_s^0\overline{\mathrm{B}}_s^0`$ mixing coming from a number of laboratories in Europe, USA and Japan will further improve the determination of the CKM matrix, possibly modifying the SM description of flavour physics.

Recently, there have been several workshops on B physics  that concentrated on studies at $`e^+e^{}`$ machines, at the Tevatron or at LHC, separately. Here we focus instead on the discussion of the CKM matrix and its determination from all available data at different machines.

### 1.2 CKM matrix and the Unitarity Triangle

#### 1.2.1 General remarks

The unitary CKM matrix  connects the weak eigenstates $`(d^{},s^{},b^{})`$ and the corresponding mass eigenstates $`d,s,b`$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}d^{}\\ s^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right)\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{CKM}}\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Several parametrizations of the CKM matrix have been proposed in the literature; they are classified in . We will use two in these proceedings: the standard parametrization  recommended by the Particle Data Group  and a generalization of the Wolfenstein parametrization  as presented in .

#### 1.2.2 Standard parametrization

With $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ ($`i,j=1,2,3`$), the standard parametrization is given by:

$$\widehat{V}_{\mathrm{CKM}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{12}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`\delta `$ is the phase necessary for CP violation. $`c_{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}`$ can all be chosen to be positive and $`\delta `$ may vary in the range $`0\delta 2\pi `$. However, measurements of CP violation in $`K`$ decays force $`\delta `$ to be in the range $`0<\delta <\pi `$.

From phenomenological studies we know that $`s_{13}`$ and $`s_{23}`$ are small numbers: $`𝒪(10^3)`$ and $`𝒪(10^2)`$, respectively. Consequently to an excellent accuracy the four independent parameters can be chosen as

$$s_{12}=|V_{us}|,s_{13}=|V_{ub}|,s_{23}=|V_{cb}|\mathrm{and}\delta .$$
(3)
As discussed in detail in Chapters 2 and 3, the first three parameters can be extracted from tree level decays mediated by the transitions $`su`$, $`bu`$ and $`bc`$, respectively. The phase $`\delta `$ can be extracted from CP violating transitions or loop processes sensitive to $`|V_{td}|`$. We will analyse this in detail in Chapters 4–6.

#### 1.2.3 Wolfenstein parametrization and its generalization

The absolute values of the elements of the CKM matrix show a hierarchical pattern with the diagonal elements being close to unity, the elements $`|V_{us}|`$ and $`|V_{cd}|`$ being of order $`0.2`$, the elements $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{ts}|`$ of order $`410^2`$ whereas $`|V_{ub}|`$ and $`|V_{td}|`$ are of order $`510^3`$. The Wolfenstein parametrization  exhibits this hierarchy in a transparent manner. It is an approximate parametrization of the CKM matrix in which each element is expanded as a power series in the small parameter $`\lambda =|V_{us}|0.22`$,

$$\widehat{V}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\varrho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\varrho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)+𝒪(\lambda ^4),$$
(4)
and the set (3) is replaced by

$$\lambda ,A,\varrho ,\mathrm{and}\eta .$$
(5)
Because of the smallness of $`\lambda `$ and the fact that for each element the expansion parameter is actually $`\lambda ^2`$, it is sufficient to keep only the first few terms in this expansion.

The Wolfenstein parametrization is certainly more transparent than the standard parametrization. However, if one requires sufficient level of accuracy, the terms of $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ and $`𝒪(\lambda ^5)`$ have to be included in phenomenological applications. This can be done in many ways . The point is that since (4) is only an approximation the exact definition of the parameters in (5) is not unique in terms of the neglected order $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$. This situation is familiar from any perturbative expansion, where different definitions of expansion parameters (coupling constants) are possible. This is also the reason why in different papers in the literature different $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ terms in (4) can be found. They simply correspond to different definitions of the parameters in (5). Since the physics does not depend on a particular definition, it is useful to make a choice for which the transparency of the original Wolfenstein parametrization is not lost.

In this respect a useful definition adopted by most authors in the literature is to go back to the standard parametrization (2) and to define the parameters $`(\lambda ,A,\varrho ,\eta )`$ through

$$s_{12}=\lambda ,s_{23}=A\lambda ^2,s_{13}e^{i\delta }=A\lambda ^3(\varrho i\eta )$$
(6)
to all orders in $`\lambda `$. It follows that

$$\varrho =\frac{s_{13}}{s_{12}s_{23}}\mathrm{cos}\delta ,\eta =\frac{s_{13}}{s_{12}s_{23}}\mathrm{sin}\delta .$$
(7)
The expressions (6) and (7) represent simply the change of variables from (3) to (5). Making this change of variables in the standard parametrization (2) we find the CKM matrix as a function of $`(\lambda ,A,\varrho ,\eta )`$ which satisfies unitarity exactly. Expanding next each element in powers of $`\lambda `$ we recover the matrix in (4) and in addition find explicit corrections of $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ and higher order terms. Including $`𝒪(\lambda ^4)`$ and $`𝒪(\lambda ^5)`$ terms we find

$$\widehat{V}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4& \lambda +𝒪(\lambda ^7)& A\lambda ^3(\varrho i\eta )\\ \lambda +\frac{1}{2}A^2\lambda ^5[12(\varrho +i\eta )]& 1\frac{1}{2}\lambda ^2\frac{1}{8}\lambda ^4(1+4A^2)& A\lambda ^2+𝒪(\lambda ^8)\\ A\lambda ^3(1\overline{\varrho }i\overline{\eta })& A\lambda ^2+\frac{1}{2}A\lambda ^4[12(\varrho +i\eta )]& 1\frac{1}{2}A^2\lambda ^4\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
where

$$\overline{\varrho }=\varrho (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}),\overline{\eta }=\eta (1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}).$$
(9)
We emphasize that by definition the expression for $`V_{ub}`$ remains unchanged relative to the original Wolfenstein parametrization and the corrections to $`V_{us}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ appear only at $`𝒪(\lambda ^7)`$ and $`𝒪(\lambda ^8)`$, respectively. The advantage of this generalization of the Wolfenstein parametrization over other generalizations found in the literature is the absence of relevant corrections to $`V_{us}`$, $`V_{cd}`$, $`V_{ub}`$ and $`V_{cb}`$ and an elegant change in $`V_{td}`$ which allows a simple generalization of the so-called unitarity triangle to higher orders in $`\lambda `$  as discussed below.

#### 1.2.4 Unitarity Triangle

The unitarity of the CKM-matrix implies various relations between its elements. In particular, we have

$$V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}+V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}+V_{td}V_{tb}^{}=0.$$
(10)
Phenomenologically this relation is very interesting as it involves simultaneously the elements $`V_{ub}`$, $`V_{cb}`$ and $`V_{td}`$ which are under extensive discussion at present. Other relevant unitarity relations will be presented as we proceed.

The relation (10) can be represented as a unitarity triangle in the complex $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane. The invariance of (10) under any phase-transformations implies that the corresponding triangle is rotated in the $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane under such transformations. Since the angles and the sides (given by the moduli of the elements of the mixing matrix) in this triangle remain unchanged, they are phase convention independent and are physical observables. Consequently they can be measured directly in suitable experiments. One can construct five additional unitarity triangles  corresponding to other orthogonality relations, like the one in (10). Some of them should be useful when the data on rare and CP violating decays improve. The areas ($`A_\mathrm{\Delta }`$) of all unitarity triangles are equal and related to the measure of CP violation $`J_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ : $`J_{\mathrm{CP}}=2A_\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Noting that to an excellent accuracy $`V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}`$ in the parametrization (2) is real with $`|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|=A\lambda ^3+𝒪(\lambda ^7)`$ and rescaling all terms in (10) by $`A\lambda ^3`$ we indeed find that the relation (10) can be represented as the triangle in the complex $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ plane as shown in Fig. 1.1.

Let us collect useful formulae related to this triangle:

* We can express $`\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha _i`$), $`\alpha _i=\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$, in terms of $`(\overline{\varrho },\overline{\eta })`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )=\frac{2\overline{\eta }(\overline{\eta }^2+\overline{\varrho }^2\overline{\varrho })}{(\overline{\varrho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2)((1\overline{\varrho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2)},$$
(11)
$$\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )=\frac{2\overline{\eta }(1\overline{\varrho })}{(1\overline{\varrho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2},$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma )=\frac{2\overline{\varrho }\overline{\eta }}{\overline{\varrho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=\frac{2\varrho \eta }{\varrho ^2+\eta ^2}.$$
(13)
* The lengths $`CA`$ and $`BA`$ to be denoted by $`R_b`$ and $`R_t`$, respectively, are given by

$$R_b\frac{|V_{ud}V_{ub}^{}|}{|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|}=\sqrt{\overline{\varrho }^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|,$$
(14)
$$R_t\frac{|V_{td}V_{tb}^{}|}{|V_{cd}V_{cb}^{}|}=\sqrt{(1\overline{\varrho })^2+\overline{\eta }^2}=\frac{1}{\lambda }\left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}\right|.$$
(15)
* The angles $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma =\delta `$ of the unitarity triangle are related directly to the complex phases of the CKM-elements $`V_{td}`$ and $`V_{ub}`$, respectively, through

$$V_{td}=|V_{td}|e^{i\beta },V_{ub}=|V_{ub}|e^{i\gamma }.$$
(16)
* The unitarity relation (10) can be rewritten as

$$R_be^{i\gamma }+R_te^{i\beta }=1.$$
(17)
* The angle $`\alpha `$ can be obtained through the relation

$$\alpha +\beta +\gamma =180^{}$$
(18)
expressing the unitarity of the CKM-matrix.

Formula (17) shows transparently that the knowledge of $`(R_t,\beta )`$ allows to determine $`(R_b,\gamma )`$ through

$$R_b=\sqrt{1+R_t^22R_t\mathrm{cos}\beta },\mathrm{cot}\gamma =\frac{1R_t\mathrm{cos}\beta }{R_t\mathrm{sin}\beta }.$$
(19)
Similarly, $`(R_t,\beta )`$ can be expressed through $`(R_b,\gamma )`$:

$$R_t=\sqrt{1+R_b^22R_b\mathrm{cos}\gamma },\mathrm{cot}\beta =\frac{1R_b\mathrm{cos}\gamma }{R_b\mathrm{sin}\gamma }.$$
(20)
These formulae relate strategies $`(R_t,\beta )`$ and $`(R_b,\gamma )`$ for the determination of the unitarity triangle that we will discuss in Chapter 6.

The triangle depicted in Fig. 1.1, together with $`|V_{us}|`$ and $`|V_{cb}|`$, gives the full description of the CKM matrix. Looking at the expressions for $`R_b`$ and $`R_t`$, we observe that within the SM the measurements of four CP conserving  decays sensitive to $`|V_{us}|`$, $`|V_{ub}|`$, $`|V_{cb}|`$ and $`|V_{td}|`$ can tell us whether CP violation ($`\overline{\eta }0`$) is predicted in the SM. This fact is often used to determine the angles of the unitarity triangle without the study of CP violating quantities.

Indeed, $`R_b`$ and $`R_t`$ determined in tree-level B decays and through $`\mathrm{B}_d^0\overline{\mathrm{B}}_d^0`$ mixing respectively, satisfy (see Chapters 3 and 4)

$$1R_b<R_t<1+R_b,$$
(21)
and $`\overline{\eta }`$ is predicted to be non-zero on the basis of CP conserving transitions in the B-system alone without any reference to CP violation discovered in $`\mathrm{K}_\mathrm{L}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ in 1964 . Moreover one finds

$$\overline{\eta }=\pm \sqrt{R_b^2\overline{\varrho }^2},\overline{\varrho }=\frac{1+R_b^2R_t^2}{2}.$$
(22)
Several expressions for $`\overline{\varrho }`$ and $`\overline{\eta }`$ in terms of $`R_b`$, $`R_t`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are collected in Chapter 6.

#### 1.2.5 The special role of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ elements

What do we know about the CKM matrix and the unitarity triangle on the basis of tree level decays? Here the semi-leptonic K and B decays play the decisive role. As discussed in detail in Chapters 2 and 3 the present situation can be summarized by

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2240}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.8}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}$$
(23)
$$\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.086}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{35.7}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{3.1}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}$$
(24)
implying

$$𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.83}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.37}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{.}$$
(25)
This tells us only that the apex $`𝑨`$ of the unitarity triangle lies in the band shown in Fig. 1.2. While this information appears at first sight to be rather limited, it is very important for the following reason. As $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝑹_𝒃`$ are determined here from tree level decays, their values given above are to an excellent accuracy independent of any new physics contributions. That is, they are universal fundamental constants valid in any extension of the SM. Therefore their precise determination is of utmost importance. To find where the apex $`𝑨`$ lies on the unitarity clock in Fig. 1.2 we have to look at other decays. Most promising in this respect are the so-called loop induced decays and transitions and CP violating B decays which will be discussed in Chapters 4–6. They should allow us to answer the important question of whether the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa picture of CP violation is correct and more generally whether the Standard Model offers a correct description of weak decays of hadrons. In the language of the unitarity triangle the question is whether the various curves in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane extracted from different decays and transitions using the SM formulae cross each other at a single point, as shown in Fig. 1.3, and whether the angles $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ in the resulting triangle agree with those extracted from CP asymmetries in B decays and from CP conserving B decays.

Any inconsistencies in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane will then give us some hints about the physics beyond the SM. One obvious inconsistency would be the violation of the constraint (21). Another signal of new physics would be the inconsistency between the unitarity triangle constructed with the help of rare K decays alone and the corresponding one obtained by means of B decays. Also $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ extracted from loop induced processes and CP asymmetries lying outside the unitarity clock in Fig. 1.2 would be a clear signal of new physics.

In this context the importance of precise measurements of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ should be again emphasised. Assuming that the SM with three generations and a unitary CKM matrix is a part of a bigger theory, the apex of the unitarity triangle has to lie on the unitarity clock obtained from tree level decays. That is, even if SM expressions for loop induced processes put $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ outside the unitarity clock, the corresponding expressions of the grander theory must include appropriate new contributions so that $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ is shifted back to the band in Fig. 1.2. In the case of CP asymmetries, this could be achieved by realizing that in the presence of new physics contributions the measured angles $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$ are not the true angles of the unitarity triangle but sums of the true angles and new complex phases present in extensions of the SM. Various possibilities will be discussed in the forthcoming CKM workshops. The better $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ are known, the thinner the band in Fig. 1.2 becomes, improving the selection of the correct theory. Because the branching ratios for rare and CP violating decays depend sensitively on the parameter $`𝑨`$, precise knowledge of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is very important.

In order for us to draw such thin curves as in Fig. 1.3, we require both experiments and theory to be under control. Let us then briefly discuss the theoretical framework for weak decays.

### 1.3 Theoretical framework

#### 1.3.1 Operator Product Expansion

The present framework describing weak decays is based on the operator product expansion (OPE) that allows short $`\mathbf{(}𝝁_{𝑺𝑫}`$) and long distance $`\mathbf{(}𝝁_{𝑳𝑫}`$) contributions to weak amplitudes to be separated, and on renormalization group (RG) methods that allow us to sum large logarithms $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝝁_{𝑺𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝝁_{𝑳𝑫}`$ to all orders in perturbation theory. A full exposition of these methods can be found in .

The OPE allows us to write the effective weak Hamiltonian for $`𝚫𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ transitions as an expansion in inverse powers of $`𝑴_𝑾`$. The leading term is simply

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}^𝒊𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒊$$
(26)
with an analogous expression for $`𝚫𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ transitions. Here $`𝑮_𝑭`$ is the Fermi constant and $`𝑸_𝒊`$ are the relevant local operators, built out of quark, gluon, photon and lepton fields, which govern the decays in question. The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa factors $`𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}^𝒊`$  and the Wilson coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ describe the strength with which a given operator enters the Hamiltonian. The latter coefficients can be considered as scale dependent couplings related to vertices $`𝑸_𝒊`$ and as discussed below can be calculated using perturbative methods, as long as $`𝝁`$ is not too small. A well known example of $`𝑸_𝒊`$ is the $`\mathbf{(}𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨\mathbf{)}`$ operator relevant for $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing

$$𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒔}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{}\overline{𝒔}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{.}$$
(27)
We will encounter other examples later on.

An amplitude for a decay of a given meson $`𝑴\mathbf{=}𝐊\mathbf{,}𝐁\mathbf{,}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{.}`$ into a final state $`𝑭\mathbf{=}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{,}𝝅𝝅\mathbf{,}𝐃𝐊`$ is then simply given by

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑴\mathbf{}𝑭\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑭\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{|}𝑴\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}^𝒊𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑭\mathbf{|}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑴\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}$$
(28)
where $`\mathbf{}𝑭\mathbf{|}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑴\mathbf{}`$ are the matrix elements of $`𝑸_𝒊`$ between $`𝑴`$ and $`𝑭`$, evaluated at the renormalization scale $`𝝁`$. An analogous formula exists for particle-antiparticle mixing.

The essential virtue of the OPE is that it allows the problem of calculating the amplitude $`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑴\mathbf{}𝑭\mathbf{)}`$ to be separated into two distinct parts: the short distance (perturbative) calculation of the coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and the long-distance (generally non-perturbative) calculation of the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$. The scale $`𝝁`$ separates, roughly speaking, the physics contributions into short distance contributions contained in $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and the long distance contributions contained in $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$. Thus $`𝑪_𝒊`$ include the top quark contributions and those from other heavy particles such as W-, Z-bosons and charged Higgs or supersymmetric particles in the supersymmetric extensions of the SM. Consequently $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ depend generally on $`𝒎_𝒕`$ and also on the masses of new particles if extensions of the SM are considered. This dependence can be found by evaluating so-called box and penguin diagrams with full W-, Z-, top- and new particles exchanges and properly including short distance QCD effects. The latter govern the $`𝝁`$-dependence of $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$.

The value of $`𝝁`$ can be chosen arbitrarily but the final result must be $`𝝁`$-independent. Therefore the $`𝝁`$-dependence of $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ has to cancel the $`𝝁`$-dependence of $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$. In other words it is a matter of choice what exactly belongs to $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and what to $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$. This cancellation of the $`𝝁`$-dependence generally involves several terms in the expansion in (28). The coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ depend also on the renormalization scheme. This scheme dependence must also be cancelled by that of $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$, so that physical amplitudes are renormalization scheme independent. Again, as in the case of the $`𝝁`$-dependence, cancellation of the renormalization scheme dependence generally involves several terms in the expansion (28).

Although $`𝝁`$ is in principle arbitrary, it is customary to choose $`𝝁`$ to be of the order of the mass of the decaying hadron. This is $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐛\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐜\mathbf{)}`$ for B decays and D decays respectively. For K decays the typical choice is $`𝝁\mathbf{=}𝓞`$(1-2 GeV) rather than $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑲\mathbf{)}`$ that would be much too low for any perturbative calculation of the couplings $`𝑪_𝒊`$. Now since $`𝝁\mathbf{}𝑴_{𝑾\mathbf{,}𝒁}\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒕`$, large logarithms $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝑴_𝐖\mathbf{/}𝝁`$ compensate in the evaluation of $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ the smallness of the QCD coupling constant $`𝜶_𝒔`$, and terms $`𝜶_𝒔^𝒏\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝑴_𝐖\mathbf{/}𝝁\mathbf{)}^𝒏`$, $`𝜶_𝒔^𝒏\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝑴_𝐖\mathbf{/}𝝁\mathbf{)}^{𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ etc. have to be resummed to all orders in $`𝜶_𝒔`$ before a reliable result for $`𝑪_𝒊`$ can be obtained. This can be done very efficiently by renormalization group methods. The resulting renormalization group improved perturbative expansion for $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ in terms of the effective coupling constant $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ does not involve large logarithms. The related technical issues are discussed in detail in  and .

Clearly, in order to calculate the amplitude $`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑴\mathbf{}𝑭\mathbf{)}`$ the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ have to be evaluated. Since they involve long distance contributions one is forced in this case to use non-perturbative methods such as lattice calculations, the 1/N expansion (where N is the number of colours), QCD sum rules, hadronic sum rules, chiral perturbation theory and so on. In the case of certain B-meson decays, the Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) and Heavy Quark Expansion (HQE) also turn out to be useful tools. These approaches will be described in Chapter 3. Needless to say, all these non-perturbative methods have some limitations. Consequently the dominant theoretical uncertainties in the decay amplitudes reside in the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ and non-perturbative parameters present in HQET and HQE.

The fact that in many cases the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ cannot be reliably calculated at present is very unfortunate. The main goal of the experimental studies of weak decays is the determination of the CKM factors ($`𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}`$) and the search for the physics beyond the SM. Without a reliable estimate of $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ these goals cannot be achieved unless these matrix elements can be determined experimentally or removed from the final measurable quantities by taking suitable ratios and combinations of decay amplitudes or branching ratios. Classic examples are the extraction of the angle $`𝜷`$ from the CP asymmetry in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝍𝐊_𝐒`$ and the determination of the unitarity triangle by means of $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ decays. Flavour symmetries like $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_𝐅`$ and $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}_𝐅`$ relating various matrix elements can also be useful in this respect, provided flavour breaking effects can be reliably calculated. However, the elimination of hadronic uncertainties from measured quantities can be achieved rarely and often one has to face directly the calculation of $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$.

One of the outstanding issues in the calculation of $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ is the compatibility (matching) of $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ with $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$. $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ must have the correct $`𝝁`$ and renormalization scheme dependence to ensure that physical results are $`𝝁`$\- and scheme-independent. Non-perturbative methods often struggle with this problem, but lattice calculations using non-perturbative matching techniques can meet this requirement.

Finally, we would like to emphasize that in addition to the hadronic uncertainties, any analysis of weak decays, and in particular of rare decays, is sensitive to possible contributions from physics beyond the SM. Even if the latter are not discussed in this document and will be the subject of future workshops, it is instructive to describe how new physics would enter into the formula (28). This can be done efficiently by using the master formula for weak decay amplitudes given in . It follows from the OPE and RG, in particular from (28), but is more useful for phenomenological applications than the formal expressions given above. This formula incorporates SM contributions but also applies to any extension of the SM:

$$𝐀\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐲}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝑩_𝒊𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒊𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}^𝒊\mathbf{[}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^𝒊\mathbf{+}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒊\mathbf{]}\mathbf{+}\underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}𝑩_𝒌^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{[}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒌\mathbf{]}^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌\mathbf{[}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌\mathbf{]}\mathbf{.}$$
(29)
The non-perturbative parameters $`𝑩_𝒊`$ represent the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ of local operators present in the SM. For instance in the case of $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing, the matrix element of the operator $`𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in (27) is represented by the parameter $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. An explicit expression is given in Chapter 4. There are other non-perturbative parameters in the SM that represent matrix elements of operators $`𝑸_𝒊`$ with different colour and Dirac structures. Explicit expressions for these operators and their matrix elements will be given in later chapters.

The objects $`𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒊`$ are the QCD factors resulting from RG-analysis of the corresponding operators. They summarise the contributions from scales $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝝁\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕`$ and 1-2 GeV$`\mathbf{}𝝁\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕`$ in the case of B and K decays, respectively. Finally, $`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^𝒊`$ stand for the so-called Inami-Lim functions  that result from the calculations of various box and penguin diagrams. They depend on the top-quark mass. $`𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}^𝒊`$ are the CKM-factors we want to determine.

New physics can contribute to our master formula in two ways. First, it can modify the importance of a given operator, already relevant in the SM, through a new short distance function $`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒊`$ that depends on new parameters in extensions of the SM, such as the masses of charginos, squarks, and charged Higgs particles, or the value of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{=}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). These new particles enter the new box and penguin diagrams. Second, in more complicated extensions of the SM new operators (Dirac structures) that are either absent or very strongly suppressed in the SM, can become important. Their contributions are described by the second sum in (29) with $`𝑩_𝒌^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{[}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒌\mathbf{]}^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{,}𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌\mathbf{,}𝑮_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌`$ the analogues of the corresponding objects in the first sum of the master formula. The $`𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌`$ show explicitly that the second sum describes generally new sources of flavour and CP violation beyond the CKM matrix. This sum may, however, also include contributions governed by the CKM matrix that are strongly suppressed in the SM but become important in some extensions of the SM. A typical example is the enhancement of the operators with Dirac structures $`\mathbf{(}𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑽\mathbf{+}𝑨\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}𝑺\mathbf{}𝑷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑺\mathbf{\pm }𝑷\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}𝑺\mathbf{}𝑷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝈^{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}𝑺\mathbf{}𝑷\mathbf{)}`$ contributing to $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝐁}_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixings in the MSSM with large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ and in supersymmetric extensions with new flavour violation. The latter may arise from the misalignment of quark and squark mass matrices. The most recent compilation of references to existing next-to-leading (NLO) calculations of $`𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒊`$ and $`\mathbf{[}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒌\mathbf{]}^{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}`$ can be found in .

The new functions $`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒊`$ and $`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌`$ as well as the factors $`𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒌`$ may depend on new CP violating phases, making the phenomenological analysis considerably more complicated. On the other hand, in the simplest class of the extensions of the SM where the flavour mixing is still entirely given by the CKM matrix and only the SM low energy operators are relevant  the formula (29) simplifies to

$$𝐀\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐲}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝑩_𝒊𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒊𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐊𝐌}}^𝒊\mathbf{[}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^𝒊\mathbf{+}𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒊\mathbf{]}$$
(30)
with $`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}^𝒊`$ and $`𝑭_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐞𝐰}}^𝒊`$ real. This scenario is often called Minimal Flavour Violation (MFV) , although one should be mindful that for some authors MFV means a more general framework in which also new operators can give significant contributions .

The simplicity of (30) allows to eliminate the new physics contributions by taking suitable ratios of various quantities, so that the CKM matrix can be determined in this class of models without any new physics uncertainties. This implies a universal unitarity triangle  and a number of relations between various quantities that are universal in this class of models . Violation of these relations would indicate the relevance of new low energy operators and/or the presence of new sources of flavour violation. In order to see possible violations of these relations and consequently the signals of new sources of flavour violation it is essential to have a very precise determination of the CKM parameters. We hope that the material presented in this document is a relevant step towards this goal.

#### 1.3.2 Importance of lattice QCD

Lattice calculations of the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ are based on a first-principles evaluation of the path integral for QCD on a discrete space-time lattice. They have the advantage of being systematically improvable to approach continuum QCD results with no additional parameters beyond those of QCD itself. Indeed, lattice QCD can be applied to determine these QCD parameters — the quark masses and the coupling constant. The most notable application of lattice QCD for CKM-fitting is to the mixing parameters for neutral kaons ($`𝑩_𝑲`$) and neutral B-mesons ($`𝑭_𝑩`$ and $`𝑩_𝑩`$). Uncertainties in these quantities are now dominant in CKM fits. Lattice calculations are also important for determining form factors used to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from exclusive semileptonic B decays to light pseudoscalars or vectors, and for providing the endpoint form factor normalization needed to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from semileptonic B to $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ decays. With the advent of CLEO-c, the current round of lattice calculations for charm physics will be tested at the few-percent level. The charm calculations share several features with their analogues in the $`𝒃`$ sector, so a favourable outcome would bolster confidence in lattice techniques.

In recent years much effort has been devoted to non-perturbative techniques for improvement, to reduce discretization errors, and for renormalization and matching, to relate lattice results either directly to physical quantities or to quantities defined in some continuum renormalization scheme. With non-perturbative matching, the $`𝝁`$\- and scheme-dependence of the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ is correctly matched with that of the $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$.

The outstanding issue for the lattice is the inclusion of dynamical quark effects or unquenching. Many phenomenologically important quantities have been or are being calculated with dynamical quarks. However the dynamical quarks cannot be simulated with light enough masses to describe physical up and down quarks (the state-of-the-art is a mass of about $`𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟓}`$). Likewise, the valence quarks, whose propagators are used to evaluate matrix elements, also cannot be simulated with physical up and down masses. The combined extrapolations (chiral extrapolations) of both kinds of masses to realistic values are a major current focus of activity.

For heavy quarks the issue is to avoid discretization errors proportional to positive powers of $`𝒎_𝑸𝒂`$ where $`𝒎_𝑸`$ is the mass of the heavy quark and $`𝒂`$ the lattice spacing. Since present-day inverse lattice spacings are in the range $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{<}𝒂^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}`$ or so, $`𝒎_𝒃𝒂`$ is intolerably large for the $`𝒃`$-quark. One approach is to restrict calculations to masses around that of charm and extrapolate to the $`𝒃`$-quark regime guided by HQET, but the extrapolation can be significant and may amplify the $`𝒎_𝑸𝒂`$ errors, unless a continuum limit is taken first. In the last few years much has been learned about how to disentangle heavy quark mass-dependence and discretization effects using an effective theory approach where QCD is expanded in powers of $`𝝁\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$, where $`𝝁`$ denotes other dimensionful scales in the problem, and discretization errors are proportional to powers of $`𝝁𝒂`$ (so that $`𝝁`$ should be smaller than $`𝒎_𝑸`$ and $`𝒂^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$). This has been pioneered by the Fermilab group and implemented by them and others in numerical simulations for B-meson decay constants and semileptonic decay form factors. Lattice discretizations of HQET and NRQCD are also effective theory approaches which are used in simulations. In the effective theories one has to ensure that corrections in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ are calculated accurately, which involves issues of renormalization and the proliferation of terms as the power of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ increases. By combining lattice HQET with direct simulations around the charm mass, the $`𝒃`$-quark can be reached by interpolation, but this makes sense only if the continuum limit is taken for both calculations first. Currently, results obtained with different approaches to treating heavy quarks agree fairly well for $`𝒃`$-physics.

An important theoretical advance in 1998 was the realization that full chiral symmetry could be achieved at finite lattice spacing, allowing the continuum and chiral limits to be separated. Lattice actions incorporating chiral symmetry are being used notably in calculations for kaon physics, including $`𝑩_𝑲`$, the $`𝚫𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ rule and $`\mathit{ϵ}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}\mathit{ϵ}`$, where the symmetry can be used to simplify the structure of the calculation. However, these calculations are currently quenched and have not yet had much impact on phenomenology.

### 1.4 Experimental aspects of B physics and the CKM matrix elements

In this report we will review B decay properties relevant for the measurement of the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ CKM matrix elements, and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations which constrain $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, allowing to test the Standard Model through the CKM Unitarity Triangle. However, many additional measurements of B mesons properties (masses, branching fractions, lifetimes etc.) are necessary to constrain Heavy Quark theories to enable a precise extraction of the CKM parameters. These measurements are also important because they propagate to the CKM-related measurements as systematic errors.

#### 1.4.1 B physics at colliders

In the last 15 years — before the start of asymmetric B-factories — the main contributors to B hadron studies have been symmetric $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ colliders operating at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ and at the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ resonance, and also the Tevatron $`𝒑\overline{𝒑}`$ collider (see Table 1.1).

At the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ peak, $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson pairs are produced on top of a continuum background, with a cross section of about 1.2 nb. At the energy used, only $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons are produced, almost at rest, with no additional hadrons. The constraint that the energy taken by each B meson is equal to the beam energy is useful for several measurements which rely on kinematic reconstruction.

At the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ resonance the production cross section is $`\mathbf{}`$ 6 nb, about five times larger than at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$, and the fraction of $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ in hadronic events, is $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$, very similar to that obtained at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$. Further, at the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ peak $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons and B baryons are produced in addition to $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`𝐁_𝒅`$ mesons. B hadrons carry, on average, about 70$`\mathbf{\%}`$ of the available beam energy, resulting in a significant boost which confines their decay products within well-separated jets. The resulting flight distance of a B hadron, $`𝑳\mathbf{=}𝜸𝜷𝒄𝝉`$, is on average about 3 mm at these energies. Since the mean charged multiplicity in B decays is about five, it is possible to tag B hadrons using a lifetime tag based on the track topology. Additional hadrons are created in the fragmentation process which can be distinguished from the heavy hadron decay products using similar procedures.

Finally, at $`𝒑\overline{𝒑}`$ colliders $`𝒃`$ quarks are produced predominantly through gluon-gluon fusion. At the Tevatron energy of $`\sqrt{𝒔}`$ = 1.8 TeV the $`𝒃`$-production cross section is observed to be around 100 $`𝝁𝒃`$, which is huge. As the B decay products are contained in events with a much greater multiplicity than at the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ pole and as backgrounds are important, only specific channels, such as fully reconstructed final states, can be studied with a favourable signal-to-background ratio.

Most of the precision measurements in B physics performed since SLC/LEP startup have been made possible by the development of high resolution Vertex Detectors, based on Silicon sensors. As the average flight distance of the $`𝒃`$ quark is of the order of 3 mm at $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ energies and as the typical displacement of secondary charged particles from the event primary vertex is of the order of 200 $`𝝁`$m, secondary particles can be identified and the decay topology of short-lived B hadrons can be measured. The typical resolution of silicon detectors varies between a few and a few tens of microns depending on particle momentum and on detector geometry. A typical LEP $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ event is shown in Fig. 1.4. In spite of a smaller $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ data set, the SLD experiment has proven to be highly competitive, due to a superior CCD-based vertex detector, located very close to the interaction point.

The physics output from the data taken on the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ resonance at LEP and SLC has continued to improve, with a better understanding of the detector response and new analysis techniques. Better-performing statistical treatments of the information have been developed. As a result, the accuracy of several measurements and the reach of other analyses have been considerably enhanced.

In 1984, six years after the discovery of the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ bound state $`𝚼`$, the first experimental evidence for the existence of $`𝐁_𝐝`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ mesons was obtained by ARGUS at DORIS and CLEO at CESR and the B mesons joined the other known hadrons in the Review of Particle Physics listings. By the time LEP and SLC produced their first collisions in 1989, the inclusive $`𝒃`$ lifetime was known with about 20$`\mathbf{\%}`$ accuracy from measurements at PEP and PETRA. The relatively long $`𝒃`$ lifetime provided a first indication for the smallness of the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ matrix element. Branching fractions of $`𝐁_𝐝`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ meson decays with values larger than about few $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ had been measured.

In the early 90’s the B sector landscape was enriched by the observation of new states at LEP. Evidence of the $`𝚲_𝒃`$ baryon was obtained in the $`𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲\mathbf{}𝝂𝑿`$ decay mode . This was followed by the observations of the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson, in the decay $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$, in 1992 and of the $`𝚵_𝒃`$ baryon in 1994. These analyses used semileptonic decays with a relatively large branching ratio of the order of a few $`\mathbf{\%}`$ in combination with a clean exclusive final state ($`𝐃_𝒔`$ , $`𝚲`$ or $`𝚵`$). Using right and wrong sign combinations, the background could be controlled and measured using the data. Selection of those signals is shown in Fig. 1.5. The orbitally excited B hadrons ($`𝑳\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$) ($`𝐁^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$)  were also found and studied starting in 1994. These analyses were mostly based on partial reconstruction, profiting from the characteristic decay topology, and estimated the backgrounds relying to a large extent on the data themselves.

In parallel with studies on B spectroscopy, inclusive and individual $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝒃`$-baryon exclusive lifetimes were measured at LEP, SLD and CDF with increasing accuracies (as shown in Fig. 1.6) down to the present final precision, of a few percent.

Rare decays have been traditionally a hunting ground for the CLEO experiment, which benefited from the large statistics recorded at CESR. With about 9M $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ meson pairs registered, B decay modes with branching fractions down to 10-5 could be observed. The first signal for the loop-mediated $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decay was obtained in 1993. Evidence for charmless decay of B mesons followed  (see Fig. 1.7).

At LEP, where the data sets were smaller, topological decay reconstruction methods and the efficient separation of decay products from the two heavy mesons allowed access to some transitions having branching fractions of order 10-4–10-5 .

A value close to 10$`\mathbf{\%}`$ for the semileptonic (s.l.) $`𝒃`$ branching fraction was not expected by theorists in the early 90’s. More recent theoretical work suggests measuring both the s.l. branching fraction and the number of charmed particles in B decays. In fact, a s.l. branching ratio of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ favours a low value of the charm mass and a value for the B branching ratio into double charm $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\overline{𝒄}𝒔`$ of about 20%. Much experimental effort has been made in recent years by the CLEO and LEP collaborations, allowing a coherent picture to emerge. The interplay among data analyses and phenomenology has promoted these studies to the domain of precision physics. The s.l. B branching fraction is presently known with about 2$`\mathbf{\%}`$ accuracy and much data has become available for fully inclusive, semi-inclusive and exclusive decays. Inclusive and exclusive s.l. decays allow the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ with largely independent sources of uncertainties and underlying assumptions. The inclusive method is based on the measured inclusive s.l. widths for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒖}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ interpreted on the basis of the Operator Product Expansion predictions. The exclusive method uses processes such as $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ and relies on Heavy Quark Effective Theory and form factor determinations. The requirements of precision tests of the unitarity triangle are now setting objectives for further improving our understanding of these decays and their application in the extraction of the CKM parameters.

The second major source of information on the magnitude of the relevant elements in the CKM matrix comes from oscillations of neutral B mesons. A $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson is expected to oscillate into a $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ with a probability given by: $`𝑷_{𝐁_𝐪^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐁_𝐪^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}_𝐪^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒕\mathbf{/}𝝉_𝒒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ where $`𝚫𝑴_𝒒`$ is proportional to the magnitude of the $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒒}`$ element squared. The first signals for $`𝐁_𝒅`$ mixing were obtained in 1987 by the ARGUS  and CLEO  experiments. The UA1 experiment at the CERN S$`𝒑\overline{𝒑}`$S collider showed evidence for mixing due to combined contributions from both $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons .

At energies around the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ peak, where both $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons are produced with fractions $`𝒇_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, the mixing parameter $`𝝌`$ is given by $`𝝌\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝑩_𝒅}𝝌_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝒇_{𝑩_𝒔}𝝌_𝒔`$ (where $`𝝌_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}`$ is the probability to observe a $`\overline{𝐁}_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson starting from a $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson and $`𝒇_{𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}}`$ is the $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ production fraction). Owing to the fast $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations, the $`𝝌_𝒔`$ value is close to $`\mathbf{0.5}`$ and becomes very insensitive to $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. Therefore even a very precise measurement of $`𝝌_𝒔`$ does not provide a determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$.

It became clear that only the observation of time evolution of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations, for $`𝐁_𝒅`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons separately, would allow measurement of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. Time dependent $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation was first observed  in 1993. The precision of the measurement of the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ oscillation frequency has significantly improved in recent years. Results have been extracted from the combination of more than thirty-five analyses which use different event samples from the LEP/SLD/CDF experiments. At present, new results from the B-factories are also being included. The evolution of the combined results for the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ frequency measurement over the years is shown in Fig. 1.8, reaching, before the contribution from the B-factories, an accuracy of $`\mathbf{}`$ 2.5$`\mathbf{\%}`$. New, precise measurements performed at the B-factories further improved this precision by a factor of 2.

As the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson is expected to oscillate more than 20 times faster than the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson ($`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) and as $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons are less abundantly produced, the search for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations is much more difficult. To observe these fast oscillations, excellent resolution on the proper decay time is mandatory. Improvements in the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ sensitivity are depicted in Fig. 1.9. As no signal for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations has been observed so far, the present limit implies that $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons oscillate at least 30 times faster than $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons. The impact of such a limit on the determination of the unitarity triangle parameters is already significant.

### 1.5 Heavy flavour averages

#### 1.5.1 Motivation and history

Averaging activities have played an important role in the LEP community and several different working groups were formed to address the issue of combining LEP results. The first working group to appear was the LEP Electroweak WG with members from ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL, soon followed in 1994 by the $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetime WG. They both rather quickly felt the need to enlarge their scope, and provide world averages rather than just LEP averages, so these groups have grown to include also representatives from the SLD collaboration, as well as from the CDF collaboration in the case of the lifetime WG. The B oscillations WG was formed in 1996 (once the need for combining B mixing results arose), and was also joined by SLD and CDF a year later.

In fall 1998, the four LEP collaborations decided to create the Heavy Flavour Steering Group (HFS), with members from the ALEPH, CDF, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD collaborations. Within the scope of heavy flavour physics — in particular beauty physics — its mandate was to identify new areas where combined results are useful, and coordinate the averaging activities.

The HFS quickly spawned three new working groups on $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, and also supported or initiated activities in other areas like charm-counting in $`𝒃`$-hadron decays, determination of the $`𝒃`$-fragmentation function, and extraction of the CKM parameters. The coordination of all these activities resulted in better communication between experimenters and theorists and, as a product, a more coherent set of averages in $`𝒃`$ physics updated on a regular basis . In order to provide world averages, contacts have also been established with representatives of other collaborations (CLEO, and more recently BABAR and BELLE).

The results of the $`𝒃`$-lifetime WG were used by the Particle Data Group from 1996 onwards; later also averages from the B oscillation and $`𝒃`$-fractions (1998), the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ Working Groups (2000) were also included. During this Workshop an Open Forum was organised for an orderly hand-over of the responsibility for heavy flavour physics world averages. This forum was chaired by HFS and PDG members. As a result, in the future, after the HFS group disbands, these averaging activities will be continued in the framework of a new Heavy Flavour Averaging Group , in which the Particle Data Group is also taking part.

In 2000 and 2001, the HFS group has produced reports  containing combined results on $`𝒃`$-hadron production rates and decay properties from the ALEPH, CDF-1, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD experiments. A final report is expected soon after all major results from these experiments have been published. In the remainder of this chapter, we will give some information on the combination procedures used for extracting averages for the $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetimes, oscillations parameters and $`𝒃`$-hadron fractions, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. More details as well as technical aspects can be found in .

#### 1.5.2 Averages of $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetimes

Methods for combining $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetime results were established in 1994, following a study  triggered by a rather puzzling fact: the world averages for the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime quoted by independent reviewers at the 1994 Winter Conferences differed significantly, although they were based essentially on the same data. Different combination methods have been developed  in the $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetime WG to take into account the underlying exponential behaviour of the proper time distribution, as well as handling the resulting asymmetric uncertainties and biases in low statistics measurements.

The $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetime WG provides the following averages: the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ lifetime, the mean $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime, the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime ratio, the mean $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime, the $`𝒃`$-baryon lifetime (averaged over all $`𝒃`$-baryon species), the $`𝚲_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime, the $`𝚵_𝒃`$ lifetime (averaged over the two isospin states), and various average $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetimes (e.g. for an unbiased mixture of weakly decaying $`𝒃`$-hadrons). These averages take into account all known systematic correlations, which are most important for the inclusive and semi-inclusive analyses: physics backgrounds (e.g. $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ branching ratios), bias in momentum estimates (from $`𝒃`$ fragmentation, decay models and multiplicities, branching ratios of $`𝒃`$\- and $`𝒄`$-hadrons, $`𝒃`$-baryon polarization, etc.), and the detector resolution. For the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetimes, the fractions of weakly-decaying $`𝒃`$-hadrons determined by the B oscillation WG (see Sec. 1.5.4 below) are used as an input to the averaging procedure. The $`𝒃`$-lifetime averages are used as input by the other working groups for the determination of other $`𝒃`$-physics averages.

#### 1.5.3 Averages of B oscillation frequencies

The main motivation for the creation of the B oscillation WG was to combine the different lower limits obtained on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. In 1995, the ALEPH collaboration proposed the so-called amplitude method , as a way to present the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ results in a form which allowed them to be combined in a straightforward manner. Each analysis provides the measured value of the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ oscillation amplitude as a function of the oscillation frequency, normalized in such a way that a value of 1 is expected for a frequency equal to $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$, and 0 for a frequency much below $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. A limit on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ can be set by excluding a value of 1 in a certain frequency range, and the results can be combined by averaging the measurements of this amplitude at each test frequency, using standard techniques.

The B oscillation working group played a major role in promoting this method, which was eventually adopted by each experiment studying $`𝐁_𝒔`$ oscillations. As a result, all published papers on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ since 1997 give the amplitude spectrum, i.e. the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ oscillation amplitude as a function of the oscillation frequency. As the individual $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ results are limited by the available statistics (rather than by systematics), the overall sensitivity to $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ is greatly increased by performing a combination of the results of the ALEPH, CDF, DELPHI, OPAL and SLD experiments.

It should be noted that the sensitivity of the inclusive analyses depends on the assumed value for the fraction of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons in a sample of weakly decaying $`𝒃`$-hadrons. This is taken into account in the combination procedure, which is performed assuming the latest average value for this fraction (see Sec. 1.5.4 below).

The B oscillation working group also combines the many measurements of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$: in February 2002, 34 measurements were available from 8 different experiments. Several correlated systematic (and statistical) uncertainties are taken into account. Systematic uncertainties come from two main sources: experimental effects (which may be correlated amongst analyses from the same experiment), and imperfect knowledge of physics parameters like the $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetimes and $`𝒃`$-hadron production fractions which are common to all analyses. Since different individual results are assuming different values for the physics parameters, all measurements are re-adjusted to a common (and recent) set of average values for these parameters before being combined.

The average $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ value is also combined with the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime to get a value for $`𝒙_𝒅`$, and with the time-integrated measurements of $`𝝌_𝒅`$ performed at ARGUS and CLEO, to get world averages of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and $`𝝌_𝒅`$.

#### 1.5.4 Averages of $`𝒃`$-hadron fractions in $`𝒃`$-jets

Knowledge of the fractions of the different hadron species in an unbiased sample of weakly-decaying $`𝒃`$ hadrons produced in high-energy $`𝒃`$ jets is important for many $`𝒃`$ physics measurements. These fractions are rather poorly known from direct branching ratio measurements: for example the fraction of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons is only known with a $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ uncertainty. However, mixing measurements allow this uncertainty to be reduced significantly, roughly by a factor $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

Because these fractions play an important role in time-dependent mixing analyses, the B oscillation WG was also committed to provide $`𝒃`$-hadron fractions (as well as a complete covariance matrix) that incorporate all the available information. A procedure was developed by this group, in which the determinations from direct measurements are combined with the world average of $`𝝌_𝒅`$ and the value of $`\overline{𝝌}`$ (the mixing probability averaged over all $`𝒃`$-hadron species) provided by the LEP electroweak WG, under the assumption that $`𝝌_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (as is known from the limit on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$).

The $`𝒃`$-hadron fractions are used as input for the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ combination procedure. Because the final fractions can only be known once the average $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ is computed (and vice versa), the calculation of the $`𝒃`$-hadron fractions and the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ averaging are part of the same fitting procedure, in such a way that the final results form a consistent set. The fractions are also used as input for the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ combination, for the lifetime averages, and for the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ average.

#### 1.5.5 Averages of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ elements

The $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ working group started to combine LEP results and has by now evolved in a worldwide effort including results from the collaborations BABAR, BELLE, CDF, and CLEO. Only the case of exclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ transitions presents specific problems. To combine the different results, central values and uncertainties on $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ have been rescaled to a common set of input parameters and ranges of values. The $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ central value has then been extracted using the parametrization of Ref. , which is based on the experimental determination of the $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ vector and axial form factors. LEP results have been rescaled accordingly. In the averaging, the correlations between the different measurements and that between $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ have been taken into account. The working group also provides the combination of inclusive and exclusive determinations.

In order to average the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching fraction results from the LEP experiments, uncorrelated and correlated systematic errors are carefully examined. The correlated systematical errors come from the description of background $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ and from the theoretical modelling of signal $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ transitions. They are assumed to be fully correlated between the different measurements. The four measurements of BR($`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$) have been averaged using the Best Linear Unbiased Estimate technique .

From this average branching fraction, using as an input the average $`𝒃`$ lifetime value, the probability density function for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ has been derived. To obtain this function all the errors have been convoluted assuming that they are Gaussian in BR($`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$) with the exception of the HQE theory error which is assumed to be Gaussian in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. The negligible part of this function in the negative unphysical $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ region is discarded and the probability density function renormalised accordingly. The median of this function has been chosen as the best estimate of the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ value and the corresponding errors are obtained from the probability density function.

### 1.6 Outline

This document is organized as follows:

Chapters 2 and 3 are dedicated to the determination of the elements $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}`$, $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}`$, $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$ by means of tree level decays. In Chapter 2 we summarize the present status of the elements $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}`$. In Chapter 3 we discuss in detail the experimental and theoretical issues related to the determination of $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$ from semileptonic inclusive and exclusive B decays and we discuss status and perspectives for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime differences and for the ratios of the lifetime of B hadrons.

In Chapter 4 we consider the determination of the elements $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$, or equivalently of $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}`$ by means of $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixings. The first part of this chapter recalls the formalism for $`𝜺_𝑲`$ and the mass differences $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. Subsequently, the present status of the non-perturbative calculations of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$, $`\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$, $`\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, and $`𝝃`$ is reviewed. The final part of this chapter deals with the measurements of $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations, parameterized by the mass differences $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$.

In Chapter 5 we describe two different statistical methods for the analysis of the unitarity triangle: the Bayesian approach and the frequentist method. Subsequently, we compare the results obtained in the two approaches, using in both cases the same inputs from Chapters 2-4. We also investigate the impact of theoretical uncertainties on the CKM fits.

Chapter 6 deals with topics that will be the focus of future CKM workshops. In this respect it differs significantly from the previous chapters and consists of self-contained separate contributions by different authors. After a general discussion of future strategies for the determination of the Unitarity Triangle, a few possibilities for the determination of its angles $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$ in B decays are reviewed. The potential of radiative and rare leptonic B decays and of $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ for the CKM determination is also considered.

Finally, Chapter 7 has a summary of the main results of this workshop and the conclusion.

### References

1. N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531.
2. M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49 (1973) 652.
3. The BaBar Physics Book, eds. P. Harrison and H. Quinn, (1998), SLAC report 504.
4. B Decays at the LHC, eds. P. Ball, R. Fleischer, G.F. Tartarelli, P. Vikas and G. Wilkinson,
hep-ph/0003238.
5. B Physics at the Tevatron, Run II and Beyond, K. Anikeev et al., hep-ph/0201071.
6. H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45 (2000) 1.
7. L.L. Chau and W.-Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 1802.
8. Particle Data Group, Euro. Phys. J. C 15 (2000) 1.
9. L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1945.
10. A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher and G. Ostermaier, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3433.
11. M. Schmidtler and K.R. Schubert, Z. Phys. C 53 (1992) 347.
12. R. Aleksan, B. Kayser and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 18;
J.P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5331;
I.I. Bigi and A.I. Sanda, hep-ph/9909479.
13. C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, (1985) 1039; Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 491.
14. A.J. Buras, P.H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and Ł. Sławianowska, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 434.
15. J.H. Christenson, J.W. Cronin, V.L. Fitch and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 128.
16. A.J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471, in Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions, eds. R. Gupta, A. Morel, E. de Rafael and F. David (Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, 1998), p. 281.
17. G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys 68 (1996) 1125.
18. A.J. Buras, in Kaon 2001, eds. F. Constantini, G. Isidori and M. Sozzi, Frascati Physics Series, p. 15, hep-ph/0109197.
19. T. Inami and C.S. Lim, Progr. Theor. Phys. 65 (1981) 297.
20. A.J. Buras, in Theory and Experiment Heading for New Physics, ed. A. Zichichi, World Scientific, 2001, page 200, hep-ph/0101336.
21. A.J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jäger and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 161.
22. C. Bobeth, T. Ewerth, F. Krüger and J. Urban, Phys. Rev. D: 64 (2001) 074014; 66 (2002) 074021;
G. D’Ambrosio, G.F. Giudice, G. Isidori and A. Strumia, Nucl. Phys. B 645 (2002) 155.
23. S. Bergmann and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 115009, JHEP 0008 (2000) 034;
A.J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 115010;
S. Laplace, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 094040;
A.J. Buras, hep-ph/0303060.
24. ALEPH Coll., Phys. Lett. B 297 (1992) 449; Phys. Lett. B 294 (1992) 145;
OPAL Coll., Phys. Lett. B 316 (1992) 435; Phys. Lett. B 281 (1992) 394;
DELPHI Coll., Phys. Lett. B 311 (1993) 379.
25. OPAL Coll., Zeit. Phys. C 66 (1995) 19;
DELPHI Coll., Phys. Lett. B 345 (1995) 598;
ALEPH Coll., Zeit. Phys. C 69 (1996) 393.
26. CLEO Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3922.
27. P. Kluit, Nucl Instr. Meth. A 462 (2001) 108.
28. ARGUS Coll., Phys. Lett. B 192 (1987) 245.
29. CLEO Coll., Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 18.
30. UA1 Coll., Phys. Lett. B 186 (1987) 247, erratum ibid B 197 (1987) 565.
31. ALEPH Coll., Phys. Lett. B 313 (1993) 498; DELPHI Coll., Phys. Lett. B 332 (1994) 488; OPAL Coll., Phys. Lett. B 336 (1994) 585.
32. The LEP Heavy Flavour Steering group maintains a web page at
http://www.cern.ch/LEPHFS/ with links to the web sites of each of the different working groups, where the latest averages can be found.
33. The HFAG Steering group maintains a web page at
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/ with links to the web sites of each of the different working groups, where the latest averages can be found.
34. D. Abbaneo et al, LEP Heavy Flavour Steering group and the different Heavy Flavour working groups (for the ALEPH, CDF, DELPHI, L3 OPAL, and SLD collaborations), CERN-EP/2000-096 and update in idem, CERN-EP/2001-050.
35. R. Forty, CERN-PPE/94-144.
36. L. Di Ciaccio et al., OUNP 96-05, ROM2F/96/09.
37. ALEPH Coll., contributed paper EPS 0410 to Int. Europhysics Conf. on High Energy Physics, Brussels, July 1995; the amplitude method is described in H.-G. Moser and A. Roussarie, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 384 (1997) 491.
38. R. A. Briere et al. \[CLEO Coll.\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 081803, \[hep-ex/0203032\].
39. L. Lyons, D. Gibaut and G. Burdman, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 270 (1988) 110. The fit program code blue.f (author: P. Checchia) has been employed by the COMBOS program (authors: O. Schneider and H. Seywerd) developed by the LEP B Oscillation Working Group
(see http://www.cern.ch/LEPOSC/combos/).

## Chapter 2 DETERMINATION OF THE CABIBBO ANGLE

Convener : G. Isidori
Contributors : V. Cirigliano, G. Colangelo, G. Lopez-Castro, D. Počanić, and B. Sciascia

### 2.1 Introduction

The determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ provide, at present, the most precise constraints on the size of CKM matrix elements. This high-precision information is extracted from the semileptonic transitions $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝒖`$ and $`𝒅\mathbf{}𝒖`$ which, although occurring in low-energy hadronic environments, in a few cases can be described with excellent theoretical accuracy. In particular, the best determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ is obtained from $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays ($`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$), whereas the two most stringent constraints on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ are obtained from superallowed Fermi transitions (SFT), i.e. beta transitions among members of a $`𝑱^𝑷\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}`$ isotriplet of nuclei, and from the neutron beta decay. From a theoretical point of view, the beta decay of charged pions could offer a third clean alternative to determine $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$; however, at present this is not competitive with the first two because of the experimental difficulty in measuring the tiny $`𝝅_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ branching fraction ($`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}`$) at the desired level of precision.

In all cases, the key observation which allows a precise extraction of the CKM factors is the non-renormalization of the vector current at zero momentum transfer in the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}𝑵\mathbf{)}`$ limit (or the conservation of the vector current) and the Ademollo Gatto theorem . The latter implies that the relevant hadronic form factors are completely determined up to tiny isospin-breaking corrections (in the $`𝒅\mathbf{}𝒖`$ case) or $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking corrections (in the $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝒖`$ case) of second order. As a result of this fortunate situation, the accuracy on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ has reached the 1% level and the one on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ can be pushed below 0.1%.

Interestingly enough, if we make use of the unitarity relation

$$𝑼_{𝒖𝒖}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}$$
(1)
the present level of accuracy on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ is such that the contribution of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ to Eq. (1) can safely be neglected, and the uncertainty of the first two terms is comparable. In other words, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ lead to two independent determinations of the Cabibbo angle both at the 1% level.

In the following four sections we review the determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from the four main observables mentioned above. These results are then summarized and combined in the last section, where we shall discuss the accuracy to which Eq. (1) is satisfied and we shall provide a final global estimate of the Cabibbo angle.

### 2.2 Determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$

The amplitudes of $`𝐊\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays can be expressed in terms of the two form factors ($`𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }`$) that determine the matrix element of the vector current between a pion and a kaon:

$`𝓜\mathbf{(}𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝝁}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑪_𝑲\mathbf{\left[}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{+}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝝁\mathbf{+}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}_𝝁\mathbf{\right]}𝑳^𝝁\mathbf{,}𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (2)
Here $`𝑪_𝑲`$ is a Clebsh-Gordan coefficient, equal to 1 ($`\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$) for neutral (charged) kaon decays, and $`𝑳^𝝁`$ is the usual leptonic part of the matrix element. The corresponding decay rate reads

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑪_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑰\mathbf{(}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(3)
where $`𝑰\mathbf{(}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ is the result of the phase space integration after factoring out $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. We recall that the dependence of $`𝑰\mathbf{(}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ on $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}`$ is proportional to $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑲\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, thus $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}`$ is completely irrelevant for the electron modes ($`𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$). Moreover, it is customary to trade $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ for the so-called scalar form factor $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, defined as:

$$𝒇_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒕}{𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(4)
The momentum dependence of the form factors, which is relevant for the integral over the phase space is often described in terms of a single parameter, the slope at $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$

$$𝒇_{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝝀_{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}}\frac{𝒕}{𝑴_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(5)
In this approximation the phase space integral depends explicitly only on the slope parameters, and we use the notation $`𝑰\mathbf{(}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑰\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$.

The steps necessary to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ from the experimental determination of $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ decay rates can be summarized as follows:

* theoretical evaluation of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, including strong isospin violations;
* measurement (or, if not available, theoretical evaluation) of the momentum dependence of $`𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$;
* theoretical treatment of photonic radiative corrections \[note that Eq. (3) is not yet general enough to account for these effects, see below\].

The first analysis that included all these ingredients was performed by Leutwyler and Roos . In summary, they

* relied on Chiral Perturbation Theory (CHPT) to $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$ for the evaluation of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, and on a quark model for the estimate of higher-order corrections (see below for more details), obtaining

$$𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.961}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}\text{and}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.022}\mathbf{;}$$
(6)
* relied on CHPT at $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$ for the evaluation of $`𝝀_{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ (obtaining, in particular, $`𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.031}`$);
* relied on previous work on the photonic radiative corrections, both for the short- (Sirlin ) and the long-distance (Ginsberg ) part of this contribution; for the latter, they estimated an effect on the rate of the form

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝜹\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)

Using all these ingredients, they finally obtained

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2196}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0023}\mathbf{.}$$
(8)
An update of the same analysis, with substantially unchanged final numerical outcome, has recently been performed by Calderon and Lopez-Castro . On the other hand, new analytical ingredients were brought to this kind of analysis by Cirigliano et al. , who did the first complete $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathit{ϵ}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ analysis of isospin breaking corrections in the framework of CHPT ($`\mathit{ϵ}`$ stands for both $`𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝒎_𝒖\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒅`$).

#### 2.2.1 Electromagnetic corrections

The first observation to be made in order to account for electromagnetic corrections is the fact that photon loops modify the very structure of the amplitude:

* The form factors now depend on another kinematical variable

$$𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝚪_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{,}𝝀_{𝑰𝑹}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$

where $`𝒗\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝑲\mathbf{}𝒑_𝒍\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}`$ decays and $`𝒗\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝝅\mathbf{+}𝒑_𝒍\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays. The function $`𝚪_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{,}𝝀_{𝑰𝑹}\mathbf{)}`$ encodes universal long distance corrections, depending only on the charges of the external particles. This contribution is infrared divergent, hence it depends upon the regulator $`𝝀_{𝑰𝑹}`$. Since the dependence on the second kinematical variable can be factored out (to a very good approximation), the notion of effective form factor $`𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ survives and proves useful in the subsequent analysis.
* New local contributions appear in the effective form factors $`𝒇_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. These, together with the chiral logarithms, are truly structure dependent corrections, which can be described in a model independent way within the CHPT approach. Let us note here that the universal short-distance electroweak corrections to semileptonic charged-current amplitudes  belong in principle to this class of corrections. In fact, they can be related to one of the local couplings of CHPT ($`𝑿_\mathrm{𝟔}`$) . However, for consistency with previous literature, we keep the short distance correction explicit, and denote it by $`𝑺_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}`$. Its numerical value is fixed to 1.0232, corresponding to renormalization group evolution between $`𝑴_𝒁`$ and $`𝑴_𝝆`$.

The second observation is that one has to consider how radiation of real photons affects the various observables (e.g. Dalitz Plot density, spectra, branching ratios). For the purpose of extracting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, we need to assess the effect of real photon emission to the partial widths. As is well known, a given experiment measures an inclusive sum of the parent mode and radiative modes:

$$𝒅𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐨𝐛𝐬}}\mathbf{=}𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑲_{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝜸}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}$$

From the theoretical point of view, only such an inclusive sum is free of infrared singularities. At the precision we aim to work at, a meaningful comparison of theory and experiment can be done only once a clear definition of the inclusive observable is given. In practice this means that the phase space integrals are calculated using the same cuts on real photons employed in the experimental analysis.

In summary, all long distance QED effects, due to both virtual photons \[$`𝚪_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{,}𝝀_{𝑰𝑹}\mathbf{)}`$\] and real photons \[$`𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑲_{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝜸}\mathbf{)}`$\], can be combined to produce a correction to the phase space factor in the expression for the decay width. This term comes, in principle, with no theoretical uncertainty. The structure dependent electromagnetic corrections, as well as the chiral corrections to the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ results, are in the form factor $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, where all of the theoretical uncertainty concentrates.

Based on the above considerations, we can write the partial widths for the $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ modes as:

$$𝚪_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝓝_𝒊\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{|}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^𝒊\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(9)
where the index $`𝒊`$ runs over the four $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ modes ($`𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{,}𝑲_{𝝁\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}}`$) and we defined

$`𝓝_𝒊`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑲_𝒊}^\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝑪_𝒊^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (10)
$`𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$ (11)
In the above relation $`𝑮_𝝁`$ indicates the Fermi constant as extracted from the muon decay rate after inclusion of radiative corrections at order $`𝜶`$.

#### 2.2.2 Estimates of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^𝒊\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$

The estimate of the four $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^𝒊\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ is the key (and most delicate) theoretical ingredient in the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$. We choose to “normalize” them to $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, evaluated in absence of electromagnetic corrections. Differences between the various form factors are due to isospin breaking effects, both of strong ($`𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}^𝒊`$) and electromagnetic ($`𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝒊`$) origin, which have been evaluated at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in the chiral expansion (see Ref. ):

$`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^𝒊\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}^𝒊\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝒊\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (12)
The expansion of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ in the quark masses has been analysed up to the next-to-next-to-leading order . At this level of accuracy we write

$`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (13)
where the identity $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ follows from current conservation in the chiral limit. Because of the Ademollo-Gatto theorem , which states that corrections to $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ have to be quadratic in the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ breaking, local terms are not allowed to contribute to $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. An explicit calculation gives

$$𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝑯_{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑯_{𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝝅}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑯_{𝑲^\mathbf{+}𝜼}\mathbf{+}𝜺\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑯_{𝑲𝝅}\mathbf{}𝑯_{𝑲𝜼}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(14)
where $`𝑯_{𝑷𝑸}`$ is a loop function

$$𝑯_{𝑷𝑸}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\frac{𝑴_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑷^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(15)
and $`𝜺`$ is the $`𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝜼`$ mixing angle, $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜺\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{}\widehat{𝒎}\mathbf{)}`$. The absence of low-energy constants in the expression for $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ allows a numerical evaluation which is practically free of uncertainties:

$$𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.023}\mathbf{.}$$
(16)
As for $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ the situation is much less clear, because low energy constants (LECs) of the $`𝒑^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ Lagrangian can now contribute. Before entering the discussion of various evaluations of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ which can be found in the literature, it is useful to recall a model-independent bound on $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. A sum rule discovered in the sixties  implies:

$$\mathbf{\left|}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\underset{𝒏\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑸^{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}𝒏\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(17)
where $`𝑸^{𝒖𝒔}`$ is the vector charge, thus $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ has to be smaller than one.

Various estimates of the size of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ have been given:

###### 1

Leutwyler and Roos  relate this form factor at zero momentum transfer to the matrix element of the vector charge between a kaon and a pion in the infinite-momentum limit. The latter matrix element is then given as a superposition of the wave functions of the constituents of the kaon and of the pion. If one defines the asymmetry between the two wave functions with a function $`𝜹`$:

$$𝝋_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹\mathbf{)}𝝋_𝝅\mathbf{,}$$
(18)
the average of the square of the asymmetry (calculated with the pion wave function as a weight) gives the deviation of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ from one:

$$𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}𝜹^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_𝝅\mathbf{.}$$
(19)
Instead of performing an explicit model calculation of the asymmetry $`𝜹`$, they only made a simple parametrization of $`𝜹`$, and estimated the parameters on the basis of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ rule of thumb: $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ breaking effects are expected to be at the 30% level. Despite this large amount of symmetry breaking (which yields a consistent description of the ratio $`𝑭_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝑭_𝝅`$), the numerical estimate of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ turns out to be very suppressed because of the quadratic dependence from $`𝜹`$ in Eq. (19). Assigning a conservative 50% error to the effect thus found, Leutwyler and Roos finally quoted

$$𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.016}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}\mathbf{.}$$
(20)
###### 2

Evaluations of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ in a constituent quark model description of the kaon and the pion have been made by several authors (see Refs.  and references therein). In particular, the result

$$𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.96}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.013}$$
(21)
can be found in Ref. , which also provides a good summary of earlier literature on the subject (as an estimate of the uncertainty we took the sensitivity of the result to the constituent strange quark mass).*** A very similar result, with a larger uncertainty, has been reported more recently in Ref. . It should be stressed that in this framework no chiral logs are generated – the quark masses which appear as parameters of the model are constituent quark masses and do not vanish in the chiral limit. In this sense, these models can only give an estimate of the local part of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$, whereas a complete estimate of $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ seems to require also the contribution from $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The approach followed in constituent quark models is internally consistent, since the parameters of the model are also fixed ignoring the presence of chiral logs. However, the potential difference of chiral logs in $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ and the physical observables used to constrain the model could induce sizable uncertainties. As far as we could see, nobody has addressed this point. Note that this problem is absent in the estimate of Leutwyler and Roos, which consistently took into account the chiral logs.

###### 3

From the point of view of the pure chiral expansion, the only parameter-free prediction which one can make for $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ concerns the chiral logs. A first step in this direction was made by Bijnens, Ecker and Colangelo , who calculated the double chiral logs contribution to this quantity. The size of this term, however, depends on the renormalization scale $`𝝁`$. By varying the latter within a reasonable range, the numerical estimate $`\mathbf{|}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐥}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐬}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}`$ was obtained.

Post and Schilcher  recently completed a full two-loop evaluation of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$, which besides the double chiral logs contains single ones and polynomial contributions. The latter contain LECs of the $`𝒑^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ Lagrangian, whose value is basically unknown, and make a numerical estimate difficult. The authors simply set to zero the LECs of order $`𝒑^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ (at $`𝝁\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝝆`$) and obtained

$$𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{|}_{\mathbf{[}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐬}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.018}\mathbf{.}$$
(22)
Notice the sign difference with respect to Leutwyler and Roos \[and most model calculations, which according to the sum rule (17) obtain negative results\]. There is, however, no contradiction between the two calculations: the neglected $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$ constants may well give a negative contribution roughly twice as large as the part evaluated by Post and Schilcher.

This brief summary clearly indicates the need for more theoretical work on this issue. In particular it appears within reach an analysis that combines model calculations with the contribution of the chiral logs in a consistent way at next-to-next-to-leading order in the chiral expansion. Since the parameters of the constituent quark models are usually fixed with simple observables (like the decay constants), whose chiral expansion is already known at the required level of precision, it appears to us that all the ingredients for such an analysis are already available in the literature.

In absence of such a complete analysis, for the time being we believe that the best choice is to stick to Leutwyler and Roos’ estimate – keeping in mind that, e.g., a value of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$ two sigmas away from the central value in (20) is not strictly forbidden, but rather unlikely.

Let us close this section with a comment on lattice calculations: we are not aware of any attempts to calculate $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ on the lattice. We believe, however, that in the long run this is the only method that offers any hope to improve the model independent estimate of Leutwyler and Roos, and eagerly wait for the first calculations. It goes without saying that the precision required to have an impact on the determination of $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}`$ is extremely challenging.

#### 2.2.3 Numerical evaluation of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$

The $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ widths reported in Table 2.1 allow us to obtain four determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ which are independent, up to the small correlations of theoretical uncertainties from isospin-breaking corrections $`𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}`$ (almost negligible at present, see Table 2.2). The master formula for a combined analysis of these modes is:

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝚪_𝒊}{𝓝_𝒊𝑺_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}^𝒊\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝒊\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚫𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}$$
(23)
The radiative correction factor $`𝜹_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}`$, often quoted in the literature, is recovered in our framework by combining the phase space correction and the structure dependent electromagnetic corrections:

$$𝜹_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝒊\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑰_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(24)
In the Table 2.2 we report estimates of these isospin-breaking parameters based on Ref. , and subsequent work on the $`𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mode. Very recently a new calculation of electromagnetic corrections to the $`K_{e3}^+`$ mode has been presented . Although the approach followed in Ref.  is not coherent with the model-independent CHPT approach of Ref. , the results obtained are numerically consistent with those reported in Table 2.2.

The phase space corrections refer to the definition of photon-inclusive width given by Ginsberg (see Refs. ). The analysis of muonic modes is incomplete, as the phase space corrections have not yet been evaluated (hence the blank spaces in Table 2.2). In order to include these modes in the phenomenological analysis, we can use the estimates $`𝜹_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝝁\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝜹_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝝁\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{2.02}\mathbf{\%}`$ obtained by Ginsberg . However, there are systematic uncertainties in Ginsberg’s approach which cannot be easily estimated. They arise because these results depend on the UV cutoff ($`𝚲\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒑`$ was used in obtaining the above numbers), and on the ratio $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ (set to zero to obtain the above numbers). Therefore, in the following analysis, we assign an uncertainty of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$ to $`𝜹_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝝁\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}`$.  As for the electronic modes, let us note that Ginsberg’s results $`\delta _K(K_{e3}^+)=0.45\%`$ and $`\delta _K(K_{e3}^0)=+1.5\%`$ are consistent with the ranges reported in Table 2.2.

Using the above input for the isospin-breaking factors and the Particle Data Group (PDG) averages for branching ratios and slopes (see Table 2.1), we obtain the following results for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$:

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2133}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0016}\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ (25)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2095}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0013}\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ (26)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2142}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0040}\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝝁\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ (27)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2109}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0026}\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝝁\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ (28)
In the above determination we have added in quadrature all the uncertainties involved. The final error is completely dominated by experimental uncertainties (rates and slopes). We note that the muonic decays imply larger uncertainties compared to the electronic modes (see also Fig. 2.1), as a consequence of larger uncertainties in branching ratios and slopes. In a weighted average the muonic modes are seen to be irrelevant. Therefore, also in view of the incomplete knowledge of radiative corrections, we conclude that at present the inclusion of muonic decays does not allow us to improve the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$. An average over the electronic modes brings to:

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2110}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0018}\mathbf{,}$$
(29)
where the error has been multiplied by a scale factor $`𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.85}`$, as defined by the PDG . Finally, if we use the Leutwyler-Roos estimate of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}`$, or $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.961}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}`$, we obtain

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2196}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0019}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0018}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}`$ (30)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2196}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0026}\mathbf{.}`$
As can be noted, the above result has an error larger with respect to the estimate made almost 20 years ago by Leutwyler and Roos. The reasons is the decreased consistency of the two $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ determinations from $`𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ modes (and the corresponding large scale factor) after a revised average of (old) measurements of $`𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ branching ratios . This seems to suggest that some experimental errors have been underestimated, or unduly reduced by the PDG averaging procedure, as different experimental input might have common systematic errors (especially the ones related to radiative corrections). We stress, in particular, that the latest rate measurements were performed in the 70’s and it is not clear if these correspond to photon-inclusive widths.

This issue should soon be clarified by the high-statistics measurements of $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ widths expected from recently-completed or ongoing experiments, such as BNL-E865  and KLOE (which is presently analysing the four $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ modes in the same experimental setup, with systematic uncertainties rather different from those of the existing measurements) . In our opinion, a reliable extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ might come in the near future by using experimental input coming solely from such high-statistics measurements. Indeed, apart from the great improvement in the statistical signal, we can expect a substantial improvement also in the treatment of radiative corrections. As an illustration of this scenario, we use the preliminary result from E865

$`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{5.13}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}_{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$ (31)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{5.13}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.09}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}`$ (32)
to obtain $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝑲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2189}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}`$, and hence:

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2278}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0022}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0019}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}\mathbf{(}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}`$ (33)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.2278}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0029}\mathbf{.}`$
We show this number only for illustrative purpose (we do not include it in the average) since it is based on a preliminary result, and it is not clear if it corresponds to the photon-inclusive branching ratio. On the other hand, it should be noted how a single present-day measurement allows us to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ at the $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$ level \[same as in Eq.(30)\], and could offer the advantage of a clear understanding of all sources of uncertainty.

#### 2.2.4 Other determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$

To conclude the discussion about $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, we briefly comment about other possibilities to determine this quantity, alternative to $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ decays:

$`\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{\text{Tau decays}}`$. A novel strategy to determine $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}`$ has been proposed very recently in Ref. . The method relies on the following facts:

* The possibility to express theoretically, via the OPE,§§§ In addition, a phenomenological parameterisation for the longitudinal contribution is adopted. the hadronic width of the $`𝝉`$ lepton ($`𝑹_𝝉`$) and the appropriate moments ($`𝑹_𝝉^{𝒌𝒍}`$) , for both Cabibbo-allowed ($`\overline{𝒖}𝒅`$) and Cabibbo-suppressed ($`\overline{𝒖}𝒔`$) sectors. The relevant moments are denoted respectively by $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑽\mathbf{+}𝑨}^{𝒌𝒍}`$ and $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑺}^{𝒌𝒍}`$.
* The measurements of hadronic branching fractions (and moments) in $`𝝉`$ decays .
* The strong sensitivity of the flavour-breaking difference

$$𝜹𝑹_𝝉^{𝒌𝒍}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑽\mathbf{+}𝑨}^{𝒌𝒍}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑺}^{𝒌𝒍}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(34)
to the strange-quark mass ($`𝒎_𝒔`$) and the CKM matrix elements.

Originally these features have been exploited to determine $`𝒎_𝒔`$, using $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ as input. The authors of Ref.  have inverted this line of reasoning: they have determined $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ from (34), with $`𝒌\mathbf{=}𝒍\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, using the theoretical input $`𝜹𝑹_𝝉^{\mathrm{𝟎𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.229}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.030}`$ and the range $`𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟓}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ MeV, derived from other observables. Assuming CKM unitarity to relate $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ in (34) one finds :

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2179}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0044}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0009}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2179}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0045}\mathbf{.}$$
(35)
The theoretical error reflects the uncertainty in $`𝒎_𝒔`$, while the experimental one (by far the dominant error), reflects the inputs $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑺}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1625}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0066}`$ and $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑽\mathbf{+}𝑨}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{3.480}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.014}`$ . Relaxing the assumption of CKM unitarity and employing the extremely safe range $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.9739}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0025}`$, leads to:

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2173}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0044}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0009}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0006}_{𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2173}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0045}\mathbf{.}$$
(36)
A reduction in the uncertainty of $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑺}`$ by a factor of two would make this extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ competitive with the one based on $`𝑲_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ decays. To this purpose, it would be highly desirable also to estimate the systematic uncertainty of the method (e.g. extracting $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}`$ from higher $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑺}^{𝒌𝒍}`$ moments, and obtaining additional constraints on the $`𝒎_𝒔`$ range). Future precise measurements of $`𝑹_{𝝉\mathbf{,}𝑺}^{𝒌𝒍}`$ and of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking differences $`𝜹𝑹_𝝉^{𝒌𝒍}`$ at $`𝑩`$ factories could allow to reach this goal. However, at the moment we believe it is safer not to include this (weak) constraint in the average value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$.

$`\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{\text{Hyperon semileptonic decays}}`$. As in the case of the neutron beta decay, both vector and axial vector currents contribute to Hyperon semileptonic decays (HSD). However, data on decay rates and asymmetries of three different HSD can not be adequately fitted by existing models of form factors (see e.g. Ref \[22)\]. On the basis of this conclusion, and given the large discrepancies among different calculations of the leading vector form factors (of up to 13% in the case of $`𝚺^{\mathbf{}}`$ ) at zero momentum transfer, we decided not to include the HSD constraints on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ in this review.

### 2.3 $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from superallowed Fermi transitions

Currently, SFT provide the most precise determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$. Several features combine for this purpose. First, the calculation of SFT are simplified by the fact that only the nuclear matrix elements of the vector current contribute to the decay amplitude. Second, since the SFT occur within members of a given isotriplet, the conservation of the vector current helps to fix the normalization of the nuclear form factors. A third important theoretical ingredient is that the calculation of isospin breaking and radiative corrections have achieved a level suited to match the accuracy of experimental data.

From the experimental side, the input information has reached an accuracy that challenges present theory calculations. Accurate measurements of the half-lives $`𝒕`$, branching fractions and $`𝑸`$ values for nine different $`𝑱^𝑷\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}`$ beta nuclear transitions have been reported so far . These experimental input allows to compute the $`𝒇𝒕`$ values, where $`𝒇`$ is essentially the nuclear-dependent phase space factor, with high accuracy for each transition (see the first column in Table 2.4). At present, the final uncertainty in the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ is further reduced by taking the average over the nine different measurements of SFT. Thus, the high accuracy attained in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ can largely be attributed to a statistical origin despite the fact that a nuclear environment is being used for this purpose.

Due to the spin and parity quantum numbers of the initial and final nuclei, only the vector current is involved in SFT at the tree-level. In the limit where isospin is an exact symmetry, the nuclear matrix elements are fixed by the conservation of the vector current and are given by:

$$\mathbf{}𝒑_𝒇\mathbf{;}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒖}𝜸_𝝁𝒅\mathbf{|}𝒑_𝒊\mathbf{;}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝒊\mathbf{+}𝒑_𝒇\mathbf{)}_𝝁\mathbf{.}$$
(37)
An important check in the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from SFT is to verify that after removing nuclear-dependent corrections from the observables, the common nuclear matrix elements share the universality predicted by Eq. (37).

Isospin breaking corrections introduce a (nucleus-dependent) correction factor $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝑪\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ on the right-hand side of Eq. (37). This correction arises from the incomplete overlap of initial and final nuclear wave functions. This mismatch effect has its origin in the Coulomb distortions due to the different number of protons in the decaying and daughter nuclei . The two different calculations of $`𝜹_𝑪`$ used by the authors of Ref.  for the nine measured decaying nuclei are shown in Table 2.3. The error assigned to $`𝜹_𝑪`$ is chosen to cover the typical spread between the central values obtained in both calculations. As we shall show in the following, at present this error is not the dominant source of uncertainty on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$: doubling it, for a more conservative approach, would induce an increase of the total uncertainty on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ of about 25%.

After including radiative and isospin breaking corrections, it becomes convenient to define the $`𝓕𝒕`$ values for each transition, namely:

$$𝓕𝒕\mathbf{}𝒇𝒕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝑪\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒆^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫_𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$

By this way all the nucleus-dependent corrections are included in the definition of the $`𝓕`$ constants and the right-hand side contains only the nucleus-independent piece of radiative corrections $`𝚫_𝑹`$ (see below) and fundamental constants. Thus, the equality of the $`𝓕𝒕`$ values of the nine SFT provides a good consistency check of the conservation of the vector current.

The radiative corrections are split into a nucleus-dependent piece $`𝜹_𝑹`$ (also called outer corrections) and a nucleus-independent piece $`𝚫_𝑹`$ (also called inner corrections). The outer corrections have been computed by two different groups  finding good agreement with each other. These corrections include basically model-independent virtual and real QED corrections and the calculations include terms up to $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒁^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ as required by experiments (see Table 2.4). The inner corrections on the other hand, include the short distance electroweak corrections and other pieces of model-dependent (but nucleus-independent) radiative corrections . Since a large $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒁\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒑\mathbf{)}`$ term appears at leading order, a resummation of higher order logarithms is required. This improved calculation lead to the following updated numerical value of inner corrections :

$$𝚫_𝑹\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.40}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{.}$$
(38)
The uncertainty in the inner corrections has its origin in the lower value for the cutoff used for the axial-induced photonic corrections  and it turns out to be the dominant theoretical uncertainty in the current determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from SFT . As a final comment, we should mention that the factorization of inner and outer radiative corrections introduces spurious terms of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in the r.h.s of Eq. (2.3). However, these additional terms are not relevant at the present level of accuracy, since they affect the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ at the level of $`𝜹_𝑹𝚫_𝑹\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.0001}`$.

Table 2.4 illustrates how quantum corrections are crucial to offer a high-precision test of the conservation of the vector current. As it was mentioned above, this implies that the $`𝓕𝒕`$ values should be the same for the nine nuclear transitions under consideration. This test is evident from the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}`$dof of the fit, which substantially improves in going from the tree-level $`𝒇𝒕`$ values to the quantum corrected $`𝓕𝒕`$ values.

Inserting the weighted average of $`𝓕𝒕`$, reported in Table 2.4, into Eq. (2.3) we obtain:

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.9740}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.0001}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.0004}\mathbf{)}_{𝚫_𝑹}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.0002}\mathbf{)}_{𝜹_𝒄}^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ (39)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.9740}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0005}\mathbf{.}`$
In the above result we have explicitly separated the different contributions to the total uncertainty in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$. As can be noted, at present the dominant error is induced by $`𝚫_𝑹`$, or by the choice of a low-energy cutoff for the axial-induced photonic corrections .

Based on the work of Ref. , the Particle Data Group  adopt the conservative approach of doubling the error in Eq. (39). According to Ref. , isospin breaking at the quark level would increase the size of the corrections $`𝜹_𝑪`$. However, we stress that this proposed manifestation of quarks degrees of freedom at the level of nuclear structure may lead to a double counting of isospin breaking effects . Moreover, we note that $`𝜹_𝑪`$ is not the dominant uncertainty at present. For these reasons, we prefer not to modify the uncertainty in Eq. (39) and to quote this result as the best information on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ available at present from SFT.

### 2.4 $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from neutron beta decay

The neutron beta decay ($`𝒏\mathbf{}𝒑𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_𝒆`$) is another place where measurements and theory are getting accurate enough to provide a determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ at the level of 0.1%. This happens despite the fact that both axial and vector weak currents contribute to the hadronic matrix element. Indeed the axial form factor normalized to the vector one ($`𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽`$) can be determined from data and, once this is known, theory can provide a calculation of the decay rate as a function of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ at the level of a few parts in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ . Similarly to SFT, the main theoretical uncertainty arises from the low-energy cut-off of the axial-induced photonic corrections \[see Eq. (38)\]. However, the present major source of uncertainty in this determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ comes from the measurements of $`𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽`$.

In the last twenty years several authors contributed to derive a master formula for the beta decay rate of the neutron precise at the level of a few parts in $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ . At this level of accuracy, only two momentum-independent form factors, $`𝒈_{𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑽}`$, are required to describe the hadronic amplitude:

$$\mathbf{}𝒑\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒖}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{|}𝒏\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒖}_𝒑𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}𝒈_𝑽\mathbf{+}𝒈_𝑨𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒖_𝒏\mathbf{.}$$
(40)
By including the radiative corrections up to order $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in an additive form , and assuming that the beta decay (inclusive of photon corrections) is the only relevant neutron decay mode, we can write

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒆^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫_𝑹\mathbf{)}𝒈_𝑽^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{]}𝒇_𝑹𝝉_𝒏}\mathbf{,}$$
(41)
where $`𝝉_𝒏`$ denotes the lifetime of the neutron. The factor $`𝒇_𝑹\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.71312}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.00002}`$ is essentially the integrated electron spectrum folded with the energy-dependent radiative corrections which are required up to order $`𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ . Here, an important numerical remark is in order. Our expression for $`𝒇_𝑹`$ contains the radiative corrections in an additive form, contrary to some other expressions currently used in the literature (see for example Ref. ). In fact, other analyses use a factorization prescription of the dominant Coulomb term (or Fermi-function) and the remaining $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections (see the discussion in Ref. ). This factorization introduces spurious terms at the order $`𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ which affect the decay rate at the level of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$. For instance, using the factorized formula of Ref.  and Ref.  would lead to a decrease of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ of about $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, respectively.

Let us now focus on the value of $`𝒈_𝑽`$. In the limit where isospin is an exact symmetry, the CVC hypothesis is useful to fix the value of the vector form factor, namely $`𝒈_𝑽^{𝑪𝑽𝑪}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Owing to the Ademollo-Gatto theorem , the correction $`𝜹𝒈_𝑽`$ to this value is expected to be very small. The evaluations of $`𝜹𝒈_𝑽`$ present in the literature indicate that $`𝜹𝒈_𝑽`$ is of order $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ . Thus, at the accuracy level of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, we can safely set $`𝒈_𝑽\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in Eq. (41).

As already mentioned, the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ requires two experimental inputs: $`𝝉_𝒏`$ and $`𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽`$. At present, the set of data used to extract the average of the neutron lifetime is consistent and very accurate, leading to the world average

$$𝝉_𝒏^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{885.7}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.8}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐜}\mathbf{,}$$
(42)
with an associated scale factor of $`𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.07}`$. The situation concerning $`𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽`$ does not share the same consistency. In Table 2.5 we show a collection of the most precise measurements of this ratio, together with the corresponding determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$. Although other measurements have been reported so far (see Ref. ), those shown in Table 2.5 are the most relevant ones for the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ in neutron beta decay .

The quoted uncertainty for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ in the third column of Table 2.5 has been computed by adding in quadrature theoretical and experimental uncertainties, following the formula

$$𝚫\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.00044}\mathbf{)}_{𝝉_𝒏}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.00036}\mathbf{)}_{𝐫\mathbf{.}𝐜\mathbf{.}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{0.64}𝚫\mathbf{(}𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(43)
where the subscript ‘r.c.’ denote the irreducible theoretical error of axial-induced photonic corrections. Similarly to the SFT case, the latter contribute at the level of 0.04%.

Clearly, the present uncertainty in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from neutron beta decay is largely dominated by the error in the measurements of $`𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽`$. It should also be noted that there is some inconsistency among the measurements of this ratio (in fact, this is at the origin of the large scale factor quoted in the total average). On the other hand, if only the recent measurements of $`𝒈_𝑨\mathbf{/}𝒈_𝑽`$ performed with a high degree of polarization are considered (entries denoted by \[\*\] in Table 2.5), as recommended by the PDG , then a good consistency is recovered. For this reason, we consider the result in the last row (scale factor included),

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.9731}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0015}\mathbf{,}$$
(44)
as the best information available at present from neutron beta decay.

### 2.5 $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝝅_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ decay

Another interesting possibility to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$, which shares the advantages of both Fermi transitions (pure vector transition, no axial-vector contribution) and neutron $`𝜷`$-decay (no nuclear structure dependent radiative corrections) is provided by the $`𝜷`$-decay of the charged pion. The difficulty here lies in the extremely small branching ratio, of order $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}`$. Nevertheless, such a measurement is presently being performed at PSI by the PIBETA collaboration, with the aim of measuring the branching ratio with 0.5% accuracy. At this level of precision, radiative corrections have to be taken into account, and Ref.  addresses this problem, within the effective theory formalism for processes involving light pseudoscalar mesons, photons and leptons .

The decay amplitude for $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}𝒆^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝒆\mathbf{)}𝝂_𝒆\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ is determined by the vector pion form factor $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, entering in the current matrix element

$$\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒖}𝜸_𝝁𝒅\mathbf{|}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}_𝝁\mathbf{+}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}^{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}_𝝁\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(45)
where $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. As usual, in the isospin limit $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and the kinematical dependence from $`𝒕`$ is parameterised by a linear slope $`𝝀`$. The effect of $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}`$, suppressed by $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒆\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝝅\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and by isospin breaking, can safely be neglected.

Accounting for isospin-breaking and radiative corrections (see analogous discussion for $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ decays), the decay rate can be written as

$$𝚪_{𝝅_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{[}𝜸\mathbf{]}}}\mathbf{=}𝓝_𝝅\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}\mathbf{|}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}$$
(46)
with $`𝓝_𝝅\mathbf{=}𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }}^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ and

$$𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}𝒇_\mathbf{+}^{𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}^𝝅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝝅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(47)
Thus we obtain:

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝚪_{𝝅_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{[}𝜸\mathbf{]}}}}{𝓝_𝝅𝑺_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐰}}𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}^𝝅\mathbf{+}𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝝅\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚫𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$

The recent analysis of Ref.  shows that

$$𝜹_{𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}^𝝅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{,}𝜹_{𝒆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}}^𝝅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.46}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}𝚫𝑰_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝀\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.1}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}$$
(48)
with a total effect of radiative corrections consistent with previous estimates .

The present experimental precision for the branching ratio of the pionic beta decay cannot compete yet with the very small theoretical uncertainties of SFT and neutron beta decay: using the latest PDG value $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.025}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.034}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}`$ , we find

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.9675}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0160}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0005}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}`$ (49)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.9675}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0161}\mathbf{.}`$
However, a substantial improvement of the experimental accuracy is to be expected in the near future. Inserting the present preliminary result obtained by the PIBETA Collaboration , $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.044}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.007}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.009}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}`$, we find

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.9765}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0056}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0005}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}`$ (50)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.9765}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0056}\mathbf{,}`$
where the error should be reduced by about a factor of 3 at the end of the experiment.

### 2.6 CKM unitarity and the determination of the Cabibbo angle

The two measurements of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from SFT and nuclear beta decay, reported in Eqs. (39) and (44) respectively, are perfectly compatible. Combining them in quadrature we obtain

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.9739}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0005}\mathbf{,}$$
(51)
a result which is not modified by the inclusion in the average of the present $`𝝅_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ data. Due to the small differences in the treatment of radiative corrections and theory errors discussed in the previous sections, this value is slightly different, but perfectly compatible, with the one quoted by the PDG: $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.9735}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0008}`$ .

The compatibility of SFT and nuclear beta decay results is clearly an important consistency check of Eq. (51). However, it should also be stressed that the theoretical uncertainty of inner radiative corrections (which contribute at the level of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\%}`$) can be considered to a good extent a common systematic error for both determinations. Thus the uncertainty quoted in Eq. (51) is mainly of theoretical nature and should be taken with some care.

Using the unitarity relation (1) we can translate Eq. (51) into a prediction for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$:

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭}\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2269}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0021}\mathbf{,}$$
(52)
to be compared with the direct determination in Eq. (30). The $`\mathbf{2.2}𝝈`$ discrepancy between these two determinations could be attributed to: i) an underestimate of theoretical and, more in general, systematic errors; ii) an unlikely statistical fluctuation; iii) the existence of new degrees of freedoms which spoil the unitarity of the CKM matrix. Since theoretical errors provide a large fraction of the total uncertainty in both cases, the solution i), or at least a combination of i) and ii), appears to be the most likely scenario. Barring the possibility iii), and in absence of a clear indication of which of the errors is underestimated, a conservative approach is obtained by treating the two determinations on the same footing and introducing the PDG scale factor. Following this procedure, our final estimate of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ imposing the unitarity constraint is

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{+}𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2240}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(53)
### References

1. M. Ademollo and R. Gatto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13 (1964) 264.
2. H. Leutwyler and M. Roos, The Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix,” Z. Phys. C 25 (1984) 91.
3. A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 83, and references therein.
4. E. S. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. 162 (1967) 1570 \[Erratum, ibid. 187 (1969) 2280\];
Phys. Rev. 171 (1968) 1675 \[Erratum, ibid. 174 (1968) 2169\]; Phys. Rev. D 1 (1970) 229.
5. G. Calderon and G. Lopez Castro, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 073032 \[hep-ph/0111272\].
6. V. Cirigliano, M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Rupertsberger and P. Talavera, Eur. Phys. J. C 23 (2002) 121 \[hep-ph/0110153\]; V. Cirigliano, M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Pichl, in preparation.
7. A. Sirlin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 50 (1978) 579.
8. W.J. Marciano, A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 3629.
9. G. Furlan, F.G. Lannoy, C. Rossetti, and G. Segré, Nuovo Cim. 38 (1965) 1747.
10. H. M. Choi and C. R. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 034001 \[hep-ph/9807500\].
11. W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 054026.
12. V. Antonelli, R. Ferrari, M. Picariello, E. Torrente-Lujan, A. Vicini, IFUM-726-FT.
13. J. Bijnens, G. Colangelo and G. Ecker, Phys. Lett. B 441 (1998) 437 \[hep-ph/9808421\].
14. P. Post and K. Schilcher, hep-ph/0112352.
15. A. Sher (E865 Collaboration), talk given at the DPF 2002 Meeting (College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, May 2002), see http://www.dpf2002.org
16. E. De Lucia, talk given at the Workshop On Quark Mixing and CKM Unitarity (Heidelberg, Germany, September 2002), to appear in the proceedings.
17. K. Hagiwara et al., Particle Data Group Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001.
18. V. Bytev, E. Kuraev, A. Baratt and J. Thompson, hep-ph/0210049.
19. E. Gamiz, M. Jamin, A. Pich, J. Prades and F. Schwab, hep-ph/0212230.
20. F. Le Diberder and A. Pich, Phys. Lett. B 289 (1992) 165.
21. M. Davier and C. Yuan, hep-ex/0211057.
22. R. Flores-Mendieta, A. Garcia and G. Sanchez-Colon, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6855 \[hep-ph/9603256\].
23. J. C. Hardy et al., Nucl. Phys. A 509 (1990) 429;
B. K. Fujikawa et al., life of C-10 with GAMMASPHERE,” nucl-ex/9806001;
I. S. Towner et al., nucl-th/9507004.
24. I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy, Nucl. Phys. A 284 (1977) 269.
25. W. E. Ormand and B. A. Brown, nucl-th/9504017.
26. I. S. Towner and J. C. Hardy, nucl-th/9809087.
27. A. Sirlin and R. Zucchini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57 (1986) 1994;
W. Jaus and G. Rasche, Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 3420.
28. W. J. Marciano and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 22;
I. S. Towner, Nucl. Phys. A 540 (1992) 478.
29. A. García, J. L. García-Luna and G. López Castro, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 66.
30. K. Saito and A. W. Thomas, Phys. Lett. B 363 (1995) 157.
31. D. H. Wilkinson, Nucl. Phys. A 377 (1982) 474.
32. N. Paver and Riazuddin, Phys. Lett. B 260 (1991) 421;
J. F. Donoghue and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 241 (1990) 243;
N. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. C 64 (2001) 028201.
33. H. Abele et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 211801.
34. P. Bopp et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 919 \[Erratum, ibid. 57 (1986) 1192\].
35. B. Erozolimsky, et al., Phys. Lett. B 412 (1997) 240.
36. P. Liaud, et al., Nucl. Phys. A 612 (1997) 53.
37. Yu. A. Mostovoi et al., Phys. Atom. Nucl. 64 (2001) 1955.
38. V. Cirigliano, M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Pichl, hep-ph/0209226.
39. M. Knecht, H. Neufeld, H. Rupertsberger, P. Talavera, Eur. Phys. J. C 12 (2000) 469.
40. W. Jaus, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 053009.
41. PIBETA Collaboration, M. Bychkov et al., PSI Scientific Report 2001, Vol.1, p. 8, eds. J. Gobrecht et al., Villigen PSI (2002).

## Chapter 3 CKM ELEMENTS FROM TREE-LEVEL B DECAYS AND LIFETIMES

Conveners: E. Barberio, L. Lellouch, K.R. Schubert
Contributors: M. Artuso, M. Battaglia, C. Bauer, D. Becirevic, M. Beneke, I. Bigi, T. Brandt, D. Cassel, M. Calvi, M. Ciuchini, A. Dighe ,K. Ecklund, P. Gagnon, P. Gambino, S. Hashimoto, A. Hoang, T. Hurth, A. Khodjamirian, C.S. Kim, A. Kronfeld, A. Lenz, A. Le Yaouanc, Z. Ligeti, V. Lubicz, D. Lucchesi, T. Mannel, M. Margoni, G. Martinelli, D. Melikhov, V. Morénas, H.G. Moser, L. Oliver, O. Pène, J.-C. Raynal, P. Roudeau, C. Schwanda, B. Serfass, M. Smizanska, J. Stark, B. Stech, A. Stocchi, N. Uraltsev, A. Warburton, L.H. Wilden.

Tree level semileptonic (s.l.) decays of B mesons are crucial for determining the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ elements of the CKM matrix. In this Chapter we review our present understanding of inclusive and exclusive s.l. B decays and give an overview of the experimental situation. The second part of the Chapter is devoted to B mesons lifetimes, whose measurement are important for several reasons. Indeed, these lifetimes are necessary to extract the s.l. widths, while the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime differences and the ratios of lifetimes of individual species provide a test of the OPE.

After a brief introduction to the main concepts involved in theoretical analysis of the inclusive decays, we discuss the determination of the relevant parameters — $`𝒃`$ quark mass and non-perturbative parameters of the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) — and underlying assumption of quark-hadron duality. We then review the inclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. The extraction of these two CKM elements from exclusive s.l. B decays is discussed in the two following sections, after which we review the theoretical framework and the measurements of the lifetimes and lifetime differences.

### 3.1 Theoretical tools

#### 3.1.1 The Operator Product Expansion for inclusive decays

Sometimes, instead of identifying all particles in a decay, it is convenient to be ignorant about some details. For example, we might want to specify the energy of a charged lepton or a photon in the final state, without looking at the specific accompanying hadron. These decays are inclusive in the sense that we sum over final states which can be produced as a result of a given short distance interaction. Typically, we are interested in a quark-level transition, such as $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$, $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$, etc., and we would like to extract the corresponding short distance parameters, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, etc., from the data. To do this, we need to be able to model independently relate the quark-level operators to the experimentally accessible observables.

In the large $`𝒎_𝒃`$ limit, we have $`𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ and we can hope to use this hierarchy to organize an expansion in $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$, analogous to the one in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾`$ introduced in Chapter 1, already based on the OPE. Since the energy released in the decay is large, a simple heuristic argument shows that the inclusive rate may be modelled simply by the decay of a free $`𝒃`$ quark. The $`𝒃`$ quark decay mediated by weak interactions takes place on a time scale that is much shorter than the time it takes the quarks in the final state to form physical hadronic states. Once the $`𝒃`$ quark has decayed on a time scale $`𝒕\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, the probability that the final states will hadronize somehow is unity, and we need not know the probability of hadronization into specific final states. Moreover, since the energy release in the decay is much larger than the hadronic scale, the decay is largely insensitive to the details of the initial state hadronic structure. This intuitive picture is formalized by the OPE, which expresses the inclusive rate as an expansion in inverse powers of the heavy quark mass, with the leading term corresponding to the free quark decay  (for a pedagogical introduction to the OPE and its applications, see ).

Let us consider, as an example, the inclusive s.l. $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ decay, mediated by the operator $`𝑶_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑮_𝑭\mathbf{/}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝑱_{𝒃𝒄}\mathbf{)}^𝜶\mathbf{(}𝑱_\mathbf{}𝝂\mathbf{)}_𝜶`$, where $`𝑱_{𝒃𝒄}^𝜶\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^𝜶𝑷_𝑳𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑱_\mathbf{}𝝂^𝜷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathbf{}}𝜸^𝜷𝑷_𝑳𝝂\mathbf{)}`$. The decay rate is given by the square of the matrix element, integrated over phase space and summed over final states,

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\underset{𝑿_𝒄}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐝\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{|}𝑶_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(1)
Since the leptons have no strong interaction, it is convenient to factorize the phase space into $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄𝑾^{\mathbf{}}`$ and a perturbatively calculable leptonic part, $`𝑾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$. The nontrivial part is the hadronic tensor,

$`𝑾^{𝜶𝜷}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝑿_𝒄}{\mathbf{}}}𝜹^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒒\mathbf{}𝒑_{𝑿_𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{|}𝐉_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐜}}^𝜶\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝐗_𝐜\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐗_𝐜\mathbf{|}𝐉_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐜}}^𝜷\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (2)
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝐝𝒙𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝒒\mathbf{}𝒙}\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{|}𝐓\mathbf{\left\{}𝐉_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐜}}^𝜶\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝐱\mathbf{)}𝐉_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐜}}^𝜷\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$
where the second line is obtained using the optical theorem, and $`𝑻`$ denotes the time ordered product of the two operators. This is convenient because the time ordered product can be expanded in local operators in the $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ limit. In this limit the time ordered product is dominated by short distances, $`𝒙\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and one can express the nonlocal hadronic tensor $`𝑾^{𝜶𝜷}`$ as a sum of local operators. Schematically,

$$\text{}\mathbf{=}\text{}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟎}}{𝒎_𝒃}\text{}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\text{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$
(3)
At leading order the decay rate is determined by the $`𝒃`$ quark content of the initial state, while subleading effects are parametrized by matrix elements of operators with increasing number of derivatives that are sensitive to the structure of the B meson. There are no $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ corrections, because the B meson matrix element of any dimension-4 operator vanishes. As the coefficients in front of each operator are calculable in perturbation theory, this leads to a simultaneous expansion in powers of the strong coupling constant $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and inverse powers of the heavy $`𝒃`$ quark mass (more precisely, of $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒒`$). The leading order of this expansion is the parton model s.l. width

$`𝚪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝝆\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝝆\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$ (4)
where $`𝝆\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Non-perturbative corrections are suppressed by at least two powers of $`𝒎_𝒃`$ . The resulting expression for the total rate of the s.l. $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ has the form

$`𝚪^{𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄}\mathbf{=}𝚪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝑩\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲}{𝒎_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝑪\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{,}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$ (5)
where the coefficients $`𝑨\mathbf{,}𝑩\mathbf{,}𝑪`$ depend on the quark masses $`𝒎_{𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒃}`$. The perturbative corrections are known up to order $`𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Non-perturbative corrections are parameterized by matrix elements of local operators. The $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections are given in terms of the two matrix elements

$`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}}\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝑴_𝑩}}\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{\left|}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗{\displaystyle \frac{𝒈}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}𝑮^{𝝁𝝂}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{\right|}𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}`$ (6)
The dependence on these matrix elements is contained in the coefficient $`𝑪\mathbf{}𝑪\mathbf{(}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. Up to higher-order corrections, the connection to an alternative notation is $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$. At order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ there are two additional matrix elements. Thus, the total decay rate depends on a set of non-perturbative parameters, including the quark masses, with the number of such parameters depending on the order in $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ one is working.

Similar results can be derived for differential distributions, as long as the distributions are sufficiently inclusive. To quantify this last statement, it is crucial to remember that the OPE does not apply to fully differential distributions but requires that such distributions be smeared over enough final state phase space. The size of the smearing region $`𝚫`$ introduces a new scale into the expressions for differential rates and can lead to non-perturbative corrections being suppressed by powers of $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒏\mathbf{/}𝚫^𝒏`$ rather than $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^𝒏\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^𝒏`$. Thus, a necessary requirement for the OPE to converge is $`𝚫\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$, although a quantitative understanding of how experimental cuts affect the size of smearing regions is difficult.

#### 3.1.2 Heavy Quark Effective Theory

The bound state problem for exclusive decays of hadrons composed of a heavy quark $`𝑸`$ and light degrees of freedom simplifies in the limit $`𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$. The size of such heavy-light hadrons is $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$ and hence, the typical momenta exchanged between the heavy and light degrees of freedom are of order $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$. Such momenta do not permit the light constituents to resolve the quantum numbers of the heavy quark, whose Compton wavelength is $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$. It follows that the light constituents of hadrons which differ only by the flavour or spin of their heavy quark have the same configuration. For $`𝑵_𝑸`$ heavy-quark flavours, this invariance results in an $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑵_𝑸\mathbf{)}_𝒗`$ symmetry which acts on the spin and flavour components of the heavy-quark multiplet and under which the strong interactions are invariant at energies much smaller than $`𝒎_𝑸`$ . The subscript $`𝒗`$ on $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑵_𝑸\mathbf{)}_𝒗`$ labels the velocity of the heavy quark on which the configuration of the light constituents obviously depends.

The spin-flavour symmetry leads to many interesting relations between the properties of hadrons containing a heavy quark. The most immediate consequences concern the spectra of these states . Indeed, since the spin of the heavy quark decouples, states occur in mass-degenerate doublets corresponding to the two possible orientations of the heavy-quark spin.***An exception to this rule are the ground state baryons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$: their light constituents carry no angular momentum. Examples are the meson doublets $`\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{,}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝐃\mathbf{,}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ or the baryon doublets $`\mathbf{(}𝚺_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝚺_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝚺_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝚺_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Moreover, the flavour symmetry implies that the energy carried by the light constituents in a heavy-light hadron must be the same whether the heavy quark is a beauty or a charm. Thus, in the symmetry limit, we have relations such as $`𝑴_{𝚲_𝒃}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{=}𝑴_{𝚲_𝒄}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫`$ and $`𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{=}𝑴_{𝑫_𝒔}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫`$. All of these relations are satisfied experimentally to the expected accuracy, that is up to terms of order $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ or $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$, depending on whether the charm quark is present.

Another set of consequences of heavy quark symmetry concerns current matrix elements and, in particular, $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ transitions . Consider the matrix element of the $`𝒃`$-number current between B meson states of given velocities:

$$\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{(}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^𝝁𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{+}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^𝝁𝑭_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝑩𝑩}\mathbf{)}$$
(7)
with $`𝒕_{𝑩𝑩}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$, where $`𝒘\mathbf{=}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}`$. $`𝑭_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝑩𝑩}\mathbf{)}`$ simply measures the overlap of the wave-function of light constituents around a $`𝒃`$ quark of velocity $`𝒗`$ with that of light constituents around a $`𝒃`$ quark of velocity $`𝒗^{\mathbf{}}`$. In the heavy-quark limit, flavour symmetry implies that this same form factor describes the matrix element obtained by replacing one or both of the beauty quarks by a charm quark of same velocity. The spin symmetry implies that this form factor parametrizes matrix elements in which the initial and/or final pseudo-scalar meson is replaced by the corresponding vector meson. It further requires the same form factor to parametrize matrix elements in which a vector current such as $`\overline{𝒄}𝜸^𝝁𝒃`$ is replaced by any other $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ current. This means that in the heavy-quark limit, the s.l. decays $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$, which are governed by the hadronic matrix elements, $`\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}`$, are described by a single form factor, $`𝝃\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑭_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝑩𝑩}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, instead of the six form factors allowed by Lorentz invariance. Moreover, this form factor, known as the Isgur-Wise function, is normalized to one at zero-recoil, i.e. $`𝝃\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for $`𝒗\mathbf{=}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, because the $`𝒃`$-number current is conserved.

The normalization imposed by heavy quark symmetry is the basis for the measurement of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from exclusive s.l. B decays described in Sec. 3.3. Symmetry is used to the same effect elsewhere in the determination of CKM matrix elements: isospin symmetry normalizes the form factor in $`𝜷`$ decays, yielding $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$, and $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour symmetry of light quarks approximatively normalizes the form factor in $`𝑲_{𝒍\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ decays, yielding $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$.

In order to explore the consequences of heavy quark symmetry more systematically and compute corrections to the symmetry limit, which are essential for reaching the accuracies required for precise determinations of CKM parameters, it is convenient to construct an effective field theory which displays this symmetry explicitly and gives a simplified description of QCD at low energies . The idea behind effective theories is a separation of scales such that the effective theory correctly reproduces the long-distance physics of the underlying theory. For the case at hand, we are after a theory which duplicates QCD on scales below a cutoff $`𝝁`$ such that:

$$𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{}𝝁\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{.}$$
(8)
The construction of heavy quark effective theory (HQET)There exist many reviews of heavy quark effective theory. See for instance . begins with the observation that the heavy quark bound inside a heavy-light hadron is nearly on-shell and that its four-velocity is approximately the hadron’s velocity, $`𝒗`$. Its momentum can thus be written

$$𝒑^𝝁\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝑸𝒗^𝝁\mathbf{+}𝒌^𝝁\mathbf{,}$$
(9)
where the components of the residual momentum $`𝒌^𝝁`$ are much smaller than $`𝒎_𝑸`$ and where $`𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The heavy-quark field is then decomposed into its “particle” and “anti-particle” components, $`𝒉_𝒗`$ and $`𝑯_𝒗`$, as

$$𝑸\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝒎_𝑸𝒗\mathbf{}𝒙}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\text{ / }𝒗}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\text{ / }𝒗}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑯_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(10)
This decomposition shifts the zero of four-momentum in such a way that the heavy-quark degrees of freedom become massless while the anti-quark degrees of freedom acquire a mass $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸`$.A description of heavy anti-quarks is obtained by performing a shift in four-momentum of opposite sign. The latter are the heavy degrees of freedom which are integrated out in the construction of the effective theory. Performing this operation in the path integral and expanding the result in powers of terms of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸`$, one finds the following leading order effective Lagrangian:

$$𝓛_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}\mathbf{=}𝓛_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗𝒊𝒗\mathbf{}𝑫𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(11)
At subleading order it becomes:

$$𝓛_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}\mathbf{=}𝓛_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝓛_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}𝓛_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{+}\frac{𝒈}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}𝑮^{𝝁𝝂}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(12)
with $`𝑫_{\mathbf{}}^𝝁\mathbf{=}𝑫\mathbf{}𝒗^𝝁𝒗\mathbf{}𝑫`$.

The absence of Dirac structure and of masses in $`𝓛_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ signals the existence of the heavy quark spin-flavour symmetry. This symmetry is broken at order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$. In Eq. (12), the first correction corresponds to the gauge-invariant extension of the kinetic energy arising from the residual motion of the heavy quark and breaks only the flavour component of the symmetry. The second term describes the colour-magnetic coupling of the heavy-quark spin to the gluons and breaks both the spin and the flavour components of the symmetry.

In order to incorporate the weak interactions of heavy quarks, one must also consider the expansion of weak operators in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸`$. Introducing a source in the path integral for the quark field, $`𝑸\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$, one finds that this source couples to

$`𝑸\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝒎_𝑸𝒗\mathbf{}𝒙}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒊𝒗\mathbf{}𝑫\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}}𝒊\text{ / }𝑫_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right]}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ (13)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝒎_𝑸𝒗\mathbf{}𝒙}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒊\text{ / }𝑫_{\mathbf{}}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
once the substitution of Eq. (10) and the integral over the “anti-quark” mode $`𝑯_𝒗`$ are performed. Thus, the expansion of weak currents involving heavy quarks in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸`$ is obtained by replacing occurrences of $`𝑸\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ by the expansion of Eq. (13).

The construction described up until now correctly reproduces the long-distance physics of QCD, (below $`𝝁`$ of Eq. (8)). However, this procedure does not take into account the effects of hard gluons whose virtual momenta can be of the order of the heavy-quark mass, or even larger . Such gluons can resolve the flavour and the spin of the heavy quark and thus induce symmetry breaking corrections. Schematically, the relation between matrix elements of an operator $`𝓞`$ in the full and in the effective theory is

$$\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{=}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝓞}_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_{𝑯𝑸𝑬𝑻}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}\mathbf{}\overline{𝓞}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_{𝑯𝑸𝑬𝑻}\mathbf{,}$$
(14)
where $`\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{}𝝁`$ and where we have assumed, for simplicity, that only one HQET operator appears at leading and at sub-leading order in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸`$ expansion. The short-distance coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}`$ are defined by this equation, and should be accurately calculable order by order in perturbation theory because $`𝜶_𝒔`$ is small in the region between $`𝝁`$ and $`𝒎_𝑸`$. One typically obtains $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$. The way in which these virtual processes break the heavy quark symmetry is by inducing a logarithmic dependence of the $`𝑪_𝒊`$ on $`𝒎_𝑸`$ and by causing mixing with operators which have a different spin structure (not shown here).

Since the effective theory is constructed to reproduce the low-energy behaviour of QCD, the matching procedure must be independent of long-distance effects such as infrared singularities or the nature of the external states used. It is therefore possible and convenient to perform the matching using external on-shell quark states. Furthermore, if the logarithms of $`𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{/}𝝁`$ which appear in the short-distance coefficients are uncomfortably large, it is possible to resum them using renormalization group techniques.

It is important to note that the matrix elements in the effective theory, such as $`\overline{𝓞}_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_{𝑯𝑸𝑬𝑻}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\overline{𝓞}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝁}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_{𝑯𝑸𝑬𝑻}`$ in Eq. (14), involve long-distance strong-interaction effects and therefore require non-perturbative treatment. It is also important to note that the separation between short-distance perturbative and long-distance non-perturbative contributions is ambiguous, though these ambiguities must cancel in the calculation of physical observables. These ambiguities require one to be careful in combining results for short-distant coefficients and for the non-perturbative HQET matrix elements. In particular, one has to make sure that these coefficients are combined with matrix elements which are defined at the same order and, of course, in the same renormalization scheme.

### 3.2 Inclusive semileptonic $`𝒃`$ decays

#### 3.2.1 Bottom and charm quark mass determinations

In the framework of B physics the bottom quark mass parameter is particularly important because theoretical predictions of many quantities strongly depend on $`𝒎_𝒃`$. Thus, uncertainties on $`𝒎_𝒃`$ can affect the determination of other parameters. However, due to confinement and the non-perturbative aspect of the strong interaction the concept of quark masses cannot be tied to an intuitive picture of the weight or the rest mass of a particle, such as for leptons, which are to very good approximation insensitive to the strong interactions. Rather, quark masses have to be considered as couplings of the Standard Model Lagrangian that have to be determined from processes that depend on them. As such, the bottom quark mass is a scheme-dependent, renormalized quantity. For recent reviews on the determination of the $`𝒃`$ quark mass, see .

##### 3.2.1.1 Quark mass definitions in perturbation theory

In principle, any renormalization scheme, or definition for quark masses is possible. In the framework of QCD perturbation theory the difference between two mass schemes can be determined as a series in powers of $`𝜶_𝒔`$. Therefore, higher-order terms in the perturbative expansion of a quantity that depends on quark masses are affected by which scheme is employed. There are schemes that are more appropriate and more convenient for some purposes than others. In this section we review the prevalent perturbative quark mass definitions, focusing on the case of the bottom quark.

##### Pole mass

The bottom quark pole mass $`𝒎_𝒃`$ is defined as the solution to

$$\text{ / }𝒑\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}_{𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}\mathbf{,}$$
(15)
where $`𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ is the bottom quark self energy. The pole mass definition is gauge-invariant and infrared-safe  to all orders in perturbation theory and has been used as the standard mass definition of many perturbative computations in the past. By construction, the pole mass is directly related to the concept of the mass of a free quark, which is, however, problematic because of confinement. In practical applications the pole mass has the disadvantage that the perturbative series relating it to physical quantities are in general quite badly behaved, due to a strong sensitivity of the pole mass definition itself to infrared gluons .

There is nothing wrong to use the pole mass as an intermediate quantity, as long as it is used in a consistent way. In particular, the presence of a renormalon ambiguity  requires considering the numerical value of the pole mass as an order-dependent quantity. Because this makes estimates of uncertainties difficult, the pole mass definition should be avoided for analyses where quark mass uncertainties smaller than $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ are necessary. The problems of the pole mass definition can be avoided if one uses quark mass definitions that are less sensitive to small momenta and do not have an ambiguity of order $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$. Such quark mass definitions are generically called “short-distance” masses. They have a parametric ambiguity or order $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ or smaller.

##### $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass

The most common short-distance mass parameter is the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, which is defined by regulating QCD with dimensional regularization and subtracting the divergences in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme. Since the subtractions do not contain any infrared sensitive terms, the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass is only sensitive to scales of order or larger than $`𝒎_𝒃`$. The relation between the pole mass and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass is known to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$  and reads ($`\overline{𝜶}_𝒔\mathbf{}𝜶_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝒍\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$)

$$\frac{𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}}{\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}\overline{𝜶}_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝝅}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\overline{𝜶}_𝒔}{𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{13.44}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.04}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\overline{𝜶}_𝒔}{𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{190.8}\mathbf{}\mathbf{26.7}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.65}𝒏_𝒇^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$

The bottom quark $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass arises naturally in processes where the bottom quark is far off-shell. The scale $`𝝁`$ in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass is typically chosen of the order of the characteristic energy scale of the process under consideration since perturbation theory contains logarithmic terms $`\mathbf{}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}^𝒏\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ that would be large otherwise. Using the renormalization group equation for $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ the value of the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass for different $`𝝁`$ can be related to each other. The $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass definition is less useful for processes where the bottom quark is close to its mass-shell, i.e. when the bottom quark has non-relativistic energies.

##### Threshold masses

The shortcomings of the pole and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ masses in describing non-relativistic bottom quarks can be resolved by so-called threshold masses . The threshold masses are free of an ambiguity of order $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ and, at the same time, are defined through subtractions that contain contributions that are universal for the dynamics of non-relativistic quarks. Since the subtractions are not unique, an arbitrary number of threshold masses can be constructed. In the following the threshold mass definitions that appear in the literature are briefly reviewed.

Kinetic mass
The kinetic mass is defined as

$`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$ (16)
where $`\mathbf{\left[}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}`$ and $`\mathbf{\left[}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}`$ are perturbative evaluations of HQET matrix elements that describe the difference between the pole and the B meson mass.

The relation between the kinetic mass and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass is known to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟑}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ . The formulae for $`\mathbf{[}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}`$ and $`\mathbf{[}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}`$ at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ read

$`\mathbf{\left[}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝑪_𝑭𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}}{\overline{𝒎}}}\mathbf{\right)}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑪_𝑨\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{,}`$ (17)
$`\mathbf{\left[}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑪_𝑭𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}}{\overline{𝒎}}}\mathbf{\right)}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑪_𝑨\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{.}`$ (18)
where $`\overline{𝒎}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝑪_𝑭\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, and $`𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒏_𝒇`$. For $`𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the kinetic mass reduces to the pole mass.

Potential-subtracted mass
The potential-subtracted (PS) mass is similar to the kinetic mass, but arises considering the static energy of a bottom-antibottom quark pair in NRQCD .The PS mass is known to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ and its relation to the pole mass reads

$`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑪_𝑭𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}\mathbf{(}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒏_𝒇`$ and $`𝜷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒏_𝒇`$ are the one- and two-loop beta functions, and $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}{\mathrm{𝟗}}𝒏_𝒇`$, $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{456.749}\mathbf{}\mathbf{66.354}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.235}𝒏_𝒇^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (see Refs. ). For $`𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the PS mass reduces to the pole mass.

1S mass
The kinetic and the potential-subtracted mass depend on an explicit subtraction scale to remove the universal infrared sensitive contributions associated with the non-relativistic heavy quark dynamics. The 1S mass  achieves the same task without a factorization scale, since it is directly related to a physical quantity. The bottom 1S mass is defined as one half of the perturbative contribution to the mass of the $`𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑳_{𝒋}^{}\mathbf{=}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑺_{\mathrm{𝟏}}^{}`$ quarkonium bound state in the limit $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃𝒗\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$. To three loop order the 1S mass is defined as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}}{𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}𝑪_𝑭𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}}\mathbf{\{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{[}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝑳\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{]}`$ (20)
$`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{[}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}𝑳^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝑳\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜻_\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑳\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜷_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{(}𝑳\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝑪_𝑨\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑪_𝑭}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}}}\mathbf{)}𝑪_𝑭𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝑳\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝑪_𝑭𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜻_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.20206}`$. The expression for the 1S mass is derived in the framework of the non-relativistic expansion, where powers of the bottom quark velocity arise as powers of $`𝜶_𝒔`$ in the 1S mass definition. Thus, to achieve the renormalon cancellation for B decays in the 1S mass scheme it is mandatory to treat terms of order $`𝜶_𝒔^{𝒏\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ in Eq. (20) as being of order $`𝜶_𝒔^𝒏`$. This prescription is called “upsilon expansion”  and arises because of the difference between the non-relativistic power counting and the usual counting in numbers of loops of powers of $`𝜶_𝒔`$.

Renormalon-subtracted mass
The renormalon-subtracted mass  is defined as the perturbative series that results from subtracting all non-analytic pole terms from the Borel transform of the pole-$`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass relation at $`𝒖\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with a fixed choice for the renormalization scale $`𝝁\mathbf{=}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐒}}`$. The scale $`𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐒}}`$ is then kept independent from the renormalization scale used for the computation of the quantities of interest. To order $`𝜶_𝒔`$ the relation between RS mass and pole mass reads,

$`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐒}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐒}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_{\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}\mathbf{}𝒄𝜶_𝒔𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐒}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}`$ (21)
where the constant $`𝒄`$ depends on the number of light quark species and has an uncertainty because the residue at $`𝒖\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in the Borel transform of the pole-$`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass relation is known only approximately.

In Table 3.1 the various $`𝒃`$ quark mass parameters are compared numerically taking the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ as a reference value for different values for the strong coupling. Each entry corresponds to the mass using the respective 1-loop/2-loop/3-loop relations.

##### 3.2.1.2 Bottom quark mass from spectral sum rules

The spectral sum rules for $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{)}`$ start from the correlator of two electromagnetic bottom quark currents

$`\mathbf{(}𝒈_{𝝁𝝂}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒒_𝝁𝒒_𝝂\mathbf{)}𝚷\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}𝒊{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅𝒙𝒆^{𝒊𝒒𝒙}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}\mathbf{|}𝑻𝒋_𝝁^𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒋_𝝂^𝒃\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$ (22)
where $`𝒋_𝝁^𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝜸_𝝁𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$. Using analyticity and the optical theorem one can relate theoretically calculable derivatives of $`𝚷`$ at $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to moments of the total cross section $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{)}`$,

$$𝓜_𝒏\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑸_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒏\mathbf{!}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒅}{𝒅𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏𝚷\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}_{𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{𝒅𝒔}{𝒔^{𝒏\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}}𝑹\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(23)
where $`𝑹\mathbf{=}𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. From Eq. (23) it is possible to determine the bottom quark mass . From the theoretical point of view $`𝒏`$ cannot be too large because the effective energy range contributing to the moment becomes of order or smaller than $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ and non-perturbative effects become uncontrollable. Since the effective range of $`\sqrt{𝒔}`$ contributing to the spectral integral is of order $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{/}𝒏`$ one finds the range

$$𝒏\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{,}$$
(24)
where a reliable extraction of the bottom quark mass is feasible. In this range one can distinguish two regions. In the large-$`𝒏`$ region, $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}𝒏\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$, the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$-dynamics is predominantly non-relativistic and threshold masses are the suitable mass parameters that can be determined. In the small-$`𝒏`$ region, $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒏\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ dynamics is predominantly relativistic and the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass is the appropriate mass parameter. In the following the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of sum rules are reviewed. Results for bottom quark masses obtained in recent sum rule analyses have been collected in Table 3.2.

##### Non-relativistic sum rules

The large-$`𝒏`$ sum rules have the advantage that the experimentally unknown parts of the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ continuum cross section above the $`𝚼`$ resonance region are suppressed. A crude model for the continuum cross section is sufficient and causes an uncertainty in the b quark mass below the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ MeV level. Depending on which moment is used the overall experimental uncertainties in the b quark mass are between $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ MeV. Over the past years there has been a revived interest in non-relativistic sum rules because new theoretical developments allowed for the systematic determination of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (NNLO) corrections to the spectral moments . All analyses found that the NNLO corrections were as large or even larger than the NLO corrections and various different methods were devised to extract numerical values for the bottom quark mass. In Refs.  threshold masses were implemented accounting for the renormalon problem. This removed one source of the bad perturbative behaviour, but it was found that a considerable theoretical uncertainty remained, coming from the theoretical description of the production and annihilation probability of the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ pair. In Refs.  and  the kinetic and the PS mass were determined from fits of individual moments. It was found that the NLO and NNLO results for the bottom mass differ by about $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ MeV. In Ref.  it was argued that the results form an alternating series and a value of $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.56}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{(}\text{ex,th}\mathbf{)}`$ GeV was determined. In Ref.  only the NNLO results were accounted based on consistency arguments with computations of the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ mass and the result $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐏𝐒}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.60}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{(}\text{ex}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}\mathbf{(}\text{th}\mathbf{)}`$ GeV was obtained. In Ref.  the 1S mass was employed and a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$-fit based on four different moments was carried out. It was found that the large normalization uncertainties drop out at NLO and NNLO and that the results for the mass at NLO and NNLO showed good convergence. The result was $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.71}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{(}\text{ex}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{(}\text{th}\mathbf{)}`$ GeV. A subsequent analysis  which included the effects of the nonzero charm mass yielded $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.69}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{(}\text{ex}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{(}\text{th}\mathbf{)}`$ GeV.

##### Relativistic sum rules

The small-$`𝒏`$ sum rules have the disadvantage that the unknown parts of the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ continuum cross section above the $`𝚼`$ resonance region constitute a substantial contribution to the spectral moments. The advantage is that the computation of the theoretical moments is less involved since usual perturbation theory in powers of $`𝜶_𝒔`$ can be employed. In Ref.  the theoretical moments were determined at order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and it was found that the perturbative behaviour of the theoretical moments is quite good. For the bottom quark mass determination it was assumed that the unknown experimental continuum cross section agrees with the perturbation theory prediction and subsequently the result $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.21}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ GeV was determined. A more conservative analysis in Ref.  obtained the result $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.20}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.09}`$ GeV.

##### 3.2.1.3 Bottom quark mass from the mass of the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒\mathbf{)}`$

Among the earliest values of the b quark mass were determinations that were based on analysis of the observed spectrum of the $`𝚼`$ mesons. However, since these determinations used potential models to describe the $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ dynamics they have little value for present analyses in B physics. The same conceptual advances that led to the progress in the determination of the $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to the spectral moments also allowed to systematically determine $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to the spectrum of quark-antiquark bound states, which provides another method to determine a bottom quark threshold mass. The disadvantage of this method is that the theoretical tools only apply to the case in which the binding energy $`\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃𝒗^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is larger than $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$, which is unlikely for higher radial excitations and questionable for the ground state. As such, also the theoretical methods to determine the effects of non-perturbative corrections, which are based on Shifman et al. , could be unreliable. In recent analyses (see Tab. 3.2) only the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ mass has been used for a bottom mass extraction. The uncertainty is completely dominated by the estimate of the non-perturbative effects.

##### 3.2.1.4 Summary of $`𝒎_𝒃`$ determinations from sum rules

Comparing the results from the recent bottom quark mass determinations (see Tab. 3.2) one finds a remarkable consistency among the various analyses. However, the impression could be misleading because all methods have problematic issues. Therefore, it is prudent to adopt a more conservative view in averaging and interpreting the results. For the workshop is was agreed that the $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ shall be used as reference mass and that the respective threshold masses shall be determined from it. This leads to an enhancement of the theoretical error in the threshold masses, due to their dependence on $`𝜶_𝒔`$. An averaging prescription for the results in Tab. 3.2 has not been given, and it was agreed on the value

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}4.21}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}\text{GeV}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(25)
Future work should aim to reduce the uncertainty to a level of 50 MeV.

##### 3.2.1.5 Charm quark mass from sum rules

The charm mass plays a less important role than $`𝒎_𝒃`$ in applications related to the CKM determination, although it certainly is a fundamental parameter. Perhaps because of that, the determination of $`𝒎_𝒄`$ from $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ hadrons has so far received less attention than that of $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and has not reached the same level of maturity; we will not discuss the subject here. The most recent analyses can be found in . Typical results for the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ mass $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ range between 1.19 and 1.37 GeV, with uncertainties varying between 30 and 110 MeV.

##### 3.2.1.6 Charm and bottom quark masses from Lattice QCD

The determination of both heavy and light quark masses is one of the most important field of activity of lattice QCD simulations. Two major theoretical advances have allowed to increase the accuracy of these determinations. The first one has been the development of non-perturbative renormalization techniques. The renormalized quark mass $`𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, in a given renormalization scheme, is related to the bare quark mass $`𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$, which is a function of the lattice spacing $`𝒂`$, through a multiplicative renormalization constant,

$$𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒁_𝒎\mathbf{(}𝝁𝒂\mathbf{)}𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(26)
The bare quark mass $`𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ (with $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$) is a free parameter of the QCD Lagrangian. It can be computed on the lattice by requiring the mass of some physical hadron ($`𝝅\mathbf{,}𝐊\mathbf{,}𝐃\mathbf{,}𝐁\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$), determined from the numerical simulation, to be equal to the corresponding experimental value. Therefore, one experimental input is needed to fix the value of the quark mass for each flavour of quark.

The quark mass renormalization constant, $`𝒁_𝒎\mathbf{(}𝝁𝒂\mathbf{)}`$, can be computed in principle in perturbation theory. Its perturbative expansion, however, is known only at one loop and the corresponding theoretical uncertainty is therefore rather large. The non-perturbative renormalization techniques allow to compute $`𝒁_𝒎`$ in a non-perturbative way directly from a numerical simulation, with an accuracy which is at the level of few per cent. The two most important non-perturbative renormalization methods developed so far are based on the so called RI/MOM  and Schrödinger functional  schemes.

The other important theoretical progress, in lattice QCD calculations, has been the introduction of improved actions and operators, which allow to reduce discretization errors (finite cut-off effects) from $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. This improvement has been particularly relevant for the lattice determination of the charm quark mass. Typical values of the lattice cut-off, in current numerical simulations, are in the range $`𝒂^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{GeV}`$. With these values, leading discretization effects proportional to $`𝒎_𝒄𝒂`$ can be of the order of 30% or larger, and they would represent the major source of systematic uncertainty in lattice determinations of the charm quark mass. The use of improved actions, combined with the extrapolation to the continuum limit $`\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ of the results obtained at fixed lattice spacing, allows to reduce discretization errors well below the 10% level.

Two lattice determinations of the charm quark mass, which use both non-perturbative renormalization and a non-perturbatively improved action, have been performed so far. The results, in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme, read

$`\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.26}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.12}\text{GeV}`$
$`\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.301}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.034}\text{GeV}\mathbf{.}`$ (27)
The first of these results has been obtained at a fixed value of the lattice spacing, corresponding to $`𝒂^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.7}\text{GeV}`$. The second one also involves an extrapolation to the continuum limit, and therefore the prediction is more accurate in this case. At fixed value of the lattice spacing the two calculations are in very good agreement. The only uncertainty which is not quoted in Eq. (3.2.1.6) is due to the use of the quenched approximation. For the $`𝒃`$-quark mass the quenching effect has been found to be very small, of the order of 1–2% , while determinations of this effect for light quarks are more uncertain, lying in the range between 10 and 25%. In order to account for the quenching error in the case of the charm quark mass, a (probably conservative) estimate consists in adding a systematic uncertainty of the order of 10% to the result of Eq. (3.2.1.6). This gives, as best lattice estimate for the charm quark mass, the value

$$\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.30}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}\text{GeV}\mathbf{.}$$
(28)
Lattice determinations of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass have reached, at present, a very high level of both statistical and systematic accuracy. Since the mass of the $`𝒃`$ quark is larger than the UV cut-off (the inverse of the lattice spacing) used in current lattice calculations, the $`𝒃`$ quark cannot be simulated directly on the lattice. Therefore, one is led to use an effective theory, like HQET or NRQCD, in which the heavy degrees of freedom associated with the $`𝒃`$ quark are integrated out. Within the effective theory, the pole mass of the $`𝒃`$ quark is related to the B meson mass $`𝑴_𝑩`$ through the relation

$$𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}\mathbf{+}𝜺\mathbf{}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{,}$$
(29)
which is valid up to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections. In Eq. (29), $`𝜺`$ is the so called binding energy and $`𝜹𝒎`$ is a mass counterterm induced by radiative corrections. Neither $`𝜺`$ nor $`𝜹𝒎`$ are real physical quantities, and indeed they are separately power divergent. The binding energy $`𝜺`$ is the quantity which is directly measured in the numerical simulations of the effective theory on the lattice. At the same time, an accurate determination of $`𝜹𝒎`$ is necessary in order to achieve a precise estimate of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass.

The most accurate determination of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass on the lattice has been obtained with the HQET . It relies on the NNLO perturbative calculation of the residual mass performed in Ref. . The final unquenched ($`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$) result for the $`𝒃`$-quark mass in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme reads

$$\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.26}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\text{GeV}\mathbf{,}$$
(30)
in which the combined statistical and systematic uncertainty is at the level of 2%. Other lattice determinations of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass have been also obtained by using NRQCD . Since the systematic is rather different in the latter case, it is quite reassuring to find that the lattice-NRQCD results are in very good agreement with the prediction of Eq. (30).

The lattice determinations of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass can be further improved. In the quenched case, the residual mass $`𝜹𝒎`$ has been computed at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ by implementing the so called numerical stochastic perturbation theory . The same NNNLO accuracy could be achieved also for the unquenched theory. More recently, a completely non-perturbative approach to the calculation of $`𝜹𝒎`$ has been proposed. The corresponding (preliminary) quenched result for the $`𝒃`$-quark mass is $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.53}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}`$ , which is larger than the lattice determination of Eq. (30) and than the non-lattice estimates reviewed in the previous subsection. Since the approach of Ref.  is new, it deserves further investigations. On the other hand, being completely non-perturbative, it is quite promising for future and even more accurate lattice determinations of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass.

#### 3.2.2 Extraction of heavy-quark parameters from semileptonic moments

Important information on the parameters of the OPE can be extracted from the moments of the differential distributions in s.l. and radiative B decays, which encode the shape of these spectra. Recently, the first few moments of the hadronic, leptonic, and photonic spectra in s.l. and radiative B decays have been measured by several experiments . We define the moments of the leptonic energy distribution as

$$𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪}\mathbf{}𝒅𝑬_{\mathbf{}}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝑬_{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{;}𝑴_𝒏^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪}\mathbf{}𝒅𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝑬_{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(31)
and the moments of the distribution of $`𝑴_𝑿`$, the invariant hadronic mass, as

$$𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑿\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪}\mathbf{}𝒅𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑴}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{;}𝑴_𝒏^𝑿\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪}\mathbf{}𝒅𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}^𝒏\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(32)
where $`\overline{𝑴}_𝑫\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.973}`$ GeV is the spin averaged $`𝑫`$ meson mass and $`𝚪`$ is the total s.l. width. In general, $`𝒏`$ can also be fractional. Some experiments apply a lower cut on the lepton energy. In that case two truncated leptonic moments, originally suggested by Gremm et al.  and defined as

$$𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.7}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathrm{𝐚𝐧𝐝}𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{,}$$
(33)
are often used in the experimental analysis. The theoretical framework to interpret these data has long been known and is based on the OPE. Different formulations exist, depending on the way the quark masses are treated. For instance, the $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝒎_𝒄`$ masses can be taken as independent parameters or subject to a constraint on $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄`$, imposed from the measured $`𝐁^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ meson masses. The second choice introduces a $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansion. Another option concerns the normalization scheme used for quark masses and non-perturbative parameters. As explained in the previous section, one can use short-distance masses, such as the low-scale running masses, or pole masses.

The moments $`𝑴_𝒏^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑹_𝒊`$, and $`𝑴_𝒏^𝑿`$ are highly sensitive to the quark masses and to the non-perturbative parameters of the OPE. For instance, the hadronic moments $`𝑴_𝒏^𝑿`$ vanish at the parton level and are generated only by real gluon emission at $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ and by non-perturbative effects suppressed by powers of the $`𝒃`$ quark mass. The OPE expresses lepton moments through quark masses as a double expansion in $`𝜶_𝒔`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$:

$$𝑴_𝒏^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒎_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏\mathbf{\left[}𝝋_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒂}_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒃}_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒄}_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\frac{𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒅}_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\frac{𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝒔}_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\frac{𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(34)
where $`𝒓\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Analogous expressions hold for the truncated moments $`𝑹_𝒊`$. The higher coefficient functions $`\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}`$, $`\overline{𝒄}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}`$, … are also perturbative series in $`𝜶_𝒔`$. The functions $`𝝋_𝒏`$ in Eq. (34) are well-known parton expressions, given e.g. in . The expectation values of only two operators contribute to $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$: the Darwin term $`𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and the spin-orbital term $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Due to the kinematic definition of the hadronic invariant mass $`𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, the general expression for the hadronic moments includes $`𝑴_𝑩`$ explicitly, but it is otherwise similar to Eq. (34):

$`𝑴_𝒏^𝑿`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒍\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃}{𝒎_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right]}^𝒍\mathbf{(}𝑬_{𝒏𝒍}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒂_{𝒏𝒍}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{+}𝒃_{𝒏𝒍}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}𝒄_{𝒏𝒍}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$ (35)
$`\mathbf{+}𝒅_{𝒏𝒍}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{+}𝒔_{𝒏𝒍}\mathbf{(}𝒓\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$
It is possible to re-express the heavy quark masses, $`𝒎_𝑸`$, in the above equations, in terms of the meson masses, $`𝑴_{𝑯_𝑸}`$, through the relation :

$$𝑴_{𝑯_𝑸}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{+}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒂_{𝑯_𝑸}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝑸}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝒂_{𝑯_𝑸}𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝝆_{𝒏𝒍}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(36)
where $`𝒂_{𝑯_𝑸}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ for pseudo-scalar and vector mesons, respectively. The use of these expressions introduces an explicit dependence on the non-local correlators contributing to $`𝝆_{𝒏𝒍}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. In the notation of , $`𝝆_{𝒏𝒍}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ corresponds to linear combinations of $`𝓣_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}`$.

The moments of the photon spectrum in inclusive radiative B decays, $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$, are also useful to constrain the non-perturbative parameters. The relevant formulae can be found in  and Refs. therein.

Of all the possible formalisms we discuss here only two extreme cases.§§§A few different possibilities are considered in .  The first formalism is based on the kinetic running masses, $`𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, and non-perturbative parameters, introduced in . No charm mass expansion is assumed. The second formalism employs quark pole masses and the $`𝐁^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ meson mass relations. Contributions through $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$  and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$  to the moments are available. Depending on the formulation adopted, the number of parameters involved at this order ranges from six to nine. Some of these parameters, like $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, are relatively well known. Others, notably those which appear at $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, are virtually unknown.

##### 3.2.2.1 The $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒎_{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ formalism

The quark masses are here identified by the running kinetic quark masses $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒎_{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, and since no relation like Eq. (36) is used, they are two independent parameters. Apart from $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, defined here as expectation values in the actual B meson, there are two $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ parameters, $`𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The effect of $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ turns out to be numerically small. In Eqs. (34) and (35) the mass ratio $`𝒓`$ is given by $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_{𝒄\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and the $`𝒃`$ quark mass is understood as $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$. The perturbative coefficients additionally depend on $`𝝁\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and the mass normalization scale $`𝝁`$ is set at $`𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ GeV. To illustrate the size of different contributions to $`𝑴_𝒏^{\mathbf{}}`$, we give the relevant coefficients for the first three moments in the case without a cut on the lepton energy in Table 3.3, using $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}`$(1 GeV) = 4.6 GeV and $`𝒓\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.06}`$  (the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections are also available ).

In the case of hadronic moments, keeping terms up to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, we discard in Eq. (35) coefficients $`𝒃_{𝒏𝒍}`$, $`𝒄_{𝒏𝒍}`$ with $`𝒍\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and $`𝒅_{𝒏𝒍}`$, $`𝒔_{𝒏𝒍}`$ with $`𝒍\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. The only non-vanishing $`𝑬_{𝒊\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ coefficient is $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{=}𝒓\mathbf{}\overline{𝑴}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The value of the other coefficients, at $`𝒓\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.06}`$ and again without a cut on the hadron energy, are listed in Table 3.4. The $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to hadronic moments are not yet available in this scheme.

##### 3.2.2.2 The $`\overline{𝚲}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ formalism

This widely used scheme results from the combination of the OPE with the HQET. Following the notation of Ref. , the moments are expressed in the following general form:

$`𝑴_𝒏`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑴_𝑩^𝒌\mathbf{[}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑴}_𝑩\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{+}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}𝒃_\mathrm{𝟏}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩}}\mathbf{+}𝒃_\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒄_\mathrm{𝟏}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟑}\overline{𝚲}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\overline{𝑴}_{𝑩}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}`$ (37)
$`\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{(}𝒅_\mathrm{𝟏}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{+}𝒅_\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{+}𝒅_\mathrm{𝟑}\overline{𝚲}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝒅_\mathrm{𝟒}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒅_\mathrm{𝟓}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{}}}𝒅_{\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{+}𝒊}𝓣_𝒊\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}^\mathrm{𝟒}}{𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝒌\mathbf{=}𝒏`$ and $`𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏`$ for leptonic and hadronic moments, respectively, while $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ for hadronic moments. Analogous expressions hold for the truncated moments. $`\overline{𝑴}_𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{5.3135}`$ GeV is the spin-averaged B meson mass, and $`𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒏_𝒇`$, with $`𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The terms $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{)}`$ are not known in the case of the third hadronic moment. The coefficients $`𝒂_𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒃_𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒄_𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒅_𝒊`$ for the first three leptonic, $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and hadronic moments, $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}^𝑿`$, without a cut on the lepton energy are given in . The coefficients for $`𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with a cut on the lepton energy and for $`𝑹_{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ can be found in . The non-perturbative parameters in Eq.(37) are related to those in Sec. 3.2.2.1 by the following relations, valid up to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$:

$$𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝓣_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝓣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{;}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝓣_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝓣_\mathrm{𝟒}}{𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{;}𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{;}𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(38)
Perturbative corrections introduce a significant numerical difference between the parameters in the two schemes. At $`𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ GeV:

$$\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.26}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{;}\mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.17}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(39)
As anticipated in the previous Section, the use of the ill-defined pole quark mass induces in this formalism large perturbative corrections, which are however expected to cancel in the relation between physical observables, as long as all observables involved in the analysis are computed at the same order in $`𝜶_𝒔`$. We also note that, as a consequence of the HQET mass relations for the mesons, the intrinsic expansion parameter in Eq.(37) is $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑫`$, rather than $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$. The convergence of this expansion has been questioned, in view of indications  that the matrix elements $`𝓣_𝒊`$ of some non-local operators could be larger than that expected from dimensional estimates.

Higher moments are generally more sensitive to the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ corrections, but the uncertainty due to unknown perturbative and non-perturbative higher orders prevents a precision determination of the related parameters. Higher moments contain nonetheless useful information: as we will see below, they have been employed in the first analyses based on multi-parameter fits .

#### Measurements of the moments and non-perturbative parameters

The study of moments in B meson s.l. decays and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ allows to perform several independent determinations of the non-perturbative parameters and is now pursued by different experiments. Here we summarize the measurements performed by the CLEO collaboration, taking data at the CESR $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ collider, and by the DELPHI Collaboration at LEP. Measurements of the first hadronic moment in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ with different minimum charged lepton momentum have also been reported by the BaBar Collaboration .

CLEO and BaBar measurements have been performed at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ resonance. While there is an obvious advantage in measuring the spectra in events where the decaying B rest frame almost coincides with the laboratory frame, low energy particles cannot be identified there. It is thus necessary to rely on models for extrapolating the lepton energy spectrum to zero energy or to resort to computations for a truncated spectrum. On the other hand, performing the analysis at energies around the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ peak, the large momentum of the $`𝒃`$-hadrons ensures sensitivity to almost the full lepton spectrum, thus reducing modelling assumptions. The main challenge put by the higher energy is the accurate determination of the B rest frame.

##### 3.2.2.3 Moments of hadronic mass and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ photon energy spectra at CLEO

The first experimental determination of the HQE parameters based on the shape variables was performed by the CLEO collaboration . The analysis was based on the measurement of the photon spectrum above 2.0 GeV in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ inclusive decays  and on s.l. inclusive decays. CLEO measured the first two moments of the photon spectrum in radiative decays,

$$\mathbf{}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2.346}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.032}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.011}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathrm{𝐚𝐧𝐝}\mathbf{}𝑬_𝜸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.0226}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0066}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0020}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟐}$$

the first of which is related to half the value of the $`𝒃`$ quark pole mass, and thus to $`\overline{𝚲}`$, of course up to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ corrections. The parameter $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ was then extracted from a measurement of the first moment, $`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑿`$, of the mass of the hadronic system recoiling against the $`\mathbf{}`$-$`\overline{𝝂}`$ pair in s.l. decays. This measurement takes advantage of the ability of the CLEO experiment to reconstruct the $`𝝂`$ 4-momentum with high efficiency and resolution, by virtue of the hermeticity of the detector and the simplicity of the initial state in $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$. CLEO applied a 1.5 GeV/$`𝒄`$ lower cut on the charged lepton momentum. The explicit relation between $`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑿`$ and the HQE parameters $`\overline{𝚲}`$, $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, etc. is given in that case in . CLEO found

$$𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑿\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.251}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.023}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.062}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐚𝐧𝐝}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝑿\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.576}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.048}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.163}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}$$

where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic.

From $`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑿`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{}`$, CLEO extracted $`\overline{𝚲}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, obtaining $`\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.35}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{,}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.236}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.071}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.078}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}`$ Here, the first error is governed by the experimental measurements of the moments, and the second error reflects theoretical uncertainties, and in particular those related to $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ contributions. Figure 3.1 shows the bands corresponding to these two constraints as well as the $`𝚫𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ellipse in the $`\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ plane.

##### 3.2.2.4 Moments of the leptonic spectrum at CLEO

A recent CLEO analysis  reports the measurement of the truncated moments of the lepton spectrum, with a momentum cut of $`𝒑_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.5}`$ GeV/$`𝒄`$ in the B meson rest frame . This choice for the lepton momentum cut decreases the sensitivity of the measurement to the secondary leptons from the cascade decays ($`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒅\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$). The small contribution coming from charmless s.l. decays $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ is included by adding the contribution from $`𝒅𝚪_𝒖\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_{\mathbf{}}`$, scaled by $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ . CLEO results for $`𝑹_{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ are given in Table 3.5.

The values of the HQE parameters and their experimental uncertainties are obtained by calculating the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ from the measured moments R$`{}_{\mathrm{𝟎}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒆𝒙𝒑}`$ and R$`{}_{\mathrm{𝟏}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒆𝒙𝒑}`$ and the covariance matrix $`\text{E}_{𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}}`$.

The theoretical uncertainties on the HQE parameters are determined by varying, with flat distributions, the input parameters within their respective errors: $`\mathbf{|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}}{𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.09}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}`$, $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.027}`$, $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.128}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.010}`$ GeV2, $`𝝆_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\pm }\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ GeV3, $`𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ GeV3, and $`𝓣_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ GeV3. The contour that contains 68% of the probability is shown in Fig. 3.2. This procedure for evaluating the theoretical uncertainty from the unknown expansion parameters that enter at order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is similar to that used by Gremm and Kapustin  and Bauer and Trott , but different from the procedure used in the CLEO analysis discussed above . The dominant theoretical uncertainty is related to the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ terms in the non-perturbative expansion discussed before. Ref.  has explored the convergence of the perturbative and non-perturbative series appearing in the expressions for the moments described in the previous Section. The most conservative estimate gives a truncation error of at most 20%. The theoretical uncertainties presented in this CLEO analysis do not include this truncation error. The extracted $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\overline{𝚲}`$ are given in Table 3.6. The rhs in Fig. 3.2 shows a comparison of these CLEO results with the ones in Ref. . The errors shown correspond to the experimental errors only: the agreement is good, although the theoretical uncertainties do not warrant a very precise comparison.

CLEO also performed an analysis of the truncated leptonic moments in terms of the short distance $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$ mass instead of the pole mass scheme implicit in the $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝚲}`$ formalism. The results in Ref.  are used to extract $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$, or rather $`\overline{𝚲}^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑴}_𝑩\mathbf{}`$$`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$. Table 3.7 summarizes the values of $`\overline{𝚲}^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$ and $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$ extracted from $`𝑹_{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ for electrons and muons samples separately, and for their sum. The final result $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.82}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.11}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{/}𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is in good agreement with the estimates of $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$  discussed in Sec. 3.2.1

We have mentioned in the previous Section that one can also consider fractional moments. Bauer and Trott  have explored different lepton energy moments, by varying the exponent of the energy in the integrands and the lower limits of integration. In particular, they identify several moments that provide constraints for $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ that are less sensitive to higher order terms in the non-perturbative expansion. The shape of the truncated lepton spectrum recently measured by CLEO  allows to measure the following ones

$$\text{R}_𝒂^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.7}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{0.7}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}𝑬_𝒍^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{,}\text{R}_𝒃^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.6}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{0.9}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.7}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{,}$$
(40)
$$\text{R}_𝒂^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.6}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{0.8}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.7}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{,}\text{R}_𝒃^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.6}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{2.5}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{2.9}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{.}$$
(41)
Tables 3.8 and 3.9 summarize the measured values, as well as the statistical and systematic errors. Fig. 3.3 shows the values of $`\overline{𝚲}^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ extracted from these two sets of observables, as well as the constraints derived from the moments $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Although these results confirm that the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ terms induce much smaller uncertainties using $`𝑹_{𝒂\mathbf{,}𝒃}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}`$, the experimental errors are larger in this case because of the similar slopes for the two constraints. However, the different relative importance of experimental and theoretical errors makes these results complementary to the previous ones reported.

Bauer and Trott  also identify moments that are insensitive to $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟏}𝐒}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. They suggest that a comparison between a theoretical evaluations of these “duality moments” and their experimental values may provide useful constraints on possible quark-hadron duality violations in s.l. processes. CLEO measures two such “duality moments”, defined as

$$\text{D}_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.6}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{0.7}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{1.5}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{,}\text{D}_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.6}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{2.3}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{1.5}}𝑬_𝒍^{\mathbf{2.9}}\mathbf{(}𝒅𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝑬_𝒍\mathbf{)}𝒅𝑬_𝒍}\mathbf{.}$$
(42)
The theoretical predictions from Ref.  are compared with the measured $`𝑫_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}}`$ from the combined lepton sample in Table 3.10. The agreement is excellent and thus no internal inconsistency of the theory is uncovered in this analysis.

##### 3.2.2.5 Moments of leptonic and hadronic mass spectra at DELPHI

Results obtained by the DELPHI collaboration for the first three moments of the lepton energy and the hadronic mass spectra have been presented at ICHEP02 . The analyses were based on $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decays into electrons and muons, selected from a sample of about $`\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒒\overline{𝒒}`$ events recorded with the DELPHI detector at LEP. Electrons and muons were required to have a momentum greater than 2-3 GeV/$`𝒄`$ in the laboratory frame. For the lepton energy spectrum measurement an inclusive reconstruction of the secondary vertex of the charm hadron decay was performed. The energy of the B hadron was estimated as the energy sum of the identified lepton, the secondary hadronic system and the neutrino energy, evaluated from the event missing energy. The identified lepton was then boosted back to the reconstructed B rest frame and its energy $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}`$ re-computed in this frame. Results for the first three moments are summarized in Table 3.11. In order to study the hadronic mass distribution the exclusive reconstruction of $`\overline{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ states was performed and the total $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ production in $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decays was determined. Moments of the hadronic mass distribution were measured for $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ candidates and moments of the hadronic mass distribution in inclusive $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decays, $`𝑴_𝑿`$, were derived including $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝐃\mathrm{𝐚𝐧𝐝}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ channels. Results for the first three moments are summarized in Table 3.11. As we will discuss in the next subsection, the DELPHI results have been used in  as inputs of a multi-parameter fit to determine the heavy quark masses and non-perturbative parameters of the HQE. The use of higher moments guarantees a sensitivity to the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ parameters and the simultaneous use of the hadronic and leptonic spectra ensures that a larger number of parameters can be kept free in the fit.

##### 3.2.2.6 Multi-parameter fits of heavy-quark parameters and outlook

A recent and promising development, in view of the greater precision expected at the B-factories, consists in combining leptonic and hadronic moments in a multi-parameter fit to determine not just $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ but also the dominant $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ parameters. The first comprehensive analyses that employ this approach  have shown that present data are consistent with each other (with the possible exception of the preliminary BaBar data ) and with our theoretical understanding, most notably with the underlying assumption of quark-hadron duality.

The analysis of  is based solely on the DELPHI data in Table 3.11, and performed in the two theoretical framework described above in Secs. 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2 The projection of the various constraints on the ($`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) and ($`\overline{𝚲}`$, $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$) planes are given in Fig. 3.4, which shows very good consistency. The results of the fits are shown in Tables 3.12 and 3.13. In the framework of Sec. 3.2.2.1 the charm mass is a free parameter of the fit, though strongly correlated to the bottom mass. Given a precise determination $`𝜹𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐤𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$ MeV, the charm mass could therefore be extracted with $`𝜹𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}`$ MeV, a competitive determination  (Cfr. Sec. 3.2.1).

The analysis of Ref.  includes the first two hadronic moments measured by CLEO and DELPHI, $`𝑹_{\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ measured by CLEO, the first two leptonic DELPHI moments, and the first two moments of the photon spectrum in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$. The results in one of the formalisms adopted are shown in Table 3.14. They are in good agreement with both CLEO and DELPHI analyses mentioned above. The preferred ranges for the heavy quark masses and for the non-perturbative parameters in Tables 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14 are in agreement with theoretical expectations and with each other, although the analyses  differ in several respects (data employed, additional constraints, scheme adopted, treatment of theoretical errors).

In summary, the experimental information appears so far consistent with the theoretical framework, with the possible exception of the preliminary BaBar result. The emerging experimental information from the B factories will eventually lead to a more complete assessment of our present understanding of inclusive s.l. decays.

#### 3.2.3 Parton–hadron duality in B decays

Parton-hadron duality This name might be more appropriate than the more frequently used quark-hadron duality since gluonic effects have to be included as well into the theoretical expressions. – or duality for short – is invoked to connect quantities evaluated on the quark-gluon level to the (observable) world of hadrons. It is used all the time, often without explicit reference to it. A striking example of the confidence high-energy physicists have in the asymptotic validity of duality was provided by the discussion of the width $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}𝑿\mathbf{)}`$. There was about a 2% difference between the predicted and measured decay width, which lead to lively debates on its significance vis-a-vis the experimental error, before disappearing when the analysis was improved. No concern was expressed about the fact that the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ width was calculated on the quark-gluon level, yet measured for hadrons. Likewise the strong coupling $`𝜶_𝐬\mathbf{(}𝐌_𝐙\mathbf{)}`$ is routinely extracted from the perturbatively computed hadronic $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ width with a stated theoretical uncertainty of 0.003 which translates into a theoretical error in $`𝚪_{𝒉𝒂𝒅}\mathbf{(}𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ of about 0.1%.

There are, however, several different versions and implementations of the concept of duality. The problem with invoking duality implicitly is that it is very often unclear which version is used. In B physics – in particular when determining $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ – the measurements have become so precise that theory can no longer hide behind experimental errors. To estimate theoretical uncertainties in a meaningful way one has to give clear meaning to the concept of duality; only then can one analyse its limitations. In response to the demands of B physics a considerable literature has been created on duality over the last few years, which we summarize here. Technical details can be found in the references.

Duality for processes involving time-like momenta was first addressed theoretically in the late ’70’s in references  and . Using the optical theorem, the cross section for $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬}`$ at leading order in $`𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}`$ can be expressed as

$$𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}}{𝒔}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝚷\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}$$
(43)
where $`𝚷\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ is defined through the correlator of electromagnetic currents:

$$𝑻_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙𝒆^{𝒊𝒒𝒙}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{\left(}𝑱_𝝁\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝑱_𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒈_{𝝁𝝂}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒒_𝝁𝒒_𝝂\mathbf{)}𝚷\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(44)
One might be tempted to think that by invoking QCD’s asymptotic freedom one can compute $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝐞^\mathbf{+}𝐞^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐬}\mathbf{)}`$ for large c.m. energies $`\sqrt{𝒔}\mathbf{}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$ in terms of quarks (and gluons) since it is shaped by short distance dynamics. However production thresholds like those for charm induce singularities that vitiate such a straightforward computation. Under such circumstances, duality between the QCD-inferred cross section and the observed one looks problematic. It was suggested in  that the equality between the two would be restored after averaging or “smearing” over an energy interval:

$$\mathbf{}𝑻_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝒉𝒂𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒄}\mathbf{}_𝒘\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑻_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒄}\mathbf{}_𝒘$$
(45)
where $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝒘`$ denotes the smearing which is an average using a smooth weight function $`𝒘\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}`$:

$$\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒅𝒔\mathbf{}𝒘\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}$$
(46)
The degree to which $`\mathbf{}𝑻_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒄}\mathbf{}_𝒘`$ can be trusted as a theoretical description of the observable $`\mathbf{}𝑻_{𝝁𝝂}^{𝒉𝒂𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒄}\mathbf{}_𝒘`$ depends on the weight function, in particular its width. It can be broad compared to the structures that may appear in the hadronic spectral function, or it could be quite narrow, as an extreme case even $`𝒘\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. It has become customary to refer to the first and second scenarios as global and local duality, respectively. Other authors use different names, and one can argue that this nomenclature is actually misleading. Below these items are described in more detail without attempting to impose a uniform nomenclature.

Irrespective of names, a fundamental distinction concerning duality is often drawn between s.l. and non-leptonic widths. Since the former necessarily involves smearing with a smooth weight function due to the integration over neutrino momenta, it is often argued that predictions for the former are fundamentally more trustworthy than for the latter. However, such a categorical distinction is overstated and artificial. Of much more relevance is the differentiation between distributions and fully integrated rates.

No real progress beyond the more qualitative arguments of Refs.  and  occurred for many years. For as long as one has very limited control over non-perturbative effects, there is little meaningful that can be said about duality violation. Yet this has changed for heavy flavour physics with the development of heavy quark expansions, since within this OPE framework we can assess non-perturbative effects as well as duality violation.

##### 3.2.3.1 What is parton–hadron duality?

In order to discuss possible violations of duality one has to give first a more precise definition of this notion, which requires the introduction of some theoretical tools. Here the arguments given in the extensive reviews of Ref.  and It can be noted that even the authors of Ref.  and  – although very close in the substance as well as the spirit of their discussion – do not use exactly the same terminology concerning different aspects of duality. are followed closely.

The central ingredient in the definition of duality that will be used here is the method of the Wilsonian OPE frequently used in field theory to perform a separation of scales. In practical terms this means that we can write

$$𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙𝒆^{𝒊𝒒𝒙}\mathbf{}𝑨\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{\left(}𝑱^𝝁\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝑱^𝝂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\underset{𝒏}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏𝒄_𝒏^{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}𝝀\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑨\mathbf{|}𝓞_𝒏\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{}_𝝀$$
(47)
for $`𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$. The following notation has been used: $`\mathbf{|}𝑨\mathbf{}`$ denotes a state that could be the vacuum – as for $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒉𝒂𝒅𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒔`$ considered above – or a B meson when describing s.l. beauty decays. $`𝑱^𝝁`$ denote electro-magnetic and weak current operators ($`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ or $`𝒖`$) for the former and the latter processes, respectively; for other decays like non-leptonic or radiative ones one employs different $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ operators; the $`𝓞_𝒏`$ are local operators of increasing dimension. The operator of lowest dimension yields the leading contribution. In $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ annihilation it is the unit operator $`𝓞_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, for B decays $`𝓞_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}𝒃`$. As we have seen in Sec. 3.1.1, they lead (among other things) to the naive partonic results. Yet the OPE allows us to systematically improve the naive partonic result. The coefficients $`𝒄_𝒏^{𝝁𝝂}`$ contain the contributions from short distance dynamics calculated perturbatively based on QCD’s asymptotic freedom. Following Wilson’s prescription a mass scale $`𝝀`$ has been introduced to separate long and short distance dynamics; both the coefficients and the matrix elements depend on it, but their product does not.

The perturbative expansion takes the form

$$𝒄_𝒏^{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒊𝒂_{𝒏\mathbf{,}𝒊}^{𝝁𝝂}$$
(48)
and is performed in terms of quarks and gluons. The expectation values for the local operators provide the gateways through which non-perturbative dynamics enters.

The crucial point is that the OPE result is obtained in the Euclidean domain, far from any singularities induced by hadronic thresholds, and has to be continued analytically into the Minkowskian regime relating the OPE result to observable hadronic quantities. As long as QCD is the theory of the strong interactions, it does not exhibit unphysical singularities in the complex $`𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ plane, and the analytical continuation will not induce additional contributions. To conclude: duality between $`\mathbf{}𝐓_{𝛍𝛎}^{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}\mathbf{}_𝐰`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝐓_{𝛍𝛎}^{𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐜}\mathbf{}_𝐰`$ arises due to the existence of an OPE that is continued analytically. It is thus misleading to refer to duality as an additional assumption.

Up to this point the discussion was quite generic. To specify it for s.l. B decays one chooses the current $`𝑱_𝝁`$ to be the weak charged current related to $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ or $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$. As already noted in Sec. 3.1.1, the expansion parameter for inclusive s.l. decays is given by the energy release $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{]}`$ for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{[}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{]}`$.

##### 3.2.3.2 Duality violation and analytic continuation

One of the main applications of the heavy quark expansion is the reliable extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. One wants to be able to arrive at a meaningful estimate of the theoretical uncertainty in the values obtained. There are three obvious sources of theoretical errors:

1. unknown terms of higher order in $`𝜶_𝒔`$;
2. unknown terms of higher order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$;
3. uncertainties in the input parameters $`𝜶_𝒔`$, $`𝒎_𝑸`$ and the expectation values of local operators which appear in the OPE.

Duality violations constitute additional uncertainties.They arise from the fact that at finite order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$, the Euclidean OPE is insensitive to contributions of the type $`𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{/}𝝁}`$, with $`𝝁`$ denoting some hadronic scale. While such a term is probably innocuous for beauty, it needs not be for charm quarks. Furthermore, under analytic continuation these terms turn into potentially more dangerous oscillating terms of the form $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}`$$`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{/}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$.

Though there is not (yet) a full theory for duality and its violations, progress has come about in the last few years for the following reasons:

* the understanding of the physical origins of duality violations has been refined as due to

+ hadronic thresholds;
    + so-called ‘distant cuts’;
    + the suspect validity of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansions.
* The issues surrounding the exponentially small terms discussed above and their analytic continuation have been understood.
* There is an increasing array of field-theoretical toy models, chief among them the ’t Hooft model, which is QCD in 1+1 dimensions in the limit of $`𝑵_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$. It is solvable and thus allows an unequivocal comparison of the OPE result with the exact solution.
* For the analysis of $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ transitions the small-velocity (SV) expansion is a powerful tool .

Based on general expectations as well as on analysing the models one finds that indeed duality violations are described by highly power suppressed ‘oscillating’ terms of the form

$$𝑻\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝑸}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒌\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{/}𝝁\mathbf{)}$$
(49)
for some integer power $`𝒌`$. More generally one can state:

* Duality will not be exact at finite masses. It represents an approximation the accuracy of which will increase with the energy scales in a way that depends on the process in question.
* Limitations to duality can enter only in the form of an oscillating function of energy or $`𝒎_𝑸`$ (or have to be exponentially suppressed), i.e. duality violation cannot modify all decay rates in the same way.
* The OPE equally applies to s.l. as well as to non-leptonic decay rates. Likewise both widths are subject to duality violations. The difference here is quantitative rather than qualitative; at finite heavy quark masses corrections are generally expected to be larger in the non-leptonic widths. In particular, duality violations there can be boosted by the accidental nearby presence of a narrow hadronic resonance. Similar effects could arise in s.l. rates, but are expected to be highly suppressed there.
* It is not necessary to have a proliferation of decay channels to reach the onset of duality, either approximate or asymptotic. Instructive examples are provided by the SV kinematics in s.l. decays and by non-leptonic rates in the ’t Hooft model. For example, in the SV limit, the ground-state doublet of D mesons alone saturates the inclusive s.l. decay rate and is dual to the partonic rate . The point here is that the large energy release would allow a large number of states to contribute kinematically, but only two channels are actually allowed by the dynamics.

Putting everything together it has been estimated by the authors of Ref.  – that duality violations in the integrated s.l. width of B mesons cannot exceed the fraction of a percent.  As such we do not envision it to ever become the limiting factor in extracting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ since the uncertainties in the expression for the s.l. width due to fixed higher order contributions will remain larger than this level. The oscillatory nature of duality violating contributions is a main ingredient in this conclusion. It also shows that duality violations could become quite sizeable if an only partially integrated width – let alone a distribution – is considered. Generally, for distributions the expansion parameter is not the heavy mass, rather it is a quantity such as $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{[}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$ where $`𝒙`$ is e.g. the rescaled charged lepton energy of a s.l. decay. From Eq. (49) one would expect that contributions the form $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{]}\mathbf{/}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{[}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}^𝒌`$ would appear in differential distributions.

##### 3.2.3.3 How can we check the validity of parton–hadron duality?

If in the future a discrepancy between the measured and predicted values for, say, a CP asymmetry in B decays is found, one has to check very diligently all ingredients upon which the prediction was based, in particular the values for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, before one could make a credible claim to have uncovered New Physics. This means one needs a measure for potential duality violations that is not based purely on theoretical arguments.

Most theoretical uncertainties do not have a statistical nature. As in the case of experimental systematics, the most convincing way to control them is to determine the same quantity in independent ways and analyse their consistency. The heavy quark expansions lend themselves naturally to such an approach since they allow the description of numerous decay rates in terms of a handful of basic parameters, namely quark masses and hadronic expectation values. Of course, such independent determinations of the same quantity only probe the overall theoretical control: by themselves they cannot tell whether a failure is due to unusually large higher order contributions or to a breakdown of duality.

The fact that both the inclusive and exclusive methods for extracting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ yield consistent values (see Secs. 3.2.4,3.2.5, 3.3, and 3.4) is such a test. Theoretical corrections are nontrivial and essential for the agreement. As discussed in Sec. 3.2.2, the study of moments offers another important consistency check. In particular, we emphasize that the $`𝒃`$ quark mass extracted from the shape variables is consistent, within errors, with the one extracted from sum rules and lattice calculations (see Sec. 3.2.1), and that the analyses of CLEO and DELPHI data, and those of the leptonic and hadronic moments point to very similar values for the kinetic energy parameter $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. This suggests that no anomalously large higher order corrections or unexpectedly sizeable duality violating contributions are present in the HQE used to described inclusive s.l. $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ decays. However, once again, we stress that these comparisons do not represent direct tests of duality.

##### 3.2.3.4 Model based investigations of duality

It is desirable to study in more explicit detail how duality comes about, how it is approached and what its limitations are. This can be done in the context of exactly soluble field theories, in particular the ’t Hooft model, which is QCD in 1+1 dimensions with the number of colours going to infinity . There one finds duality to be achieved very quickly, i.e. after a mere handful of channels open up.

For detailed studies in 1+3 dimensions one is at present limited to the use of quark models employing certain types of potential. However, one has to handle these models with care, as they have sometimes led to confusion. In particular, it has been argued in Ref. that within quark models one could have an $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ contribution to the ratio of inclusive to free quark total decay rate. Such terms are absent in the OPE, and therefore violate duality. The arguments presented in  and similar papers have been discussed in , where their internal flaws have been pointed out. One of the important lessons is that such models exhibit automatically the proper behaviour in the Shifman-Voloshin (SV) limit , where $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$. In particular, they have to satisfy a set of sum rules. Once one realizes that such models are automatically in compliance with what we know to be true in QCD, it becomes clear that no $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ terms can appear . Of particular importance in this context are the Bjorken sum rule for $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}`$ terms and the Voloshin sum rule for $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\frac{𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{)}`$ terms\**\**\**It also has been demonstrated explicitly that, contrary to what suggested in note 3 of Ref. , no term of $`𝒪(\frac{\delta m}{m_b^2})`$ exist in QCD .. Other terms are suppressed by higher powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ or powers of $`𝚫\mathbf{/}𝜹𝒎`$, $`𝚫`$ being the level spacing of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{)}`$, i.e. the difference between the ground state and the first excited level. Once such models have been brought into compliance with what we know to be true in QCD – like the validity of the SV sum rules – then they can play a significant heuristic role in educating our intuition about the onset of duality.

In Ref.  a detailed study of the cancellations required for duality to hold have been performed using a harmonic oscillator (HO) potential. The interest of this model is that the truncation of states to the first band of orbital excitations (lowest $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$) becomes exact to the relevant order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which allows us to perform a complete and explicit numerical or analytical calculation. Furthermore, this model is close to the ones used in , so that one can check precisely the various statements made there. Using a constant for the leptonic interaction one finds in the harmonic oscillator model

$`𝑹_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪_{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒗𝒆}}{𝚪_{𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒓𝒌}}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝑹^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚫}{𝜹𝒎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐬𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫}\mathrm{𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐬}`$ (50)
where $`𝚫\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒅𝑹^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is a model parameter containing the square of the harmonic oscillator radius $`𝑹`$ and the light-quark mass $`𝒎_𝒅`$. Note that the first term inside the parentheses originates from the kinetic energy operator. In fact, it can be proven  that for regular potentials the whole series, directly calculated in the model, is exactly the one given by OPE.

What is then the explanation of the apparent disagreement with ? First, there is a misunderstanding induced by the expression ”$`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ duality violation”, used sometimes in a misleading way. Ref.  does not dispute that the OPE is basically right and that the equality with free quark decay is satisfied within the expected accuracy in the region of phase space where the energy release is large $`\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒎𝒂𝒙}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}𝒕^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝚫\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, i.e. where many states are kinematically allowed ($`𝒕\mathbf{=}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$). This is certainly true when $`𝒕`$ is small. What may cause problems, according to , is only the region near $`𝒕_{𝒎𝒂𝒙}`$ where this condition is not satisfied and large effects can be generated. According to the authors of , one can certainly produce effects which violate the equality with free quark over the region of phase space where only the ground state is opened, of relative order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ if this ”relative order ” means that one compares to the corresponding free quark decay over the same region of phase space. But they object that such effects be related to the total free quark decay which is much larger. Indeed, such effects are not of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ with respect to the total free quark decay rate, but much smaller, suppressed by powers of $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫\mathbf{/}𝜹𝒎`$ . This suppression factor amounts, in the standard $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ expansion at fixed ratio of heavy masses, to further powers of the heavy mass, because then $`𝜹𝒎\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$. Also, numerically, they are small since $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫\mathbf{/}𝜹𝒎`$ is small.

The first example given by Isgur is that the decrease of the ground state contribution with decreasing $`𝒕`$ (or increasing $`\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}`$) due to the form factor must be compensated by the increase of the excited states to maintain duality with free quarks. This is exactly guaranteed by the Bjorken sum rule in the heavy quark limit, but it is no longer exact at finite mass, because there is a region below the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ threshold where only the ground state $`𝐃\mathbf{+}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ contribute. Quantitatively, the term pointed out in  with a constant leptonic interaction reads (the choice of this interaction is not crucial):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝚪}{𝚪_{𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{}𝚫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}\frac{\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}}}`$ (51)
where $`\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕`$, $`\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ describes the falloff of the ground state ($`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is the slope of the Isgur-Wise function), and the integration limits are approximated to the desired accuracy. At the lower limit of the numerator integral $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{}𝚫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ this falloff attains its maximum, $`\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. This term is by itself the expression of a $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ term in the SV limit . However, the real magnitude is much smaller because one must integrate over a limited phase space, while the integral of the free quark decay in the denominator extends over a much larger region :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝚪}{𝚪_{𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟓}}}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫}{𝜹𝒎}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟓}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝒅𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫}{𝜹𝒎}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ (52)
where $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒎_𝒅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ in the HO model. Parametrically, this is suppressed with respect to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ because of the factor $`\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫}{𝜹𝒎}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$.

In another example relying on a model of two-body decay, Isgur  tries to take into account also the larger effect due to the $`\frac{𝒎_𝒅𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ terms present in partial rates. Such terms, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$, are present separately in the various exclusive channels. For instance one has for the ratio of the ground state to the free quark decay rates:

$$𝑹_{𝒔𝒍}^{\mathbf{(}𝒈𝒓𝒐𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{𝒎_𝒅𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}$$
(53)
but they cancel in the total decay rate. Then, if the kinematical situation is such that only the ground state is produced, the total ratio $`𝑹_{𝒔𝒍}`$ would depart from $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ by $`\frac{\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒎_𝒅𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. However, this effect is for $`𝒕`$ above the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ threshold $`\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, i.e. in a limited region of phase space. Hence, taking the ratio of this effect to the total rate, one gets:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜹𝚪}{𝚪_{𝒇𝒓𝒆𝒆}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝒅𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{}𝚫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝜹𝒎\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{|}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝒅𝜹𝒎}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫}{𝜹𝒎}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}`$ (54)
which is once more parametrically smaller by the factor $`\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫}{𝜹𝒎}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$.

In conclusion, both effects are not $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ but much smaller. Thus the model dependent investigations of possible duality violations do not hint at any effect beyond the OPE of full QCD. In particular, taking into account the sum rules valid in full QCD allows us to show explicitly the absence of contributions at order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$, which would be a gross violation of OPE or, likewise, of duality.

##### 3.2.3.5 Conclusion

All we currently know from purely theoretical considerations indicates that duality violations should be safely below one percent in the s.l. branching ratio. This is likely to remain in the noise of theoretical uncertainties due to higher order perturbative and non-perturbative ($`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ and higher) corrections. Hence we will not assign additional uncertainty to the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from possible duality violation in inclusive decays. As discussed above, this picture will be tested through an intense program of high precision measurements in the near future, and most notably by the study of different moments of the s.l. distributions – even separately in the decays of Bd, B- and Bs mesons.

#### 3.2.4 Review and future prospects for the inclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

The value of the CKM matrix element $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ can be obtained by comparing the measured value of the $`𝒃`$-quark s.l. decay partial width with its prediction in the context of the OPE. Experimentally, this partial width is obtained by measuring the inclusive s.l. decay rate of B-hadrons and their lifetime(s). Present measurements are rather accurate and experimental uncertainties lead to a relative error of about 1$`\mathbf{\%}`$ on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. The main limitation for a precise determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ comes from theory, as the expression for the s.l. decay width depends on several poorly known parameters that are introduced by perturbative and non-perturbative QCD effects. Only recently, as discussed in Sec. 3.2.2, some of the non-perturbative parameters describing corrections of order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, and $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ have been constrained experimentally. As a result, not only has the accuracy on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ improved, but also a large fraction of the previous systematic uncertainty has changed nature.

In the following, we briefly summarize the main ingredients of the evaluation of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from inclusive $`𝒃`$ s.l. decay measurements. As discussed in Sec. 3.2.3, a possible violation of parton-hadron duality can be legitimately neglected at the present level of accuracy, and we will not include it in our estimate of the error associated with $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$.

##### 3.2.4.1 Perturbative QCD corrections

Using the pole mass definition for quark masses, the first order QCD perturbative corrections to the s.l. $`𝒃`$-decay width have been given in  and dominant second order (BLM) corrections have been obtained in ; the subdominant two-loop corrections have been estimated in . The s.l. width can be written as

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝓐_{𝒆𝒘}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left\{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}𝝌^{\mathrm{𝐁𝐋𝐌}}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝌_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{.}$$
(55)
In this expression:

* the phase space factor $`𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$, with $`𝒛\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, accounts for the mass of the final quark, and both $`𝒎_𝒄`$ and $`𝒎_𝒃`$ are pole masses;
* $`𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝒏_𝒇`$, where $`𝒏_𝒇`$ is the number of active flavours;
* $`𝓐_{𝒆𝒘}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{𝜶}{𝝅}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\frac{𝒎_𝒁}{𝒎_𝒃}`$ and corresponds to the electroweak correction, cfr. Eq. (108) below;
* $`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒉\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ with

$`𝒉\mathbf{\left(}𝒙\mathbf{\right)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟗}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒙\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝒙\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}𝒙\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (56)
$`\mathbf{+}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒙\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}\mathbf{+}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒙\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{\right)}`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒙^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟔}𝑳𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝒙\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}𝒙^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left[}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑳𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\sqrt{𝒙}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑳𝒊_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝒙}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝒙}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{𝒙}}}\mathbf{\right]}`$
Numerical values for $`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ can be found in  and are reported in Table 3.15.
* $`𝝌^{\mathrm{𝐁𝐋𝐌}}`$, corresponding to the BLM corrections, is equal to 1.68 for $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.3}`$;
* $`𝝌_\mathrm{𝟎}`$, corresponding to the non-BLM corrections, is equal to $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.4}`$ for $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.3}`$.

The convergence of the perturbative series in Eq. (55) appears problematic. It has been demonstrated that this expansion can be much better controlled – within a few $`\mathbf{\%}`$ – using a properly normalized short-distance mass . This is the case, for instance, of the kinetic running mass***Other definitions for quark masses can be adopted, which do not suffer from problems attached to the pole mass definition, see Sec. 3.2.1 defined in Eq. (16). Replacing in Eq. (55) the pole quark masses by kinetic running masses through Eq. (16) and expanding in $`𝜶_𝒔`$, one obtains:

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝓐_{𝒆𝒘}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}\mathbf{+}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(57)
where $`𝒛\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$. A typical value for $`𝝁`$ is 1 GeV. The explicit expressions for $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ can be found in .

##### 3.2.4.2 Non-perturbative QCD corrections

Non-perturbative corrections in the OPE start at second order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ . Including those of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$  and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ , and changing the scale at which $`𝜶_𝒔`$ is evaluated to an arbitrary value $`𝒒`$, Eq. (57) becomes:

$`𝚪\mathbf{\left(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\left|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝓐_{𝒆𝒘}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$ $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒃_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{\left(}𝒒\mathbf{\right)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{+}𝒃_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{\left(}𝒒\mathbf{\right)}}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\{}𝑭\mathbf{\left(}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{)}`$ (58)
$`\mathbf{}𝑮\mathbf{\left(}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑯\mathbf{\left(}𝒛\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left(}𝝁\mathbf{\right)}}}\mathbf{\}}`$
where $`𝒃_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒃_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\frac{𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\frac{𝒒}{𝒎_𝒃}`$, and where we have introduced the functions ($`𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$)

* $`𝑮\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$,
* $`𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟕𝟕}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟖}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟓}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒛`$.

A very recent analysis  contains a comprehensive discussion of all the aspects of the $`𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}`$ calculation and several improvements. In particular, it includes BLM corrections to all orders in the scheme with running kinetic masses and non-perturbative parameters. The effect of the resummed BLM corrections is small, 0.1% of the s.l. width, if compared to the perturbative corrections calculated in Eq. (58) at $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃`$. Ref.  also discusses the role played by four-quark operators containing a pair of charm quark fields in the higher orders of the OPE. These operators give in principle $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ contributions that are not necessarily negligible and require further study.

In the quark pole mass approach, quark masses are usually re-expressed in terms of heavy hadron masses, using the HQET relation of Eq. (36): the corresponding expression for the s.l. width can be found in  and is quoted below for completeness:

$`𝚪\mathbf{\left(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\left|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{0.3689}`$ $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.54}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.43}𝜷_\mathrm{𝟎}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.648}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.87}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{)}`$ (59)
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.946}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{3.185}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.02}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.298}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{3.28}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{10.47}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝚲}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{6.153}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{7.482}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{7.4}{\displaystyle \frac{𝓣_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.491}{\displaystyle \frac{𝓣_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}`$
$`\mathbf{}\mathbf{10.41}{\displaystyle \frac{𝓣_\mathrm{𝟑}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{7.482}{\displaystyle \frac{𝓣_\mathrm{𝟒}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overline{𝑴}_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{]}`$
In this equation, $`\overline{𝑴}_𝑩\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑴_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{5.313}`$ GeV and the corresponding value for charmed mesons is taken to be equal to $`\mathbf{1.975}`$ GeV. The relations between the parameters used in the two formalisms have been recalled in Eq. (38). The value of $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is strongly constrained by the mass splitting between $`\text{B}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and B mesons, for instance one finds $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.35}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.03}}`$ GeV2 . For the other non-perturbative parameters one has to rely on theoretical estimates. Alternately, they can be constrained by measuring other observables: as explained in Sec. 3.2.2, the moments of differential distributions in $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decays and the moments of the photon energy distribution in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ decays depend on the same parameters that enter the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ determination. Measurements of these quantities can therefore be used to determine the OPE parameters and to verify the overall consistency of the formalism.

##### 3.2.4.3 $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ determination

The value for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is obtained by comparing the theoretical and experimental determinations of the inclusive s.l. decay partial width:

$$𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\times }𝝉_𝒃\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}$$
(60)
In PDG2000 , the uncertainty attached to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ was of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$ and was dominated by the theoretical uncertainty related to the heavy quark parameters. Using the analysis of the first hadronic moment and the first moment of the photon energy distribution in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ decays mentioned in Sec. 3.2.2, together with Eq. (59), CLEO has obtained :

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{40.4}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.022}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.012}\mathbf{|}_{\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.020}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}$$
(61)
The first uncertainty corresponds to the experimental measurements of the s.l. branching fraction, of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\text{B}^\mathbf{+}`$ fractions as obtained by CLEO, and of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\text{B}^\mathbf{+}`$ lifetimes given in PDG2000. The second uncertainty corresponds to the errors on $`\overline{𝚲}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in the analysis of the moments. The last uncertainty corresponds to the remaining theoretical error coming from contributions of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ and higher order perturbative corrections, estimated from the uncertainty on the scale at which $`𝜶_𝒔`$ has to be evaluated In that analysis the range is taken to be $`[m_b/2,2m_b]`$.. It appears that the corresponding variation of $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ gives the largest contribution ($`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.017}`$). Remaining contributions to the theory error have been obtained by varying the values of parameters contributing at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ within $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ GeV3, a rather arbitrary range, based only on naive dimensional analysis.

CLEO’s result on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ was improved, at the Workshop, mainly by using all experimental measurements on $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. branching fraction and lifetime . Recent experimental results, made available at the ICHEP 2002 Conference in Amsterdam, and obtained by the LEP experiments , by BaBar  and by BELLE  have been combined , including previous measurements of these quantities given in :

$`𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{|}_{𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.431}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.019}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$
$`𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{|}_{𝑳𝑬𝑷}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.438}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.024}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$
$`𝚪_{𝒔𝒍}\mathbf{|}_{𝑨𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒈𝒆}\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.434}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.018}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}`$ (62)
In these expressions the second contribution to the errors corresponds to uncertainties in the decay modelling and in the subtraction of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ component. Using the above result, the corresponding uncertainty in Eq. (61) can be reduced by about a factor two. Keeping the same values for the two remaining uncertainties and correcting for the slightly different central values of $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}_{𝒔𝒍}`$ and $`𝝉_𝒃`$, one finds

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{40.7}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.010}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.012}\mathbf{|}_{\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{,}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.020}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}$$
(63)
This approach was adopted to obtain the value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ quoted in the corresponding mini-review  of PDG2002 In PDG2002, the value given in the corresponding mini-review for $`|V_{cb}|=(40.4\pm 0.5\pm 0.5\pm 0.8)\times 10^3`$ is slightly different as it depends on the values of experimental results available at that time.. However, the result quoted in the main CKM section of the PDG2002, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.2}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.0}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, does not take into account this progress, and still assigns a large uncertainty of $`\mathbf{2.0}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, which is meant to account for possible parton-hadron duality violation.

As summarized in Sec. 3.2.2, progress has been achieved soon after the Workshop both on theoretical and experimental aspects of the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ determination. On the theoretical side, the moments of the s.l. distributions have been studied using schemes that avoid the problems related to the pole mass . The inclusion of higher order moments has been reconsidered in  and, as we have seen, some of the corresponding measurements have been used in these analyses. On the experimental side, new measurements of moments have been presented by BaBar , CLEO , and DELPHI .

The analysis of  employs first, second, and truncated moments to fit the values of the $`\overline{𝚲}`$, $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ parameters and obtain constraints on $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ contributions. Four different definitions of the heavy quark masses have also been considered. A consistent picture for inclusive $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decays is obtained when theoretical uncertainties are taken into account, especially if the BaBar preliminary data  are excluded. Using the average given in Eq. (62), the result of  for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ in the 1S scheme is

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.2}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.9}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}$$
(64)
In the analysis of Ref. , which is based on DELPHI data and includes third order moments, the low-scale running mass approach is used to extract $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the two parameters contributing at order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$. Neither the moments nor $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ are actually sensitive to $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The other parameter appearing at this order, $`𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, is found to be in good agreement with some theoretical expectation (about 0.1 GeV3 ). In the low-scale running mass scheme the uncertainty related to the scale at which $`𝜶_𝒔`$ is computed has also been reduced with respect to the pole mass analysis. Employing the average s.l. width given in Eq. (62), the result of Ref.  is

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{41.7}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.010}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{|}_{𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.010}\mathbf{|}_{𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒕𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.010}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}$$
(65)
The last two uncertainties in this equation are theoretical and correspond to the scale ambiguity for $`𝜶_𝒔`$ and to possible contributions from $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$ terms for which an upper limit corresponding to the contribution of the previous order term has been used. The above estimate of the overall theoretical error agrees well with that of .

All the results presented in this Section are preliminary. They indicate a promising future for the approach where all non-perturbative parameters, up to order $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, are experimentally constrained. Only the preliminary BaBar analysis  does not seem to fit the picture: it seems difficult to reconcile the dependence of BaBar first hadronic moment on the lepton momentum cut with the other measurements in the context of the OPE. Although a high lepton momentum cut could in principle spoil the convergence of the power expansion, this point definitely needs to be fully understood.

##### 3.2.4.4 Prospects

Impressive improvements have been obtained in the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from inclusive $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decay measurements during and just after this Workshop. The moments in inclusive s.l. and radiative decays have been studied in new theoretical frameworks. Preliminary analyses of recent experimental measurements of such moments indicate that all parameters contributing to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ included can be constrained by experiment. The results for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ in Eqs. (64) and (65) are very similar. We can adopt a central value given by their average with a $`\mathbf{2.3}\mathbf{\%}`$ accuracy:

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{41.4}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.018}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.014}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(66)
in which the largest fraction of the uncertainty depends on experimental measurements. These analyses have to be confirmed, as most of them correspond to preliminary results, and the possible discrepancy raised by BaBar data has to be investigated, especially with respect to the impact of the lepton energy cut, by lowering the cut as much as possible. If the present picture remains valid, more effort has to be invested in the control of remaining theoretical errors, namely $`𝒊\mathbf{)}`$ the uncertainty related to the truncation of the perturbative QCD expansion and $`𝒊𝒊\mathbf{)}`$ the importance of four-quark operators containing the charm quark and of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^𝒏\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ corrections.

#### 3.2.5 Review and future prospects for the inclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

The charmless s.l. decay channel $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ can in principle provide a clean determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ along the lines of that of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. The main problem is the large background from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ decay, which has a rate about 60 times higher than that for the charmless s.l. decay. The experimental cuts necessary to distinguish the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ from the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ transitions enhance the sensitivity to the non-perturbative aspects of the decay, like the Fermi motion of the $`𝒃`$ quark inside the B meson, and complicate the theoretical interpretation of the measurement.

The inclusive decay rate $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ is calculated using the OPE. At leading order, the decay rate is given by the parton model decay rate. As we have seen, non-perturbative corrections are suppressed by at least two powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and to $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ they are parameterized by the two universal matrix elements $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (or $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}`$), see Sec. 3.1.1 At $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, the Darwin term $`𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ reduces $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝒍𝝂𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{)}`$ by 1 - 2 %. Perturbative corrections are known through order $`𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ . All this allows to relate the total inclusive decay rate directly to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.0040}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}\mathbf{|}_{𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{|}_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝒍𝝂𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{0.0016}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathbf{1.55}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}}{𝝉_𝑩}\mathbf{\right)}^{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}$$
(67)
where in the second error both perturbative and non-perturbative uncertainties are included. The uncertainty due to the $`𝒃`$ mass assumes $`𝜹𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}`$ MeV and can easily be rescaled to accommodate the error in Eq. (25). The errors reported in Eq. (67) are very similar to those given in . In fact, despite the use of slightly different inputs, and of different formalisms, the results of Refs.  and  are remarkably consistent, their central values differing by only 1.7%. Information from the moments of the s.l. distributions is unlikely to decrease significantly the overall uncertainty in Eq. (67).

The large background from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ makes the direct measurement of the inclusive rate a very challenging task. In principle, there are several methods to suppress this background and all of them restrict the phase space region where the decay rate is measured. Hence, great care must be taken to ensure that the OPE is valid in the relevant phase space region.

There are three main kinematical cuts which separate the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ signal from the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ background:

1. A cut on the lepton energy $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩`$
2. A cut on the hadronic invariant mass $`𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{<}𝑴_𝑫`$
3. A cut on the leptonic invariant mass $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

These cuts correspond to about 10%, 80% and 20% respectively of the signal selected.

The simplest kinematical discriminator for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ versus $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ is the endpoint in the $`\mathbf{}`$ inclusive spectrum, where the first evidence for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ was seen . However, in this case the remaining phase space is characterized by $`𝚫𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐𝟎}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$. Because of this cut on the lepton energy, the selected hadronic system has large energy and small invariant mass, and is placed in a kinematic region where the OPE is not expected to converge. Measurements done using this method have given  $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ = $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.08}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{)}`$, where the 25% error is dominated by the theoretical uncertainty.

In the original analyses  several models  were used to estimate the rate at the endpoint. In fact, the exact fraction of signal decays selected depends strongly on a shape function, as illustrated in Fig. 3.5, where the spectrum in the parton model is compared to the one including the structure function. Physically, the shape or structure function (sometimes also called light-cone distribution function) encodes the Fermi motion of the $`𝒃`$ quark inside the B meson, which is inherently non-perturbative. To estimate the effect of the structure function on the rate measured in the endpoint region, several models for the shape function have been constructed. They are constrained by the values of the first few moments of the shape function, which are related to physical quantities like $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ . The model dependence of the measurement can be reduced by noting that the shape function, like the Fermi motion inside the meson, is a universal property of the B meson, independent of the decay process. Consequently, the shape function can in principle be extracted from a different $`\mathrm{𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐲}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭}`$ process and then employed in the inclusive $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ decay . The best way is to use the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ decay. At leading order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝜶_𝒔`$, the photon spectrum in the radiative decay is proportional to the light cone distribution function. This strategy for determining $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ has three main drawbacks:

* The $`𝒃`$ quark distribution function is the same in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝒍𝝂𝑿_𝒖`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝜸𝑿_𝒔`$ only at leading order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and in $`𝜶_𝒔`$; perturbative QCD corrections complicate its extraction ;
* There are process specific corrections of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ which still need to be evaluated reliably. In Ref.  it is argued that these corrections could be quite sizeable. Even after a precise measurement of the photon spectrum there are unknown and not-calculable contributions $`\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝒍𝝂𝑿_𝒖`$ which could spoil the accurate extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. It has also been pointed out  that there are contributions of dimension six operators, suppressed by $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, but enhanced by a phase space factor of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. They arise from so called weak annihilation (WA) contributions, and their total contribution survives any cut used to reject the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$ background. The size of WA contributions is hard to estimate, as very little is known about the values of the relevant four-quark operator matrix elements. They could in principle be constrained by a comparison of B0 and B± decay rates. While their impact on the integrated width is modest ($`\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$), in the endpoint region WA terms could give effects of up to 20% . This conclusion, however, is challenged in , according to which the uncertainty induced by subleading shape functions is safely below 10%, for lepton energy cuts $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.2}`$ GeV. See also .
* Finally, the endpoint region represents such a narrow slice of the phase space that may be vulnerable to violations of local parton-hadron duality.

The first analysis combining $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝒍𝝂𝑿_𝒖`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝜸𝑿_𝒔`$ was performed by CLEO . To account for the distortion of the endpoint spectrum due to the motion of the B mesons, the initial state radiation and the experimental resolution, CLEO fit for the observed data using a theoretical momentum spectrum to model these distortions. They find

$$\mathbf{|}𝐕_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐛}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.12}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.34}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.44}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.23}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.24}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}$$

in the lepton momentum range 2.2–2.6 GeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$. Here the first error combines statistical and experimental uncertainty on the measured rate, the second error is the uncertainty on the fraction of leptons within the acceptance, derived from the uncertainty in the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ shape function, the third error is the theoretical uncertainty on the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from the total rate, the fourth error is an estimate of the uncertainty that results from the unknown power corrections in applying the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ shape function to $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$. To evaluate this last uncertainty, the parameters of the shape function are varied by the expected order of the corrections: $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$. Clearly, this sets only the scale of that uncertainty.

In principle, the hadronic recoil mass provides the single most efficient kinematical discriminator against the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$ background. The $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$ background is separated from the signal imposing $`𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{<}𝑴_𝑫`$. After this cut, more than 80% of the signal survives. However, due to the experimental resolution, the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$ transitions contaminate the $`𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{<}𝑴_𝑫`$ region, and therefore either the cut is lowered, or a different strategy has to be employed. When the cut on the hadronic recoil mass is used, the main theoretical issue arises from the knowledge of the fraction of $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ events with $`𝑴_𝑿`$ below a given cut-off mass, $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}`$:

$$𝚽_{𝑺𝑳}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝒍𝝂𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}}𝒅𝑴_𝑿\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝑴_𝑿}$$

where $`𝚽\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝚽\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The $`𝑴_𝑿`$ spectrum is in fact sensitive to the values of the HQE parameters $`𝒎_𝒃`$, $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, etc. It also depends on the heavy quark shape function, although the dependence is weaker than for the lepton energy in the endpoint region. To set the scale of the problem: a very rough estimate for $`𝚽_{𝑺𝑳}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.7}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$ lies between 0.55 and 0.9; i.e. a measurement of $`𝚽_{𝑺𝑳}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.7}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$ yields a value for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ with at most a $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ uncertainty, and possibly less. The actual uncertainty in realistic experimental analyses has been estimated by the experimental collaborations. Since a cut on the hadronic invariant mass allows for a much larger portion of the decay rate to survive, the uncertainties from weak annihilation contributions are safely below the 5% level. The subleading shape functions contributions can in this case be analysed using the same method as in . A preliminary discussion can be found in .

The above observations motivated an intense effort to measure $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ using inclusive analyses at LEP, where B hadrons are produced with a large and variable momentum and in most of the cases the B decay products are contained into narrow jets in $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ events. These characteristics make the LEP measurements complementary to the ones at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$. All four LEP experiments have provided a measurement of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ using inclusive methods, although the actual procedures differ significantly.

DELPHI  perform an inclusive reconstruction of the hadronic mass of the system emitted together with the lepton in the B hadron decay. The B s.l. sample is split into $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ enriched and depleted samples based on the separation between tertiary and secondary vertices (taking advantage of the finite charm lifetime) and on the presence of tagged kaons in the final state. The mass of the hadronic system $`𝑴_𝑿`$ is used to subdivide further the sample into a $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$–favoured region ($`𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.6}`$ GeV) and a $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$–dominated region. The signal is extracted from a simultaneous fit to the number of decays classified according to the four different categories and the distributions of the lepton energy in the reconstructed B rest frame.

The leptonic invariant mass, $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒑_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒑_𝝂\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, can also suppress the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ background . This cut allows to measure $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ without requiring knowledge of the structure function of the B meson (see Fig. 3.5c). The acceptance of this cut on $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ can be calculated using the usual local OPE. Depending on the value of the cut, the fraction of selected signal events can range between 10 and 20%, but the theoretical uncertainty on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, dominated by higher order power corrections, can range from 15% for $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{11.6}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to 25% for $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (see also ). The $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ method allows to measure $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, albeit with larger uncertainties than when one combines the lepton energy or the hadron invariant mass cut with data from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ decay.

Recently, a strategy relying on the combination of $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝑴_𝑿`$ cuts has been proposed . The $`𝑴_𝑿`$ cut is used to reject the charm background, while the $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ cut is used to eliminate the high energy, low invariant mass region. Rejecting the region at small $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ reduces the impact of the shape function in the $`𝑴_𝑿`$ analysis. Strong interaction effects on $`𝑴_𝑿`$ are maximal there due to the significant recoil . Imposing, for instance, $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.35}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ eliminates the impact of the primordial Fermi motion encoded in $`𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.7}`$ GeV events. Up to 50% of all $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ events survive this cut, making possible to measure $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ with uncertainties safely below the 10% level.

CLEO has presented the first experimental attempt to implement this method . The analysis is based on a full fit to $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑬_𝝂\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝑴_𝑿`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜽_𝑾\mathbf{}`$. Models are needed to extract the sample composition and to relate the regions of higher sensitivity and theoretically safer to the inclusive charmless s.l. branching fraction. However, imposing these additional cuts has drawbacks. The overall energy scale governing the intrinsic hardness of the reaction gets smaller since it is driven at large $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ rather than $`𝒎_𝒃`$. This enhances the impact of higher-order contributions which are not calculated, like in the case of the direct cut on $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Furthermore, cutting simultaneously on $`𝑴_𝑿`$ and $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ decreases the fraction of the full width retained in the sample, and exposes the calculation to violations of duality. Finally, the cut on $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ removes the possibility to incorporate in full the constraints on the spectrum which follow from the properties of the shape function, because it dissolves the connection between the $`𝑴_𝑿`$ spectrum and the shape function.

Yet another approach has been followed by the ALEPH and OPAL collaborations in their analyses . They use neural networks, which input a large number of kinematic variables (20 in ALEPH, 7 in OPAL) to discriminate between the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$ and the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays. In both experiments, the signal is extracted from a fit to the network output, restricted to a region enriched in signal events. The observation of s.l. $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays at LEP has been very challenging. These analyses pioneered new approaches for extracting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ . Their main drawback is the S/B ratio, that requires the control of the background level to better than 5% . Concerns, discussed within the community, include the modelling of the uncertainties on the non-$`𝐃`$ and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ components of the background from B decays, the modelling of the $`𝐁_𝐬`$ and $`𝒃`$-baryon s.l. decays and the estimation of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ modelling uncertainties due to the uneven sampling of the decay phase space.

Since tight selections are needed to extract the signal, the effects of these experimental cuts trimming the inclusive distributions must be understood. In particular, it is important to make sure the the inclusive analyses are probing the selected phase space in an even and uniform way. Neural network analyses bias the phase space toward the region of large $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}`$ and low $`𝑴_𝑿`$, where the signal-to-background ratio is larger. The uncertainty quoted by ALEPH accounts for the range of models tested. In this case, it would be desirable to test more unbiased methods. DELPHI, on the other hand, has shown that the $`𝑴_𝑿`$ analysis has a reasonably uniform sensitivity in the $`𝑴_𝑿`$-$`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}`$ plane and a recent CLEO analysis, repeated for different sets of $`𝑴_𝑿`$-$`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ selections, finds results compatible with LEP.

Finally, L3 applies a sequential cut analysis using the kinematics of the lepton and of the leading hadron in the same jet for discrimination of the signal events . The uncertainty (see Fig. 3.6) is larger than in other analyses, mainly because the result depends on a few exclusive final states only.

All the analyses discussed in this Section have an individual accuracy of about 15% and, as can be seen in Fig. 3.6, their central values agree within that uncertainty. One can distinguish two sets of inclusive determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ which rely on roughly the same theoretical assumptions and are extracted within the same OPE framework. The LEP inclusive results have been averaged accounting for correlated systematics. The uncertainty of the CLEO determination from the lepton end-point and the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ spectrum can be re-expressed in a way corresponding to that used for the LEP averaging. The results read

$`\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}_{𝑳𝑬𝑷}^{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{4.09}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.39}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.36}}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.47}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.42}}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.26}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.24}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}_{𝑪𝑳𝑬𝑶}^{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{4.08}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.44}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.27}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.33}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ (70)
where the first error corresponds to statistical and experimental systematics, the second to the dominant $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ background, the third to $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ modelling, and the last one to the relation between $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and the branching fraction, see Eq. (67). A first exercise aimed at understanding the relationship between the different sources of systematics in these determinations and to obtain a global average was started at the workshop. A conservative approach consists in taking the systematic uncertainties as fully correlated. This combined result has a total uncertainty of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{\%}`$ and is used in Chapter 5 (see Table 5.1). However, the uncertainties are only partly correlated and more precise measurements are becoming available: once the systematics and their correlation are better understood there is room for considerable improvement.

As the B factories start focusing on the inclusive measurements of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, there is potential for considerable progress. A more precise evaluation of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ photon spectrum will lead to a more precise effective shape function and we now have several methods to employ it efficiently in the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. A recent proposal , for instance, uses the s.l. differential distribution in $`𝑴_𝑿\mathbf{/}𝑬_𝑿`$ together with the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ photon spectrum to build a short distance ratio from which $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ can be extracted, testing at the same time some of the underlying assumptions. The use of event samples with one fully reconstructed B will reduce the contamination from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ decays in the reconstruction of the hadronic recoil mass and of $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and will allow for useful cross-checks . Hence, experimental uncertainties should be reduced. If the various methods will give consistent central values while their precision improves, we will be confident that theoretical uncertainties are not biasing $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ beyond the level of precision which has been reached in the individual measurements.

### 3.3 Exclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

As we have seen in the previous section, inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ semileptonic (s.l.) decay rates have a solid description via the OPE. Exclusive s.l. decays have a similarly solid description in terms of heavy-quark effective theory (HQET). The main difference is that the non-perturbative unknowns in the inclusive rates can be determined from experimental measurements, while those arising in exclusive rates must be calculated. Thus, there is a major theoretical challenge here as non-perturbative QCD calculations have to performed. Experimentally, the D and D mesons have to be reconstructed using several decay channels, to gain in statistics, and the signal has to be isolated from higher excited states. Moreover, the theory is under best control at the kinematic endpoint, where the rate vanishes. Consequently, not only must the differential decay rate be measured, it also must be extrapolated to the endpoint. Despite these experimental difficulties, and given the ongoing progress in lattice QCD, these channels provide a valuable cross-check at present and hold considerable promise for the future.

The exclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is obtained by studying $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays, where $`\mathbf{}`$ stands for either $`𝒆`$ or $`𝝁`$. The differential rates for these decays are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂\mathbf{)}}{𝒅𝒘}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝒘^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (71)
$`\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒘}{𝒘\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒘𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{|}𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂\mathbf{)}}{𝒅𝒘}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝒘^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{|}𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (72)
where $`𝒘\mathbf{=}𝒗_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒗_{𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}`$ is the product of the velocities of the initial and final mesons, and $`𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$. The velocity transfer is related to the momentum $`𝒒`$ transferred to the leptons by $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒘𝑴_𝑩𝑴_{𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}𝑴_{𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and it lies in the range $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒘\mathbf{<}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝑴_{𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝑴_{𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}`$. Electroweak radiative corrections introduce the muon decay constant $`𝑮_𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.1664}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\text{GeV}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (instead of $`𝑮_𝑭`$) and the factor $`𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (see Sec. 3.3.4).

In the heavy-quark limit, the form factors $`𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ coincide with the Isgur-Wise function $`𝝃\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$, which describes the long-distance physics associated with the light degrees of freedom in the heavy mesons . This function is normalized to unity at zero recoil, corresponding to $`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. There are corrections to heavy-quark limit from short distances, which can be calculated in perturbation theory in $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}\sqrt{𝒎_𝒄𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{)}`$. There are also corrections from long distances, which are suppressed by powers of the heavy quark masses. The separation of the two sets of contributions can be achieved with HQET, which is reviewed, for example, in . The calculation of the small corrections to this limit is explained below in Secs. 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 With a satisfactory calculation of these corrections, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ can be determined accurately by extrapolating the differential decay rates to $`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, yielding $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. Uncertainties associated with this extrapolation can be reduced using model-independent constraints on the shape of the form factors, derived with dispersive methods. These techniques are briefly reviewed in Sec. 3.3.1

At present $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ transitions yield a more precise value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ than $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$. The statistics are three times higher. More importantly, phase space suppresses $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ by only $`\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, but $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ by $`\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. Finally, the theoretical calculation of $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is under better control than that of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. Nevertheless, $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ provides a useful check. For example, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ drops out of the (experimental) ratio $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, which can be used to test the theoretical calculations.

#### 3.3.1 Theory-guided extrapolation in $`𝒘`$

Dispersive methods allow the derivation of rigorous, model-independent constraints on the form factors in exclusive s.l. or radiative decays. The derivation is based on first principles: the analyticity properties of two-point functions of local current operators and the positivity of the corresponding hadronic spectral functions. Analyticity relates integrals of these spectral functions to the behaviour of the two-point functions in the deep Euclidean region, where they can be calculated using the operator product expansion. Positivity guarantees that the contributions of the states of interest to these spectral functions are bounded from above. Constraints on the relevant form factors are then derived, given the latter’s analyticity properties. The beauty of these techniques is that the bounds can be improved with information about the form factors, such as their value or derivatives at different kinematic points, or their phase along various cuts. These techniques also have the advantage that the constraints they yield are optimal for any given input.

Here we focus on the application of these methods to $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays. The first such application was carried out in , where three-parameter descriptions of the corresponding differential decay rates were presented. In , it was shown how a judicious change of variables can be used to reduce the number of parameters. The most recent analyses  take two-loop and non-perturbative corrections to the relevant two-point correlators into account and make use of heavy-quark spin symmetry in the ground-state doublets $`\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{,}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝐃\mathbf{,}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ . Ref.  uses spin symmetry more extensively, and accounts for the dominant $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ and radiative corrections. The results are one-parameter descriptions of the form factors $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓚\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$, with $`𝓚\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ defined below in Eq. (74), that are accurate to better than 2% over the full kinematic range.

In the case of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ transitions, it is convenient to constrain the form factor $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ instead of $`𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ in order to avoid large, kinematically enhanced corrections to the heavy-quark limit. This yields for $`𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ :

$$\frac{𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}}{𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝓚\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟑}\mathbf{.}𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟏}\mathbf{.}𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟏}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}$$
(73)
with $`𝒛`$ given in Eq. (77) and where the only parameter, the slope parameter $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ at zero recoil, is constrained by the dispersive bounds to lie in the interval $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.14}\mathbf{<}𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.54}`$. This constraint on $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is somewhat weaker than the one derived from the inclusive heavy-quark sum rules of Bjorken  and Voloshin  which require $`\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{}𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.3}`$ once $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corrections have been included . A stronger lower bound has been derived by Uraltsev . This is to be compared with the world experimental average $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.50}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.13}`$ given in Sec. 3.3.6.1

In Eq. (73), the function $`𝓚\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ is

$$𝓚\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒘𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒘\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}}𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒘}{𝒘\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒘𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒓_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(74)
where $`𝒓_{\mathbf{}}`$ is given after Eq. (72), and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ describe corrections to the heavy-quark limit. They are usually expanded in Taylor series around $`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Using QCD sum rules  one finds

$`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{1.27}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.12}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{0.80}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.11}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}`$ (75)
The sum-rule calculation is supported by measurements reported by the CLEO Collaboration , $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.18}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.30}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.12}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.71}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$. These values are obtained assuming that $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ are constant in $`𝒘`$ and that $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ is linear in $`𝒘`$. CLEO also find that $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ are not sensitive either to the form of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ or the $`𝒘`$ dependence of the form factors, consistent with the mild $`𝒘`$ dependence in Eq. (75). Note that the extractions of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ by CLEO and BELLE discussed in Sec. 3.3.6.1 use CLEO’s measurements of $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$.

For $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays, the parametrization of  is

$$\frac{𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}}{𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒛\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}\mathbf{.}𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟐}\mathbf{.}𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}\mathbf{.}\mathbf{)}𝒛^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}$$
(76)
with

$$𝒛\mathbf{=}\frac{\sqrt{𝒘\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\sqrt{𝒘\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}$$
(77)
and where the only parameter, the slope parameter $`𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ at zero recoil is constrained by the dispersive bounds to lie in the interval $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.17}\mathbf{<}𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.51}`$ which can be compared with the world experimental average $`𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.19}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.19}`$ given in Sec. 3.3.6.2

It is interesting to note that heavy quark symmetry breaking in the difference of the slope and curvature parameters of the form factors $`𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$, together with measurements of the ratios $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ may strongly constrain the calculations which determine $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ . More importantly, a better knowledge of the slope parameters will reduce the error on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, because of the large correlation between the two parameters  (see Fig. 3.8).

#### 3.3.2 Theoretical calculations of the form factor $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays

The zero-recoil form factor $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ must be calculated non-perturbatively in QCD. At zero recoil ($`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$), all $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factors but $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ are suppressed by phase space, and

$$𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑨^𝝁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}$$
(78)
where $`𝑨^𝝁`$ is the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ axial vector current. Thus, the theoretical information needed is contained in one relatively simple hadronic matrix element, which heavy-quark symmetry  requires to be close to unity. Heavy-quark *spin* symmetry would imply $`\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑨^𝝁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽^𝝁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$, where $`𝑽^𝝁`$ is the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ vector current. If, in addition, heavy-quark *flavor* symmetry is used, these amplitudes can be equated to $`\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽^𝝁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$. The last matrix element simply counts the number of $`𝒃`$ quarks in a $`\overline{𝐁}`$ meson and is, hence, exactly 1. Deviations from the symmetry limit arise at short distances, from the exchange of gluons with $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{<}𝒌\mathbf{<}𝒎_𝒃`$, and also at long distances. Short-distance corrections are suppressed by powers of $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}\sqrt{𝒎_𝒄𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{)}`$, and long-distance corrections are suppressed by powers of the heavy-quark masses. The heavy-quark symmetries also require the corrections of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ to vanish, a result known as Luke’s theorem . In summary, thanks to heavy-quark symmetry, uncertainties from treating the long-distance, non-perturbative QCD are suppressed by a factor of order $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$, where $`\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎𝟎}\text{MeV}`$ is the contribution of the light degrees of freedom to the mass of the mesons. Owing to these constraints from heavy-quark symmetry, the exclusive technique is sometimes called model-independent , but in practice model dependence could appear at order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, through estimates of the deviation of $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ from 1.

To date three methods have been used to estimate $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. One approach starts with a rigorous inequality relating the zero-recoil form factor to a spectral sum over excited states . Here some contributions can be measured by moments of the inclusive s.l. decay spectrum (cf. Sec. 3.2.4), but others can be estimated only qualitatively. The other two methods both start with HQET to separate long- and short-distance contributions . The short-distance contributions are calculated in perturbative QCD. The long-distance contributions are intrinsically non-perturbative. Several years ago they were estimated in a non-relativistic quark model . More recently, the HQET technique has been adapted to lattice gauge theory , and an explicit calculation, in the so-called quenched approximation, has appeared .

The three methods all quote an uncertainty on $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, and hence $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, of around 4%. The errors arising in the sum rule and the quark model calculations are difficult to quantify and do not appear to be reducible. In the lattice gauge theory calculations, there are several ways to reduce the error, notably by removing the quenched approximation and in improving the matching of lattice gauge theory to HQET and continuum QCD. It is conceivable that one could reduce the uncertainty to the percent level over the next few years.

##### 3.3.2.1 Sum rule method

Here the main result of a sum rule that puts a rigorous bound on $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is quoted. For a lucid and brief derivation, the reader may consult a classic review of the heavy-quark expansion . Based on the optical theorem and the operator-product expansion, one can show that

$$\mathbf{|}𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒅\mathit{ϵ}𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}$$
(79)
where $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{=}𝑬\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ is the relative excitation energy of higher resonances and non-resonant $`𝑫𝝅`$ states with $`𝑱^{𝑷𝑪}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$, and $`𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}`$ is a structure function for the vector channel. The contributions $`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^𝒏}`$ describe corrections to the axial vector current for finite-mass quarks. The excitation integral is related to finite-mass corrections to the bound-state wave functions—hence the “sum” over excited states. The $`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^𝒏}`$ and the excitation integral are positive, so Eq. (79) implies $`\mathbf{|}𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

Let first consider the excitation integral. For $`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{}\overline{𝚲}`$, the hadronic states are dual to quark-gluon states. Introducing a scale $`𝝁`$ to separate this short-distance part from the long-distance part (which must be treated non-perturbatively), one writes

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒅\mathit{ϵ}𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝝁𝒅\mathit{ϵ}𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜼_𝑨^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{.}$$
(80)
Here the short-distance quantity $`𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ lumps together the short-distance ($`\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{>}𝝁`$) contribution. Then, rearranging Eq. (79),

$$𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝝁𝒅\mathit{ϵ}𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}$$
(81)
and $`𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ is computed perturbatively (to two loops ). The other contributions arise from long distances and must be taken from other considerations. There is a good handle on the second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (81), namely,

$$𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝒎_𝒄𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(82)
where $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ are matrix elements of the chromomagnetic energy and kinetic energy (of the $`𝒃`$ quark) in the $`\overline{𝐁}`$ meson. Note that the kinetic energy $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ depends on the scale $`𝝁`$. Apart from subtleties of renormalization conventions, $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ are related to the quantities $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, given in the discussion of inclusive s.l. decays. Ignoring this subtlety for the moment, $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The last term in Eq. (81), from higher hadronic excitations, is unconstrained by data.

To make a numerical determination, one must choose a conventional value for the separation scale to $`𝝁`$, usually 1 GeV. The choice of $`𝝁`$ alters $`𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, as well as the excitation integral, in ways that can be computed in perturbative QCD. A recent review  of the heavy quark expansion takes

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}𝒅\mathit{ϵ}𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{,}$$
(83)
but emphasises that this is a heuristic estimate. Ref.  found $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.89}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}`$, using a then-current value of $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. With CLEO’s analysis of moments of the inclusive s.l. decay spectrum in hand, one can convert that determination of $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to a determination of $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\text{1 GeV}\mathbf{)}`$. The updated sum-rule becomes

$$𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.900}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{,}$$
(84)
where the uncertainties are, respectively, from the two-loop calculation of $`𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}`$, the excitation integral \[*i.e.*, Eq. (83)\], and an estimate of $`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ based on dimensional analysis. The uncertainty from $`𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ could be reduced, in principle, with a three-loop calculation, but it is already smaller than the other two, which appear to be irreducible.

##### 3.3.2.2 HQET-based methods

The main drawback of the sum rule method is that the excitation integral is not well constrained. Using HQET one can characterize it in more detail. Based on heavy-quark symmetry one can write

$$𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(85)
where $`𝜼_𝑨`$ is a short-distance coefficient, which is discussed in more detail below. Heavy-quark symmetry implies the normalization of the first term in brackets  and the absence of a correction $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎}`$ of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ . The corrections $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^𝒏}`$ of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^𝒏`$ contain long-distance matrix elements. Simply from enumerating possible terms at second and third order, they have the structure

$`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_𝑽}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_𝑨}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_𝑷}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (86)
$`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_𝑽^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}𝚺}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_𝑫^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}𝚫}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}_𝑷^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (87)
where $`𝚺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝚫\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$.

HQET is a systematic method for separating out the long- and short-distance corrections to the symmetry limit, making efficient use of the constraints of heavy-quark symmetry. It provides a detailed description of the $`\mathbf{}`$s , of the form

$$\mathbf{}_𝑿\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝒄_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝓜_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(88)
where the $`𝒄_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ are short-distance coefficients and the $`𝓜_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ matrix elements defined in the effective field theory. The scale $`𝝁`$ is now the renormalization scale of HQET. Some contributions on the right-hand side come from the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ expansion of the physical B and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ mesons and others from the expansion of the axial vector current. The latter coincide with the $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (or $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) terms in Eq. (82). The long-distance corrections of the states are, in Eq. (81), contained in $`\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝝁𝒅\mathit{ϵ}𝒘\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{)}`$.

It is well-known that intermediate quantities defined in effective field theories depend on the renormalization scheme, but physical quantities do not. We dwell on it briefly here, for reasons that will become clear below. At one-loop level, the short-distance coefficient is

$$𝜼_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟑}\frac{𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝒄}{𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\frac{𝒎_𝒃}{𝒎_𝒄}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝒄𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝚺^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(89)
where the constant $`𝒄`$ is characteristic of the scheme for renormalizing operators in HQET. In minimal subtraction schemes $`𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, whereas the energy cutoff in Eq. (80) implies $`𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (cf. Eq. (18)). Similarly, the scheme (and $`𝝁`$) dependence of the $`\mathbf{}`$s is, to order $`𝜶_𝒔`$,

$`\mathbf{}_𝑽\mathbf{(}𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝑽\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒄𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (90)
$`\mathbf{}_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝑨\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}𝒄𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (91)
$`\mathbf{}_𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}_𝑷\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒄𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}`$ (92)
Combining the above formulae, one can check that the scheme dependence drops out of $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$.

As long as one is careful to keep track of the scheme, it does not matter which is used. For many purposes it is simplest to define all operator insertions in minimal subtraction, for which $`𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. This is not a problem, as long as one knows how to calculate the $`\mathbf{}`$s in the same scheme. (For example, the $`\mathbf{}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are defined by the same HQET matrix element, renormalized such that $`𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, respectively.)

The HQET formalism does not provide numerical estimates for the $`\mathbf{}`$s: that requires a non-perturbative approach to QCD. The first estimates  used the non-relativistic quark model, which, though not QCD, can be a useful guide and tends to yield rather small $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. The more recent of these estimates  takes $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ to be $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.055}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}`$, and relies on sum rule constraints. Combining it with the two-loop calculation of $`𝜼_𝑨`$ , one obtains

$$𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.907}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.007}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.017}\mathbf{,}$$
(93)
where the quoted uncertainties  are from perturbation theory, errors in the quark model estimate of the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms, and the omission of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ terms. Uncertainties from $`𝜶_𝒔`$ and the quark masses are not included. This result does not pay close attention to the scheme dependence mentioned above, because it uses the standard ($`𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$) result for $`𝜼_𝑨`$, corresponding to a minimal subtraction definition of the matrix elements in Eq. (88). The quark model, on the other hand, presumably yields the $`\mathbf{}`$s in some other scheme (with unknown $`𝒄\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$). In that case, Eq. (93) over- or undercounts the contribution at the interface of long and short distances. Moreover, we note that estimates of the perturbative error based on BLM resummation  are larger than in Eq. (93).

Now let us turn to the recent lattice calculation of $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. A direct calculation of the matrix element $`\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}𝑨^𝝁\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}`$ in Eq. (78) would be straightforward, but not interesting: similar matrix elements like $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑨^𝝁\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}`$ and $`\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{|}𝑽^𝝁\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}`$ have 15–20% errors . One must involve heavy-quark symmetry from the outset: if one can focus on $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, there is a chance of success, because a 20% error on $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is interesting. The key here is to observe that lattice gauge theory with Wilson fermions has the same heavy-quark symmetries as continuum QCD, for all $`𝒎_𝑸𝒂`$ . Consequently, one can build up a description of lattice gauge theory using HQET, with the same logic and structure as above . In this description the $`\mathbf{}`$s in Eqs. (86) and (87) are the same as for continuum QCD, apart from lattice effects on the light quarks and gluons. Discretization effects of the heavy quark appear at short distances, where perturbation theory can be used. Thus, the principal change from the usual application of HQET is in the short-distance coefficients.

To calculate the $`\mathbf{}`$s in lattice gauge theory, one needs some quantities with small statistical and normalization errors, whose heavy-quark expansion contains the $`\mathbf{}`$s. Work on $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃`$ form factors  showed that certain ratios have the desired low level of uncertainty. For the problem at hand one needs

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒄\mathbf{|}𝐃\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒄\mathbf{|}𝐃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left\{}𝜼_𝑽^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝑷𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝑷^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚺\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (94)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒄\mathbf{|}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒄\mathbf{|}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left\{}𝜼_𝑽^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝑽𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝑽^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚺\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (95)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^𝒋𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^𝒋𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒄\mathbf{|}𝐃\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸^𝒋𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒄\mathbf{|}𝐃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^𝒋𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left\{}\stackrel{\mathbf{ˇ}}{𝜼}_𝑨^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝑨𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}𝚫^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚺\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\right\}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}`$ (96)
For lattice gauge theory, the heavy-quark expansions in Eqs. (94)–(96) have been derived in Ref. , leaning heavily on Refs. . One-loop perturbation theory for $`𝜼_𝑽^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{ˇ}}{𝜼}_𝑨^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}`$ is in Ref. . Thus, these ratios yield all three terms in $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and three of four terms in $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ (including the largest, $`\mathbf{}_𝑽^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$).

The method then proceeds as follows. First, one computes the ratios on the left-hand sides of Eqs. (94)–(96) with standard techniques of lattice gauge theory, for many combinations of the heavy quark masses. Meanwhile one calculates the short-distance coefficients $`𝜼_𝑽^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{ˇ}}{𝜼}_𝑨^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}`$ in perturbation theory. Then, one fits the numerical data to the HQET description, obtaining the $`\mathbf{}`$s as fit parameters. One can then combine these results with the perturbative calculation of $`𝜼_𝑨`$ to obtain $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. The scheme mismatch that arises with the quark model calculation of the $`\mathbf{}`$s is absent here, as long as one uses the same scheme to calculate $`𝜼_𝑽^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{ˇ}}{𝜼}_𝑨^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐭}}`$ on the one hand, and $`𝜼_𝑨`$ on the other.

As expected, $`\mathbf{}_𝑽`$ is the largest of the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ matrix elements. Because of the fit, the value of $`\mathbf{}_𝑽`$ is highly correlated with that of $`\mathbf{}_𝑽^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$, but the physical combination is better determined.

Matching uncertainties arise here, as it is usually the case with HQET. In Ref.  they are of order $`𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. These can be improved in the future through higher-order matching calculations. Another uncertainty comes from the dependence of the ratios on the light spectator quark, whose mass lies in the range $`\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. There turns out to be a slight linear dependence on $`𝒎_𝒒`$, whose main effect is to increase the statistical error. In addition, there is a pion loop contribution  that is mistreated in the quenched approximation . The omission of this effect is treated as a systematic error. After reconstituting $`𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$

$$𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒉_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.913}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.017}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.024}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.014}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.003}}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.016}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.000}}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.014}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.006}}\mathbf{,}$$
(97)
where the uncertainties stem, respectively, from statistics and fitting, HQET matching, lattice spacing dependence, the chiral extrapolation, and the effect of the quenched approximation.

##### 3.3.2.3 Comparison and summary

In Fig. 3.7(a) we compare the three results for $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ from Eqs. (84), (93), and (97).

All are compatible with

$$𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.91}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.04}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.03}}$$
(98)
The agreement is remarkable, even when one considers that all rely on heavy-quark symmetry (and, so, compute the deviation from 1), and all compute the short-distance part in perturbation theory (roughly half of the deviation). It is worth recalling the defects of the techniques. The quark model omits some dynamics (more than the quenched approximation in lattice QCD), and it is not clear that it gives the $`\mathbf{}`$s in the same scheme as $`𝜼_𝑨`$. The sum rule has an incalculable contribution from excitations with $`\mathbf{(}𝑴\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which can only be estimated. The present lattice result is in the quenched approximation, but errors associated with quenching can, in this case, be estimated and are given in the last two error bars in Eq. (97).

When using Eq. (98) in a global fit to the CKM matrix, one should appreciate the quality of the theoretical information. A flat distribution based on Eq. (98) would be incorrect: the three methods agree well and, more significantly, part of the uncertainty in Eq. (97) is statistical, and other uncertainties are under some control. Also, one cannot rule out a tail for lower values, $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.87}`$; they are just unexpected. Finally, we know that $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ from the sum rule in Eq. (79). A simple function that captures these features is the Poisson distribution (for $`𝒙\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$)

$$𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑵𝒙^\mathrm{𝟕}𝒆^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}𝒙}\mathbf{,}𝒙\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{0.090}}\mathbf{,}$$
(99)
where $`𝑵`$ normalizes the distribution. This distribution differs slightly from a synopsis of the lattice result . The most probable value has been shifted from 0.913 to 0.910, mindful of the central value from the sum rule. \[The average based on Eq. (99) is 0.90.\] Future work with lattice gauge theory could reduce the uncertainty by a factor of 3, with unquenched calculations to reduce several of the systematic errors, higher-order HQET matching to reduce the others, and higher statistics to reduce the statistical errors. Fig. 3.7(b) sketches how the resulting distribution would look. Recent developments  in the treatment of systematic errors (except quenching) will allow lattice calculations to provide a distribution that directly reflects statistical and systematic uncertainties, instead of a schematic distribution as in Eq. (99).

#### 3.3.3 Theoretical calculations of the form factor $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays

The form factor $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝑾\mathbf{)}`$ for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ is given by

$$𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫}{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}𝒉_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(100)
where the form factors $`𝒉_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ are defined by

$$\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{(}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽^𝝁\mathbf{|}𝐁\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝒗\mathbf{)}^𝝁𝒉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒗^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒗\mathbf{)}^𝝁𝒉_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(101)
Even at zero-recoil both form factors remain. With HQET one can derive expressions analogous to Eq. (85). Neglecting contributions of order $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^𝒏`$, one finds ,

$`𝒉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝜼_𝑽\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_𝑷\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}`$ (102)
$`𝒉_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝜷_𝑽\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right)}𝚲_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$ (103)
where $`𝜷_𝑽`$ is of order $`𝜶_𝒔`$. Like the $`\mathbf{}`$s above, $`𝚲_{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ are (combinations of) matrix elements of HQET. They must be obtained by a non-perturbative method. Note that the matrix element $`\mathbf{}_𝑷`$ appearing in $`𝒉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is the same as in $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$.

Luke’s theorem, applied to $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$, explains why there is no $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ term in $`𝒉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. The other form factor $`𝒉_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is not protected by Luke’s theorem, and, unfortunately, it appears in $`𝓖`$ even at zero recoil . Moreover, although some constraint might be obtained from sum rules, there is presently no useful bound analogous to that implied by Eq. (79). In conclusion, there is less theoretical control over $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ than $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

There are several calculations of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. Using the quark model, Scora and Isgur find

$$𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.03}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{.}$$
(104)
As mentioned above for $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, the quark model presumably has a problem with scheme dependence, though it may be a useful guide. There have been a few calculations of $`\mathbf{}_𝑷`$, $`𝚲_{\mathbf{}}`$, and $`\mathbf{}_{\mathbf{}}`$ with QCD sum rules. Including the full $`𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ correction and using the sum-rule results of , one finds :

$$𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.02}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.08}\mathbf{.}$$
(105)
Although this result is based on QCD, it is unlikely that the error bar can be reduced further. Finally, Hashimoto *et al.* have used lattice QCD and a strategy similar to that for $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, which homes in on $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. They find

$$𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.058}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.017}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.021}}\mathbf{,}$$
(106)
where errors from statistics, tuning of heavy quark masses, and omitted radiative corrections have been added in quadrature. One should also expect some uncertainty from the quenched approximation, perhaps 15–20% of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Unlike the calculation of by $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ by the same group , here the dependence on the lattice spacing was not studied. These issues could be cleared up, by completing calculations of (lattice) radiative corrections needed to improve the calculation of $`𝒉_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$, and then carrying out the Monte Carlo calculation of $`𝒉_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ at several lattice spacings.

In conclusion, the status of the theoretical calculations of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is less satisfactory than for $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$. We believe that

$$𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.04}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}$$
(107)
fairly summarizes the present theoretical knowledge of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$.

#### 3.3.4 Electroweak corrections

For completeness, we close with a brief summary of electroweak corrections to exclusive s.l. decays. Some of these effects are shared by the radiative corrections to muon decay, and that is why the muon decay constant $`𝑮_𝝁`$ appears in Eqs. (71) and (72).Another effect is simply radiation of photons from the outgoing charged lepton, which could be important in semi-electronic decays, if the experimental acceptance is non-uniform in the electron’s energy. A complete treatment is not available, but an adequate prescription is given in Ref. . If the decaying B meson is electrically neutral, one must multiply the right-hand side of Eq. (72) with a factor  $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜶𝝅`$ to account for the Coulomb attraction of the outgoing charged lepton and charged $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$. This corresponds to a shift in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ of about $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$.

There are also virtual corrections from diagrams with $`𝑾`$ and $`𝒁`$ bosons. The leading parts of these effects are enhanced by the large logarithm $`\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{)}`$, which arise from distances much shorter than the QCD scale, and their net effect is the factor $`𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in Eq. (72). One finds

$$𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶}{𝝅}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒁\mathbf{/}𝝁\mathbf{)}$$
(108)
where the scale $`𝝁`$ separates weak and strong effects. It is natural to set $`𝝁\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩`$, in which case $`𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐄𝐖}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.0066}`$. Should the accuracy of the QCD form factor $`𝓕`$ fall below 1%, it might be necessary to go beyond the leading log description of Eq. (108), but that could require the introduction of new form factors besides $`𝓕`$, so a general treatment is difficult.

#### 3.3.5 Semileptonic B decays to a hadronic system heavier than D or D

Semileptonic B decays into $`𝒑`$-wave charm mesons are the most important sources of background polluting the measurement of the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decay rate. The hadronic system heavier than $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ is commonly identified as ‘$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$’.

In infinite quark mass limit, hadrons containing a single heavy quark can be classified by their total spin $`𝑱`$ and by the angular momentum $`𝒋`$ of their light degree of freedom. In this limit, heavy quark mesons come in degenerate doublets with total spin $`𝑱\mathbf{=}𝒋\mathbf{\pm }\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. Therefore, the four charm meson states ‘$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$’ corresponding to the angular momentum $`𝒍\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ are classified in two doublets: $`𝐃_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}𝐃_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{\mathrm{𝟏}}{}^{}`$ with $`𝒋\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`𝑱^𝑷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$, and $`𝐃_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐃_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{\mathrm{𝟐}}{}^{}`$ with $`𝒋\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`𝑱^𝑷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$. Both $`𝐃_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐃_{}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{\mathrm{𝟐}}{}^{}`$ are narrow states ($`𝚪\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ MeV). This small width is a consequence of their strong decay proceeding through d-wave transitions. The resonances of the other doublet are expected to be rather broad, as they decay through s-wave pion emission.

The existence of the narrow resonant states is well established  and a signal for a broad resonance has been seen by CLEO , but the decay characteristics of these states in $`𝒃`$-hadron s.l. decays have large uncertainties. The average of ALEPH , CLEO  and DELPHI  narrow state branching fractions show that the ratio

$$𝑹_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝐃_\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}}{𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝐃_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}}$$
(109)
is smaller than one ($`\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.6}`$ at 95% C.L.), in disagreement with HQET calculations where an infinite quark mass is assumed , but in agreement with calculations which take into account finite quark mass corrections .

To estimate the ‘$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$’, the LEP experiments use the treatment of narrow $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ proposed in  which accounts for $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ corrections. Ref.  provides several possible approximations of the ‘$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$’ form factors, that depend on five different expansion schemes (A, Ainf, Binf, B1, B2) and on three input parameters ($`𝜼_{𝒌𝒆}\mathbf{,}𝒕_{𝒉\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{,}𝒛_{𝒉\mathrm{𝟏}}`$).

Each proposed scheme is tested with the relevant input parameters varied over a range consistent with the experimental limit on $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$. The $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ analysis is repeated for each allowed point of the scan and the systematic error is the maximal difference from the central value obtained in this way. Non-resonant terms may not be modelled correctly in this approach.

#### 3.3.6 Review and future prospects for the exclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

##### 3.3.6.1 $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays

The decay $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ has been studied in experiments performed at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ center of mass energy and at the $`𝐙^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ center of mass energy at LEP. At the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$, experiments have the advantage that the $`𝒘`$ resolution is good. However, they have more limited statistics near $`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ in the decay $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$, because of the lower reconstruction efficiency of the slow pion, from the $`𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay. The decay $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ is not affected by this problem and CLEO  uses both channels. In addition, kinematic constraints enable $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ experiments to identify the final state without a large contamination from the poorly known s.l. B decays to ‘$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$’. At LEP, B’s are produced with a large momentum (about 30 GeV on average). This makes the determination of $`𝒘`$ dependent upon the neutrino four-momentum reconstruction, thus giving a relatively poor resolution and limited physics background rejection capabilities. The advantage that LEP experiments have is an efficiency which is only mildly dependent upon $`𝒘`$.

Experiments determine the product $`\mathbf{(}𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by fitting the measured $`𝒅𝚪\mathbf{/}𝒅𝒘`$ distribution. Measurements at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ have been performed by CLEO  and BELLE . At LEP data are available from ALEPH , DELPHI  and OPAL . At LEP, the dominant source of systematic error is the uncertainty on the contribution to $`𝒅𝚪\mathbf{/}𝒅𝒘`$ from s.l. $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ decays. The “$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$” includes both narrow orbitally excited charmed meson and non-resonant or broad species. The treatment of the “$`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$” spectra is described in 3.3.5, while branching ratios of the processes which affect the value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ are taken from .

Table 3.16 summarizes all published data as quoted in the original papers. To combine the published data, the central values and the errors of $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are re-scaled to the same set of input parameters. These common inputs are listed in Table 3.17. The $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ values used for obtaining an average are extracted with

the parametrization of Eq. (73), taking on the experimental determinations of the vector and axial form factor ratios $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ . The LEP data, which originally used theoretical values for these ratios, are re-scaled accordingly . Table 3.18 summarizes the corrected data. The averaging procedure  takes into account statistical and systematic correlations between $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Averaging the measurements in Table 1, we get:

$$𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{38.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.0}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}$$

and

$$𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.13}$$

with a confidence level §§§ The $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom is less than 2, and we do not scale the error. of 5.1%. The error ellipses for the corrected measurements and for the world average are shown in Fig. 3.8.

The main contributions to the systematic error in $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ are from the uncertainty on the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ shape and on $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ ($`\mathbf{0.57}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$), fully correlated among the LEP experiments, the branching fraction of D and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays ($`\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$), fully correlated among all the experiments, and the slow pion reconstruction from BELLE and CLEO (0.28$`\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$), which are uncorrelated. The main contribution to the systematic error on $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is from the uncertainties in the CLEO’s measurement of R1 and R2 (0.12), fully correlated among experiments. Because of the large contribution of this uncertainty to the non-diagonal terms of the covariance matrix, the averaged $`𝝆_{𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is higher than one would naively expect. This situation will improve substantially in the next few years through a better determination of $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, using the higher statistics samples being accumulated at the B-factories, as well as through the full exploration of the s.l. B decays to $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$.

Using $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.91}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}`$, as given in Sec. 3.3.2 but with a symmetrized error, one gets

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{42.1}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.1}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.9}_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(110)
The dominant error is theoretical, but there are good prospects to reduce it through improvements in lattice QCD calculations, particularly removing the quenched approximation.

##### 3.3.6.2 $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays

The strategy to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is identical to that used for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays. As discussed above, theoretical estimates of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ are not, at this time, as accurate. This channel is much more challenging also from the experimental point of view because $`𝒅𝚪_𝑫\mathbf{/}𝒅𝒘`$ is more heavily suppressed near $`𝒘\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ than $`𝒅𝚪_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒅𝒘`$, due to the helicity mismatch between initial and final states, and because it is hard to isolate from the dominant background, $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$, as well as from fake D-$`\mathbf{}`$ combinations. Thus, the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from this channel is less precise than the one from the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decay. Nevertheless, the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃\mathbf{}𝝂`$ channel provides a consistency check.

BELLE  and ALEPH  have studied the $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}`$ channel, while CLEO  has studied both $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}`$ decays. The parametrization used in these studies for the extrapolation to zero recoil is that of Eq. (76). The published results are shown in Table 3.19, together with the results scaled to common inputs. Averaging the latter according to the procedure of , we get $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{4.0}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.19}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.19}`$, where $`𝝆_𝓖^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is the slope parameter of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ at zero recoil.

Using $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.00}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$, as given in Sec. 3.3.3, we get

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{4.0}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.9}_{𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}$$
(111)
consistent with Eq. (110) from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decay, but with an uncertainty about twice as large.

Since $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ drops out of the measured ratio $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$, this can be compared to theoretical calculations independently of their basis. In the heavy-quark limit, both form factors are given by the same function of $`𝒘`$. A precise measurement of their ratio would provide information about the size of symmetry-breaking corrections away from zero recoil. Some experiments have also looked at the differential decay rate distribution to extract the ratio $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓕\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$. However, data are not precise enough to measure the symmetry-breaking corrections away from zero recoil. From the measured values of $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, we get $`𝓖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓕\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.08}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.09}\mathbf{,}`$ consistent with the form factor values that we used.

### 3.4 Exclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

As seen in Sec. 3.2.5, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ can be measured from the inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖𝒍𝝂`$ rate — blind to the particular decay mode. Such measurements require, however, that kinematic selections be made to discriminate against the dominant $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄𝒍𝝂`$ background. This introduces additional theoretical uncertainties that can be significant.

An alternative route to measure $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is the exclusive reconstruction of particular $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖𝒍𝝂`$ final states. Experimentally this provides some extra kinematical constraints for background suppression, and theoretically the uncertainties are of a different nature. The extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is complicated by the fact that the quarks are not free, but bound inside mesons. The probability that the final state quarks will form a given meson is described by form factors. And unlike exclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄𝒍𝝂`$ decays, heavy quark symmetry does not help to normalize these form factors at particular kinematic points. A variety of calculations of these form factors exists, based on lattice QCD, QCD sum rules, perturbative QCD, or quark models. At present, none of these methods allows for a fully model-independent determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, though lattice calculations should, in time, provide a means to reach this goal. It is thus very important to obtain a consistent measurement of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ with both the inclusive and exclusive approach and also to find consistent results for the various exclusive modes. The simplest mode theoretically is $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$, since a description of its rate involves only one form factor in the limit of vanishing lepton mass, instead of the three required for vector final states.

The differential rate for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ decays ($`𝒍\mathbf{=}𝒆`$ or $`𝝁`$) is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{|}𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(112)
where the form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is defined through

$$\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^𝝁𝒖\mathbf{|}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒌\mathbf{)}^𝝁\mathbf{}\frac{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒒^𝝁\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\frac{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒒^𝝁\mathbf{,}$$
(113)
with $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ the momentum transfer squared, $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌`$, and $`𝒑\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩𝒗`$. In the s.l. domain, $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ takes values in the range from 0 to $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ which corresponds to $`𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌`$ varying from $`𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{)}`$ to $`𝒎_𝝅`$. The form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ does not contribute to the rate in the limit of vanishing lepton mass.

#### 3.4.1 Lattice QCD determinations of semileptonic heavy-to-light form factors

Lattice QCD simulations potentially provide a means of calculating heavy-to-light decay form factors from first principlesAn introductory, though slightly dated, review of some of the subjects covered in this section can be found in . These calculations are model independent in the sense that they are based on approximations of QCD that can be systematically improved to arbitrarily high accuracy. In practice, however, all calculations to date have been performed in the quenched approximation, where the effect of sea quarks is treated as a mean field. This introduces a systematic error that is difficult to estimate a priori, though experience shows that for many hadronic quantities, the deviations induced by the quenched approximation are in the 10 to 15% range.

Besides the quenched approximation, which will be lifted (at least partially) in the near future, there are two major practical limitations in the lattice calculation of heavy-to-light form factors. One is that the spatial momenta of the initial and final state hadrons are restricted to be less than about 2 GeV, to avoid large discretization errors. The other is that light-quark masses are much larger than their physical value and the corresponding “pion” mass is $`𝒎_𝝅\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}`$ 400 MeV, so that an extrapolation to the physical light quarks is needed (the so-called chiral extrapolation). As a result, the available region for $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is limited to values above about $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

##### 3.4.1.1 Results for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ form factors

In addition to the extrapolations in light-quark mass, an understanding of the dependence of the form factors on heavy-quark mass is necessary. For both these purposes, the HQET motivated form factors  $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ are useful. They are related to the form factors $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ of Eq. (113) through

$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}\mathbf{\left\{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}}{𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}}{𝑴_𝑩}}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{,}`$ (114)
$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\{}\mathbf{[}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$ (115)
$`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌}{𝑴_𝑩}}\mathbf{[}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{.}`$
The HQET form factors are defined such that the heavy quark scaling with $`𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ is manifest, namely, $`𝒇_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ become independent of $`𝑴_𝑩`$ up to logarithms coming from the renormalization of the heavy-light current. The corrections due to finite $`𝑴_𝑩`$ are then described as a power series in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$. At leading order in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ expansion, $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is proportional to $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$, while $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is proportional to a linear combination $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$. Thus, the heavy quark scaling of $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is given by,

$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}\mathbf{,}`$ (116)
$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (117)
for fixed $`𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌`$, up to logarithms and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ corrections.

Recently four major lattice groups, UKQCD , APE , Fermilab , and JLQCD , have performed quenched calculations of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ form factors. The UKQCD  and APE  collaborations use non-perturbatively $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$-improved Wilson fermions ) and treat heavy quarks relativistically. In this formalism, the leading discretization errors induced by the heavy-quark mass, $`𝒎_𝑸`$, are reduced from $`𝒂𝒎_𝑸`$ to $`\mathbf{(}𝒂𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, with $`𝒂`$ the lattice spacing. To keep these errors under control with the lattice spacing $`𝒂\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{2.7}\text{GeV}`$ available to them, they have to perform the calculations for heavy-quark masses in the neighborhood of the charm-quark mass and extrapolate to the bottom. The drawback of this approach is that the extrapolation can be significant and that discretization errors may be amplified if this extrapolation is performed before a continuum limit is taken. The Fermilab group , on the other hand, uses a formalism for heavy quarks in which correlation functions computed with Wilson-type fermions are reinterpreted using HQET . In this way, they can reach both the charm and bottom quarks without extrapolation, and they investigate the discretization errors using three lattice spacings ($`𝜷`$ = 6.1, 5.9 and 5.7) covering $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒂\mathbf{}`$ 1.2–2.6 GeV. The JLQCD collaboration  employs a lattice NRQCD action  for heavy quarks so that the bottom quark mass is covered by interpolation, and the calculation is done on a coarse lattice, $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒂\mathbf{}`$ 1.6 GeV ($`𝜷`$ = 5.9). Both the Fermilab and NRQCD approach are based on expansions of QCD in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ and precision calculations at the physical $`𝒃`$-quark mass require the inclusion of corrections proportional to powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ which can be difficult to compute accurately. In the case of NRQCD, one is also confronted with the fact that the continuum limit cannot be taken. All groups use an $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$-improved Wilson action  for light quarks.

Fig. 3.9 shows a comparison of recent results for the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ form factors $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ from the four groups . For convenience, the values of these form factors are also reported in Table 3.20. The lattice results are available only for the large $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ region (13 GeV$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}`$ 23 GeV2) corresponding to small spatial momenta of the initial B and final pion.

Good agreement is found amongst the different groups for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, while the results for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ show a slight disagreement. To assess where these differences may come from and, more generally, to estimate systematic errors, the heavy and light quark extrapolations, which form a core part of the underlying analysis, are now briefly reviewed.

##### Heavy quark scaling

At a fixed value of $`𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌`$, the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ dependences of the form factors $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}`$ from JLQCD are compared to those of APE  in Fig. 3.10. Both collaborations agree that there is no significant $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ dependence in $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}`$. For $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}`$, on the other hand, the APE  result has a significant slope, which is also supported by the Fermilab result  (not shown in the plot), while JLQCD do not see such dependence. The reason for this disagreement is not clear, but it partly explains the smaller value of $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ of JLQCD data in Fig. 3.9.

##### Chiral extrapolation

The chiral extrapolation of the HQET form factors $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ is demonstrated in Fig. 3.11. This extrapolation is performed at fixed $`𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌`$ by fitting the form factors to a power series in the light quark mass, as suggested in . No attempt is made to account for chiral logarithms because they are not correctly reproduced in the quenched theory . The figure shows that the extrapolation is insignificant for $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ (or $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$), while a large extrapolation is involved in $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ (or $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$).

##### Summary of current status

The current status of quenched lattice calculations of the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ form factors may be summarized as follows:

* The physical form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ has small $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ corrections in the range of recoils explored. As a result, neither the extrapolation from the charm-quark-mass region (in the UKQCD and APE results) nor the truncation of the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ expansion (in the Fermilab and JLQCD results) is a dominant source of systematic error. $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is more sensitive to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩`$ corrections, and the agreement among different groups is poorer.
* The form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is relatively insensitive to light-quark mass, and simple polynomial chiral extrapolations are stable. This is not the case for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, which displays significant light-quark-mass dependence.
* The agreement amongst the four groups for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ as shown in Fig. 3.9 is remarkable, because the groups use different methods for modelling the $`𝒃`$ quark, for matching the lattice current to the continuum one, for performing chiral extrapolations, etc. This agreement is probably due to the fact that this form factor is relatively insensitive to heavy- and light-quark masses, as long as $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is not approached too closely.

These observations allow us to conclude that the systematic error is under control at the level of accuracy shown in Fig. 3.9.

On the other hand, the lattice calculations reviewed have important drawbacks:

* They are performed in the quenched approximation.
* The available lattice results are restricted to the large $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ region. They may be used to predict the partially integrated decay rate, but predictions for the total decay rate usually introduce some model dependence.
* For the physical form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, the current error is of order 20% for all groups and a significant reduction in error will be challenging.

##### Strategies for determining $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

With the quenched lattice results for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ decays presented above, the only unknown in the expression of Eq. (112) for the differential decay rate is $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. To illustrate this point, the results of the four collaborations for this rate are reproduced in Table 3.20. It is clear, then, that $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ can be determined without assumptions about the $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ dependence of form factors, once experiments measure the differential or partially integrated rate in the range of $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ values reached in these calculations. Future lattice calculations in full, unquenched QCD will permit completely model-independent determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$.

The total rate or the differential rate closer to $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ can also be used to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, but then an extrapolation becomes necessary. This extrapolation usually introduces model dependence and the resulting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ thus inherits a systematic error that is difficult to quantify.

Pole dominance models suggest the following momentum dependence for the form factors,

$$𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^𝒊\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝒊^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^{𝒏_𝒊}}\mathbf{,}$$
(118)
where $`𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{0}`$, $`𝒏_𝒊`$ is an integer exponent and the kinematical constraint $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ has already been imposed. Combining this with the HQS scaling relations of Eq. (116) implies $`𝒏_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}𝒏_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Light-cone sum rule scaling further suggests $`𝒏_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ \[211Pole/dipole behaviour for $`f_{B\pi }^0`$ and $`f_{B\pi }^+`$ was also suggested in .. Another pole/dipole parametrization for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$, which accounts for the $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$ pole in $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ correctly, has been suggested by Becirevic and Kaidalov (BK) :

$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜶𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}`$
$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝜷𝒎_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{.}`$ (119)
Fitting this parametrization to the results of each of the four collaborations yields the results summarized in Table 3.21. Though uncertainties are still quite large, consistency amongst the various lattice predictions, as well as with the LCSR result, is good.

Using the results of these fits, UKQCD  and APE , obtain the following total rate:

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐛}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟗}_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}_{}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}\hfill & \text{UKQCD [}\text{193}\text{]}\hfill \\ \mathbf{7.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.9}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{APE [}\text{194}\text{]}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{,}$$
(120)
where the first error in the UKQCD result is statistical and the second is the systematic error, which includes the difference between the parametrizations of Eqs. (118) and (119). In the APE result, where a fit to the pole/dipole parametrization is not considered, the error includes statistical and systematic errors summed in quadrature. Nevertheless, because of the model dependence of these results, a larger systematic error cannot be excluded.

##### 3.4.1.2 Future directions

In the following we discuss the directions that should be explored in the near future to improve the accuracy in the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$.

##### Extension toward lower $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

As already discussed, it is not straightforward to extend lattice calculations of heavy-to-light form factors to the low $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ region, though finer lattices will eventually get us there. Extrapolations to lower $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ values can be performed using models which incorporate many of the known constraints on the form factors, but this introduces a model dependence which is difficult to quantify. It has been proposed, however, to use dispersion relations together with lattice data to obtain model-independent bounds for the form factors over the entire $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ range . These techniques are based on the same ingredients as those used to constrain the shape of the form factors for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}𝒍𝝂`$ decays, briefly presented in Sec. 3.3.1, though details of the implementation are quite different. An example is shown in Fig. 3.12. The bounds in that figure were obtained using the lattice results for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ form factors from , the most complete set available at the time.

Since then lattice calculations have improved significantly and it would be interesting to derive new bounds by combining modern lattice results for the form factors with the techniques developed in . It may also be advantageous to take into account additional constraints on the form factors. Furthermore, other ways of extending the range of lattice calculations to lower values of $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ should be investigated.

##### Unquenching

Lattice calculations have to be performed with dynamical sea quarks to yield truly model independent results. Some groups already have gauge configurations for two flavours of sea quarks with degenerate masses $`\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (instead of the two very light $`𝒖`$ and $`𝒅`$ quarks and the lightish $`𝒔`$ quark found in nature). The study of B meson decays on these backgrounds presents no conceptual difficulty.

In practice, however, the chiral extrapolations required to reach the $`𝒖`$ and $`𝒅`$ quark masses may be rather delicate as it is not clear that the light-quark masses used in the simulations are light enough to be sensitive to the so-called chiral logarithms which are expected to dominate the small mass behaviour of many physical quantities (see e.g.  for recent discussions). It will be very important to control this light-quark-mass behaviour to obtain accuracies better than 10%.

##### Using $`𝐃\mathbf{}𝝅𝐥𝝂`$ decays to improve predictions for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐥𝝂`$ form factors

In the heavy charm and bottom limit, heavy quark symmetry relates the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐥𝝂`$ form factors to $`𝐃\mathbf{}𝝅𝐥𝝂`$. Burdman et al.  proposed to consider the ratio

$$\frac{𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}}{𝒅𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒍^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}}{𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑴_𝑩}{𝑴_𝑫}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}}{𝒇_{𝑫𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑫}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(121)
from which one may extract the ratio of CKM matrix elements $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$. In view of the high-precision measurements of D decays promised by CLEO-$`𝒄`$, such an approach to determining $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is becoming increasingly relevant.

It is convenient to factorize the nearest pole contribution to $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, which is expected to dominate the $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ behaviour of this form factor in the heavy-quark limit, at least close to zero recoil. Thus, the breaking of heavy quark symmetry may be parametrized as

$$\frac{𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩}}{𝒇_{𝑫𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑫}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{+}𝚫_𝑫}{𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{+}𝚫_𝑩}𝑹_{𝑩𝑫}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(122)
where $`𝚫_{𝑩\mathbf{,}𝑫}\mathbf{}𝒎_{𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{}𝒎_{𝑩\mathbf{,}𝑫}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_{𝑩𝑫}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ describes the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑴_{𝑫\mathbf{,}𝑩}`$ corrections to be calculated on the lattice. The question then becomes whether $`𝑹_{𝑩𝑫}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ can be calculated more accurately on the lattice than $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. The answer is “yes” as a number of uncertainties are expected to cancel in the ratio. It is also encouraging that the heavy-quark-mass dependence of $`𝒇_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{}𝒌\mathbf{)}`$ appears to be mild, as discussed previously.

To reach a level of 5% accuracy or better, the systematic errors associated with the heavy quark have to be under good control for both charm and bottom quarks. These errors should also be as similar as possible in the two regimes in order for them to cancel effectively. For these reasons, the relativistic and Fermilab approaches seem to be preferable to the use of NRQCD. Indeed, NRQCD involves an expansion of QCD in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝒂𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{)}`$ which requires either the inclusion of high-orders or coarse lattices ($`𝒂^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑸`$) when $`𝒎_𝑸`$ approaches the charm mass. High orders are difficult to implement in practice and coarse lattices imply large discretization errors.

To reach such levels of accuracy, it is also important to study carefully the extent to which uncertainties associated with the chiral extrapolation of the form factors and with the presence of chiral logarithms cancel in the ratio of bottom to charm amplitudes.

##### B to vector meson semileptonic decays

The rate for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝐥𝝂`$ is less strongly suppressed kinematically near $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ than is the rate for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ and it is larger overall. Thus, the number of events will be larger in the region where the lattice can compute the relevant matrix elements reliably. In , the UKQCD collaboration suggested that $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ be obtained directly from a fit to the differential decay rate around $`𝒒_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, with the overall normalization of this rate, up to a factor of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, determined using lattice results. With their lattice results, such a measurement would allow an extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ with a 10% statistical and a 12% systematic error coming from theory. \**\**\**Other early lattice work on $`\mathrm{B}\rho l\nu `$ can be found in . A first measurement of this differential rate has actually already been performed by CLEO .

Very recently, two lattice collaborations (UKQCD  and SPQcdR ) have begun revisiting $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝒍𝝂`$ decays. Their calculations are performed in the quenched approximation and results are still preliminary. Shown in Fig. 3.13 are the four independent form factors required to describe the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆`$ s.l. matrix elements, as obtained by SPQcdR  at two values of the lattice spacing. Also shown are results from light-cone sum rule calculations  which are expected to be reliable for lower values of $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. These sum rule results look like very natural extensions of the form factors obtained on the finer lattice. Combining the LCSR results for $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with the results on the finer lattice for $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ yields $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝒍𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟗}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ . It will be interesting to see what the calculations of  give for the differential rate above $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ once they are finalized.

As was the case for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ decays, derivation of the full $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ dependence of the form factors from lattice data involves a large extrapolation from $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ all the way down to $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Here, the use of dispersion relations is complicated by the singularity structure of the relevant correlation functions and form factors. There exist, however, lattice-constrained parametrizations of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝒍𝝂`$ form factors, which are consistent with lattice results and heavy-quark scaling relations at large $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and with kinematic constraints and light-cone sum rule scaling at $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ . These parametrizations provide simple, few-parameter descriptions of s.l. form factors. ††††††Away from $`q^2=0`$, these parametrizations are actually not fully consistent with the large-recoil symmetry relations derived in  amongst the soft contributions to the relevant form factors. For completeness, let us mention that the $`\alpha _s`$ corrections to these symmetry relations were calculated in  and corrections in powers of $`1/m_b`$ were investigated in  However, at values of the recoil for which there are not lattice results (i.e. low $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$), they are not predictions of (quenched) QCD.

##### 3.4.1.3 Summary

Four groups have recently performed quenched lattice calculations of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ form factors for $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`\mathbf{>}`$$`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and their results agree. Agreement is best for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ which determines the rate for these decays in the limit of vanishing lepton mass. The error on this form factor is of order 20%. The main sources of remaining systematic errors are quenching and light-quark-mass extrapolations for all the groups, and heavy-quark-mass extrapolations, discretization, and perturbative matching, depending on the group.

A substantial reduction in the error (i.e. below 10%) will be difficult to achieve solely in lattice QCD. This is where the use of ratios of s.l. B and D rates, such as the one given in Eq. (121), could be very helpful.

There is still a substantial number of improvements to be made to present calculations. The list includes unquenching, the use of dispersive bounds or other means of extending the kinematic reach of lattice calculations, the determination of ratios of s.l. B and D rates, and more investigations of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝒍𝝂`$ decays.

#### 3.4.2 Heavy-to-light form factors from light-cone sum rules

The QCD light-cone sum rules (LCSR)  provide estimates of various heavy-to-light transition form factors. In particular, $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑷\mathbf{,}𝑽`$ form factors ($`𝑷\mathbf{=}𝝅\mathbf{,}𝐊`$ and $`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝝆\mathbf{,}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }`$) have been calculated at small and intermediate momentum transfers, typically at $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{<}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$. The upper part of this interval overlaps with the region accessible to the lattice calculations of the same form factors, allowing one to compare the results of two methods. In what follows we will concentrate on the LCSR prediction for the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅`$ form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ . Its accuracy has been recently improved in Ref. . For the LCSR $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑽`$ form factors we refer to the NLO calculation in Ref.  and to the resulting parametrization in Ref. .

The LCSR approach to calculate $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ employs a specially designed theoretical object, the vacuum-to-pion correlation function

$`𝑭_𝝁\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒊{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙𝒆^{𝒊𝒒𝒙}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑻\mathbf{\{}\overline{𝒖}𝜸_𝝁𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒃\overline{𝒃}𝒊𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝑭\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝒑_𝝁\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒒_𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (123)
where the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ weak current is correlated with the quark current which has the B meson quantum numbers, and $`𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Writing down the dispersion relation for the invariant amplitude $`𝑭`$:

$$𝑭\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒇_𝑩𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\underset{𝑩_𝒉}{\mathbf{}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒇_{𝑩_𝒉}𝒇_{𝑩_𝒉𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝒎_{𝑩_𝒉}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_{𝑩_𝒉}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(124)
one represents the correlation function (123) in terms of hadronic degrees of freedom in the B channel. The ground-state contribution in Eq. (124) contains a product of the B meson decay constant $`𝒇_𝑩`$ and the form factor $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ we are interested in, whereas the sum over $`𝐁_𝒉`$ accounts for the contributions of excited and continuum B states.

The dispersion relation is then matched to the result of QCD calculation of $`𝑭\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ at large virtualities, that is, at $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. In this region the operator-product expansion (OPE) near the light-cone $`𝒙^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is employed:

$$𝑭\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑫𝒖_𝒊\underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒌𝑻_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒖_𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝝋_𝝅^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒖_𝒊\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(125)
This generic expression is a convolution of calculable short-distance coefficient functions $`𝑻_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}`$ and universal pion light-cone distribution amplitudes (DA) $`𝝋_𝝅^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒖_𝒊\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ of twist $`𝒕`$. Here, $`𝒎_𝒃`$ is the one-loop $`𝒃`$-quark pole mass, $`𝝁`$ is the factorization scale and the integration goes over the pion momentum fractions $`𝒖_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝒖_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝒖_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$ distributed among quarks and gluons, so that $`𝑫𝒖_𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅𝒖_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒅𝒖_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝜹\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}_𝒊𝒖_𝒊\mathbf{)}`$. In particular, $`𝝋_𝝅^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒖_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝒖_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_𝝅𝝋_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, ($`𝒖_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒖_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖`$) where $`𝝋_𝝅`$ is the lowest twist 2, quark-antiquark pion DA normalized to unity:

$$𝝋_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟔}𝒖\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\underset{𝒏}{\mathbf{}}𝒂_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒖\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(126)
In the above, $`𝑪_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}`$ are Gegenbauer polynomials and the oefficients $`𝒂_𝒏\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, that are suppressed logarithmically at large $`𝝁`$, determine the deviation of $`𝝋_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{)}`$ from its asymptotic form. Importantly, the contributions to Eq. (125) corresponding to higher twist and/or higher multiplicity pion DA are suppressed by inverse powers of the $`𝒃`$-quark virtuality $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, allowing one to retain a few low twist contributions in this expansion. Furthermore, one uses quark-hadron duality to approximate the sum over $`𝐁_𝒉`$ in Eq. (124) by a dispersion integral over the quark-gluon spectral density, introducing a threshold parameter $`𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑩`$. The final step involves a Borel transformation $`\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{+}𝒒\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, where the scale of the Borel parameter $`𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ reflects the characteristic virtuality at which the correlation function is calculated.

The resulting sum rule relation obtained by matching Eqs. (124) and (125) can be cast in the following form:

$`𝒇_𝑩𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒌𝓕_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{;}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑩\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{;}\text{{DA}}^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (127)
where the double expansion (in twists and in $`𝜶_𝒔`$) and the dependence on the relevant parameters are made explicit. In particular, $`\mathbf{\{}𝑫𝑨\mathbf{\}}^{\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}}`$ denotes the non-perturbative normalization constant and non-asymptotic coefficients for each given twist component, e.g., for $`𝝋_𝝅`$: $`\mathbf{\{}𝑫𝑨\mathbf{\}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}𝒇_𝝅\mathbf{,}𝒂_𝒊\mathbf{\}}`$. The sum rule (127) includes all zeroth order in $`𝜶_𝒔`$, twist 2,3,4 contributions containing quark-antiquark and quark-antiquark-gluon DA of the pion. The perturbative expansion has NLO accuracy, including the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to the twist 2  and twist 3 coefficient functions, the latter recently calculated in Ref. . More details on the derivation of LCSR (127) and the explicit expressions can be found in the review papers .

For the B meson decay constant entering LCSR (127) one usually employs the conventional SVZ sum rule  for the two-point correlator of $`\overline{𝒃}𝒊𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒒`$ currents with $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ accuracy (a recent update of this sum rule  is discussed in Chapter 4 of the present document):

$$𝒇_𝑩\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{÷}\mathrm{𝟔}}{\mathbf{}}\underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒌𝑪_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝑴}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑩\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝛀_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}$$
(128)
where the expansion contains the perturbative term with dimension $`𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝛀_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$), and, at $`𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, goes over condensates, the vacuum averages of operators $`𝛀_𝒅\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒒}𝒒\mathbf{,}𝑮_{𝝁𝝂}^𝒂𝑮^{𝒂𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}`$, multiplied by calculable short-distance coefficients $`𝑪_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}`$. The Borel parameter $`\overline{𝑴}`$ is correlated with $`𝑴`$. The LCSR prediction for the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅`$ form factor is finally obtained dividing Eq. (127) by Eq. (128):

$$𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒇_𝑩𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}_{𝑳𝑪𝑺𝑹}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝒇_𝑩\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑𝒕𝑺𝑹}\mathbf{.}$$
(129)
In order to demonstrate that the expansion in both twist and $`𝜶_𝒔`$ in this relation works well, we present the approximate percentage of various contributions to the resulting form factor (129):

The input parameters used in the numerical analysis of the sum rules (127) and (128) have a limited accuracy. The theoretical uncertainty is estimated by varying these inputs within the allowed regions and adding up linearly the separate uncertainties induced by these variations in the numerical prediction for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$. The resulting total uncertainties are given below, together with the parametrizations of the form factor. A detailed theoretical error analysis can be found in Ref. . To summarize it briefly, one source of uncertainty is the value of the $`𝒃`$-quark one-loop pole mass. The two most recent LCSR analyses use $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.7}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}`$ GeV  and $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.6}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}`$ GeV . In both studies, the threshold $`𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝑩`$ is not an independent parameter, being determined by stabilizing $`𝒇_𝑩`$ calculated from Eq. (128) at a given $`𝒃`$-quark mass. The uncertainty induced by varying the factorization scale $`𝝁`$ (adopted simultaneously as the normalization scale for $`𝜶_𝒔`$) is very small, firstly, because the NLO approximation is implemented for both dominant twist 2 and 3 terms, and, secondly, because the relatively large $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to the twist 2 contribution and to the $`𝒇_𝑩`$ sum rule cancel in the ratio (129). Another source of uncertainty is our limited knowledge of the non-asymptotic part in the pion DA (determined by the coefficients $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒏}`$ and the analogous coefficients in twist 3,4 DA). In Ref.  these coefficients were varied from a certain non-asymptotic ansatz of DA (motivated by QCD sum rules) to purely asymptotic DA. Such a substantial variation covers the existing constraints on non-asymptotic coefficients obtained from LCSR for pion form factors. The latter constraints have been used in Ref. . In fact, LCSR involve integration over normalized DA, therefore it is natural that the results only moderately depend on the non-asymptotic coefficients. Finally, to assess the reliability of the LCSR procedure one has to comment on the use of quark-hadron duality, which is the most sensitive point in the sum rule approach. We expect that the sensitivity to the duality approximation is substantially reduced: 1) by restricting the Borel parameter at not too large values and 2) by dividing out the $`𝒇_𝑩`$ sum rule which depends on the same threshold. The fact that the QCD sum rule prediction for $`𝒇_𝑩`$ (see Chapter 4 and ) is in a good agreement with the lattice results indicates that quark-hadron duality is indeed valid in the B channel.

For a convenient use in the experimental analysis, the LCSR results for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅`$ form factor are usually fitted to simple parametrizations. One of them, suggested in Ref.  employs the ansatz  based on the dispersion relation for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. The latter is fitted to the LCSR predictions for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ in its validity region $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{<}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ GeV2. For the $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$-pole term the $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}𝑩𝝅`$ coupling  is determined from the same correlation function (125). The result is:

$$𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{0.23}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{0.33}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜶_{𝑩𝝅}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(130)
where the values of the slope parameter correlated with the lower and upper limits of the interval for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ are almost equal: $`𝜶_{𝑩𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.39}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{0.38}`$. A different parametrization was suggested recently in Ref. :

$`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{0.26}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒂\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}𝒒_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (131)
$`\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒄}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}𝒒_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$
where the LCSR result is extrapolated to large $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ using the $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$-pole form. In Eq. (131) the ranges of fitted parameters, $`𝒂\mathbf{=}\mathbf{2.34}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{1.76}`$, $`𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.77}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{0.87}`$, $`𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.384}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{0.523}`$, and $`𝒒_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{14.3}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{18.5}`$ GeV2, are correlated with the first error in $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, whereas the second error is attributed to the uncertainty of the quark-hadron duality approximation. Note that all values within the uncertainty intervals in Eqs. (130) and (131) have to be considered as equally acceptable theoretical predictions, without any “preferred central value”. The numerical differences between the form factors (130) and (131) are smaller than the estimated uncertainties and are caused by slightly different inputs and by the small $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ correction to the twist 3 term taken into account in Eq. (131) but not in Eq. (130) (where an additional uncertainty was attributed to this missing correction).

Having at hand the form factor, one can predict the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ decay distribution using Eq. (112), as is shown in Fig. 3.14 in the case of the form factor (130). The corresponding integrated s.l. width is

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐥^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{7.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.5}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐕_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐛}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}$$
(132)
where the indicated error is mainly caused by the uncertainty of $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, whereas the uncertainty of the form factor shape is insignificant. This prediction  was recently used by BELLE in their preliminary analysis of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ decay (see Sec. 3.4.3.1). A similar estimate of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ was obtained in Ref.  using the older CLEO measurement  of the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝒍𝝂`$ width.

The advantage of LCSR is that one can easily switch from the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅`$ to $`𝐃\mathbf{}𝝅`$ form factor replacing $`𝒃`$ quark by $`𝒄`$ quark in the underlying correlation function (125). The LCSR prediction for $`𝒇_{𝑫𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ obtained in Ref.  and parametrized in the form analogous to Eq. (130) yields a $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$-pole dominance:

$$𝒇_{𝑫𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{0.65}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.11}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(133)
at $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{<}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝅\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The corresponding s.l. width $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂_𝒆\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.13}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ calculated with the known value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ is, within errors, in agreement with the experimental number $`\mathbf{0.174}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.032}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ . To make this comparison more decisive it would be very important to have new, more accurate measurements of the decay distribution and integrated width of $`𝐃^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂_𝒆`$.

Are further improvements of the LCSR result for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝑫𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ possible? As we have seen, the accuracy of OPE for the correlation function is quite sufficient. The $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ level recently achieved in the sum rule for $`𝒇_𝑩`$  is certainly not an immediate task for LCSR, being also technically very difficult. More important is to improve the accuracy of the input parameters by 1) narrowing the interval of the $`𝒃`$ quark mass and 2) gaining a better control over the parameters of pion DA. For the latter, in particular, one needs more precise data on pion form factors, especially on $`𝜸^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (the latter form factor can in principle be measured at the same $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ B-factories) and, eventually, lattice QCD simulations of $`𝝋_𝝅\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{)}`$ and other DA. A better control over duality approximation in the B and D channels can be achieved if radially excited B and D states are accurately identified with their masses and widths. Optimistically, one may hope to reduce the overall uncertainty of the LCSR prediction for $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}`$ and other heavy-to-light form factors to the level of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$, which is a natural limit for any QCD sum rule prediction.

In conclusion, we emphasize that, in addition to providing estimates of the form factors, LCSR help in understanding important physical aspects of the heavy-to-light transitions. First of all, LCSR allow to quantitatively assess the role of the soft (end-point) vs hard (perturbative gluon exchange) contributions to the form factors, because both contributions are taken into account in this approach. Secondly, using LCSR one is able to predict  the $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ limit, $`𝒇_{𝑩𝝅}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, which is used in some lattice extrapolations. Last but not least, LCSR can be expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑬_𝝅`$ assessing the size of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑬`$ corrections to various relations predicted in effective theories for heavy-to-light decays.

#### 3.4.3 Review and future prospects for the exclusive determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$

##### 3.4.3.1 Measurements of $`𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$

The first exclusive measurement of the mode $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ was presented by the CLEO collaboration in 1996 . The neutrino momentum is inferred from the missing momentum in the event, using the hermeticity of the detector. Events with multiple charged leptons or a non-zero total charge are rejected, resulting in a reduced efficiency in favour of an improved neutrino momentum resolution. Isospin relations for the relative partial width are used to combine the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ modes. A fit is performed using the variables $`𝑴_{𝒄𝒂𝒏𝒅}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐦}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_𝝂\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_{𝝆\mathbf{,}𝝎\mathbf{,}𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`𝚫𝑬\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝑬_{𝝆\mathbf{,}𝝎\mathbf{,}𝝅}\mathbf{+}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬}}\mathbf{|}𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐦}}`$, where $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐦}}`$ is the well known beam energy. The modes $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ (with $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝝆^{\mathbf{}}`$) and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝎\mathbf{}𝝂`$ are also included in the fit because of cross-feed between these modes and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$. The $`𝝆`$ ($`𝝎`$) mode uses the invariant two (three) $`𝝅`$ mass in the fit to distinguish better between resonant and non-resonant final states. Backgrounds from continuum processes are subtracted using off-resonance data. The shape of the five signal contributions, the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$, and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ backgrounds are provided by Monte Carlo simulation. The final results for the branching ratio and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ are obtained by averaging over four separate form factor calculations: two quark models (ISGW2  and Melikhov ), a model by Wirbel Stech and Bauer , and a hybrid model that uses a dispersion-relation-based calculation of the $`𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factor  and combines lattice calculation of the $`𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factors  with predicted $`𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factor relations . The dominant systematic uncertainties arise from uncertainties in the detector simulation and modelling of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ backgrounds. The result using $`\mathbf{2.66}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on resonance data is

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.8}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (134)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.3}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.78}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}`$ (135)
The errors given are statistical, systematic, and theoretical, in the order shown. Note that the above value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is extracted using both the $`𝝅`$ and $`𝝆`$ modes. At ICHEP 2002 BELLE presented a preliminary result using $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on-peak and $`\mathrm{𝟗}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ off-peak data . Results are quoted for the UKQCD model

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.35}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.11}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (136)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.11}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.13}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.24}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.56}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ (137)
and for the LCSR model

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.31}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.11}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.20}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (138)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.58}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.28}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.63}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}`$ (139)
The CLEO collaboration submitted a preliminary updated analysis  to ICHEP 2002 based on $`\mathbf{9.7}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ pairs. In addition to more data compared to Ref. , the analysis has been improved in several ways: the signal rate is measured differentially in three $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ regions so as to minimize modelling uncertainties arising from the $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ dependence of the form factors (this is the first time this has been done in the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ mode); minimum requirements on the signal charged lepton momentum were lowered for both the pseudoscalar and vector modes, thereby increasing the acceptance and also reducing the model dependence; and the $`𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ feed-down modelling included a simulation of the inclusive process using a parton-level calculation by De Fazio and Neubert , its non-perturbative parameters measured in the CLEO analysis of the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ photon energy spectrum , with the ISGW2  model used to describe a set of expected resonant states‡‡‡‡‡‡Note that the inclusive rate is reduced to allow for that portion of the total rate that is treated exclusively by the ISGW2 model.. The preliminary CLEO result  for the branching fraction was

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.376}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.180}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.135}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.116}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.008}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.102}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.021}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}`$ (140)
where the uncertainties are statistical, experimental systematic, and the estimated uncertainties from the $`𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factor, the $`𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factors, and from modelling the other $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ feed-down decays, respectively. By extracting rates independently in three separate $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ ranges, the CLEO analysis demonstrated a significant reduction in the model dependence due to efficiency variations as a function of $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

In a preliminary effort to reduce the impact of theoretical uncertainties on the form factor normalization, the CLEO collaboration  used $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$-dependent partial branching fractions to extract $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ using a $`𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ form factor from light cone sum rules in the range $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ GeV2 and from lattice QCD calculations above this range to obtain the averaged preliminary result

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.32}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{\pm }{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.19}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.17}}\mathbf{\pm }{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.39}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.55}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.12}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}`$ (141)
where the uncertainties represent the same quantities defined in the branching-fraction expression above. In addition, by performing simple $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ fits of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ across the three $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ ranges with a given form factor model, the CLEO method can discriminate between competing form factor model shapes on the basis of $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ probabilities in the fits to the data. The CLEO technique has been used, for example, to demonstrate that the ISGW2  model is likely to be unreliable for the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from the $`𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ mode.

##### 3.4.3.2 Measurements of $`𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$)

Analyses that are optimized for the modes $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ were performed by CLEO  and BaBar . BELLE also presented a preliminary result at ICHEP 2002 . Again the modes $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$, $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$, $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝎\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$, $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$, and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ (with $`𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝝆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, and $`𝝎\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$) are fully reconstructed, the inclusion of charge conjugate decays is implied throughout. The neutrino momentum is inferred from the missing momentum in the event. The selection is somewhat looser than for the other analysis (see above), resulting in a higher efficiency but decreased $`𝚫𝑬`$ resolution. Off-resonance data, taken below the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ resonance, are used for continuum subtraction. The shape of the five signal contributions, the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$, and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ background are provided by Monte Carlo simulation. A fit with the two variables $`𝑴_{𝝅𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝅\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝚫𝑬`$ is performed, simultaneously for the five decay modes and for two (for CLEO three) lepton-energy regions. $`𝑴_{𝝅𝝅\mathbf{(}𝝅\mathbf{)}}`$ is the invariant hadronic mass of the $`𝝆`$ ($`𝝎`$) meson and $`𝚫𝑬`$ is the difference between the reconstructed and the expected B meson energy, $`𝚫𝑬\mathbf{}𝑬_{𝝆\mathbf{,}𝝎\mathbf{,}𝝅}\mathbf{+}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬}}\mathbf{|}𝒄\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐦}}`$. These analyses are most sensitive for lepton energies above $`\mathbf{2.3}\text{ GeV}`$, below that backgrounds from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays dominate. Isospin and quark model relations are again used to couple the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝝆`$ and $`𝝎`$ modes. The dominant systematic uncertainties arise from uncertainties in the detector simulation and modelling of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ backgrounds.
The CLEO and BaBar analyses obtain their results for the branching ratio and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ by averaging over five separate form factor calculations: two quark models (ISGW2  and Beyer/Melikhov ), a lattice calculation (UKQCD ), a model based on light cone sum rules (LCSR ), and a calculation based on heavy quark and $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetries by Ligeti and Wise . CLEO published the result

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.69}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.41}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.40}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.35}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.50}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (142)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.23}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.24}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.26}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.23}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.58}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}`$ (143)
BaBar uses $`\mathbf{50.5}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on resonance and $`\mathbf{8.7}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ off-resonance data and obtains the preliminary result

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.39}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.44}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.52}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.60}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (144)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.69}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.23}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.27}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.59}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.40}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}`$ (145)
BELLE quotes preliminary results only for the ISGW2 model (without theoretical error) using $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟗}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on resonance and $`\mathrm{𝟑}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ off-resonance data

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.44}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.18}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.23}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (146)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.50}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.20}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.28}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}`$ (147)
Another result was obtained by CLEO earlier (this analysis was described in the previous Section )

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.4}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.7}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.5}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\text{ , and}`$ (148)
$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.3}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.78}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\text{ (as in Eq. }\text{135}\text{)}\mathbf{.}`$
Note that the above value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is extracted using both the $`𝝅`$ and $`𝝆`$ modes. CLEO quotes the following average result for the two analyses that were presented in Refs. :

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.25}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.14}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.29}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.21}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.55}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}$$
(149)
More recently, the CLEO collaboration has presented a preliminary analysis  that uses the neutrino-reconstruction technique to reconstruct the modes $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ in a self-consistent way along with the other experimentally accessible $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ exclusive modes. Whereas the analyses described in Refs.  are principally sensitive to the lepton endpoint region above 2.3 GeV, the improved CLEO measurement  imposes a charged-lepton momentum criterion of 1.5 GeV/$`𝒄`$ with a view to reducing the dominating theoretical uncertainties. Due to the large uncertainties in $`𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ from modelling the simulated feed-down $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$ backgrounds, at the time of ICHEP 2002 the $`𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ mode was not used by CLEO to determine a preliminary $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ value.

##### 3.4.3.3 Measurements of $`𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝝎\mathbf{}𝝂`$)

A first preliminary result was presented at ICHEP 2002 by the BELLE collaboration . The analysis uses electrons with $`𝑬\mathbf{>}\mathbf{2.2}`$ GeV and is based on $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on resonance and $`\mathrm{𝟔}\text{ fb}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ off-resonance data. Events are selected by requiring that the missing mass is consistent with zero ($`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{3.0}\text{ GeV}\mathbf{/}𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$), and that the Dalitz amplitude is $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ of its maximum amplitude ($`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝒑_{𝝅^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{\times }𝒑_𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.75}\mathbf{\times }𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}`$). After subtraction of all backgrounds, $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟗}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ signal events remain. The dominant systematic error is the background estimation ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}\mathbf{\%}`$). The preliminary result using the ISGW2 form factors is

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝎𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.4}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.3}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{.}$$
(150)
No value for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is given for this analysis.

##### 3.4.3.4 Measurements of $`𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝜼\mathbf{}𝝂`$)

As in the case of the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ mode, the decay $`𝜼\mathbf{}𝝂`$ is described by only one form factor; however, the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is complicated by the $`𝜼\mathbf{}𝜼^{\mathbf{}}`$ mixing. Experimentally, the $`𝜼`$ has a clear signal and, due to its large mass, one can study the region of low $`𝜼`$ momenta, where lattice calculations are most reliable. $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝜼\mathbf{}𝝂`$ decays can be related via Heavy Quark Symmetry to $`𝐃\mathbf{}𝜼\mathbf{}𝝂`$. It is envisioned that future measurements of the latter mode by CLEO-c can be used to calibrate the lattice calculations, and the B-factories can then use the calibrated lattice to measure $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝜼\mathbf{}𝝂`$. A first preliminary result using approximately $`\mathbf{9.7}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ events was presented at DPF 2002 by the CLEO collaboration :

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝜼\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.39}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.16}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.18}}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.08}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.09}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{.}$$
(151)
The separate CLEO global exclusive study , submitted to ICHEP 2002, also found evidence for the mode $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝜼\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ with a significance of 2.5$`𝝈`$. No value for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ was determined from these analyses.

##### 3.4.3.5 Summary

Several mature measurements of the channels $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ exist and can be used to extract the value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. That these results are limited by the large theoretical uncertainties on the heavy-to-light form factor shapes and normalizations renders the exclusive approaches important to help clarify the non-perturbative QCD aspect of these decays, besides providing an alternative avenue to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. With larger data samples, increased experimental acceptances, and improvements in our understanding of the background processes, the competing form factor models and calculations can now begin to be tested through shape-sensitive comparisons with data. A summary of some of the results is shown in Fig. 3.15. For the BELLE $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ result the average of the two form factor model results is shown.

A combined value (the last row in Fig. 3.15) has been calculated as weighted average of the combined CLEO result, the BaBar $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝒆𝝂`$ result and BELLE’s $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ result. The weights are determined by the statistical error added in quadrature with the uncorrelated part of the systematic uncertainty. We assume that the systematic uncertainty is composed quadratically out of an uncorrelated part and a correlated part of about equal size, where the correlated part arises mainly from the modelling of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ feed-down background. The experimental error of the combined value includes this correlated contribution. The relative theoretical error is similar for all measurements; we take the one from the BaBar measurement. The result is

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}_{𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒍}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.38}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.24}_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.54}𝒕𝒉}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.37}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(152)
### 3.5 B hadron lifetimes and lifetime differences

Beside the direct determination of inclusive and exclusive s.l. decay widths, there are several other measurements of B meson properties which are instrumental in testing some of the theoretical tools (OPE, HQET, and lattice QCD) and are relevant in the precision determination of the CKM parameters. For instance, a precise evaluation of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ from the measurement of the time integrated $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation rate requires an accurate measurement of the $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson lifetime. The accuracy of the $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime and of the lifetime ratio of charged to neutral mesons are also a source of uncertainty in the extraction of $`\mathbf{\left|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{\right|}`$ with the exclusive method. Measurements of B lifetimes test the decay dynamics, giving important information on non-perturbative QCD effects induced by the spectator quark(s). Decay rates are expressed using the OPE formalism, as an expansion in $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$. Spectator effects contribute at $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ and non-perturbative contributions can be reliably evaluated, at least in principle, using lattice QCD calculations.

Since the start of the data taking at LEP/SLC/Tevatron, an intense activity has been devoted to studies of inclusive and exclusive B hadron lifetimes. Most of the exclusive lifetime measurements are based on the reconstruction of the beauty hadron proper time by determining its decay length and momentum. The most accurate measurements are based on inclusive or partial reconstructions (such as topological reconstruction of B decay vertex and determination of its charge or reconstruction of $`𝐁\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂𝑿`$). These techniques exploit the kinematics offered by $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ colliders at energies around the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ peak, and also by hadron colliders, and the excellent tracking capabilities of the detectors. The accuracy of the results for $`𝐁_𝒅`$ and $`𝐁_𝒖`$ mesons, where the samples of candidates are larger, are dominated by systematics, including backgrounds, $`𝒃`$-quark fragmentation, branching fractions and modelling of the detector response. In the case of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ and $`𝚲_𝒃`$, the uncertainty is still statistical dominated. Final averages of the results obtained are given in Table 3.22 . The averages for the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ lifetimes include also the recent very precise measurements by the B factories .

Fig. 3.16 gives the ratios of different B hadron lifetimes, compared with theory predictions (dark yellow bands). The achieved experimental precision of the hadron lifetimes – from a fraction of percent to a few percent – is quite remarkable. The phenomenological interpretation of these results in terms of exclusive lifetime ratios is discussed extensively in Sec 3.5.6

The longer lifetime of charged B mesons as compared to the neutral ones has been established at 5$`𝝈`$ level. The $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetimes are found to be equal within a $`\mathbf{}`$4$`\mathbf{\%}`$ accuracy. The lifetimes of b-baryons appear to be shorter than those of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons. Although this is in qualitative agreement with expectations, the magnitude of the lifetime ratio of beauty baryons to mesons has been the subject of intense scrutiny, both by experiments and theorists, in view of a possible discrepancy. Indeed, recent calculations of higher order terms have improved the agreement of $`𝒃`$ baryon lifetime predictions with the present experimental results. The most precise determinations of the $`𝒃`$ baryon lifetimes come from two classes of partially reconstructed decays. The first has a $`𝚲_𝒄^\mathbf{+}`$ baryon exclusively reconstructed in association with a lepton of opposite charge. The second uses more inclusive final states, where the enrichment in beauty baryons is obtained by requiring a proton or a $`𝚲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to be tagged together with a lepton in the decay. These measurements are affected by uncertainties related to the $`𝚲_𝒃`$ polarization and to poorly known beauty baryon fragmentation functions and decay properties.

Accessing the lifetime differences $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ offers also an independent possibility of constraining the CKM unitarity triangle. This quantity is sensitive to a combination of CKM parameters very similar to the one entering $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ (see Eq. (163) below), and an upper bound on $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ translates in a upper bound on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. With future accurate determinations, this method can therefore provide, in conjunction with the determination of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$, an extra constraint on the $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ parameters.

In the Standard Model the width difference $`\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{\right)}`$ of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons is expected to be rather large and within the reach of experiment in the near future. Recent experimental studies already provide an interesting bound on this quantity as will be detailed in Sec. 3.5.5 On the other hand, the two mass eigenstates of the neutral $`𝐁_𝒅`$ system have in the SM only slightly different lifetimes. This is because the difference in the lifetimes is CKM-suppressed with respect to that in the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ system. A rough estimate leads to $`\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒅}{𝚪_𝒅}\mathbf{}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{𝚪_𝒔}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}`$ where $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ .

#### 3.5.1 Theoretical description of the width difference of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons

The starting point in the study of beauty hadron lifetimes is the construction of the effective weak Hamiltonian for the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ transitions, which is obtained after integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom of the $`𝑾`$ and $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-bosons and of the top quark.

Neglecting the Cabibbo suppressed contribution of $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖`$ transitions and terms proportional to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ ($`\mathbf{}𝝀`$) in the penguin sector, the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ effective Hamiltonian can be written as (cf. Eq. (26) of Chapter 1)

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{+}𝒉\mathbf{.}𝒄\mathbf{.}$$
(153)
The explicit expressions for the various operators can be found e.g. in . The Wilson coefficients $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ in the effective Hamiltonian contain the information about the physics at short distances (large energies) and are obtained by matching the full (Standard Model) and the effective theory ($`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$) at the scale $`𝝁\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑾`$. This matching, as well as the evolution from $`𝑴_𝑾`$ to the typical scale $`𝝁\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$, are known at the next-to-leading order (NLO) in perturbation theory .

Through the optical theorem, the width difference of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons can be related to the absorptive part of the forward scattering amplitude

$$𝚫𝚪_{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔\mathbf{|}𝓣\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}$$
(154)
where the transition operator $`𝓣`$ is written as

$$𝓣\mathbf{=}𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙𝑻\mathbf{\left(}𝓗_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝓗_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}$$
(155)
in terms of the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ effective Hamiltonian.

Because of the large mass of the $`𝒃`$-quark, it is possible to construct an OPE for the transition operator $`𝓣`$, which results in a sum of local operators of increasing dimension. The contributions of higher dimensional operators are suppressed by higher powers of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass. In the case of the width difference $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, the leading term in the expansion is parametrically of order $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The result of this second OPE, which is illustrated in Fig. 3.17, reads

$$𝚫𝚪_{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left\{}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔\mathbf{|}𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔\mathbf{|}𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{,}$$
(156)
where the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ operators on the r.h.s. are

$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒔\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒔\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒔\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒔\mathbf{,}`$ (157)
where a sum over repeated colour indices ($`𝒊\mathbf{,}𝒋`$) is understood; $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃}`$ contains the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ correction . Contributions proportional to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^𝒏`$ ($`𝒏\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$) are neglected. The short distance physics effects (above the scale $`𝝁`$) are now encoded in the coefficient functions $`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$ which are combinations of the $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ Wilson coefficients.

The NLO corrections to the coefficients $`𝑮_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ have been computed in Ref. . They are large ($`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$) and their inclusion is important. The long distance QCD dynamics is described in Eq. (156) by the matrix elements of the local operators $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which are parametrized as

$$\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔\mathbf{|}𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑭_{𝐁_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔\mathbf{|}𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑭_{𝐁_𝒔}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(158)
where the $`𝐁`$-parameters are equal to unity in the vacuum saturation approximation (VSA). To measure the deviations from the VSA one should also include the non-factorizable (non-perturbative) QCD effects. For such a computation a suitable framework is provided by the lattice QCD simulations. In principle, the lattice QCD approach allows the fully non-perturbative estimate of the hadronic quantities to an arbitrary accuracy. In practice, however, several approximations need to be made which, besides the statistical, introduce also a systematic uncertainty in the final results. The steady progress in increasing the computational power, combined with various theoretical improvements, helps reducing ever more systematic uncertainties. Various approximate treatments of the heavy quark on the lattice, and thus various ways to compute the $`𝑩`$-parameters of Eq. (158), have been used:

* HQET: After discretizing the HQET lagrangian (to make it tractable for a lattice study), the matrix elements of Eq. (158) were computed in Ref. , but only in the static limit ($`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$).
* NRQCD: A step beyond the static limit has been made in Ref. , where the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$-corrections to the NRQCD lagrangian have been included, as well as a large part of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$-corrections to the matrix elements of the four-fermion operators. It is important to note, however, that discretization errors associated with the light degrees of freedom cannot be reduced by taking a continuum limit, $`𝒂\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, since the NRQCD expansion requires $`𝒂\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$. Instead, these errors are reduced by including higher and higher dimension operators whose coefficients are adjusted to improve the discretization. Such a procedure is difficult to carry out beyond terms of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ and one must therefore show that the residual discretization and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ power-correction effects are small at finite $`𝒂`$ .
* Relativistic approach: In Ref. , the matrix elements were computed by using an $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$-improved action in the region of masses close to the charm quark and then extrapolated to the $`𝒃`$-quark sector by using the heavy quark scaling laws. However, this extrapolation can be significant and discretization errors will be amplified to varying degrees depending on the quantity studied, if it is performed before a continuum limit is taken. A discussion of this amplification in the context of neutral B meson mixing can be found in .

As of now, none of the above approaches is accurate enough on its own and all of them should be used to check the consistency of the obtained results.

A more accurate determination of the $`𝑩`$-parameters relevant for $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ has been recently obtained in Ref. . To reduce the systematics of the heavy quark extrapolation, the results obtained in the static limit of the HQET  were combined with those of Ref. , where lattice QCD is employed for three mesons of masses in the region of Ds-mesons. As a result, one actually interpolates to the mass of the Bs-meson. This interpolation is shown in Fig. 3.18. The resulting values from Ref. , in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$(NDR) scheme of Ref. , are

$$𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.87}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.84}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(159)
where the first errors are statistical and the second include various sources of systematics. An important remark is that the above results are obtained in the quenched approximation ($`𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$), and the systematic error due to quenching could not be estimated. The effect of the inclusion of the dynamical quarks has been studied within the NRQCD approach. The authors of Ref.  conclude that the $`𝑩`$-parameters are essentially insensitive to the change from $`𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to $`𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (see Fig. 3.19). From their (high statistics) unquenched simulation, they quote

$`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}_{\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.83}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}_{\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.84}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}_{\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.86}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}_{\mathbf{(}𝒏_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.85}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (160)
where, for comparison, we also display their most recent results obtained in the quenched approximation . The results of the two lattice approaches (Eqs. (159) and (3.5.1)) are in good agreement.

The theoretical estimate of $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝐁_𝒔}`$ is obtained by combining the lattice calculations of the matrix elements with the Wilson coefficients. To that purpose two different formulas have been proposed which are both derived from Eq. (156):

* In Ref.  the width difference has been normalized by using the s.l. branching ratio $`𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑿\mathbf{}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ which is experimentally determined. In this way one obtains the expression

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪}{𝚪}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝐝\mathbf{}𝐗\mathbf{}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}𝒈_{𝑺𝑳}𝜼_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭_{𝐁_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}𝓜\mathbf{,}$$
(161)
where

$$𝓜\mathbf{=}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}\frac{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{\left(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑮_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜹}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎}\mathbf{,}$$
(162)
with $`𝒛\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and the phase space factor $`𝒈_{𝑺𝑳}\mathbf{=}𝑭\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜼_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒛\mathbf{)}`$ are given in Sec. 3.2.4
* Alternatively, one can use the measured mass difference in the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ neutral meson system to write :

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪}{𝚪}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}{\mathrm{𝟑}}\frac{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}}{𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝝉_{𝐁_𝒔}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\frac{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}}{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{)}}\frac{𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}𝝃^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝜼_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}}𝓜\mathbf{,}$$
(163)
where $`𝝃`$ is defined as $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝐁_𝒔}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝐁_𝒔}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝒇_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{)}`$, and $`𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ is defined in Sec. 4.1.1 of Chapter 4.

From the point of view of the hadronic parameters, the advantage of the second formula is that it is expressed in terms of the ratio $`𝝃`$, in the evaluation of which many systematic uncertainties of the lattice calculations cancel. The estimate of $`𝝃`$, however, is affected by an uncertainty due to the chiral extrapolation, which comes from the fact that in present lattice calculation it is not possible to simulate directly quark masses smaller than $`\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Therefore an extrapolation to the physical $`𝒅`$-quark mass is necessary. The first formula, instead, is expressed in terms of the decay constant $`𝑭_{𝐁_𝒔}`$ whose determination does not require a chiral extrapolation. However, other systematic uncertainties may be important in this case such as those coming from the value of the absolute lattice scale (inverse lattice spacing), the renormalization of the axial current and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$-corrections.

In the numerical analysis, to derive a prediction for $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, we use the values of parameters listed in Table 3.23. Notice that in the error for $`𝝃`$ the uncertainty due to the chiral extrapolation is quoted separately (second error).

The value of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass deserves a more detailed discussion. The $`𝒃`$-pole mass, which corresponds at the NNLO to the $`\overline{𝑴𝑺}`$ mass $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.26}`$ GeV quoted in Table 3.23, is $`𝒎_𝒃^{𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒆}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.86}`$ GeV. Since the formulae for $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ have been derived only at the NLO, however, it may be questionable whether to use $`𝒎_𝒃^{𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒆}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.86}`$ GeV or $`𝒎_𝒃^{𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒆}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.64}`$ GeV, corresponding to $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{4.26}`$ GeV at the NLO. That difference is very important for the value of $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜹}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎}`$ which, computed in the VSA, varies between $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.6}`$. In addition, a first principle non-perturbative estimates of the matrix elements entering the quantity $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜹}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎}`$ is still lacking. For this reason we include $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ of uncertainty in the estimate of $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜹}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎}`$ stemming from the use of the VSA. We finally obtain the predictions:

$$\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪}{𝚪}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝐁_𝒔}^{𝑬𝒒\mathbf{.}\mathbf{(}\text{161}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{8.5}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.8}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪}{𝚪}\mathbf{\right)}_{𝐁_𝒔}^{𝑬𝒒\mathbf{.}\mathbf{(}\text{163}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{9.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.8}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(164)
In Fig. 3.20 we show the corresponding probability distribution functions (pdf).

We see that the results obtained with the two formulas are in good agreement. From the pdfs we observe that $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ can span a very large range of values, say between 0.03 and 0.15: the theoretical uncertainty on this quantity is large. The main source of uncertainty, besides the assumption of local quark-hadron duality, comes from the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ corrections parameterized by $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜹}_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎}`$. That uncertainty is enhanced by a rather large cancellation between the leading contributions (first two terms of Eq. (162)) and it is very difficult to reduce, since it would require the non-perturbative estimate of many dimension-7, $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$, operators. Such a calculation is very challenging and most probably beyond the present capability of the lattice QCD approach. Given the present theoretical uncertainty on $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝐁_𝒔}`$ it is unlikely that signals of physics beyond the Standard Model may be detected from the measurement of this quantity.

#### 3.5.2 Width difference of $`𝐁_𝒅`$ mesons

The phenomenology of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ has been mostly neglected so far, in contrast to the lifetime difference in the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ system, because the present data fall so short of the needed accuracy. However, in the prospect of experiments with high time resolution and large statistics, its study will become relevant. In fact, it may affect a precise determination of the CKM phase $`𝜷`$, and it also provides several opportunities for detecting New Physics.

The width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$ has been estimated in  including the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ contribution and part of the NLO QCD corrections. Adding the latter corrections decreases the value of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$ computed at the leading order by a factor of almost $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$. This yields

$$𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.6}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.6}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.2}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{.}$$
(165)
Using another expansion of the partial NLO QCD corrections proposed in , one gets

$$𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.0}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.4}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.9}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}$$
(166)
where preliminary values for the bag factors from the JLQCD collaboration  are used. The contributions to the error (in units of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$) are $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}`$ each from the uncertainties in the values of the CKM parameters and the parameter $`𝒙_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_𝒅`$, $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.5}`$ each from the bag parameters and the mass of the $`𝒃`$ quark, $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.3}`$ from the assumption of naive factorization made for the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ matrix elements, and $`{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.2}}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.5}}`$ from the scale dependence. The error due to the missing terms in the NLO contribution is estimated to be $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.8}`$ in the calculation of Eq. (165). Although it is reduced in the calculation of Eq. (166), a complete NLO calculation is definitely desirable for a more reliable result.

#### 3.5.3 Relation between $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$

The time-dependent CP asymmetry measured through the ‘gold-plated’ mode $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝐒`$ is

$$𝓐_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝚪\mathbf{[}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{]}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{[}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{]}}{𝚪\mathbf{[}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{]}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{[}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(167)
which is valid when the lifetime difference, the direct CP violation, and the mixing in the neutral K mesons are neglected. As the accuracy of this measurement increases, the corrections due to these factors will need to be taken into account. Using the effective parameter $`\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}`$ that absorbs several small effects and uncertainties, including penguin contributions (see  for a precise definition), and keeping only linear terms in that effective parameter, the asymmetry becomes

$`𝓐_{𝑪𝑷}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐡}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒅𝒕}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐑𝐞\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}`$
$`\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐈𝐦\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$
The first term represents the standard approximation of Eq. (167) together with the correction due to the lifetime difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$. The other terms include corrections due to CP violation in the $`𝐁`$$`\overline{𝐁}`$ and $`𝐊`$$`\overline{𝐊}`$ mixings.

Future experiments aim to measure $`𝜷`$ with an accuracy of 0.005 . The corrections due to $`\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}`$ and $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ will become a large fraction of the systematic error. This error can be reduced by a simultaneous fit of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ and $`\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}`$. The BaBar Collaboration gives a bound on the coefficient of $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ in Eq. (3.5.3), where other correction terms are neglected . When measurements will become accurate enough to really constrain the $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ term, all the other terms in Eq. (3.5.3) would also be measurable. In this case, the complete expression for $`𝓐_{𝑪𝑷}`$ needs to be used.

#### 3.5.4 New Physics signals

The lifetime difference in neutral $`𝐁`$ mesons can be written in the form

$$𝚫𝚪_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}\mathbf{|}_𝒒\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚯_𝒒\mathbf{}𝚽_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(169)
where $`𝚯_𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐀𝐫𝐠}\mathbf{(}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}\mathbf{)}_𝒒\mathbf{,}𝚽_𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐀𝐫𝐠}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}\mathbf{)}_𝒒`$, and $`𝒒\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{\}}`$ (see Sec. 4.1.2). In the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ system, the new physics effects can only decrease the value of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ with respect to the SM . In the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ system, an upper bound for $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ can be given, depending on the additional assumption of three-generation CKM unitarity:

$$𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝐀𝐫𝐠}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{,}$$
(170)
where $`𝜹𝒇`$ depends on hadronic matrix elements. The bound in Eq. (170) can be calculated up to higher order corrections. In , $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐀𝐫𝐠}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.6}`$, so that $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.2}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}\mathbf{)}`$. A violation of this bound would indicate a violation of the unitarity of $`\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟑}`$ CKM matrix. A complete NLO calculation would provide a stronger bound.

The ratio of two effective lifetimes can be used to measure the quantity $`𝚫𝚪_{𝒐𝒃𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$ (see Sec. 3.5.5.3). In the presence of new physics, this quantity is in fact (see Eq. (169))

$$𝚫𝚪_{𝒐𝒃𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}\mathbf{|}_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚯_𝒅\mathbf{}𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(171)
where in the Standard Model

$$𝚫𝚪_{𝒐𝒃𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝚪_{\mathrm{𝟐𝟏}}\mathbf{|}_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝐀𝐫𝐠}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹𝒇\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}$$
(172)
is predicted to be positive. New physics is not expected to affect $`𝚯_𝒅`$, but it may affect $`𝚽_𝒅`$ in such a way that $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚯_𝒅\mathbf{}𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ changes sign. A negative sign of $`𝚫𝚪_{𝒐𝒃𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}`$ would therefore be a clear signal for New Physics. The time-dependent asymmetry in $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺`$ (or $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑲_𝑳`$) measures $`𝓐_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, where $`𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ in the SM. The measurement of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ still allows for a discrete ambiguity $`𝚽_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝚽_𝒅`$. If $`𝚯_𝒅`$ can be determined independently of the mixing in the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ system, then the measurement of $`𝚫𝚪_{𝒐𝒃𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}`$ will in principle resolve the discrete ambiguity.

In conclusion, the measurement of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ and related quantities should become possible in a near future, providing further important informations on the flavour sector of the SM.

#### 3.5.5 Experimental review and future prospects for $`𝚫𝚪`$ measurements

The width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝚪_{𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈}\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕}`$ can be extracted from lifetime measurements of $`𝐁_𝒔`$ decays. A first method is based on a double exponential lifetime fit to samples of events containing mixtures of CP eigenstates, like s.l. or $`𝐃_𝐬`$-hadron $`𝐁_𝒔`$ decays. A second approach consists in isolating samples of a single CP eigenstate, such as $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$. The former method has a quadratic sensitivity to $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$, whereas the latter has a linear dependence and suffers from a much reduced statistics. A third method has been also proposed  and consists in measuring the branching fraction $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$. More details on the different analyses performed are given in the following.

L3  and DELPHI  use inclusively reconstructed $`𝐁_𝒔`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔𝒍𝝂𝑿`$ events, respectively. If those sample are fitted assuming a single exponential lifetime, then, assuming $`\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{𝚪_𝒔}`$ is small, the measured lifetime is given by:

$$𝝉_{𝐁_𝒔^{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍\mathbf{.}}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪_𝒔}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝒔}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥}\mathbf{.}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{;}𝝉_{𝐁_𝒔^{𝒔𝒆𝒎𝒊\mathbf{.}}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪_𝒔}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝒔}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝒔}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔𝒍𝝂𝑿\mathbf{)}$$
(173)
The single lifetime fit is thus more sensitive to the effect of $`𝚫𝚪`$ in the s.l. case than in the fully inclusive one. The same method is used for the $`𝐁_𝐬`$ world average lifetime (recomputed without the DELPHI measurement ) obtained by using only the s.l. decays. The technique of reconstructing only decays at defined CP has been exploited by ALEPH, DELPHI and CDF. ALEPH , reconstructs the decay $`𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }\mathit{\varphi }𝐗`$ which is predominantly CP even. The proper time dependence of the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ component is a simple exponential and the lifetime is related to $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔`$ via

$$\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝐬}{𝚪_𝐬}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝚪_𝐬}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝉_{𝐁_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐭}}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(174)
Another method consists in using the branching fraction, $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝐃_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. Under several theoretical assumptions

$$𝑩𝑹\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪_𝒔}\mathbf{\right)}}\mathbf{.}$$
(175)
This is the only constraint on $`\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒔}{𝚪_𝒔}`$ which does not rely on the measurement of the B$`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}{}_{𝒔}{}^{}`$($`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) lifetime. DELPHI  uses a sample of $`𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐃_𝐬\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧}`$, which is expected to have an increased CP-even component as the contribution due to $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$ events is enhanced by selection criteria. CDF  reconstructs $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ with $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ where the CP even component is equal to $`\mathbf{0.84}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.16}`$ obtained by combining CLEO  measurement of CP even fraction in $`𝐁_𝐝\mathbf{}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and possible $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetry correction. The results, summarized in Table 3.24, are combined following the procedure described in . The log-likelihood of each measurement are summed and normalized with respect to its minimum.

Two measurements are excluded from the average for different reasons:

* L3 inclusive analysis: the likelihood is not available and it cannot be reconstructed from the numerical result;
* ALEPH branching ratio analysis: the theoretical assumptions in Eq. (175) are controversial and the systematic error due to these assumptions has not been estimated.

The $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟗}\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence level contours are

shown in Fig. 3.22. The result is

$`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.16}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.16}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.15}}`$

$`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.54}`$ at $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L.

In order to improve the limit the constraint $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝝉_{𝐁_𝒅}`$ can be imposed. This is well motivated theoretically, as the total widths of the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons are expected to be equal within less than 1% (see Fig. 3.16) and that $`𝚫𝚪_{𝐁_𝒅}`$ is expected to be small. It results in:

$`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.07}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.07}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.09}}`$

$`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.29}`$ at $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L.

The relative confidence level contours plot is shown in Fig. 3.22.

##### 3.5.5.1 Prospects for Tevatron experiments

CDF measured the $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ lifetime  and polarization  separately. In the future the idea is to combine these two measurements by fitting both the lifetime and the transversity angle***The transversity angle is defined as the angle between the $`\mu ^+`$ and the $`z`$ axis in the rest frame of the $`J/\psi `$, where the $`z`$ axis is orthogonal to the plane defined by the $`\varphi `$ and K+ direction.. The use of the transversity allows to separate the CP even from the CP odd component. A study has been performed, by assuming similar performances as those achieved during Run I (mass resolution, background fractions, etc.) and improved proper time resolution ($`\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}𝝁`$m). With an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1, corresponding to about 4000 events, an accuracy on $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔`$ of 5% could be reached In this results it is assumed that the CPeven fraction is $`0.77\pm 0.19`$. If CP$`{}_{even}{}^{}=0.5(1)`$, the error becomes $`\sigma \left(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_s/\mathrm{\Gamma }_s\right)=0.08\left(0.035\right)`$.. Using the same integrated luminosity and the impact parameter trigger , CDF could expect to reconstruct 2500 $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ events, with a signal-to-noise ratio of 1:1.5. Using this sample the lifetime of the short component can be measured with an error of 0.044 ps, which corresponds to $`𝝈\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.06}`$. The $`𝐃_𝒔𝝅`$ and $`𝐃_𝒔\mathrm{𝟑}𝝅`$ decays could be also used. Those events are flavour-specific, thus they correspond to well defined mixtures of $`𝐁_𝒔^{𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^{𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈}`$. By using $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$ events $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔`$ can be measured with an error of 0.007 ps. Combining together the flavour specific measurement and the $`𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ analysis, CDF can reach an error $`𝝈\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.04}`$.

DØ has based its studies of Bs lifetime difference measurements on its strong dimuon trigger and the extensive coverage of the calorimeter and the muon detector. It is expected that approximately 7000 $`𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ events will be reconstructed with an integrated luminosity of 2 fb-1. The sensitivity of the measurements depends on two parameters: (a) the fraction of the CP-even component of the $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ final stateThe CPeven fraction has been measured by CDF in Run-I: (77$`\pm `$19)%., and (b) the CP-violating phase $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ in the mixing of the Bs system§§§The CP-violating phase, defined by $`\alpha _{CP}(\mathrm{B}_sJ/\psi \varphi )\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, is expected to be small in the Standard Model.. The methods discussed here invoke utilization of CP eigenstates, therefore an angular analysis is needed to disentangle the admixture of CP-even and CP-odd contributions.

The $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ channel can be exploited in two ways:

* by comparison of the CP-eigenstate lifetimes: the sensitivity in this measurement is proportional to $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{=}𝚫𝚪_{𝑪𝑷}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }`$.
* by comparison of a CP-eigenstate lifetime to that of a “50-50” admixture, e.g.: $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{[}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$. About 1000 events of the B$`{}_{𝒔}{}^{}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔𝝅`$ decay will be used for the extraction of $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}}\mathbf{)}`$.

Additional decay channels may include B$`{}_{𝒔}{}^{}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝜼`$ and $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝜼^{\mathbf{}}`$ (both being CP-even states). Combining all modes, DØ can achieve a measurement on $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔`$ with precision between $`𝝈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.04}`$ (CP$`{}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧}}{}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$) and $`𝝈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.07}`$ (CP$`{}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧}}{}^{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$)

BTEV studied their $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔`$ reach in three different scenarios. Assuming a $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ cross section of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}𝝁`$b, the number of expected events, using 2 fb-1 of integrated luminosity, are:

* 91700 $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔𝝅`$
* 1700 $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝜼`$ and 6400 $`𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍𝜼\mathbf{}`$, where $`𝝉_{𝑩_𝒔^{𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔^{𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕}`$ is measurable;
* 41400 $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$ where the lifetime, $`𝝉_𝒙\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔^𝒙`$, is a mixture of a $`𝚪_𝒔^{𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒓𝒕}`$ and a $`𝚪_𝒔^{𝒍𝒐𝒏𝒈}`$
components.

The analysis details are discussed in . The results are summarised in Table 3.25, obtained under the assumption that $`𝚫𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.15}`$.

##### 3.5.5.2 Prospects for LHC experiments

The LHC experiments have investigated the measurement of $`𝚫𝚪_𝐬`$ in the exclusive $`𝐁_𝐬^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathit{\varphi }`$decay following the studies done in . In these analyses, $`𝚫𝚪_𝐬`$ and $`𝚪_𝒔`$ are fitted simultaneously with the weak phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂𝒓𝒈\mathbf{(}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and the two helicity amplitude values, $`𝑨_{\mathbf{|}\mathbf{|}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathbf{}}`$, while the mixing parameter $`𝐱_𝐬\mathbf{=}𝚫𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚪`$ is assumed to be known and kept fixed. The results summarised in Table 3.26 correspond to 3 (5) years running at a luminosity of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}}𝒄𝒎^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒔^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$($`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}}𝒄𝒎^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒔^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$) for ATLAS and CMS (LCHb).

##### 3.5.5.3 Measurement of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$

In the case of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$, the time resolution is no longer a limiting factor in the accuracy of lifetime measurements. At present, the only experimental limit comes from DELPHI , which has been obtained by fitting a sample of inclusive B decays to determine the mass difference $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ without neglecting the $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ term. At $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L. $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.20}`$. Given the large number of $`𝐁_𝒅`$ produced at LHC and the proposed super B factories, it should be possible to measure $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}`$% . Using the time evolution of a single final state, however, is not sufficient as the time measurements of the decay of an untagged $`𝐁_𝒅`$ to a single final state can only be sensitive to quadratic terms in $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$, . This problem can be circumvented by combining the information from two different decay modes or by using angular distributions. It is then possible to have observables linear in $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$, which can provide $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}`$% . A viable option, perhaps the most efficient among those in , is to compare the measurements of the average untagged lifetimes of the s.l. decay mode $`𝝉_{𝑺𝑳}`$ and of the CP-specific decay modes $`𝝉_{𝑪𝑷_\mathbf{\pm }}`$. The ratio between the two lifetimes is

$$\frac{𝝉_{𝑺𝑳}}{𝝉_{𝑪𝑷\mathbf{\pm }}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\frac{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒅}{𝚪_𝒅}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(176)
The measurement of these two lifetimes will give a value of $`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{|}`$, since $`\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$ will already be known with good accuracy by that time.

The LHC expects about $`\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟓}`$ events of $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺`$ per year, whereas the number of s.l. decays at LHCb alone that will be directly useful in the lifetime measurements is expected to exceed $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟔}`$ per year. The s.l. data sample may be further increased by including self-tagging decay modes, such as $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$.

At hadronic machines, the $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{/}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅`$ production asymmetry may be a stumbling block for the determination of the average untagged lifetimes. This drawback is obviously absent at the B factories. There, the most promising approach is to constrain $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$ by using $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ events where one B meson is fully reconstructed in a CP-specific decay mode, and the decay point of the second B meson is reconstructed using an inclusive technique that relies predominantly on s.l. and other self-tagging modes. For these events, only the signed difference of proper decay-times, $`𝚫𝒕\mathbf{=}𝒕_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{}𝒕_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐠}}`$, i.e. not the decay times themselves, can be inferred since the production point cannot be reconstructed. The average value of $`𝚫𝒕`$ is given by

$$\mathbf{}𝚫𝒕\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}𝝉_{𝐁_𝒅}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒅}{𝚪_𝒅}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(177)
where $`𝜼_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}`$ denotes the CP eigenvalue of the CP-specific final state considered. The BaBar potential has been studied using $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺`$ and similar charmonium final states. The expected statistical precision on $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$ is determined using the B reconstruction efficiencies and the experimental $`𝚫𝒕`$ resolution determined from BaBar’s first data. From extrapolations based on published BaBar measurements of $`𝝉_{𝐁_𝒅}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$, the precision on $`𝝉_{𝐁_𝒅}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ is expected to improve at the same time as the precision on $`\mathbf{}𝚫𝒕\mathbf{}`$, and to remain good enough to turn the $`\mathbf{}𝚫𝒕\mathbf{}`$ measurement into an evaluation of $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅`$. Using $`𝝉_{𝐁_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.55}`$ ps, $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.6}`$ and 30 fb-1 of data one gets: $`𝝈\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.073}`$. Using 300 fb-1 of data $`𝝈\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.023}`$ is expected, and for 500 fb-1 $`𝝈\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒅\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.018}`$.
At super B factories, 50 ab-1 of data may be obtained. A statistical precision at the $`\mathbf{0.2}`$ % level could be achieved. Strategies to reduce the systematic uncertainties to this level have not yet been studied in detail.

#### 3.5.6 Theoretical description of $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetimes and comparison with experiment

The same theoretical tools used to study $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ in Sec. 3.5.1 can also be applied to describe the lifetime ratios of hadrons containing a $`𝒃`$-quark, such as $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$. The leading contributions in the heavy quark expansion (HQE) are represented, in the present case, by the dimension-3 operator $`\overline{𝒃}𝒃`$ ($`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$) and the dimension-$`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ operator $`\overline{𝒃}𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}𝑮^{𝝁𝝂}𝒃`$ ($`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$). The first term in the expansion reproduces the predictions of the naïve quark spectator model. At this order, the hadronic decay is described in terms of the free $`𝒃`$-quark decay, and the lifetime ratios of beauty hadrons are all predicted to be unity. The leading corrections, of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, describe the soft interactions of the spectator quark(s) inside the hadron, but give a small contribution ($`\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$) to the lifetime ratios.

The large lifetime difference of beauty hadrons which has been observed experimentally can be explained by considering hard spectator effects, that appear at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$. Although suppressed by an additional power of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$, these effects are enhanced with respect to the leading contributions by a phase-space factor of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, being $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ processes instead of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ decays (see Fig. 3.23).

As in the case of the OPE for $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, the starting point to describe the beauty hadron lifetimes is the effective $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ weak Hamiltonian, which enter the transition operator

$$𝓣\mathbf{=}𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅^\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙𝑻\mathbf{\left(}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(178)
From the forward matrix elements of this operator, and using the optical theorem, one computes the inclusive decay width of a hadron $`𝑯_𝒃`$ containing a $`𝒃`$ quark

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓣\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$
(179)
The result of the HQE, in this case, is expressed in terms of matrix elements of $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ operators and it is given by

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\left[}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}}\mathbf{+}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\frac{𝒈_𝒔}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}𝑮^{𝝁𝝂}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟗𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}}\underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}𝒄_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\frac{\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑶_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(180)
where we have included all contributions up to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and those $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ corrections which are enhanced by the phase-space factor $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The complete list of the dimension-6 operators $`𝑶_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$, which represent the contribution of hard spectator effects, includes

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒒\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝒃\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{,}\hfill & 𝓞_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒒\mathbf{)}_{𝑺\mathbf{}𝑷}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝒃\mathbf{)}_{𝑺\mathbf{+}𝑷}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ 𝓞_\mathrm{𝟑}^𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒕^𝒂𝒒\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝒕^𝒂𝒃\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{,}\hfill & 𝓞_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒕^𝒂𝒒\mathbf{)}_{𝑺\mathbf{}𝑷}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝒕^𝒂𝒃\mathbf{)}_{𝑺\mathbf{+}𝑷}\mathbf{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(181)
with $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒄`$, and the penguin operator

$$𝓞_𝑷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝒕^𝒂𝒃\mathbf{)}_𝑽\underset{𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒄}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝒕^𝒂𝒒\mathbf{)}_𝑽\mathbf{.}$$
(182)
It is important to emphasize that the symbols $`𝒃`$ and $`\overline{𝒃}`$ in the operators (181,182) denote the heavy quark field HQET. The reason is that renormalized operators, in QCD, mix with operators of lower dimension, with coefficients proportional to powers of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass. Therefore, the dimensional ordering of the HQE, based on the assumption that contributions of higher dimensional operators are suppressed by increasing powers of the $`𝒃`$-quark mass, would be lost in this case. In order to implement the expansion, the matrix elements of the local operators should be cut-off at a scale smaller than the $`𝒃`$-quark mass, which is naturally realized in the HQET. The HQE can be expressed in terms of QCD operators in those cases in which, because of their specific quantum numbers, these operators cannot mix with lower lower dimensional operators. This is the case, for instance, for the leading contributions in the HQE of $`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝚪\mathbf{/}𝚪\mathbf{)}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ and of the lifetime ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$.

The Wilson coefficients $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}`$ in Eq. (180) have been computed at the LO in Ref. , while the NLO corrections to $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$ have been evaluated in . The NLO corrections to $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}`$ are still unknown, but their impact on the lifetime ratio is expected to be negligible. The coefficient functions $`𝒄_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ of the current-current operators of dimension-6 have been computed at the LO in Refs. . At this order the coefficient of the penguin operator $`𝒄_𝑷^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ vanishes. The NLO correction to $`𝒄_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}`$ for the operators $`𝓞_𝒌^𝒒`$ with $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅`$ has been recently completed in Refs. , and extended to $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔`$ in Ref. . A complete list of these coefficients, calculated at NLO in the $`\text{NDR-}\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme of Ref. , is given in Table 3.27. The operators containing the valence charm quark ($`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒄`$ in Eq. (181)) are expected to give a negligible contribution to the non-charmed hadron decay rates. The calculation of the NLO corrections to these coefficient functions, as well as the NLO calculation of the coefficient function of the penguin operator, have not been performed yet.

The matrix elements of dimension-3 and dimension-5 operators, appearing in Eq. (180), can be expressed in terms of the HQET parameters $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ as

$`\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝒈_𝒔𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}𝑮^{𝝁𝝂}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$ (183)
Using these expansions in the lifetime ratio of two beauty hadrons one finds

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}}{𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}}\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$ (184)
$`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟗𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{\mathbf{}}}𝒄_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}𝑶_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}𝑶_𝒌^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑯_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}`$
From the heavy hadron spectroscopy one obtains $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.01}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Therefore the impact of the second term in the above formula is completely negligible. On the other hand, $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒^{\mathbf{}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}`$, which gives $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐁_{𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.36}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.38}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, while $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Therefore, only in the case $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, the third term gives a contribution that is visibly different from zero. By using $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.10}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$, we thus obtain

$$\frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.00}\mathbf{}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝐁^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.00}\mathbf{}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.98}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^𝚲\mathbf{,}$$
(185)
where the $`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝑯_𝒃}`$ represent the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ contributions of hard spectator effects (second line in Eq. (184)).

The comparison of Eq. (185) with the experimental results given in Table 3.28 shows that without inclusion of the spectator effects the experimental values could not be explained.

Beside the coefficient functions presented in Table 3.27, the essential ingredients entering the corrections $`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝑯_𝒃}`$ are the hadronic matrix elements. We follow  and parameterize the B meson matrix elements as follows

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝐁_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝒒𝒒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\frac{\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟑}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝐁_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟑}^{𝒒𝒒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\hfill & \\ \frac{\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝐁_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒒𝒒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\frac{\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝐁_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒\mathbf{+}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟒}^{𝒒𝒒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\hfill & \\ \frac{\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{|}𝓞_𝒌^𝒒^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝐁_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒒^{\mathbf{}}𝒒}\mathbf{,}\frac{\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{|}𝓞_𝑷\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒒}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑷^𝒒\mathbf{.}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(186)
where the parameters $`𝜹_𝒌^{𝒒𝒒}`$ are defined as the $`𝜹_𝒌^{𝒒𝒒^{\mathbf{}}}`$ in the limit of degenerate quark masses ($`𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒒^{\mathbf{}}`$). For the $`𝚲_𝒃`$ baryon we define

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝚲_𝒃}}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐟𝐨𝐫}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟑}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝚲_𝒃}}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{\right)}\mathrm{𝐟𝐨𝐫}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝚲_𝒃}}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathrm{𝐟𝐨𝐫}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}`$ (187)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟑}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝚲_𝒃}}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathrm{𝐟𝐨𝐫}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_𝑷\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝚲_𝒃}}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑷^𝚲\mathbf{.}`$
In addition, in the case of $`𝚲_𝒃`$, the following relation holds up to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ corrections:

$$\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟑}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{|}𝓞_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝒒\mathbf{|}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$
(188)
In Eqs.(186) and (3.5.6), $`𝑩_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, $`𝑳_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ and $`𝜺_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ are the “standard” bag parameters, introduced in Ref. . Those parameters have already been computed in both the lattice QCD and QCD sum rule approaches. The parameters $`𝜹_𝒌`$ have been introduced in Ref.  to account for the corresponding penguin contractions. A non-perturbative lattice calculation of the $`𝜹_𝒌`$ parameters is possible, in principle. However, the difficult problem of subtractions of power-divergences has prevented their calculation.

In terms of parameters introduced above, the spectator contributions to the lifetime ratios, $`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝑯_𝒃}`$, are expressed in the form

$`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝒄_𝒌^𝒖\mathbf{}𝒄_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{\right)}𝓑_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝐁_𝒔}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}}\mathbf{\{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{[}𝒓𝒄_𝒌^𝒔𝓑_𝒌^𝒔\mathbf{}𝒄_𝒌^𝒅𝓑_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒄_𝒌^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒓𝜹_𝒌^{𝒅𝒔}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒅𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$ (189)
$`𝒄_𝒌^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒓𝜹_𝒌^{𝒔𝒔}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒔𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝒌^𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒓𝜹_𝒌^{𝒄𝒔}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒓𝑷^𝒔\mathbf{}𝑷^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^𝚲`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}}}\mathbf{\{}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{\mathrm{𝟒}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{(}𝒄_𝒌^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{)}𝓛_𝒌^𝚲\mathbf{}𝒄_𝒌^𝒅𝓑_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒄_𝒌^𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝒌^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝜹_𝒌^{𝚲𝒅}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒅𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}`$
$`𝒄_𝒌^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝜹_𝒌^{𝚲𝒔}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒔𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝒌^𝒄\mathbf{(}𝜹_𝒌^{𝚲𝒄}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝒌^{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{+}𝒄_𝑷\mathbf{(}𝑷^𝚲\mathbf{}𝑷^𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{.}`$
where $`𝒓`$ denotes the ratio $`\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝐁_𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝑭_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{)}`$ and, in order to simplify the notation, we have defined the vectors of parameters

$`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝓑}^𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{,}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒\mathbf{,}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{,}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒒\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}`$
$`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝓛}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}`$ (190)
$`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝜹}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}𝜹_\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝚲𝒒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{.}`$
An important result of Eq. (3.5.6) is that, because of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetry, the non-valence ($`𝜹`$s) and penguin ($`𝑷`$s) contributions cancel out in the expressions of the lifetime ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$. Thus, the theoretical prediction of this ratio is at present the most accurate, since it depends only on the non-perturbative parameters actually computed by current lattice calculations. The prediction of the ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, instead, is affected by both the uncertainties on the values of the $`𝜹`$ and $`𝑷`$ parameters, and by the unknown expressions of the Wilson coefficients $`𝒄_𝒌^𝒄`$ and $`𝒄_𝑷`$ at the NLO. For the ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ the same uncertainties exist, although their effect is expected to be smaller, since the contributions of non-valence and penguin operators cancel, in this case, in the limit of exact $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetry.

In the numerical analysis of the ratios $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, we will neglect the non-valence and penguin contributions (i.e. we set all $`𝜹\mathbf{=}𝑷\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$). The non-valence contributions vanish in the VSA, and present phenomenological estimates indicate that the corresponding matrix elements are suppressed, with respect to the valence contributions, by at least one order of magnitude . On the other hand, the matrix elements of the penguin operators are not expected to be smaller than those of the valence operators. Since the coefficient function $`𝒄_𝑷`$ vanishes at the LO, this contribution is expected to have the size of a typical NLO corrections. Thus, from a theoretical point of view, a quantitative evaluation of the non-valence and penguin operator matrix elements would be of the greatest interest to improve the determination of the $`𝚲_𝑩`$ lifetime.

By neglecting the non valence and penguin contributions, and using for the Wilson coefficients the NLO results collected in Table 3.27, one obtains from Eq. (3.5.6) the following expressions

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathbf{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.06}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.010}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.7}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.18}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ & \\ 𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝐁_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathbf{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.010}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.011}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.16}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒔\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.18}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒔\hfill \\ & \mathbf{+}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.008}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.008}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.16}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.16}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ & \\ 𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^𝚲\mathbf{=}\hfill & \mathbf{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.33}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}𝑳_\mathrm{𝟐}\hfill \\ & \mathbf{+}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.008}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.008}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑩_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.16}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.16}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}𝜺_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(191)
For the charm and bottom quark masses, and the B meson decay constants we have used the central values and errors given in Table 3.29. The strong coupling constant has been fixed at the value $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.118}`$. The parameter $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$ in Eq. (3.5.6) is a function of the ratio $`𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, and such a dependence has been consistently taken into account in the numerical analysis and in the estimates of the errors. For the range of masses given in Table 3.29, $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$ varies in the interval $`𝒄^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{3.4}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{4.2}`$ .

As discussed before, for the ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ the HQE can be also expressed in terms of operators defined in QCD. The corresponding coefficient functions can be evaluated by using the matching between QCD and HQET computed, at the NLO, in Ref. . In this way, one obtains the expression

$$𝚫_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜}}^{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.05}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\overline{𝑩}_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.007}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\overline{𝑩}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.7}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\overline{𝜺}_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.15}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\overline{𝜺}_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒅$$
(192)
where the $`\overline{𝑩}`$ and $`\overline{𝜺}`$ parameters are now defined in terms of matrix elements of QCD operators.

The errors quoted on the coefficients in Eq. (191) are strongly correlated, since they originate from the theoretical uncertainties on the same set of input parameters. For this reason, in order to evaluate the lifetime ratios, we have performed a Bayesian statistical analysis by implementing a short Monte Carlo calculation. The input parameters have been extracted with flat distributions, assuming as central values and standard deviations the values given in Table 3.29. The results for the $`𝑩`$-parameters are based on the lattice determinations of Refs.  For recent estimates of these matrix elements based on QCD sum rules, see Refs. .. We have included in the errors an estimate of the uncertainties not taken into account in the original papers. The QCD results for the B meson $`𝑩`$-parameters of Ref.  have been converted to HQET at the NLO With respect to , we use for the B meson $`B`$-parameters the results updated in .. The contributions of all the $`𝜹`$ and $`𝑷`$ parameters have been neglected.

In this way we obtain the final NLO predictions for the lifetimes ratios summarised in Table 3.28. The central values and uncertainties correspond to the average and the standard deviation of the theoretical distributions, shown in Fig. 3.24, together with those from the experimental determinations. The uncertainty coming from the residual scale dependence represents less than 20% of the quoted errors.

With the inclusion of the NLO corrections, the theoretical prediction for the ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ is in good agreement with the experimental measurement, also summarised in Table 3.28. The agreement is also good for the ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$, with the difference between theoretical predictions and experimental determinations below $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝝈`$. A possible mismatch between the predicted and measured values for the ratio $`𝝉\mathbf{(}𝚲_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$ has been much debated in past years. Interpretation in terms of a breakdown of the HQE framework and the appearance of a signal of quark-hadron duality violation have been claimed. The inclusion of higher order terms seems to reestablish a compatibility between predictions of the beauty baryon lifetime with the present experimental determinations. However, this issue will require further scrutiny in view of new, more precise results expected from the Tevatron Run II and from the fact that the theoretical predictions are less accurate in this case, since a reliable estimate of the contribution of the non-valence and penguin operators are not yet available.

#### 3.5.7 Future prospects for $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetime measurements

The B factories are now providing new, accurate determinations of the lifetimes of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ meson, which could decrease the relative error on to (0.4-0.5)%. Results from the Tevatron Run II are eagerly expected, since will provide precise measurements of the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝚲_𝒃`$ lifetimes and also results for the $`𝚵_𝒃`$, $`𝛀_𝒃`$ and the $`𝐁_𝒄`$ beauty hadrons. Further improvements are then expected from the LHC experiments, with special regard to $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and baryon lifetimes.

CDF evaluated the lifetimes measurement capabilities exploiting separately the leptonic and the hadronic decay channels. The leptonic decays considered are only to $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathbf{}𝝁𝝁`$, this means exclusive decays. The uncertainties shown in Table 3.30 are only statistical and are obtained by scaling by a factor 50 the Run I measurements. The systematic uncertainty is expected to be the same order as that for the Run I analyses, at the level of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$. Since in Run I there were no measurements based on hadronic decays, the Run II estimations had to be based on Monte Carlo simulations. The major interest is in measuring the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ and $`𝚲_𝒃`$ lifetime and the expected statistical errors are quoted in Table 3.30. With these measurements the $`𝐁_𝒔`$/$`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime ratio to will have an uncertainty of $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}`$, which is of the same order of the predicted deviation from unity. $`𝚲_𝒃`$ baryons, reconstructed in the $`𝚲_𝒄𝝅`$, $`𝒑𝑫^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅`$, $`𝒑𝝅`$ and $`𝒑𝑲`$ decay channels, will allow a stringent test for the theoretical predictions of the lifetime ratio of $`𝚲_𝒃`$ to $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ if the signal to noise ratio of 1 can be obtained.

The DØ experiment has concentrated its studies on the projection for the $`𝚲_𝒃`$ lifetime measurement. The preferred decay is $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝚲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ with $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍\mathbf{}𝝁𝝁`$ and $`𝚲^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒑𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. In 2 fb-1 the expected number of reconstructed events is of order of 15,000, corresponding to a relative lifetime accuracy of 9%.

At LHC, lifetime measurements of different B hadron species will be based on even larger statistics, collected in individual exclusive channels. ATLAS  has performed a simulation for studying the statistical precision on the $`𝚲_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$lifetime using the $`𝚲_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍`$ decay channel. In three years of running at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}}𝒄𝒎^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒔^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ luminosity, 75000 $`𝚲_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍`$signal decays can be reconstructed (with 1500 background events, mostly $`𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍`$ paired to a primary $`𝚲^\mathrm{𝟎}`$). Considering a proper time resolution of 0.073 ps, the estimated relative uncertainty on the $`𝚲_𝐛^\mathrm{𝟎}`$lifetime is 0.3$`\mathbf{\%}`$.

### References

1. J. Chay, H. Georgi, and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 247 (1990) 399; M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1985) 120; A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 1310; B. Blok et al., Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3356.
2. I.I. Bigi et al., Phys. Lett. B 293 (1992) 430; Phys. Lett. B 297 (1993) 477 (E); Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 496.
3. A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Cambridge Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 10 (2000) 1; I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman and N.G. Uraltsev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47 (1997) 591 \[hep-ph/9703290\]; Z. Ligeti, eConf C020805 (2002) L02 \[hep-ph/0302031\].
4. N.G. Uraltsev, in *At the Frontier of Particle Physics: Handbook of QCD*, edited by M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001) \[hep-ph/0010328\].
5. E.V. Shuryak, Phys. Lett. B 93 (1980) 134; E.V. Shuryak, Nucl. Phys. B 198 (1982) 83; J.E. Paschalis and G.J. Gounaris, Nucl. Phys. B 222 (1983) 473; F.E. Close, G.J. Gounaris and J.E. Paschalis, Phys. Lett. B 149 (1984) 209; S. Nussinov and W. Wetzel, Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987) 130.
6. M.A. Shifman and M.B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 45 (1987) 292 \[Yad. Fiz. 45 (1987) 463\].
7. M.A. Shifman and M.B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 47 (1988) 511 \[Yad. Fiz. 47 (1988) 801\].
8. N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 232 (1989) 113.
9. N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 237 (1990) 527.
10. E. Eichten and F. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 2724; W.E. Caswell and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Lett. B 167 (1986) 437; E. Eichten, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 4 (1988) 170; G.P. Lepage and B.A. Thacker, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 4 (1988) 199; H.D. Politzer and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 206 (1988) 681 and Phys. Lett. B 208 (1988) 504; E. Eichten and B. Hill, Phys. Lett. B 240 (1990) 193 and Phys. Lett. B 243 (1990) 427; B. Grinstein, Nucl. Phys. B 339 (1990) 253; H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 240 (1990) 447; A.F. Falk, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein and M.B. Wise, Nucl. Phys. B 343 (1990) 1; A.F. Falk, B. Grinstein and M.E. Luke, Nucl. Phys. B 357 (1991) 185; T. Mannel, W. Roberts and Z. Ryzak, Nucl. Phys. B 368 (1992) 204; J.G. Körner and G. Thompson, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 185; S. Balk, J.G. Körner and D. Pirjol, Nucl. Phys. B 428 (1994) 499 \[hep-ph/9307230\].
11. J.M. Flynn and N. Isgur, J. Phys. G 18 (1992) 1627 \[hep-ph/9207223\].
12. M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. 245 (1994) 259 \[hep-ph/9306320\].
13. M. Neubert, hep-ph/0001334.
14. A.H. Hoang, hep-ph/0204299;
A. X. El-Khadra and M. Luke, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 52 (2002) 201 \[hep-ph/0208114\].
15. R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B 183 (1981) 384;
A.S. Kronfeld, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 051501 \[hep-ph/9805215\];
P. Gambino and P.A. Grassi, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 076002 \[hep-ph/9907254\].
16. I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2234 \[hep-ph/9402360\]; M. Beneke and V.M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 301 \[hep-ph/9402364\].
17. N. Gray, D.J. Broadhurst, W. Grafe and K. Schilcher, Z. Phys. C 48 (1990) 673.
18. K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 99 \[hep-ph/9912391\];
K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 573 (2000) 617 \[hep-ph/9911434\].
19. A.H. Hoang et al., Eur. Phys. J. direct C 3 (2000) 1 \[hep-ph/0001286\].
20. I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 4017 \[hep-ph/9704245\].
21. I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 196 \[hep-ph/9405410\].
22. A. Czarnecki, K. Melnikov and N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 3189 \[hep-ph/9708372\].
23. M. Beneke, Phys. Lett. B 434 (1998) 115 \[hep-ph/9804241\].
24. Y. Schroder, Phys. Lett. B 447 (1999) 321 \[hep-ph/9812205\].
M. Peter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 602 \[hep-ph/9610209\].
25. A.H. Hoang, Z. Ligeti and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 277 \[hep-ph/9809423\]; Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 074017 \[hep-ph/9811239\].
26. A.H. Hoang and T. Teubner, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114027 \[hep-ph/9904468\].
27. A. Pineda, JHEP 0106 (2001) 022 \[hep-ph/0105008\].
28. V.A. Novikov, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 626 \[Erratum-ibid. 38 (1977) 791\];
L.J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127 (1985) 1.
29. M.B. Voloshin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 10 (1995) 2865 \[hep-ph/9502224\].
30. J.H. Kühn, A.A. Penin and A.A. Pivovarov, Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998) 356 \[hep-ph/9801356\].
31. A.A. Penin and A.A. Pivovarov, Phys. Lett. B 435 (1998) 413 \[hep-ph/9803363\]; Nucl. Phys. B 549 (1999) 217 \[hep-ph/9807421\].
32. A.H. Hoang, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 014039 \[hep-ph/9803454\].
33. K. Melnikov and A. Yelkhovsky, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 114009 \[hep-ph/9805270\].
34. M. Jamin and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 74 (1999) 300 \[hep-ph/9810259\].
35. A.H. Hoang, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 034005 \[hep-ph/9905550\].
36. M. Beneke and A. Signer, Phys. Lett. B 471 (1999) 233 \[hep-ph/9906475\].
37. A.H. Hoang, hep-ph/0008102.
38. J.H. Kuhn and M. Steinhauser, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 588 \[Erratum-ibid. B 640 (2002) 415\] \[hep-ph/0109084\].
39. J. Erler and M. x. Luo, Phys. Lett. B 558 (2003) 125 \[hep-ph/0207114\].
40. M. Eidemuller, hep-ph/0207237.
41. J. Bordes, J. Penarrocha and K. Schilcher, hep-ph/0212083.
42. A.H. Hoang and G. Corcella, Phys. Lett. B 554 (2003) 133 \[hep-ph/0212297\].
43. A. Pineda and F.J. Yndurain, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094022 \[hep-ph/9711287\].
44. A.H. Hoang, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 86 (2000) 512 \[hep-ph/9909356\].
45. N. Brambilla, Y. Sumino and A. Vairo, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 034001 \[hep-ph/0108084\].
46. M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 385 and 448.
47. M. Eidemuller and M. Jamin, Phys. Lett. B 498 (2001) 203 \[hep-ph/0010334\];
J. Penarrocha and K. Schilcher, Phys. Lett. B 515 (2001) 291 \[hep-ph/0105222\].
48. G. Martinelli, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 445 (1995) 81 \[hep-lat/9411010\].
49. K. Jansen et al., Phys. Lett. B 372 (1996) 275 \[hep-lat/9512009\].
50. D. Becirevic, V. Lubicz and G. Martinelli, Phys. Lett. B 524 (2002) 115 \[hep-ph/0107124\].
51. J. Rolf and S. Sint \[ALPHA Collaboration\], JHEP 0212 (2002) 007 \[hep-ph/0209255\].
52. C.T. Davies et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 2654 \[hep-lat/9404012\].
53. V. Gimenez, L. Giusti, G. Martinelli and F. Rapuano, JHEP 0003 (2000) 018 \[hep-lat/0002007\].
54. G. Martinelli and C.T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 559 (1999) 429 \[hep-lat/9812001\].
55. S. Collins, hep-lat/0009040.
56. F. Di Renzo and L. Scorzato, JHEP 0102 (2001) 020 \[hep-lat/0012011\].
57. J. Heitger and R. Sommer \[ALPHA Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 358 \[hep-lat/0110016\]; R. Sommer, hep-lat/0209162.
58. D. Cronin-Hennessy et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251808 \[hep-ex/0108033\].
59. D. Bloch et al. \[DELPHI Collaboration\], DELPHI 2002-070-CONF 604;
M. Battaglia et al. \[DELPHI Collaboration\], DELPHI 2002-071-CONF-605;
M. Calvi, hep-ex/0210046.
60. B. Aubert et al. \[BaBar Collaboration\], hep-ex/0207184.
61. M. Gremm, A. Kapustin, Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 20 \[hep-ph/9603314\].
62. M.B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 4934 \[hep-ph/9411296\].
63. M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 6924 \[hep-ph/9603448\].
64. C.W. Bauer and M. Trott, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 014021 \[hep-ph/0205039\].
65. C.W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti, M. Luke and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 054012 \[hep-ph/0210027\].
66. N.G. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 303.
67. M. Jezabek and J.H. Kuhn, Nucl. Phys. B 320 (1989) 20;
A. Czarnecki, M. Jezabek and J.H. Kuhn, Acta Phys. Polon. B 20 (1989) 961;
A. Czarnecki and M. Jezabek, Nucl. Phys. B 427 (1994) 3 \[hep-ph/9402326\].
68. M. Gremm and I. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 1226 \[hep-ph/9609341\].
69. A.F. Falk, M.E. Luke and M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 2491 \[hep-ph/9507284\].
70. A.F. Falk and M.E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 424 \[hep-ph/9708327\].
71. M. Battaglia et al., Phys. Lett. B 556 (2003) 41 \[hep-ph/0210319\].
72. N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Lett. B 545 (2002) 337 \[hep-ph/0111166\].
73. A.S. Kronfeld and J.N. Simone, Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 228 \[Erratum-ibid. B 495 (2000) 441\] \[hep-ph/0006345\].
74. S. Chen et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 251807 (2001).
75. R. Briere et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], CLEO-CONF-02-10, hep-ex/0209024.
76. A.H. Hoang, Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl. 86 (2000) 512 \[hep-ph/9909356\]; A.H. Hoang and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 94 \[hep-ph/9911461\]; hep-ph/0008102; hep-ph/0102292.
77. A.H. Mahmood et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], CLNS 02/1810, CLEO 02-16, hep-ex/0212051.
78. B. Aubert et al. \[BaBar Collaboration\], hep-ex/0207084.
79. E.C. Poggio, H.R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 13 (1976) 1958.
80. M. Greco, G. Penso and Y. Srivastava, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 2520.
81. M.A. Shifman, “Quark-hadron duality,” in B. Ioffe Festschrift ’At the Frontier of Particle Physics / Handbook of QCD’, ed. M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), \[hep-ph/0009131\].
82. I.I. Bigi and N.G. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 5201 \[hep-ph/0106346\].
83. C.G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2081 \[hep-ph/9511233\].
84. R.F. Lebed, N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 094011 \[hep-ph/0006346\], and refs. therein.
85. J. Chay, H. Georgi, B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 247 (1990) 339.
86. N. Isgur, Phys. Lett. B 448 (1999) 111 \[hep-ph/9811377\].
87. A. Le Yaouanc, et al., Phys. Lett. B 480 (2000) 119 \[hep-ph/0003087\].
88. A. Le Yaouanc et al., Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 074007 \[hep-ph/0004246\].
89. A. Le Yaouanc et al., Phys. Lett. B 517 (2001) 135 \[hep-ph/010333\].
90. A. Le Yaouanc et al., Phys. Lett. B 488 (2000) 153 \[hep-ph/0005039\].
91. M. Luke, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 345 (1995) 301.
92. Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 221 (1989) 184.
93. N. Cabibbo and L. Maiani, Phys. Lett. B 79 (1978) 109; the original QED calculation is published in R.E. Behrends et al., Phys. Rev. 101 (1956) 866.
94. A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1998) 014036.
95. N.G. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 11 (1996) 513.
96. M. Voloshin and M. Shifman, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 41 (1985) 120;
J. Chay, H. Georgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 247 (1990) 399.
97. D. Benson, I.I. Bigi, Th. Mannel, and N.G. Uraltsev, hep-ph/0302262.
98. N.G. Uraltsev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17 (2002) 2317 \[hep-ph/0210413\].
99. D.E. Groom et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 15 (2000) 1.
100. J. Bartelt et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], CLEO CONF 98-21.
101. Thorsten Brandt computed the average of $`𝒃`$-hadron semileptonic partial width inclusive measurements available for the Workshop.
102. The LEP Electroweak Working Group, http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/, CERN-EP-2001-098 and hep-ex/0112021.
103. B. Aubert et al. \[BaBar Collaboration\], hep-ex/0208018.
104. K. Abe et al. \[BELLE Collaboration\], hep-ex/0208033.
105. The LEP Vcb Working group, see http://lepvcb.web.cern.ch/LEPVCB/.
106. K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001.
107. M. Artuso and E. Barberio, hep-ph/0205163 (a shorter version has been included in  as a minireview on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$).
108. T. van Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 454 (1999) 353 \[hep-ph/9903226\].
109. N.G. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999) 4641 \[hep-ph/9905520\].
110. R. Fulton et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 64 (1990) 16;
J. Bartelt et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 411;
H. Albrecht et al. \[ARGUS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 255 (1991) 297.
111. V.D. Barger, C.S. Kim and R.J. Phillips, Phys. Lett. B 251 (1990) 629;
A.F. Falk, Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 406 (1997) 225;
R.D. Dikeman and N.G. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B 509 (1998) 378;
I.I. Bigi, R.D. Dikeman and N.G. Uraltsev, Eur. Phys. J. C 4 (1998) 453.
112. C.W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti and M.E. Luke, Phys. Lett. B 479 (2000) 395 \[hep-ph/0002161\].
113. G. Altarelli, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 208 (1982) 365;
M. Wirbel, B. Stech, M. Bauer, Zeit. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637.
114. N. Isgur et al., Phys. Rev. D 39 (1989) 799.
115. M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 3392;
T. Mannel and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 2037.
116. I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 9 (1994) 2467 \[hep-ph/9312359\].
117. M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4623; A.L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Eur. Phys. J. C 7 (1999) 5 \[hep-ph/9805303\].
118. I.I. Bigi and N.G. Uraltsev, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 17 (2002) 4709 \[hep-ph/0202175\].
119. U. Aglietti, Phys. Lett. B 515 (2001) 308 \[hep-ph/0103002\] and Nucl. Phys. B 610 (2001) 293 \[hep-ph/0104020\].
120. A.K. Leibovich, I. Low and I.Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 053006 \[hep-ph/9909404\].
121. C.W. Bauer, M.E. Luke and T. Mannel, hep-ph/0102089 and Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 261 \[hep-ph/0205150\].
122. I.I. Bigi and N.G. Uraltsev, Nucl. Phys. B 423 (1994) 33 \[hep-ph/9310285\];
M.B. Voloshin, Phys. Lett. B 515 (2001) 74 \[hep-ph/0106040\].
123. A.K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 539 (2002) 242 \[hep-ph/0205148\].
124. M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 269 \[hep-ph/0207002\].
125. A. Bornheim et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 231803 \[hep-ex/0202019\].
126. P. Abreu et al. \[DELPHI Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 478 (2000) 14.
127. M. Neubert, JHEP 0007 (2000) 022 \[hep-ph/0006068\].
128. C.W. Bauer, Z. Ligeti and M.E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 113004 \[hep-ph/0107074\].
129. A. Bornheim et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], hep-ex/0207064.
130. R. Barate et al. \[ALEPH Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999) 555;
G. Abbiendi et al. \[OPAL Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 399.
131. M. Acciarri et al. \[L3 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B436, 174 (1998).
132. U. Aglietti, M. Ciuchini and P. Gambino, Nucl. Phys. B 637 (2002) 427 \[hep-ph/0204140\].
133. R.V. Kowalewski and S. Menke, Phys. Lett. B 541 (2002) 29 \[hep-ex/0205038\].
134. M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 264 (1991) 455.
135. M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 338 (1994) 84 \[hep-ph/9408290\].
136. C.G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R.F. Lebed, Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 493 \[hep-ph/9508211\].
137. C.G. Boyd and R.F. Lebed, Nucl. Phys. B 485 (1997) 275 \[hep-ph/9512363\].
138. C.G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 6895 \[hep-ph/9705252\].
139. I. Caprini, L. Lellouch and M. Neubert, factors,” Nucl. Phys. B 530 (1998) 153 \[hep-ph/9712417\].
140. M. Neubert, Z. Ligeti and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 301 (1993) 101 \[hep-ph/9209271\].
141. M. Neubert, Z. Ligeti and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 5060 \[hep-ph/9212266\].
142. Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 1302 \[hep-ph/9305304\].
143. J. D. Bjorken, in Proceedings of the 4th Recontres de Physique de la Vallèe d’Aoste, La Thuille, Italy, 1990, ed. M. Greco (Editions Frontières, Gif-Sur-Yvette, 1990);
N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 819.
144. M.B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 3062.
145. A.G. Grozin and G.P. Korchemsky, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 1378;
C.G. Boyd, B. Grinstein, and A.V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2081;
C.G. Boyd, Z. Ligeti, I.Z. Rothstein, and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 3027.
146. N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Lett. B 501 (2001) 86 \[hep-ph/0011124\].
147. M.E. Luke, Phys. Lett. B 252 (1990) 447.
148. M.A. Shifman, N.G. Uraltsev, and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 2217 \[hep-ph/9405207\]; \[Erratum-ibid. 52 (1995) 3149\].
149. A.F. Falk and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2965 \[hep-ph/9209268\].
150. A.S. Kronfeld, Phys. Rev. D 62, 014505 (2000) \[hep-lat/0002008\].
151. J. Harada, et al., Phys. Rev. D 65, 094514 (2002) \[hep-lat/0112045\].
152. S. Hashimoto, et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 014503 \[hep-ph/0110253\].
153. I.I. Bigi, M.A. Shifman and N.G. Uraltsev, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47 (1997) 591 \[hep-ph/9703290\].
154. A. Czarnecki, K. Melnikov and N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 1769 \[hep-ph/9706311\].
155. A. Czarnecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 4124 \[hep-ph/9603261\].
156. A. Czarnecki and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B 505 (1997) 65 \[hep-ph/9703277\].
157. N.G. Uraltsev, hep-ph/9804275.
158. T. Mannel, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 428 \[hep-ph/9403249\].
159. S. Ryan, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 86 \[hep-lat/0111010\].
160. A.X. El-Khadra, A.S. Kronfeld, and P.B. Mackenzie, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 3933 \[hep-lat/9604004\].
161. J. Harada, et al., Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 094513 \[hep-lat/0112044\].
162. S. Hashimoto *et al.*, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 014502 \[hep-ph/9906376\].
163. A.S. Kronfeld, P.B. Mackenzie, J.N. Simone, S. Hashimoto and S.M. Ryan, in Flavor Physics and $`𝐂𝐏`$ Violation, edited by R.G.C. Oldemann, hep-ph/0207122.
164. L. Randall and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 135;
M.J. Savage, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 034014 \[hep-ph/0109190\].
165. D. Arndt, hep-lat/0210019.
166. D. Scora and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 2783.
167. Z. Ligeti, hep-ph/9908432.
168. G.P. Lepage, et al., Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 12 \[hep-lat/0110175\];
C. Morningstar, *ibid.* 109 (2002) 185 \[hep-lat/0112023\].
169. D. Atwood and W.J. Marciano, Phys. Rev. D 41 (1990) 1736.
170. E.S. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. 171 (1968) 1675; 174 (1968) 2169(E); 187 (1969) 2280(E).
171. A. Sirlin, Nucl. Phys. B 196 (1982) 83.
172. R.A. Briere et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 81803; \[hep-ex/0203032\].
173. K. Abe et al. \[BELLE Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 247; \[hep-ex/0111060\].
174. P. Abreu et al. \[DELPHI Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 510 (2001) 55 \[hep-ex/0104026\].
175. D. Buskulic et al. \[ALEPH Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 935 (1997) 373.
176. G. Abbiendi et al. \[OPAL Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 15.
177. S. Anderson et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Nucl.Phys. A 663 (2000) \[hep-ex/9908009\].
178. D. Buskulic et al. \[ALEPH Collaboration\], Z. Phys. C 73 (1997) 601.
179. A. Anastassov et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 4127.
180. LEP/SLD Electroweak Heavy Flavor Group, results presented at the Winter 2001 Conferences, see http://lepewwg.web.cern.ch/LEPEWWG/heavy/
181. D. Block et al. \[DELPHI Collaboration\], contributed paper to ICHEP 2000, DELPHI 2000-106 Conf. 45.
182. ALEPH, CDF, DELPHI, L3, OPAL, SLD, CERN-EP/2001-050.
183. V. Morenas et al., Phys. Rev. D 59 (1997) 5668 \[hep-ph/9706265\];
M.Q. Huang, C. Li and Y.B. Dai, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 54010 \[hep-ph/9909307\].
184. A.K. Leibovich, Z. Ligeti, I.W. Stewart, M.B. Wise Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 308 \[hep-ph/9705467\] and Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 3995 \[hep-ph/9703213\].
185. LEP $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ Working Group, Internal Note, see http://lepvcb.web.cern.ch/LEPVCB/
186. CDF, LEP, SLD B Oscillations Working Group, Internal Note, see
http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.
187. CDF, LEP, SLD B-hadron Lifetime Working Group, Internal Note, see
http://claires.home.cern.ch/claires/lepblife.html.
188. J.E. Duboscq et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 (1996) 3898.
189. B. Grinstein and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 345 \[hep-ph/0111392\].
190. K. Abe et al. \[BELLE Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 526 (2002) 258 \[hep-ex/0111082\].
191. J. Bartelt et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 3746.
192. L. Lellouch, hep-ph/9912353.
193. K.‘C. Bowler et al. \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000) 111 \[hep-lat/9911011\].
194. A. Abada et al., V. Lubicz and F. Mescia, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 565 \[hep-lat/0011065\].
195. A.X. El-Khadra et al., Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 014502 \[hep-ph/0101023\].
196. S. Aoki et al. \[JLQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 114505 \[hep-lat/0106024\].
197. B. Sheikholeslami and R. Wohlert, Nucl. Phys. B 259 (1985) 572.
198. M. Luscher, S. Sint, R. Sommer and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 365 \[hep-lat/9605038\].
199. M. Luscher, S. Sint, R. Sommer and H. Wittig, Nucl. Phys. B 491 (1997) 344 \[hep-lat/9611015\].
200. B.A. Thacker and G.P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 43 (1991) 196.
201. G.P. Lepage, et al., Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 4052 \[hep-lat/9205007\].
202. G. Burdman, Z. Ligeti, M. Neubert and Y. Nir, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2331 \[hep-ph/9309272\].
203. G. Burdman and J.F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B 280 (1992) 287.
204. M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992) 2188.
205. T.M. Yan, et al., Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 1148 \[Erratum-ibid. D 55 (1997) 5851\].
206. D. Becirevic, S. Prelovsek and J. Zupan, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 054010 \[hep-lat/0210048\].
207. R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B 303 (1993) 147.
208. C.G. Boyd, B. Grinstein and R.F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4603 \[hep-ph/9412324\].
209. L. Lellouch, Nucl. Phys. B 479 (1996) 353 \[hep-ph/9509358\].
210. D.R. Burford, et al. \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B 447 (1995) 425 \[hep-lat/9503002\].
211. L. Del Debbio, et al. \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 416 (1998) 392 \[hep-lat/9708008\].
212. J. Charles, et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 014001 \[hep-ph/9812358\].
213. A. Khodjamirian, et al., Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 114002 \[hep-ph/0001297\].
214. S. Dürr, DESY-02-121, hep-lat/0208051.
215. C. Bernard, et al., hep-lat/0209086.
216. S. Hashimoto et al. \[JLQCD Collaboration\], hep-lat/0209091.
217. L. Lellouch, plenary talk presented at ICHEP-2002, Amsterdam, July 2002, hep-ph/0211359.
218. J. M. Flynn et al. \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 327 \[hep-ph/9506398\].
219. B.H. Behrens et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 052001 \[hep-ex/9905056\].
220. A. Abada et al., Nucl. Phys. B 416 (1994) 675 \[hep-lat/9308007\].
221. C.R. Allton et al. \[APE Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 345 (1995) 513 \[hep-lat/9411011\].
222. J. Gill \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 391 \[hep-lat/0109035\].
223. A. Abada, et al. \[SPQcdR Collaboration\], hep-lat/0209116.
224. M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 592 (2001) 3 \[hep-ph/0008255\].
225. J. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 114016 \[hep-ph/0201197\].
226. C.W. Bauer, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 054005 \[hep-ph/0205289\].
227. M. Beneke, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 643 (2002) 431 \[hep-ph/0206152\].
228. P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094016 \[hep-ph/9805422\].
229. N. Yamada et al. \[JLQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 397 \[hep-lat/0110087\].
230. I.I. Balitsky, V.M. Braun and A.V. Kolesnichenko, Nucl. Phys. B 312 (1989) 509;
V.M. Braun and I.E. Filyanov, Z. Phys. C 44 (1989) 157.
231. V.L. Chernyak and I.R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B 345 (1990) 137.
232. V.M. Belyaev, A. Khodjamirian and R. Rückl, Z. Phys. C 60 (1993) 349.
233. A. Khodjamirian, R. Rückl, S. Weinzierl and O. Yakovlev, Phys. Lett. B 410 (1997) 275;
E. Bagan, P. Ball and V.M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B 417 (1998) 154.
234. P. Ball, JHEP 9809 (1998) 005.
235. P. Ball and R. Zwicky, JHEP 0110 (2001) 019 \[hep-ph/0110115\].
236. A. Ali, P. Ball, L.T. Handoko and G. Hiller, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 074024.
237. A. Khodjamirian and R. Ruckl, in Heavy Flavors, 2nd edition, eds., A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, World Scientific (1998), p. 345, hep-ph/9801443.
238. V.M. Braun, hep-ph/9911206.
239. P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, Boris Ioffe Festschrift ’At the Frontier of Particle Physics; Handbook of QCD’, ed. M. Shifman (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), p.1495 \[hep-ph/0010175\].
240. M. Jamin and B.O. Lange, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 056005.
241. D. Becirevic and A.B. Kaidalov, Phys. Lett. B 478 (2000) 417 \[hep-ph/9904490\].
242. V.M. Belyaev, V.M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian and R. Ruckl, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 6177 \[hep-ph/9410280\]; A. Khodjamirian, R. Ruckl, S. Weinzierl and O. Yakovlev, Phys. Lett. B 457 (1999) 245 \[hep-ph/9903421\].
243. K.C. Bowler et al. \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000) 111.
244. H. Ishino \[Belle Collaboration\], talk at XXXVII Rencontres de Moriond, March 2002.
245. J.P. Alexander et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 5000.
246. D. Scora and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 2783.
247. D. Melikhov, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 2160.
248. M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637.
249. G. Burdman and J. Kambor, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 2817 \[hep-ph/9602353\].
250. J.M. Flynn et al., Nucl. Phys. B 461 (1996) 327.
251. B. Stech, Phys. Lett. B 354 (1995) 447.
252. BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF 0124 (2001).
253. BELLE Collaboration, see http://www.ichep02.nl/Transparencies/CP/CP-1/CP-1-4.kwon.pdf, ICHEP (2002).
254. BaBar Collaboration, hep-ex/0207080.
255. Y. Kwon \[BELLE Collaboration\], ICHEP CP-1-4 (2002).
256. M. Beyer and D. Melikhov, Phys. Lett. B 436 (1998) 344.
257. N. Adam et al. \[CLEO Collaboration\], CLEO-CONF/02-09, ICHEP02-ABS931.
258. F. De Fazio and M. Neubert, JHEP 9906 (1999) 017.
259. Z. Ligeti and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4937. .
260. BELLE Collaboration, BELLE-CONF 02/42, ICHEP ABS 732.
261. CLEO Collaboration, talk at DPF-2002, see
http://dpf2002.velopers.net/talks\_pdf/452talk.pdf.
262. LEP B Lifetime Working Group, see
http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/lifetimes/ lepblife.html
263. B. Aubert et al. \[BaBar Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 201803;
K. Abe et al. \[BELLE Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 171801.
264. M. Beneke et al., Phys. Lett. B 459 (1999) 631 \[hep-ph/9808385\].
265. M. Beneke and A. Lenz, J. Phys. G G27 (2001) 1219 \[hep-ph/0012222\];
D. Becirevic, hep-ph/0110124 and refs. therein.
266. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 400 (1993) 37 \[hep-ph/9211304\]; A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and M.E. Lautenbacher, Nucl. Phys. B 400 (1993) 75 \[hep-ph/9211321\]; M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Reina, Nucl. Phys. B 415 (1994) 403 \[hep-ph/9304257\].
267. M. Beneke, G. Buchalla and I. Dunietz, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 4419 \[hep-ph/9605259\].
268. V. Gimenez and J. Reyes, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 93 (2001) 95 \[hep-lat/0009007\].
269. S. Hashimoto et al., Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 114502 \[hep-lat/0004022\].
270. S. Aoki et al. \[JLQCD Collaboration\], hep-lat/0208038.
271. D. Becirevic et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2000) 157 \[hep-ph/0006135\].
272. L. Lellouch and C.J. Lin \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 094501 \[hep-ph/0011086\].
273. D. Becirevic et al., JHEP 0204 (2002) 025 \[hep-lat/0110091\].
274. S. Hashimoto and N. Yamada \[JLQCD Collaboration\], hep-ph/0104080.
275. S. Aoki et al. \[JLQCD Collaboration\], hep-lat/0208038.
276. A.S. Dighe, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 624 (2002) 377 \[hep-ph/0109088\] and hep-ph/0202070;
see also T. Hurth et al., J. Phys. G 27 (2001) 1277 \[hep-ph/0102159\].
277. K. Anikeev et al., hep-ph/0201071.
278. S. Hashimoto and N. Yamada \[JLQCD Collaboration\], hep-ph/0104080.
279. P. Ball et al., CERN-TH-2000-101, hep-ph/0003238.
280. B. Aubert et al. \[BaBar Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091801 \[hep-ex/0107013\].
281. Y. Grossman, Phys. Lett. B 380 (1996) 99 \[hep-ph/9603244\].
282. I.I. Bigi, N.G. Uraltsev and A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 293 (1992) 430; Erratum 297 (1993) 477 \[hep-ph/9207214\].
283. Q. Ho-kim and X.-y. Pham, Phys. Lett. B 122 (1983) 297.
284. E. Bagan, P. Ball, V.M. Braun and P. Gosdzinsky, Nucl. Phys. B 432 (1994) 3 \[hep-ph/9408306\].
285. E. Bagan et al., Phys. Lett. B 342 (1995) 362; Erratum 374 (1996) 363 \[hep-ph/9409440\];
E. Bagan et al., Phys. Lett. B 351 (1995) 546 \[hep-ph/9502338\];
A.F. Falk et al., Phys. Lett. B 326 (1994) 145 \[hep-ph/9401226\].
286. M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 483, 339 (1997) \[hep-ph/9603202\].
287. N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Lett. B 376 (1996) 303 \[hep-ph/9602324\].
288. M. Beneke and G. Buchalla, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 4991 \[hep-ph/9601249\].
289. E. Franco et al., Nucl. Phys. B 633 (2002) 212 \[hep-ph/0203089\].
290. M. Beneke et al., hep-ph/0202106.
291. V. Gimenez and J. Reyes, Nucl. Phys. B 545 (1999) 576 \[hep-lat/9806023\].
292. M. Ciuchini, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 625 (2002) 211 \[hep-ph/0110375\].
293. V. Chernyak, Nucl. Phys. B 457 (1995) 96 \[hep-ph/9503208\].
294. D. Pirjol and N.G. Uraltsev, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 034012 \[hep-ph/9805488\].
295. M. Di Pierro and C.T. Sachrajda \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. B 534 (1998) 373 \[hep-lat/9805028\].
296. M. Di Pierro, C.T. Sachrajda and C. Michael \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 468 (1999) 143 \[hep-lat/9906031\]; M. Di Pierro and C.T. Sachrajda \[UKQCD Collaboration\], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 73 (1999) 384 \[hep-lat/9809083\].
297. D. Becirevic, update of hep-ph/0110124 for the present work.
298. P. Colangelo and F. De Fazio, Phys. Lett. B 387 (1996) 371 \[hep-ph/9604425\];
M.S. Baek, J. Lee, C. Liu and H.S. Song, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 4091 \[hep-ph/9709386\];
H.Y. Cheng and K.C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 014011 \[hep-ph/9805222\];
C.S. Huang, C. Liu and S.L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 054004 \[hep-ph/9906300\].
299. ALEPH Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 486 (2000) 286.
300. L3 Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 438 (1998) 417.
301. DELPHI Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2000) 229.
302. ALEPH Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 377 (1996) 205;
CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 032004;
OPAL Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 426 (1998) 161.
303. R. Aleksan et al., Phys. Lett. B 316 (1993) 567.
304. DELPHI Collaboration, Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000) 555.
305. CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5382.
306. CLEO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 4533.
307. ALEPH, CDF, DELPHI, L3, OPAL and SLD Collaborations, CERN-EP/2001-050.
See also http://www.cern.ch/LEPBOSC.
308. CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1945.
309. CDF Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 3068 and Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 4668.
310. W. Ashmanskas et al., Performance of the CDF Online Silicon Vertex Tracker published in Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium (NSS) and Medical Imaging Conference (MIC), San Diego, CA, November 2001.
311. T. Allmendinger et al. \[DELPHI Collaboration\] DELPHI 2001-054 CONF 482.
312. A. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. Lipkin, J.L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B 369 (1996) 144.
313. M. Sevelda, PhD Thesis, Charles University of Prague, 1999.
314. ATLAS TDR, CERN-LHCC-99-015.

## Chapter 4 CKM ELEMENTS FROM K AND B MESON MIXING

Conveners : J.M. Flynn, M. Paulini, S. Willocq.
Contributors: D. Abbaneo, C. Bozzi, A.J. Buras, R. Forty, R. Gupta, R. Hawkings, A. Hoecker, M. Jamin, P. Kluit, A. Kronfeld, V. Lacker, F. Le Diberder, L. Lellouch, C. Leonidopoulos, D. Lin, V. Lubicz, H.G. Moser, U. Nierste, J. Ocariz, F. Parodi, C. Paus, P. Roudeau, Y. Sakai, O. Schneider, A. Stocchi, C. Weiser, N. Yamada.

### 4.1 Basic formulae for particle–antiparticle mixing

#### 4.1.1 K sector: basic formula for $`𝜺_𝑲`$

In the $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ system, to lowest order in electroweak interactions $`𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ transitions are induced through the box diagrams of Fig. 4.1. Including leading and next-to-leading QCD corrections in renormalization group improved perturbation theory the effective Hamiltonian for the $`𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ transitions for scales $`𝝁\mathbf{<}𝝁_𝒄\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ is given by

$`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝐅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑴_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{[}𝝀_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀_𝒄𝝀_𝒕𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }`$ (1)
$`\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}𝜶_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟗}}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}𝑱_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{]}𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝐡\mathbf{.}𝐜\mathbf{.}`$
where $`𝝀_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒊𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒊𝒅}`$, $`𝜶_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}`$ is the strong coupling constant in an effective three flavour theory and $`𝑱_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟕}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.895}`$ in the NDR scheme . In (1), the relevant operator

$$𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(2)
is multiplied by the corresponding Wilson coefficient function. This function is decomposed into a charm-, a top- and a mixed charm-top contribution. The functions $`𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒊\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ are given by ($`𝒙_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒊^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}`$):

$$𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}𝒙_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒙_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙_𝒕}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{,}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}$$
(3)
$$𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\frac{𝒙_𝒕}{𝒙_𝒄}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒙_𝒕}{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒙_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝒙_𝒕}{\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(4)
where we keep only linear terms in $`𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, but of course all orders in $`𝒙_𝒕`$. The exact expression can be found in .

Short-distance QCD effects are described through the correction factors $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and the explicitly $`𝜶_𝐬`$-dependent terms in (1). The NLO values of $`𝜼_𝒊`$ are given as follows :

$$𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.32}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.32}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathbf{1.30}\text{GeV}}{𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathbf{1.1}}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.57}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.47}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{.}$$
(5)
It should be emphasized that the values of $`𝜼_𝒊`$ depend on the definition of the quark masses $`𝒎_𝒊`$. The ones in (5) correspond to $`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ . With this definition the dependences of $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ on $`𝒎_𝒕`$ and of $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ on $`𝒎_𝒕`$ and $`𝒎_𝒄`$ are fully negligible but the dependence of $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ on $`𝒎_𝒄`$ turns out to be significant. It can be well approximated by the formula in (5). The scale dependence in $`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, where $`𝝁_𝒕\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, present generally in the functions $`𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ is canceled to an excellent accuracy in the products $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$. The corresponding scale dependence in $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$, where $`𝝁_𝒄\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$, is cancelled to a large extent in the product $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ but remains still sizable in $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$. As we use $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ we have included the left-over scale uncertainties due to $`𝝁_𝒄`$ and $`𝝁_𝒕`$ present in (1) in the errors of $`𝜼_𝒊`$ that also include the uncertainties due to $`𝚲_{\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}}`$, the scale in the QCD running coupling. The small changes in $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ relative to the original papers are due to changes in $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}`$.

Now, $`𝜺_𝑲`$ is defined by

$$𝜺_𝑲\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝐋\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝝅𝝅\mathbf{)}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}{𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝐒\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝝅𝝅\mathbf{)}_{𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}$$
(6)
with $`𝑰`$ denoting isospin. From (6) one finds

$$𝜺_𝑲\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}𝒊𝝅\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚫𝑴_𝑲}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝝃}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝃}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}}$$
(7)
with the off-diagonal element $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ in the neutral $`𝐊`$-meson mass matrix representing $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing given by

$$\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑲𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$
(8)
The factor $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑲`$ reflects our normalization of external states and $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the isospin amplitude. $`𝚫𝑴_𝑲`$ is the $`𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝐊_𝑺`$ mass difference that is taken from experiment as it cannot be reliably calculated due to long distance contributions. The expression in (7) neglects higher order CP-violating terms: see the discussion in the review article in reference .

Defining the renormalization group invariant parameter $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ by

$$\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}𝜶_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟗}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝑱_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(9)
$$\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝑭_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}$$
(10)
and using (8) and (1) one finds

$$𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝑭_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲𝑴_𝑲𝑴_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}𝝀_{𝒄}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝝀_{𝒕}^{\mathbf{}}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{}}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(11)
where $`𝑭_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟎}\text{MeV}`$ is the $`𝐊`$-meson decay constant and $`𝑴_𝑲`$ the $`𝐊`$-meson mass.

To proceed further we neglect the last term in (7) as in the standard CKM phase convention it constitutes at most a $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$ correction to $`𝜺_𝑲`$. This is justified in view of other uncertainties, in particular those connected with $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. Inserting (11) into (7) we find

$$𝜺_𝑲\mathbf{=}𝑪_𝜺\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{\left\{}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝝀_𝒄\mathbf{\left[}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝝀_𝒕𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}𝒊𝝅\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(12)
where we have used the unitarity relation $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝝀_𝒕`$ and have neglected $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝝀_𝒄\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$ in evaluating $`\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒄^{\mathbf{}}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. The numerical constant $`𝑪_𝜺`$ is given by

$$𝑪_𝜺\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑲𝑴_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚫𝑴_𝑲}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{3.837}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{.}$$
(13)
To this end we have used the experimental value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{3.837}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}}\text{GeV}`$ and $`𝑴_𝐖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{80.4}\text{GeV}`$.

The main uncertainty in (12) resides in the parameter $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. The present status of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ is discussed in Sec. 4.2.2 Here we note only that when $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, as found by all non-perturbative methods, the formula (12) combined with the experimental value for $`𝜺_𝑲`$ implies $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{<}𝜹\mathbf{<}𝝅`$ in the standard parametrization or equivalently $`\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in the Wolfenstein parametrization.

#### 4.1.2 B sector: basic formulae for $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ oscillation frequencies

The strengths of the $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixings are described by the mass differences

$$𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑯^{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑳^{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}$$
(14)
where the subscripts $`𝑯`$ and $`𝑳`$ denote the heavy and light mass eigenstates respectively. The long distance contributions are estimated to be very small, in contrast to the situation for $`𝚫𝑴_𝑲`$, and $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ are very well approximated by the relevant box diagrams. Moreover, since $`𝒎_{𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕`$ only the top sector can contribute significantly to $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$. The charm and mixed top-charm contributions are entirely negligible.

$`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ can be expressed in terms of the off-diagonal element in the neutral B-meson mass matrix as follows

$$𝚫𝑴_𝒒\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{,}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔$$
(15)
with $`𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ given by a formula analogous to (8)

$$\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{|}𝑴_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}^{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{.}$$
(16)
In the case of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing

$`𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}^{𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝐅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼_𝑩𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }`$ (17)
$`\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}𝜶_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}}𝑱_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{]}𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒉\mathbf{.}𝒄\mathbf{.}`$
Here $`𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{=}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝑱_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏𝟔𝟓}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏𝟕𝟒}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.627}`$ in the NDR scheme ,

$$𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒃}𝜸^𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒅\mathbf{)}$$
(18)
and

$$𝜼_𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.55}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}$$
(19)
summarizes the NLO QCD corrections . In the case of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing one should simply replace $`𝒅\mathbf{}𝒔`$ in (17) and (18) with all other quantities and numerical values unchanged. Again $`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$.

Defining the renormalization group invariant parameters $`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ in analogy to (9) and (10)

$$\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{=}𝑩_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}𝜶_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝐬^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝑱_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(20)
$$\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑸\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑩_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_{𝑩_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}$$
(21)
one finds using (17)

$$𝚫𝑴_𝒒\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝐅^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝜼_𝑩𝑴_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒒}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑴_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒒}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(22)
where $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ is the $`𝐁_𝒒`$-meson decay constant. This implies two approximate but rather accurate formulae

$$𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.50}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟎}\text{MeV}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\overline{𝒎}_𝐭\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟕}\text{GeV}}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{1.52}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{7.8}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝜼_𝑩}{\mathbf{0.55}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(23)
and

$$𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{17.2}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟔𝟎}\text{MeV}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\overline{𝒎}_𝐭\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝐭\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟕}\text{GeV}}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{1.52}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{0.040}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝜼_𝑩}{\mathbf{0.55}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(24)
The main uncertainty here stems from the parameters $`𝑭_{𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}}`$. The most recent lattice and QCD sum rule results are summarized in Sec. 4.2.1

#### 4.1.3 Basic formulae for B oscillation probabilities

The probability $`𝓟`$ for a $`\text{B}_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson ($`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔`$) produced at time $`𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to decay as $`\text{B}_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at proper time $`𝒕`$ is given as

$$𝓟\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_𝒒𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐡}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝚫𝚪_𝒒}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{.}$$
(25)
Here we neglect effects from CP violation, while $`𝚪_𝒒\mathbf{=}\frac{𝚪_𝒒^𝑯\mathbf{+}𝚪_𝒒^𝑳}{\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝚪_𝒒^𝑯\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒^𝑳`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒒`$ is defined in Eq. (14). The Standard Model predicts $`𝚫𝚪_𝒒\mathbf{}𝚫𝑴_𝒒`$. Neglecting a possible lifetime difference between the heavy and light mass eigenstates of the $`𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the above expression simplifies to:

$$𝓟_{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}𝓟\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_𝒒𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}$$
(26)
Similarly, the probability for the $`𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to decay as $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is given by

$$𝓟_{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}𝓟\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_𝒒𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{.}$$
(27)
Thus, a measurement of the oscillation frequency gives a direct measurement of the mass difference between the two physical B meson states***$`\mathrm{\Delta }M_q`$ is usually given in ps-1, where 1 ps-1 corresponds to 6.58 10-4eV..

Figure 4.2 shows the time evolution of $`𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations displaying the unmixed (solid) and mixed (dashed) contributions for two different oscillation frequencies $`𝚫𝑴`$. The sum of $`𝓟^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ and $`𝓟^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ is just the exponential particle decay $`𝚪_𝒒𝐞^{\mathbf{}𝚪_𝒒𝒕}`$ and is shown by the dotted line in Fig. 4.2.

The integral of the probability $`𝓟_{𝑩_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ defined in Eq. (27) gives the mixing parameter:

$`𝝌_𝒒\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒙_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}}\mathrm{𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡}𝒙_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝚫𝑴_𝒒𝝉_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{,}`$ (28)
where the lifetime $`𝝉_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝚪_𝒒`$.

### 4.2 Theoretical issues

#### 4.2.1 Non-perturbative parameters for B meson mixing

From the discussion in Sec. 4.1.2 above, the main uncertainty in determining $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ comes from the factor $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$ in Eq. 23. In the standard analysis of the Unitarity Triangle (see Chapter 5), $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ is used in a ratio with $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$, so that the important quantity is $`𝝃`$, that is crucial for the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$:

$$\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}}\mathbf{=}𝝃\sqrt{\frac{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}}{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒅}}}\sqrt{\frac{𝚫𝑴_𝒅}{𝚫𝑴_𝒔}}\mathbf{,}𝝃\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}}{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}}\mathbf{.}$$
(29)
Although the quantities $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒒}}`$ for $`𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔`$ are needed for UT fits, it is common to find $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ separately.

##### 4.2.1.1 $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ and $`𝝃`$ from lattice QCD

Lattice calculations are based on a first-principles evaluation of the path integral for QCD on a discrete space-time lattice. They have statistical errors arising from the stochastic (Monte Carlo) techniques used to evaluate the integral. They also have systematic errors from discretization effects, finite volume effects, the treatment of heavy quarks, chiral extrapolations and quenching (or partial quenching). We now briefly discuss these different sources of error.

Statistical, discretization and finite volume errors can all be addressed by brute-force improvement of numerical simulations. We can also use improved discretization procedures (to reduce discretization effects at a given lattice spacing) and understand (and even make use of) the finite volume effects.

Lattice results need to be matched either directly to physical quantities, or perhaps to quantities defined in some continuum renormalization scheme. On the lattice side this can be done using lattice perturbation theory, but with the development of non-perturbative renormalization methods, the uncertainty from the lattice can be systematically reduced. For a physical quantity (such as the decay constant $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$) this is the end of the story. If matching is made to a quantity in a continuum scheme (such as $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$), the remaining uncertainty comes from the *continuum* perturbation theory: see for example the discussion in .

There are a number of ways to treat the heavy $`𝒃`$-quark on the lattice. Results for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing obtained using different approaches broadly agree, suggesting that the heavy quark mass dependence is under control.

This leaves chiral extrapolations and quenching to consider. We will start with quenching. Recall that the QCD path integral is over both gauge and fermion fields. However, since the fermions appear quadratically in the action, the fermion integral can be done exactly to leave a determinant (actually a determinant for each flavour of quark). The calculation of the determinant is extremely intensive numerically, so the so-called *quenched approximation* replaces it with a constant, together with a shift in the bare couplings. This is not a controlled approximation, but today more and more lattice simulations are being done including the determinant for at least some of the quarks. The first dynamical quark algorithms produced sea quarks in degenerate pairs (in order to get a positive weight function for the Monte Carlo generation of the gauge field ensemble) and two-flavour ($`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$) dynamical simulations are still the most commonly encountered. However, methods are being developed to cope with single flavours of dynamical quark and $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ simulation results, with two degenerate light flavours and one heavy flavour, are beginning to appear, although there are still questions about the validity of some steps in the algorithm.

Each quark whose determinant is evaluated is labeled as a ‘dynamical’ or ‘sea’ quark in lattice parlance. A typical lattice calculation of a hadronic correlation function (from which masses and/or matrix elements may be extracted) involves an average over an ensemble of gauge fields of a combination of quark propagators. These propagators are evaluated on the background of each gauge field in the ensemble by means of a matrix inversion. The set of masses used for the propagators define the ‘valence’ masses of the simulation, which may or may not be the same as the dynamical masses which were incorporated (via determinant factors) when generating the gauge field ensemble. Usually the valence and sea masses are different and we talk of a ‘partially quenched’ calculation.

Results for $`𝑭_𝑩`$ from quenched calculations have remained stable for a number of years. Numerical simulations using two flavours of dynamical quarks show an increase in $`𝑭_𝑩`$ compared to quenched results. The latest developments have seen the first $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$-flavour dynamical results , where two flavours are ‘light’ and one is heavier, around the strange quark mass. For the future, the development of more realistic dynamical simulations will continue.

Another important (and related) issue is that of chiral extrapolations, the subject of a panel discussion  at the Lattice 2002 conference. It is difficult to simulate realistically light (valence or sea) quarks, so that calculations of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$, say, are made for a a set of (valence) quark masses $`𝒎_𝒒`$, typically in a range from about $`𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒔`$ and the results are interpolated or extrapolated as required. Likewise, in partially quenched calculations, results from simulations with a range of sea quark masses need to be extrapolated. The control of these extrapolations is a serious issue for UT fits because of their effect on the final values of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ and hence on the impact of the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ constraint. As far back as late 1994 Booth noted the striking difference between the quenched and QCD chiral logarithms  and posted a warning that $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ in QCD would be larger than in the quenched approximation. Recently, this issue has attracted much more attention .

Consider an idealized lattice calculation of the decay constant of a heavy-light pseudoscalar meson with valence content $`𝑸\overline{𝒒}`$, where $`𝑸`$ is the heavy quark and $`\overline{𝒒}`$ a light quark. Imagine that the simulation is performed either with or without the presence of $`𝑵_𝒇`$ flavours of (degenerate) sea quarks $`𝒇`$ and let $`𝚫𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ be the correction to $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ depending on the mass(es) of the valence ($`𝒒`$) and sea ($`𝒇`$) quarks. With no sea quark effects included, the calculation is quenched. When $`𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒇`$ the calculation is partially quenched and when $`𝒎_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒇`$ it is QCD(-like). The dependence of $`𝚫𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ on the valence and sea quark masses can be calculated in quenched (Q), partially quenched (PQ) or ordinary chiral perturbation theory, and shows up as dependence on the masses $`𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}`$, $`𝒎_{𝒒𝒇}`$ and $`𝒎_{𝒇𝒇}`$ of pseudoscalar mesons made from the corresponding quarks . The expressions are as follows

$`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝐐𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅𝒇\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{(}𝑿𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒀𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (30)
$`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝐏𝐐𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅𝒇\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑵_𝒇}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝒎_{𝒒𝒇}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_{𝒒𝒇}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}𝒎_{𝒇𝒇}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑵_𝒇}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}`$ (31)
$`\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}\mathbf{)}^{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅𝒇\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑵_𝒇}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑵_𝒇}}\mathbf{\right)}𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (32)
with $`𝒎_{𝒒𝒇}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒎_{𝒇𝒇}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (at this order of calculation). In the factor $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅𝒇\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝒇`$ is equal to the common light pseudoscalar meson decay constant at leading order, while $`𝑿`$, $`𝒀`$ and $`𝒎_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are also built from coefficients of the effective Lagrangian. The dependence on the ultraviolet cutoff $`𝚲`$ is canceled by that of ‘analytic terms’ not shown here. The coupling $`𝒈`$ comes from the leading interaction term in the heavy meson chiral Lagrangian (see the textbook by Manohar and Wise  for details and original references) and fixes the $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}𝐁𝝅`$ coupling in the limit $`𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ by

$$𝒈_{𝑩^{\mathbf{}}𝑩𝝅}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒈𝑴_𝑩}{𝒇}$$
(33)
where

$$\mathbf{}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{,}𝒑^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}𝒈_{𝑩^{\mathbf{}}𝑩𝝅}\mathit{ϵ}\mathbf{}𝒒\mathbf{.}$$
(34)
The decay $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐁𝝅`$ is not kinematically allowed, but $`𝒈`$ can be estimated using CLEO results  for $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐃𝝅`$, or from a lattice QCD calculation of the matrix element of the light-quark axial current between B and $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$ mesons  (or D and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ ). The CLEO results lead to $`𝒈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.6}`$, consistent with the recent lattice calculation .

The expressions in Eqs. (30), (31) and (32) show that both the quenched and partially quenched ‘chiral logarithms’ diverge as the valence quark mass and hence $`𝒎_{𝒒𝒒}`$ vanishes while the sea quark mass is held fixed. In contrast, there are no divergences when the sea quark masses vanish with the valence masses held fixed. For the QCD-like case, things also remain finite as the joint valence and sea quark mass vanishes. The problem for lattice practitioners is how best to perform the chiral extrapolations from results calculated with sets of $`𝒎_𝒒`$ and $`𝒎_𝒇`$ values, particularly since it is very difficult to make the masses small enough to see the logarithmic dependence.

For $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ the situation is like the ‘QCD’ case above where the valence $`𝒅`$ quark in the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ meson and (some of) the sea quarks are very light. For $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, the valence mass is fixed at $`𝒎_𝒔`$ and the sea quark masses are extrapolated to small values (more like the partially quenched case above). The JLQCD collaboration find  that these different extrapolations tend to decrease the value of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ relative to $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, and therefore increase $`𝝃`$. However, a number of caveats must be kept in mind . Although the data is consistent with the chiral logarithmic forms, all the data points are at masses beyond the region of strong variation in the logarithms. Moreover, at these larger masses, higher order terms in the chiral expansion may be required. Furthermore, in dynamical simulations the lattice spacing changes as the sea quark mass changes at fixed lattice coupling ($`𝜷`$), so that care is needed not to interpret lattice-spacing (and volume) dependence as sea-quark mass dependence. An added twist is that JLQCD find that their results for $`𝑭_𝝅`$ are *not* consistent with the expected logarithmic behaviour.

The MILC collaboration have also estimated chiral logarithm effects as part of their extensive analysis of $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ simulations for heavy-light decay constants . Their method is based on extrapolation of the ratio of the light-light to the heavy-light decay constant, where the chiral logarithmic terms cancel to a large extent. MILC’s conclusion is that these effects do tend to increase the value of the ratio $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and MILC ascribe a systematic error of $`\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.04}`$ from chiral logarithms to a central value of $`\mathbf{1.16}`$ for $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$.

Kronfeld and Ryan (KR)  consider the ratios $`𝝃_𝒇\mathbf{=}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ and $`𝝃_𝑩\mathbf{=}𝑩_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑩_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ as the mass of the quark $`𝒒`$ varies from the strange mass down to that of the light quarks $`𝒖`$ and $`𝒅`$ and match ChPT to lattice data for $`𝒎_𝒒`$ not too far from $`𝒎_𝒔`$. Their analysis gives $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.32}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. Another more recent phenomenological analysis (BFPZ)  supports the increase in $`𝝃`$ coming from chiral logarithms and leads to a consistent result $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.22}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}`$. This value is extracted using the double ratio

$$𝑹\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\sqrt{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{)}}{𝑭_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝑭_𝝅}\mathbf{.}$$
(35)
An expression for $`𝑹`$ in leading order heavy meson and pion chiral perturbation theory (in full, $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$-flavour QCD) is combined with the experimental ratio $`\mathbf{(}𝑭_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝑭_𝝅\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.22}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ to extract $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$. Systematic error in both analyses arises from the uncertain values of parameters in the heavy meson and pion chiral Lagrangian, namely the coupling $`𝒈`$ in the leading interaction term, already encountered above, together with sums of coefficients of higher-order terms in the heavy meson chiral Lagrangian. In addition the analysis using $`𝑹`$ depends on $`𝑳_\mathrm{𝟓}`$, the coefficient of a higher-order term in the pion chiral Lagrangian through its use of the ratio $`𝑭_𝑲\mathbf{/}𝑭_𝝅`$.

In conclusion, lattice results for $`𝑭_𝑩`$ can show significant light-quark mass dependence and more work is needed to understand to what extent this dependence is physical. At present a reasonable conservative view  is to allow a *decrease* of up to $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ in $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ with a negligible change in $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ as added systematic errors. These are included in the final estimates presented in Eq. (37).

A summary of lattice calculations for the decay constants, published after 1996, is given in Fig. 4.3 (taken from the review by Lellouch ), which shows results for $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and the ratio $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$. The ‘summary’ numbers at the bottom of the plots give quenched averages for $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$, together with ratios of these quantities for $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill 𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}^{𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathrm{𝟏𝟕𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{)}\text{MeV}\hfill & \hfill \frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}^{𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}}}{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}^{𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.09}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{)}^{𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.14}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\hfill & \hfill \frac{\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{)}^{𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{)}^{𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.02}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
For the mixing parameter $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒒}`$, the situation with quenching and chiral extrapolation looks more favourable. Very little variation is observed between quenched ($`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ results. The partially quenched chiral logarithm for $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ has a coefficient containing $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.1}`$ compared to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝒈^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.1}`$ in the $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ case (using $`𝒈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.6}`$ as discussed above) so the chiral extrapolation is better-controlled and leads to a small error in $`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ . The heavy quark mass dependence is mild and different formulations agree at the physical point for B-mesons.

There is, however, an issue concerning lattice results for $`𝝃`$ which are normally quoted by combining results for $`𝑭_𝑩`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑩`$. Of course, it is also possible to evaluate $`𝝃`$ directly from the ratio of $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ matrix elements. In this case $`𝝃`$ turns out to be larger, although with large errors . Clearly the two procedures should give consistent answers, so this issue will need to be resolved.

##### 4.2.1.2 Summary on $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ and $`𝝃`$ from the lattice QCD

Using the quenched averages as a starting point together with the ratios of $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ results allows an extrapolation to $`𝑵_𝒇\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ . An additional systematic error equal to the shift from $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$ flavours is added to account for the uncertainty in this procedureAn alternative way to quote the final answer would be to use the $`N_f=2`$ results extracted from Eq. (36) and add a systematic error for the extrapolation to $`N_f=3`$. In this case, the final central value for $`F_{B_s}/F_{B_d}`$ would be $`1.16`$. The value of $`1.18`$, however, is consistent with the latest preliminary MILC results for $`N_f=3`$, which give $`(F_{B_s}/F_{B_d})^{N_f=3}=1.18(1)(\begin{array}{c}\hfill 4\\ \hfill 1\end{array})`$. This leads to:

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \begin{array}{ccccccccc}\hfill 𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}& \mathbf{=}& \mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟑}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\end{array}\mathbf{)}\text{MeV}\hfill & \hfill 𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}& \mathbf{=}& \mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟖}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}\mathbf{)}\text{MeV}\hfill & \hfill \frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}}{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.18}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.34}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}\hfill & \hfill \widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.34}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}\hfill & \hfill \frac{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.00}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\end{array}\mathbf{)}\text{MeV}\hfill & \hfill 𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}& \mathbf{=}& \mathrm{𝟐𝟕𝟔}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑𝟖}\mathbf{)}\text{MeV}\hfill & \hfill 𝝃& \mathbf{=}& \mathbf{1.18}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\\ \hfill \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\mathbf{)}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(37)
Here, the last, asymmetric, error, where present, is due the uncertainty in the chiral extrapolation discussed above. The first error combines statistical and all other systematic errors. In UT analyses, the value of $`𝝃`$ given above should be understood as

$$𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.24}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}$$
(38)
and likewise for other quantities affected by this asymmetric error. Note that this does not apply for $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, for which the chiral logarithmic uncertainties appear small compared to other systematic errors. The result for $`𝝃`$ in Eq. (38) is consistent with the KR  and BFPZ  analyses mentioned above.

##### 4.2.1.3 $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ from QCD sum rules

Within the framework of QCD sum rules , the decay constants $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ can be calculated by equating phenomenological and theoretical spectral functions for the pseudoscalar $`𝐁_𝒅`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mesons, which leads to the relation A review of the procedure and further original references can be found in .

$$𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟒}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\underset{\mathrm{𝟎}}{\overset{𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathbf{}}}𝒆^{\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒖}𝝆\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒔$$
(39)
for the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ meson and analogously for $`𝐁_𝒔`$. Eq. (39) is the central relation for the sum rule analysis. The theoretical spectral function $`𝝆\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝚿\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝅`$ can be obtained by calculating the two-point correlator of hadronic currents

$$𝚿\mathbf{(}𝒑^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒊\mathbf{}𝒅𝒙𝒆^{𝒊𝒑𝒙}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{\{}𝒋_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒋_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{>}$$
(40)
in perturbative QCD, including corrections from the operator product expansion. For the B meson, the pseudoscalar current $`𝒋_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$ takes the form

$$𝒋_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:}\overline{𝒖}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}𝒊𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{:}\mathbf{.}$$
(41)
The parameter $`𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ in Eq. (39) indicates the energy range up to which experimental knowledge of the phenomenological spectral function is available. This parameter will be further discussed below.

Substantial progress in determining the theoretical spectral function has been achieved very recently through a calculation of the perturbative three-loop order $`𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ corrections . These are important because the size of higher-order corrections depends on the renormalization scheme employed for the quark masses. As can be inferred from refs. , the $`𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ term turns out to be of similar order to the leading contribution if pole quark masses are used, whereas good convergence of the perturbative series emerges for quark masses defined in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme. Nevertheless, these scheme dependences influence only the theoretical uncertainties, since $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ are physical quantities which certainly should not depend on the quark mass definitions. Higher-dimensional operator corrections to the sum rule are known up to dimension six  and are also under good theoretical control.

Figure 4.4 shows numerical results for $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ of Ref. , plotted as a function of the sum rule scale $`𝒖`$, after evaluating the sum rule of Eq. (39). Reliable values of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ can be extracted from the sum rule if an energy region exists in which the physical quantity is only weakly dependent on $`𝒖`$. For $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ this turns out to be the case in the range $`\mathrm{𝟒}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. Averaging the results of refs.  in this energy range, one extracts the central results $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟖}\text{MeV}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟐}\text{MeV}`$.§§§Owing to the criticism put forward in Ref. , the result of Ref.  has not been included in the average, despite the apparent agreement for the numerical values.

The dominant uncertainties in the sum rule determination of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ arise from the strong dependence on the value of the bottom quark mass $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and correspondingly on the scale $`𝝁_𝒎`$ at which the quark masses are renormalized. The ranges for the variation of these parameters and the corresponding variations of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ have been collected in Tables 4.1 and 4.2 respectively. The reader should note that compared to Ref. , the error on $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ has been enlarged, in order to coincide with the value employed throughout this report, although the larger uncertainty should be considered very conservative. The Tables also list the values $`𝒖_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at which the sum rule displays optimal stability, as well as the parameters $`𝒔_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ which can be determined consistently from an independent sum rule for the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔`$ meson masses. Additional smaller uncertainties are due to: variation of the strong coupling constant $`𝜶_𝒔`$; higher order QCD corrections; the value of the quark condensate $`\mathbf{}\overline{𝒖}𝒖\mathbf{}`$  which is the leading contribution from higher-dimensional operators; the strange condensate $`\mathbf{}\overline{𝒔}𝒔\mathbf{}`$ and the strange quark mass $`𝒎_𝒔`$ in the case of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$. Ranges for these inputs together with the variations of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ are also collected in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. For further details of the numerical analysis, the reader is referred to Ref. .

Adding all errors for the various input parameters in quadrature, the final results for the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔`$ meson leptonic decay constants from QCD sum rules are:

$$𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟖}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}\text{MeV}\text{and}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟐}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐𝟗}\text{MeV}\mathbf{.}$$
(42)
Owing to the strong sensitivity of these results on the bottom quark mass, one should note that for example using the very recent average $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.24}\text{GeV}`$ , the resulting values for $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ are lowered by almost $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\text{MeV}`$.

##### 4.2.1.4 $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ from QCD sum rules

The status of the determination of the hadronic $`𝑩`$-parameters $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ and $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ from QCD sum rules is less satisfactory than for the decay constants. In principle, the $`𝑩`$-parameters can be calculated from two different types of sum rules: namely three-point function sum rules with the insertion of two pseudoscalar currents and one four-quark operator , or two-point function sum rules with the insertion of two local four-quark operators . However, both approaches are plagued with difficulties For a different approach see also Ref. ..

The first determinations of the hadronic $`𝑩`$-parameters  employed three-point function sum rules and found a value of $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.95}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}`$, slightly lower than the factorization approximation which results in $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The dominant non-factorizable contribution due to the gluon condensate turned out to be negative, thus lowering the $`𝑩`$-parameter. However, the perturbative part was only considered at the leading order, and thus the scale and scheme dependences of $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ were not under control. Besides, the analytic structure of three-point function sum rules is more delicate than for two-point correlators, and therefore great care has to be taken to properly extract the quantity in question .

For the case of the two-point function sum rules, next-to-leading order QCD corrections have been calculated in Ref. , which provides better control over the renormalization dependence of $`𝑩_𝑩`$. This analysis resulted in $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}`$. However, here the phenomenological parametrization of the spectral function is more complicated, since contributions from intermediate states containing B mesons have to be taken into account in addition to the B meson. Steps in this direction have recently been taken in Ref.  were the value $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.15}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.11}`$ was obtained, now indicating a positive correction.

Although averaging the results of the two approaches might appear problematic, we nevertheless decided to quote a common value for the B meson $`𝑩`$-parameter from QCD sum rules:

$$𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.10}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}\text{and}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.67}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.23}\mathbf{,}$$
(43)
which covers the outcome of both methods within the uncertainties. On the other hand, general agreement exists for the flavour dependence of the $`𝑩`$-parameter. In all present sum rule approaches it was found to be negligible, thus yielding $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to a good approximation.

#### 4.2.2 $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing: determination of $`𝑩_𝑲`$

##### 4.2.2.1 $`𝑩_𝑲`$ from lattice QCD

The most commonly used method to calculate the matrix element $`\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝒁\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒅\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒅\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ is to evaluate the three point correlation function shown in Fig. 4.5. This corresponds to creating a $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at some time $`𝒕_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ using a zero-momentum source; allowing it to propagate for time $`𝒕_𝓞\mathbf{}𝒕_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ to isolate the lowest state; inserting the four-fermion operator at time $`𝒕_𝓞`$ to convert the K0 to a $`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$; and finally allowing the $`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to propagate for long time $`𝒕_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕_𝓞`$. To cancel the K0 ($`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) source normalization at times $`𝒕_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝒕_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the time evolution factors $`𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝑬_𝑲𝒕}`$ for times $`𝒕_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕_𝓞`$ and $`𝒕_𝓞\mathbf{}𝒕_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ it is customary to divide this three-point function by the product of two 2-point functions as shown in Fig 1. If, in the 2-point functions, the bilinear operator used to annihilate (create) the $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) at time $`𝒕_𝓞`$ is the axial density $`\overline{𝒔}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟒}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}𝒅`$, then the ratio of the 3-point correlation function to the two 2-point functions is $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝑩_𝑲`$.

$`𝑩_𝑲`$ is defined to be the value of the matrix element at the physical kaon and normalized by the Vacuum Saturation Approximation value $`\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

$`\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}𝒁\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒅\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒅\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}𝑩_𝑲𝑴_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑭_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}`$
The earliest calculations of $`𝑩_𝑲`$ were done using Wilson fermions and showed significant deviations from this behaviour. It was soon recognized that these lattice artifacts are due to the explicit breaking of chiral symmetry in the Wilson formulation . Until 1998, the only formulation that preserved sufficient chiral symmetry to give the right chiral behaviour was Staggered fermions. First calculations using this approach in 1989 gave the quenched estimate $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐍𝐃𝐑}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.70}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.03}`$. In hindsight, the error estimates were highly optimistic, however, the central value was only $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ off the current best estimate, and most of this difference was due to the unresolved $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ discretization errors.

In 1997, the staggered collaboration refined its calculation and obtained $`\mathbf{0.62}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ , again the error estimate was optimistic as a number of systematic effects were not fully included. The state-of-the-art quenched calculation using Staggered fermions was done by the JLQCD collaboration in 1997 and gave $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.63}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}`$ . This estimate was obtained using six values of the lattice spacing between $`\mathbf{0.15}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.04}`$ fermi, thus allowing much better control over the continuum extrapolation as shown in Fig. 4.6 along with other published results. This is still the benchmark against which all results are evaluated and is the value exported to phenomenologists. This result has three limitations: (i) It is in the quenched approximation. (ii) All quenched calculations use kaons composed of two quarks of roughly half the “strange” quark mass and the final value is obtained by interpolation to a kaon made up of $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ instead of the physical point $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{)}`$. Thus, SU(3) breaking effects ($`𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒅`$) have not been incorporated. (iii) There are large $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ discretization artifacts, both for a given transcription of the $`𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ operator on the lattice and for different transcriptions at a given value of the lattice spacing, so extrapolation to the continuum limit is not as robust as one would like. These limitations are discussed after a brief summary of the recent work.

In the last four years a number of new methods have been developed and the corresponding results are summarized in Table 4.3.

* The Rome collaboration has shown that the correct chiral behaviour can be obtained using $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ improved Wilson fermions provided non-perturbative renormalization constants are used. Their latest results, with two different “operators”, are $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐆𝐞𝐕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.63}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.70}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ . These, while demonstrating the efficacy of this method, do not supplant the staggered result, as the continuum extrapolation is based on only three points and the data have larger errors. The discretization errors can be characterized as $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒂𝚲`$) with $`𝚲\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎𝟎}\text{MeV}`$ and are similar in magnitude to those with staggered fermions at $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒂\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ GeV, as are the differences in estimates with using different operators. In the staggered formulation, the artifacts are, however, $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝐬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and the data suggest an unexpectedly large $`𝚲\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎𝟎}\text{MeV}`$.
* Four collaborations have new results using domain wall and overlap fermions as shown in Table 4.3 . Both formulations have built in chiral symmetry at finite $`𝒂`$ and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ improvement. Each of these collaborations have used slightly different methodology, so they cannot be compared head on, or combined to do a continuum extrapolation. Thus, the results are quoted with reference to the lattice spacing at which the calculation was done. The differences reflect $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ in cases where perturbative renormalization constants have been used) artifacts.
* Calculations are in progress  using another method with good chiral behaviour, twisted mass QCD.

Deriving an estimate for the physical $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$, starting from the current best quenched lattice estimate, the JLQCD staggered result $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐆𝐞𝐕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.63}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$, requires consideration of the following issues.

* The $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ errors in the staggered formulation are large. Nevertheless, the error $`\mathbf{0.04}`$ obtained by the JLQCD collaboration on including both $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝐬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ terms in the extrapolation is a reasonable $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝝈`$ estimate of both the statistical and the extrapolation to continuum limit errors.
* A choice for $`𝜶_𝐬`$ and the number of flavours in the perturbative expression has to be made to convert $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{}\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. It turns out that the result is insensitive to whether one uses quenched or full QCD values. Using the 2-loop expression, the result for the central value is $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.86}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$.
* An estimate of the systematic uncertainty associated with the quenched approximation and SU(3) breaking. Preliminary numerical estimates suggest that dynamical quarks would increase the value by about $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ . Sharpe estimates, using ChPT, that unquenching would increase $`𝑩_𝑲`$ by $`\mathbf{1.05}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}`$, and SU(3) breaking effects would also increase it by $`\mathbf{1.05}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ . This analysis of systematic errors is not robust and, furthermore, the two uncertainties are not totally independent. So one can take an aggressive and a conservative approach when quoting the final result for $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. In the aggressive approach, the error estimate is given by combining in quadrature the offset of the central values with respect to unity. This gives a $`\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{\%}`$ uncertainty and

$$\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.86}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{.}$$
(44)
In the conservative approach, advocated by Sharpe , one combines the uncertainty in quadrature to get a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\%}`$ uncertainty. The final result in this case is

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.86}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.14}\end{array}$$
(45)

Given the lack of a robust determination of the systematic error, it is important to decide how to fold these errors in a phenomenological analysis. One recommendation is to assume a flat distribution for the systematic error and add to it a Gaussian distribution with $`𝝈\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.06}`$ on either end, and do a separate analysis for the aggressive and conservative estimates. In other words, a flat distribution between $`\mathbf{0.72}`$ and $`\mathbf{1.0}`$ for a conservative estimate of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ (or from $`\mathbf{0.80}`$ to $`\mathbf{0.92}`$ for the aggressive estimate) to account for systematic errors due to quenching and SU(3) breaking. Since this is the largest uncertainty, current calculations are focused on reducing it.

Finally, the reasons why the quenched lattice estimate of $`𝑩_𝑲`$ has been stable over time and considered reliable within the error estimates quoted above are worth reemphasizing:

* The numerical signal is clean and accurate results are obtained with a statistical sample of even $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}`$ decorrelated lattices.
* Finite size effects for quark masses $`\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are insignificant compared to statistical errors once the quenched lattices are larger the $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ fermi.
* In lattice formulations with chiral symmetry, the renormalization constant connecting the lattice and continuum schemes is small ($`\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$), and reasonably well estimated by one-loop perturbation theory.
* For degenerate quarks, the chiral expansion for the matrix element has no singular quenched logarithms (they cancel between the $`𝑨𝑨`$ and $`𝑽𝑽`$ terms) that produce large artifacts at small quark masses in observables like $`𝑴_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝒇_𝝅`$, etc. Also, the chiral expansions have the same form in the quenched and full theories .
* ChPT estimates of quenching and SU(3) breaking systematic errors are at the $`\mathrm{𝟕}`$$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\%}`$ level .

##### 4.2.2.2 $`𝑩_𝑲`$ from non-lattice approaches

The parameter $`𝑩_𝑲`$ can also be calculated using other non-perturbative approaches to QCD, like QCD sum rules, the large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ expansion or the chiral quark model. As for the parameter $`𝑩_𝑩`$ in the $`𝐁`$-meson system, $`𝑩_𝑲`$ can be obtained from sum rules by considering two-point  or three-point  correlation functions. However, both methods suffer from the same inadequacies as in the case of $`𝑩_𝑩`$. For the two-point function sum rule, the phenomenological spectral function is difficult to parametrise reliably, whereas for the three-point function sum rule no next-to-leading order QCD corrections are available and thus a proper matching with the Wilson coefficient function is at present not possible. For these reasons, we shall concentrate below on existing results in the large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ expansion , which in our opinion are developed furthest. After commenting on the large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ approach in more detail, the calculation of $`𝑩_𝑲`$ within the chiral quark model  will also be briefly discussed.

Calculations of weak hadronic matrix elements in the framework of the large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ expansion were developed by Bardeen, Buras and Gérard in the nineteen-eighties. For $`𝑩_𝑲`$, at the next-to-leading order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝑵_𝒄`$, this method resulted in $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.7}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}`$ , to be compared with $`𝑩_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.75}`$ in the strict large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ limit. However, at that time the next-to-leading order correction to the Wilson coefficient function  was not available, and anyhow it is debatable whether the result of  can be properly matched to the short distance coefficient. The proper matching of the scale and scheme dependencies in matrix elements as well as Wilson coefficients is, however, a crucial aspect for all approaches to weak hadronic matrix elements.

In the approach of  a significant dependence on the matching scale is still present, resulting in sizable uncertainties for $`𝑩_𝑲`$. Explicit cancellation of scale and scheme dependences was demonstrated in Ref.  within the chiral limit, and, to a lesser extent in Ref. , also for a physical strange quark. The main ingredients in the approaches of  are: the large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ expansion; chiral perturbation theory to control the low-energy end of the Green function required for the calculation of the matrix elements; the operator product expansion to control the higher-energy region of the Green function above roughly $`\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}`$; a model which connects the low- and high energy regimes. To this end, in  the relevant Green function was saturated by the lowest lying vector meson, the $`𝝆`$, whereas in  the extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model was applied which, however, does not display the correct QCD high-energy behaviour. The dependence on these models constitutes the dominant uncertainty for the latter approaches.

In the chiral limit, the findings $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.38}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.11}`$  as well as $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.32}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.13}`$  are in very good agreement with the current algebra result $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.33}`$ , obtained by relating $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ to the $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay rate. In fact, this agreement could be interpreted as a successful description of the $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay from large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$. The authors of Ref.  have also extended their calculation beyond the chiral limit with the result $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.77}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$. The smaller error compared to the chiral limit case is due to a reduced model dependence for a physical strange quark. However, as is obvious from these results, the chiral corrections amount to more than 100%, and it remains to be seen whether $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ of  incorporates all such corrections. Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe that the final result of Ref.  is again very close to the strict large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ prediction, and is also in good agreement with the average from lattice QCD quoted above.

An independent approach to hadronic matrix elements and to $`𝑩_𝑲`$ in particular is the chiral quark model . The chiral quark model provides a link between QCD and chiral perturbation theory and bears some similarity to the extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model already mentioned above. In this framework, the hadronic matrix elements depend on the values of quark and gluon condensates, also present in the QCD sum rule approach, as well as constituent masses for the quarks. For values of these parameters which fit the $`𝚫𝑰\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ rule for $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ decays, the authors of  then obtain $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.1}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.2}`$, where the error is dominated by the variation of constituent quark mass and gluon condensate. However, owing to a poor matching between long- and short-distance contributions in the case of $`𝑩_𝑲`$, an additional systematic uncertainty of the order of 15% could be present in the result of Ref. .

### 4.3 Experimental methods for the study of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing

The system of neutral B mesons, $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, can be described in terms of states with well defined mass and lifetime exhibiting the phenomenon of particle-antiparticle oscillations. The frequency of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing can be described by the mass difference $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ as defined in Eq. (14). This mass difference between the two mass eigenstates leads to a time-dependent phase difference between the particle wave functions. In the Standard Model, $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing is described via second order weak processes, as displayed for the case of $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing in Fig. 4.1. The mass difference $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ can be determined by computing the electroweak box diagram, where the dominant contribution is through top quark exchange as can be seen in Eq. (22). A measurement of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ or $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ in principle allows the determination of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix elements $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ or $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ as indicated by the relations in Eq. (23) and (24). The main uncertainty in relating measurements of the mixing frequency to the CKM matrix elements originates from the parameters $`𝑭_{𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}}`$ as discussed in Sec. 4.2.1. However, in the ratio $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ several of the theoretical uncertainties cancel as is obvious from Eq. (29). Thus, the ratio $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ is related to the ratio of CKM matrix elements $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and will ultimately determine one of the sides of the CKM unitarity triangle.

#### 4.3.1 Time integrated oscillation analyses and determination of $`𝐁`$ hadron production rates

At the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$, only $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$ mesons are produced, whereas at high energy colliders $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons and $`𝒃`$-baryons are also present. In the latter case, $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons contribute to time integrated mixing measurements with a weight proportional to their relative production fractions:

$$\overline{𝝌}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝌_𝒅\mathbf{+}𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝌_𝒔\mathbf{.}$$
(46)
Here, $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ are the production rates of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons in $`𝒃`$ quark jets, while $`𝝌_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ are the respective mixing parameters defined in Eq. (28) The world average for the time integrated mixing parameter is $`\overline{\chi }`$=0.1194 $`\pm `$ 0.0043 .. The non-linear relation between $`𝒙`$ and $`𝝌`$ (see Eq. (28) ) implies that $`𝝌`$ becomes insensitive to $`𝒙`$ for values greater than $`𝒙\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$. Thus, a time dependent oscillation analysis is necessary to observe fast oscillations as expected for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons. At the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ resonance, a measurement of $`𝝌_𝒅`$ allows to directly extract $`𝒙_𝒅`$ because only slowly oscillating $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons are produced. A time integrated mixing analysis is, however, important to determine the hadron production fractions $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$. For example, $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ is an essential input for a measurement of $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ using $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑫^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}_{\mathbf{}}`$ decays and the source of an important systematic error in $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ measurements at high energy colliders. Furthermore, the sensitivity to $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations in inclusive analyses depends on the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ production rate $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$.

The production rates of $`𝐁`$ hadrons in $`𝒃`$ quark jets can be obtained from the measured integrated oscillation rates of B mesons (see Eq. (46) ). When measuring the time integrated oscillation parameter in a semileptonic sample, the mixing probability can be written as

$$\overline{𝝌}\mathbf{=}𝒈_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝌_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝒈_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝌_𝒅\mathbf{,}$$
(47)
where $`𝒈_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝒈_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ are the fractions of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons in a semileptonic sample. Assuming that the semileptonic width is the same for all $`𝐁`$ hadrons, we obtain

$$𝒈_{𝑩_𝒊}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝑩_𝒊}𝑹_𝒊\mathrm{𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞}𝑹_𝒊\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝉_𝒊}{𝝉_𝑩}\mathbf{.}$$
(48)
This results in

$`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑹_𝒔}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒓\mathbf{)}\overline{𝝌}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒇_{𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}𝑹_{𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}\mathbf{)}𝝌_𝒅}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒓\mathbf{)}𝝌_𝒔\mathbf{}𝝌_𝒅}}`$
$`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝑹_𝒅}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝝌}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒇_{𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}𝑹_{𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}\mathbf{)}𝝌_𝒔}{𝝌_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒓\mathbf{)}𝝌_𝒔}}`$ (49)
where $`𝒓\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒖\mathbf{/}𝑹_𝒅\mathbf{=}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝉\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. We assume $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝐁^\mathbf{+}}`$, $`𝒇_{𝐁^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{+}𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}𝒇_{𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐛𝐚𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝝌_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.5}`$.

From the previous expressions, the values of $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ and $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ are determined and combined with those obtained from direct measurements (for more details see Ref. ). The results are shown in Table 4.4. It is clear that $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ is essentially determined from the time integrated mixing measurement. The error on $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ is dominated by the uncertainty on the integrated oscillation parameter $`\overline{𝝌}`$, which is not expected to improve substantially in the near future. Different uncertainties contribute to the error on $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$. The most important one is the poor knowledge of the $`𝒃`$-baryon production rates. It has to be noted that $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ is essentially determined by the DELPHI direct measurement .

#### 4.3.2 Flavour tagging techniques

In general, a measurement of the time dependence of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations requires the knowledge of:

* the proper decay time $`𝒕`$ of the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson (see Sec. 4.3.3),
* the flavour of the $`𝐁`$ or $`\overline{𝐁}`$ meson at both production and decay in order to determine whether the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson has oscillated.

Events are classified on the basis of the sign of the production and decay tagging variables as mixed or unmixed. To accomplish this, it is necessary to determine the $`𝒃`$ quark content ($`𝒃`$ or $`\overline{𝒃}`$) of the $`𝐁`$ meson at production and at decay time. The figure of merit to compare different flavour tags is the so-called effective tagging efficiency $`𝜺\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, where the efficiency $`𝜺`$ represents the fraction of events for which a flavour tag exists and $`𝒑_𝑾`$ is the mistag probability indicating the fraction of events with a wrong flavour tag. The mistag probability is related to the dilution $`𝓓`$, another quantity used to express the power of a flavour tag:

$$𝓓\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{.}$$
(50)
The dilution $`𝓓`$ is defined as the number of correctly tagged events $`𝑵_𝑹`$ minus the number of incorrectly identified events $`𝑵_𝑾`$ divided by the sum:

$$𝓓\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑵_𝑹\mathbf{}𝑵_𝑾}{𝑵_𝑹\mathbf{+}𝑵_𝑾}\mathbf{.}$$
(51)
Fig. 4.7(a) is a sketch of a $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ event showing the $`𝐁`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}`$ mesons originating from the primary production vertex and decaying at a secondary vertex indicating possible flavour tags on the decay vertex side ($`𝑺𝑺𝑻`$) and opposite side ($`\mathrm{𝒍𝒆𝒑}`$, $`𝐊`$, $`𝑸_{\mathrm{𝒋𝒆𝒕}}`$).

##### 4.3.2.1 Decay flavour tagging

Several techniques are used to determine the $`𝒃`$ quark flavour at decay time. The B flavour can be identified by the charge of a lepton from a semileptonic $`𝐁`$ decay. In a prompt $`𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay, the charge of the lepton reflects the $`𝒃`$ flavour. However, other processes can also give a lepton in the final state such as cascade decays $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}`$ resulting in a wrong sign tag, right sign cascade decays $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒄}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$, semileptonic $`𝝉`$ decays $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑾^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝉^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝑿\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{\pm }`$ decays giving both sign leptons. These processes resulting in wrong sign leptons can be suppressed by using the lepton momentum or transverse momentum with respect to the $`𝒃`$ jet axis.

The $`𝒃`$ quark flavour can also be inferred from the charge of a reconstructed charm meson ($`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ from $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ from $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) or that of a kaon assumed to come from a $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝒔`$ transition. In fully inclusive analyses, the $`𝒃`$ flavour can be obtained from the jet charge (see Eq. (52) ), the charge of a reconstructed dipole or from multitags as further detailed in Sec. 4.3.4

##### 4.3.2.2 Production flavour tagging

Methods to tag the production $`𝒃`$ quark flavour differ somewhat between high energy colliders (LEP, SLC, Tevatron) and the $`𝐁`$ factories. At high-energy colliders, the production flavour tags can be divided into two groups, those that tag the initial charge of the $`𝒃`$ quark contained in the $`𝐁`$ candidate itself (same side tag) and those that tag the initial charge of the other quark ($`\overline{𝒃}`$) produced in the same event (opposite side tag).

Same side tagging methods exploit correlations of the $`𝐁`$ flavour with the charge of particles produced in association with the $`𝐁`$ meson. Such correlations are expected to arise from $`𝒃`$ quark hadronization and from $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ decays. It has been suggested  that the electric charge of particles produced near a $`𝐁`$ meson can be used to determine its initial flavour. This can be understood in a simplified picture of $`𝒃`$ quark fragmentation as shown in Fig. 4.7(b). For example, if a $`𝒃`$ quark combines with a $`\overline{𝒖}`$ quark to form a $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$ meson, the remaining $`𝒖`$ quark may combine with a $`\overline{𝒅}`$ quark to form a $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$. Similarly, if a $`𝒃`$ quark hadronizes to form a $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson, the associated pion would be a $`𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$. A similar charge correlation is expected for a charged kaon produced in association with a $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson. Decays of the orbitally excited ($`𝑳\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$) $`𝐁^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ mesons, $`𝐁^\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐁^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`𝐁^\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐁^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, also produce pions with the same charge correlation. This tagging method has been successfully used for example at CDF .

There are several methods of opposite side flavour tagging as illustrated in Fig. 4.7(a). The methods using a lepton from the semileptonic decay of a $`𝐁`$ hadron, a kaon or the presence of a charmed particle from the other $`\overline{𝑩}`$ hadron in the event, were already discussed above.

The technique based on the jet charge exploits the fact that the momentum weighted sum of the particle charges of a $`𝒃`$ jet is related to the $`𝒃`$-quark charge. In the most basic form, the jet charge can be defined as:

$$𝑸_{\mathrm{𝐣𝐞𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}_𝒊𝒒_𝒊\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_𝒊\mathbf{}\widehat{𝒂}\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{}_𝒊\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_𝒊\mathbf{}\widehat{𝒂}}\mathbf{,}$$
(52)
where $`𝒒_𝒊`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_𝒊`$ are the charge and momentum of track $`𝒊`$ in the jet and $`\widehat{𝒂}`$ is a unit vector defining the jet direction. On average, the sign of the jet charge is the same as the sign of the $`𝒃`$ quark charge that produced the jet. More sophisticated weights (e.g. $`\mathbf{(}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒑}_𝒊\mathbf{}\widehat{𝒂}\mathbf{)}^𝜿`$) or track impact parameter information are often introduced to improve the $`𝒃`$ flavour separation. The jet charge can also be used as a same side tag, if tracks from primary vertex can be efficiently distinguished with respect to those from secondary decay vertices.

Other tagging methods include the charge dipole method that aims of reconstructing the $`𝒃`$ hadron decay chain topologically. This method has been utilized at SLD taking advantage of the superb decay length resolution of the SLD CCD pixel vertex detector to separate tracks from the $`𝐁`$ decay point from tertiary tracks emitted at the charm decay vertex . A charge dipole is defined as the distance between secondary and tertiary vertices signed by the charge difference between them (see also Sec. 4.3.4).

Another interesting production flavour tagging method is available at SLD. It exploits the large polarized forward-backward asymmetry in $`𝒁\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ decays . This $`𝒃`$ flavour production tag makes use of the large electron beam polarization $`𝑷_𝒆\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟑}\mathbf{\%}`$ at the SLC collider. A left- or right-handed incident electron tags the quark produced in the forward hemisphere as a $`𝒃`$ or $`\overline{𝒃}`$ quark with a mistag rate $`𝒑_𝑾`$ of 28% at nearly 100% efficiency .

At asymmetric $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`𝐁`$ factories, $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ pairs are produced through the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ resonance with a boost $`𝜷𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.425}`$ and 0.55 at KEKB and PEP II, respectively. The two neutral $`𝐁_𝒅`$ mesons produced from the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ decay evolve in time in a coherent $`𝑷`$-wave state where they keep opposite flavours until one of the $`𝐁_𝒅`$ mesons decays. From this point in time onwards, the other $`𝐁`$ meson follows a time evolution according to the expression $`𝚪𝐞^{\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{|}𝚫𝒕\mathbf{|}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴𝚫𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ where $`𝚫𝒕`$ is the proper time difference between the two B decays. Hence, the production flavour tag of one of the $`𝐁`$ mesons can be taken as the decay flavour tag of the other. The main flavour tagging methods currently used at BaBar and Belle include $`𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ lepton tagging and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝒔`$ kaon tagging.

It is common to combine different production tags in an oscillation analysis to achieve mistag probabilities of $`𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}\mathbf{\%}`$ at LEP  or even 22% for SLD . An equivalent figure for CDF in Run I of the Tevatron is $`𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ . Effective mistag probabilities of $`𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}\mathbf{\%}`$ are achieved by the BaBar and Belle experiments . It is interesting to mention that the effect of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing substantially decreases the tagging power of opposite side tagging methods at high-energy colliders while mixing of the other B meson (i.e. the coherent mixing occurring before the first B decay) does not contribute to a mistag probability at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$.

#### 4.3.3 Analytical description of oscillation analyses

A physics function of the form $`𝚪𝐞^{\mathbf{}𝚪𝒕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ is used to describe the signal in B oscillation analyses. At high energy colliders such as LEP, SLC or the Tevatron, the $`𝐁`$ meson decay proper time $`𝒕`$ can be obtained from a measurement of the distance $`𝑳_𝑩`$ between the $`𝐁`$ production vertex and the $`𝐁`$ decay vertex. The proper time $`𝒕`$ is related to the decay distance $`𝑳_𝑩`$ and to the boost $`𝜷𝜸`$ by

$$𝒄𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑳_𝑩}{𝜷𝜸}\mathbf{=}𝑳_𝑩\frac{𝑴_𝑩}{𝒑_𝑩}\mathbf{.}$$
(53)
At asymmetric $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`𝐁`$ factories, the proper time difference $`𝚫𝒕`$ between the two $`𝐁`$ candidate decays is the relevant measure. It is computed as:

$$𝚫𝒕\mathbf{=}𝚫𝒛\mathbf{/}𝜷𝜸𝒄\mathbf{,}$$
(54)
where $`𝚫𝒛`$ is the spatial separation between the two $`𝐁`$ decay vertices along the boost direction.

The uncertainty on the decay time $`𝝈_𝒕`$ can be expressed in units of the $`𝐁`$ lifetime $`𝝉_𝑩`$ as

$$\frac{𝝈_𝒕}{𝝉_𝑩}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝝈\mathbf{(}𝑳_𝑩\mathbf{)}}{𝑳_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒕}{𝝉_𝑩}\frac{𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝑩\mathbf{)}}{𝒑}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞}𝑳_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}𝒄𝝉_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒑_𝑩\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{.}$$
(55)
The proper time resolution $`𝝈_𝒕`$ depends on the uncertainty $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝑳_𝑩\mathbf{)}`$ to infer the decay length from the primary to the $`𝐁`$ decay vertex and on the $`𝐁`$ momentum resolution $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝑩\mathbf{)}`$. Note that the latter uncertainty scales with $`𝒕\mathbf{/}𝝉_𝑩`$, while the vertexing resolution is independent of the proper time and only adds a constant error.

The dependence of B oscillations on the proper time resolution and other detector effects is illustrated in Fig. 4.8. Rather than plotting the mixed and unmixed probabilities $`𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪𝐞^{\mathbf{}𝚪𝒕}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ as introduced in Eq. (27) and Eq. (26), it is customary in B oscillation analyses to either determine a mixing asymmetry $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ or to calculate the fraction of mixed events $`𝓕_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{}𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}}{𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{+}𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴𝒕\mathbf{,}𝓕_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}}{𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{+}𝓟_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{.}$$
(56)
As an example, Fig. 4.8(a) shows the oscillation pattern of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ for $`𝚫𝑴\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ ps-1 assuming an ideal case with perfect tagging, ideal proper time resolution and no background. The reduction of the amplitude due to a finite decay length resolution is shown in Fig. 4.8(b). Figure 4.8(c) indicates what happens when the resolution of the (silicon) vertex detector is not sufficient to resolve the oscillations: $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ is completely smeared out and oscillations are no longer visible. The effect of a finite momentum resolution is displayed in Fig. 4.8(d). Since the uncertainty on the proper time coming from the momentum resolution is linear in proper time $`𝒕`$, as seen in Eq. (55), the rapid oscillation damps in time while the first few “wiggles” can still be seen completely. The oscillation amplitude is reduced if a mistag probability is introduced, as can be seen in Fig. 4.8(e). Finally, in a real measurement, background will also be present which additionally reduces the relative importance of the oscillation amplitude. The effect of background on the mixing amplitude, in addition to a finite decay length and momentum resolution, as well as a non-zero mistag probability, is shown in Fig. 4.8(f). Note, however, that this “realistic” distribution is based on half a million signal events. Imagine the corresponding error bars for a measurement with a few hundred signal events and an oscillation frequency of $`𝚫𝑴\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ ps-1.

In a $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing measurement, a value for $`𝚫𝑴`$ is usually extracted from the data using a maximum likelihood method. In the following, we illustrate some of the essential steps for a $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ analysis determining $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ in more detail. We use the example of an analysis where like-sign (unlike-sign) events describe mixed (unmixed) events as would be the case, for example, in a dilepton analysis. The total probability to observe a like-sign tagged event at the reconstructed proper time $`𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}`$ is:

$`𝓟^{𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝒃\overline{𝒃}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}{\mathbf{}}}𝒇_{𝐁_𝐪}𝒑_𝑾^{𝐁_𝐪}𝓟_{𝒓𝒆𝒄\mathbf{.}𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_𝒃{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒃𝒂𝒓𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒔}{\mathbf{}}}𝒇_{𝐁_𝐪}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒑_𝑾^{𝐁_𝐪}\mathbf{)}𝓟_{𝒓𝒆𝒄\mathbf{.}𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{+}`$
$`𝒇_{𝒃𝒌𝒈\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒑_𝑾^{𝒃𝒌𝒈\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{)}𝓟_{𝒃𝒌𝒈\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}`$ (57)
and correspondingly for an unlike-sign tagged event:

$`𝓟^{𝒖𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒇_{𝒃\overline{𝒃}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}{\mathbf{}}}𝒇_{𝐁_𝐪}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒑_𝑾^{𝐁_𝐪}\mathbf{)}𝓟_{𝒓𝒆𝒄\mathbf{.}𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒇_𝒃{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒃𝒂𝒓𝒚𝒐𝒏𝒔}{\mathbf{}}}𝒇_{𝐁_𝐪}𝒑_𝑾^{𝐁_𝐪}𝓟_{𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{+}`$
$`𝒇_{𝒃𝒌𝒈\mathbf{.}}𝒑_𝑾^{𝒃𝒌𝒈\mathbf{.}}𝓟_{𝒃𝒌𝒈\mathbf{.}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (58)
where $`𝒇_{𝒃\overline{𝒃}}`$ is the fraction of $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ events and $`𝒑_𝑾^𝒊`$ are the mistag probabilities. The probability $`𝓟_{𝒓𝒆𝒄\mathbf{.}𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}`$ to observe the mixed $`\text{B}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`\text{B}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons at proper time $`𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}`$ is the result of a convolution of the oscillation probability function as given in Eq. (26) and Eq. (27) with the detector resolution function $`𝓡`$ and weighted with an acceptance function $`𝑨𝒄𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$

$$𝓟_{𝒓𝒆𝒄\mathbf{.}𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐮𝐧}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}𝑨𝒄𝒄\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝓡\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝓟_{𝐁_𝐪}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐮𝐧}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒅𝒕\mathbf{.}$$
(59)
To extract the value $`𝚫𝑴`$ of the oscillation frequency, the following likelihood function is minimized :

$$𝓛\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\underset{𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆\mathbf{}𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏}{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝓟^{𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\underset{𝒖𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆\mathbf{}𝒔𝒊𝒈𝒏}{\mathbf{}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝓟^{𝒖𝒏𝒍𝒊𝒌𝒆}\mathbf{(}𝒕_{𝒓𝒆𝒄}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(60)
In order to fully exploit the available statistics, more sophisticated mixing analyses make use of those variables on an event-by-event basis, or often divide the event sample into classes with e.g. different tagging capabilities.

##### 4.3.3.1 The amplitude method

For $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ measurements, the amplitude method  is used to set limits on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ and to combine results from different analyses. For the mixed and unmixed $`\text{B}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ events an amplitude $`𝑨`$ is introduced in the expressions describing the mixed and unmixed probabilities:

$$𝓟_{𝐁_𝐬^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathrm{𝐮𝐧𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝐁_𝐬}𝐞^{\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝐁_𝐬}𝒕}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴_𝒔𝒕\mathbf{]}$$
(61)
and similarly:

$$𝓟_{𝐁_𝐬^\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝚪_{𝐁_𝐬}𝐞^{\mathbf{}𝚪_{𝐁_𝐬}𝒕}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑨\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴_𝒔𝒕\mathbf{]}$$
(62)
The amplitude method works as follows. A $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation amplitude $`𝑨`$ and its error $`𝝈_𝑨`$ are extracted as a function of a fixed test value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ using a likelihood method in analogy to Eq. (60) based on the physics functions defined in Eq. (61) and Eq. (62). To a very good approximation, the statistical uncertainty on $`𝑨`$ is Gaussian and the experimental sensitivity is :

$$𝓢\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝈_𝑨}\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝑵\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒇_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝒘\mathbf{)}𝐞^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴𝝈_𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(63)
where $`𝑵`$ and $`𝒇_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐠}}`$ are the number of candidate events and the fraction of signal in the selected sample, $`𝒑_𝑾`$ is the mistag probability to incorrectly tag a decay as mixed or unmixed characterizing the effective flavour tagging efficiency as discussed in Sec. 4.3.2, and $`𝝈_𝒕`$ is the resolution on proper time or proper time difference in the case of the B factories. The sensitivity $`𝓢`$ decreases rapidly as $`𝚫𝑴`$ increases. This dependence is controlled by $`𝝈_𝒕`$.

If $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ equals its true value $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}}`$, the amplitude method expects $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ within the total uncertainty $`𝝈_𝑨`$. If $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ is tested far below its true value, a measurement consistent with $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is expected. A value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ can be excluded at 95% C.L. if $`𝑨\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.645}𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. If the true $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}}`$ is very large, far above the experimental sensitivity, $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is expected to be measured and all values of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ such that $`\mathbf{1.645}𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ are expected to be excluded at 95% C.L. Because of proper time resolution, the quantity $`𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ is an increasing function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. It is therefore expected that individual values of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ can be excluded up to $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬}}`$, where $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬}}`$ is called the sensitivity of the analysis defined by $`\mathbf{1.645}𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The results from different analyses and experiments can be combined by simple averaging different amplitude spectra.

#### 4.3.4 Description of oscillation analyses

Many different analysis methods have been devised to study $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing. These range from fully inclusive to fully exclusive analyses and, thus, they differ significantly in terms of selection efficiency, sample purity and mistag rates. Moreover, they make use of various production and decay tags. The methods also differ in the techniques used to reconstruct the $`𝐁`$ decay length and to estimate the $`𝐁`$ momentum, and therefore have different proper time resolutions. In the following, analysis methods developed to measure $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ are discussed first and those used in the search for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations are presented afterwards.

##### 4.3.4.1 $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation analyses

##### Exclusive methods

The most straightforward and cleanest method relies on the exclusive reconstruction of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay chain. However, because of its low efficiency, it has only recently become accessible with the advent of $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ asymmetric B factories. Using samples of $`\mathbf{}`$30M $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ events, BaBar  and Belle  reconstruct the decays $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝆^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ (BaBar), and $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝝆^\mathbf{+}`$ (Belle), where charmed mesons are fully reconstructed in several $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay modes.

Very clean signals are obtained, see Fig. 4.9, and the decay flavour is unambiguously determined by the charge of the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}`$ meson (or the charged kaon in case of the $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay).

The average separation of the two $`𝐁`$ decay points is $`𝚫𝒛\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟓}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{)}𝝁𝐦`$ with $`𝝈_𝒛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖𝟎}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟎}\mathbf{)}𝝁𝐦`$ for Babar (Belle), which corresponds to a resolution on $`𝚫𝒕`$ (Eq. 54) of about $`\mathbf{1.1}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}`$. For a measurement of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency it is therefore critical to have good control over the resolution. Table 4.5 summarizes the number of events, signal mode purity and production flavour tag information for these as well as all other analyses presented below.

##### Semi-exclusive methods

Several analyses have combined an identified lepton with a fully reconstructed charmed hadron. Generally, the presence of a $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$, with charge opposite that of the lepton, tags the decay of a $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson. This simple picture is complicated by decays of the type $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃}^\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$, where the $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays into a $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$ meson.

Measurements have been performed at B factories by BaBar  and Belle  and at high energy colliders by CDF  and OPAL . $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons are partially reconstructed in the mode $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$, where the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ or $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ meson is fully reconstructed. The selection relies on the kinematical properties of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$ decays. In particular, the low $`𝑸`$ value of the decay $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝅_{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ is exploited to identify $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ mesons efficiently and cleanly.

Fig. 4.10 shows the mass difference $`𝚫𝑴\mathbf{=}𝑴\mathbf{(}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝐌\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐃}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}`$ in the BaBar and OPAL analyses. Signal purities range from $`\mathbf{}`$45% to $`\mathbf{}`$90% for the different experiments, depending mostly on the $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay mode.

In order to increase the selection efficiency, analyses by ALEPH , CDF , DELPHI , and OPAL  select $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝑿`$ decays, where the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$ meson is also fully reconstructed. Despite the more inclusive nature of this method, the identification of a $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}`$ decay guarantees that the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity remains high. However, $`𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ tagging is generally needed to suppress the significant number of $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ produced in $`𝒄\overline{𝒄}`$ events.

##### Semi-inclusive methods

One of the semi-inclusive methods selects $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ decays without attempting to fully reconstruct the $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson but only the lepton and the slow $`𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ from the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟎}}𝝅_{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay. This partial reconstruction method yields much larger data samples than obtained with the exclusive reconstruction but suffers from higher background. It has been applied by DELPHI  and OPAL . The combinatorial background can be studied with same-sign lepton-pion pairs and $`𝚫𝑴`$ side bands. The $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃}^\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ component needs to be estimated from the simulation.

A similar technique is used by Belle  to reconstruct $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ decays. In this analysis, only the fast $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ and the slow $`𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ are reconstructed. This information is sufficient to compute the $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ missing mass, assuming that the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson is at rest in the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ rest frame and using energy and momentum conservation. The event is required to contain a high-momentum lepton to tag the other B meson flavour and to suppress the large non-$`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ background. This method is only possible at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ where sufficient kinematical constraints are available.

The most widely used method relies on the inclusive reconstruction of semileptonic decays. At high energy colliders, it has been employed by ALEPH , CDF , DELPHI , L3 , OPAL , and SLD . This method is efficient since the decay rate for $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑿\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ is approximately 20% (using electrons and muons) and the decay flavour tag is excellent. A high-$`𝒑`$ and high-$`𝒑_𝑻`$ lepton is selected to suppress the contribution from cascade leptons (from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}`$ transitions) and the accompanying charmed hadron (denoted “$`𝐃`$” in the following) is reconstructed inclusively using charged tracks in the jet containing the lepton. The position of the $`𝐁`$ decay vertex and the $`𝐁`$ momentum are obtained using algorithms that aim to classify tracks as coming from either primary or secondary vertices. The $`𝐁`$ decay vertex is then obtained by intersecting the trajectories of the lepton and that of a $`𝐃`$ candidate.

The analyses are combined with a variety of different production flavour tags and are thus referred to as “dilepton”, “lepton-jet charge” and “Multiple tags” analyses (see Table 4.5).

Dilepton analyses have also been performed by both BaBar  and Belle . Here, there is no attempt to reconstruct the $`𝐃`$ decay and the time difference is extracted directly from the separation $`𝚫𝒛`$ between the intersections of the two leptons with the beam axis. Momentum and angular cuts are applied to reduce the wrong-sign background from cascade leptons. In the BaBar analysis, the main background consists of $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}`$ events and is determined to be $`\mathbf{}`$55% and the main source of mistag originates from events containing one direct lepton and one cascade lepton, amounting to 13% of the total sample.

##### Inclusive methods

A few analyses rely on fully inclusive techniques to select large samples of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays. These techniques aim to capture most decays by using topological vertexing. As for the semi-inclusive methods, the selection algorithms generally do not provide any enhancement in the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity. The primary issue here is the decay flavour tag.

SLD uses two different decay tags: the charge of a kaon coming from the $`𝐁`$ decay chain  or the charge dipole of the secondary vertex . These analyses require the net charge of all tracks associated with the decay to be zero to enhance the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ fraction from $`\mathbf{}`$40% to $`\mathbf{}`$60%. The kaon decay tag is more efficient than the lepton decay tag but has a worse mistag rate of $`\mathbf{}`$20%. The charge dipole technique takes advantage of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}𝑿^\mathbf{+}`$ dipole structure and the fact that the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ vertices are separated along the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ line of flight due to the finite charm lifetime. For the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ analyses the charge dipole is defined as the difference between the weighted mean location of the positive tracks and of the negative tracks along the axis joining the primary and secondary vertices. The track weights account for the uncertainty in determining the location of each track. A positive (negative) charge dipole tags the decay flavour of the $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ ($`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) meson.

At LEP, DELPHI  also developed a fully inclusive method based on the charge dipole tag. The vertex algorithm uses topological and kinematical information to separate primary and secondary tracks. A secondary lepton is found in a subset of the vertices and provides the decay flavour tag (these leptons are referred to as “soft” leptons since decays with high $`𝒑`$ and $`𝒑_𝑻`$ are used in other DELPHI analyses). For the remainder of the sample, the $`𝐁`$ decay products are boosted back into the $`𝐁`$ meson rest frame and a charge dipole is formed between the forward and backward hemispheres (as defined by the thrust axis). Given that the forward (backward) hemisphere contains mostly tracks from the $`𝐃`$ ($`𝐁`$) decay vertex, one expects a $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟐}`$ charge difference between the two hemispheres. The ALEPH inclusive analysis  reconstructs topological vertices in both event hemispheres as in the inclusive semileptonic analysis. The flavour tagging is performed by computing the product of the jet charges in the two hemispheres of each event. This product thus combines production and decay flavour tags and is sensitive to whether mixing occurred or not.

Table 4.5 summarizes the different $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing analyses. It should be noted that this Table provides only an approximate representation of the performance of each analysis. The reader is referred to the specific papers for more detailed comparisons.

##### 4.3.4.2 $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation analyses

The study of time dependent $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations has been performed with a wide range of analysis techniques at high energy colliders. The study of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations is more challenging than that of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations due to two main differences. Only about 10% of $`𝒃`$ quarks hadronize into $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons, as compared to about 40% into $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons. The $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency is expected to be at least a factor of 20 larger than that for $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. To address this, sophisticated analyses have been developed with an emphasis on lowering the mistag rate, increasing the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity and, especially, improving the proper time resolution, all of which affect the sensitivity to $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations.

##### Exclusive methods

Fully exclusive analyses have been performed by ALEPH  and DELPHI  via the (all charged particles) modes $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}`$, $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}`$ (last two for DELPHI only), where the $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ are fully reconstructed in several decay modes. The decays $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝆^\mathbf{+}`$ are also reconstructed by adding one or more photons to the above final states (ALEPH only) or by considering the events falling into the “satellite” mass region below the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mass peak.

The number of selected signal decays is small (see Table 4.6) but the method provides excellent proper time resolution for two reasons. As there is no missing particle in the decay (at least for events in the main peak), the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ momentum is known with good precision and therefore the contribution of the momentum uncertainty to the proper time resolution is small. As a result, unlike all other methods, $`𝝈_𝒕`$ does not grow significantly when increasing the proper time $`𝒕`$. In addition, the reconstructed channels are two-body or quasi two-body decays, with an opening angle of their decay products which is on average larger than that in multi-body final states; this results in a better accuracy on the B decay length. Despite the limited statistics, this method contributes to the study of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations at the highest values of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. As detailed in Sec. 4.3.7, this is the preferred method for future studies of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations at hadron colliders.

##### Semi-exclusive methods

Many analyses have been developed with semi-exclusive methods. $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays are partially reconstructed in the modes $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}𝒉^\mathbf{+}𝑿`$, where $`𝒉`$ represents any charged hadron (or system of several hadrons) and the $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ meson decay is either fully or partially reconstructed in the modes $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝑲_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }𝝆^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝝂}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }𝒉^{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$. Partial reconstruction in $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}𝒉^\mathbf{+}`$ modes has the benefit of larger statistics but the $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$ channel has the advantage of a considerably higher $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity, lower mistag rate and higher proper time resolution.

Analyses in the mode $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ have been performed by ALEPH , CDF , DELPHI  and OPAL . Selection of $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays proceeds as described above. CDF only uses a partial reconstruction of the mode $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝑿`$. Some background suppression (especially from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔𝐃𝑿`$) is achieved by requiring that the lepton and the $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ comes from the same vertex.

The hadronic channel $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}𝒉^\mathbf{+}𝑿`$ has been used by DELPHI  and SLD . Fully reconstructed $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays are selected only in the modes $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ because of their lower background level. $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ candidates are then combined with one or more secondary tracks to form $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay candidates. Among $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays contributing to the $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ signal, approximately 10% have the wrong decay flavour tag due to the process $`𝑾^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}`$ ($`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\overline{𝒄}𝒔`$ transition). This source of mistag is essentially absent in the semileptonic analyses. Despite lower statistics, the SLD analysis contributes to the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation sensitivity at large $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ thanks to its excellent decay length resolution (see Table 4.6).

##### Semi-inclusive methods

The semi-inclusive lepton method, based on the process $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝑿\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂_{\mathbf{}}`$, is the most sensitive method at LEP and has been used by ALEPH , DELPHI , OPAL  and SLD . The principle of the method (see the discussion above in the case of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing) is to reconstruct the $`𝐃_𝒔^{\mathbf{}}`$ inclusively by relying on topological vertexing and kinematical information. Fairly loose criteria are applied to select large event samples, see Table 4.6.

For this method, it is important to reduce the contribution from cascade decays and to increase the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity of the sample ($`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons represent about 10% of all $`𝒃`$-hadrons produced, see Table 4.4). To enrich the sample in direct $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ semileptonic decays, the following quantities are used: momentum and transverse momentum of the lepton, impact parameters of all tracks in the opposite hemisphere relative to the main event vertex, kaons at primary or secondary vertices in the same hemisphere, and charge of the secondary vertex. Those variables are usually combined in a global discriminant variable. The result of this procedure is to increase the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity by about 30$`\mathbf{\%}`$; the corresponding mistag rate at decay is $`\mathbf{}`$10% or less. The above information, as well as the proper time resolution, is then used on an event-by-event basis.

As an example, Fig. 4.11 shows the neural network output distributions sensitive to the $`𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ fraction and the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purities in the ALEPH data. The decay length resolution is somewhat worse than in the case of semi-exclusive analyses due to missing or mis-assigned tracks.

##### Inclusive methods

Fully inclusive methods are sensitive to most $`𝐁`$ decay modes and, thus, have high efficiency. Such techniques have been developed by DELPHI  and SLD . The analyses rely on inclusive topological vertexing to select $`𝐁`$ decay products and to reconstruct the $`𝐁`$ decay vertex. The DELPHI analysis is the same as the one described earlier for $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing. A very large data sample is obtained but the mistag rates are high (see Table 4.6). SLD is able to exploit the excellent 3D spatial resolution of its CCD-pixel vertex detector to cleanly separate the charged decay products from secondary (originating directly from the $`𝐁`$ decay) and tertiary (originating from cascade $`𝐃`$ decays) vertices. The decay flavour is determined from the charge dipole $`𝜹𝑸`$ defined as the distance between secondary and tertiary vertices signed by the charge difference between them. Positive (negative) values of $`𝜹𝑸`$ tag $`\overline{𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ ($`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$) decays as shown in Fig. 4.12.

Table 4.6 summarizes the different $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing analyses. It should be noted that the Table presents only the average performance of the analyses and that most analyses substantially increase their sensitivity by relying on event-by-event information.

#### 4.3.5 $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation results. Measurement of the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ frequency

As detailed in Sec. 4.3.4, many methods and channels have been used to study $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. These analyses have been performed by the ALEPH , BaBar , Belle , CDF , DELPHI , L3 , OPAL  and SLD  collaborations.

In the following, we will discuss the results of a few representative measurements of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$. Fig. 4.13(a) showss the fraction of mixed events as a function of proper decay length for a semi-inclusive analysis at CDF using a lepton sample with an inclusively reconstructed vertex combined, on the opposite side, with a lepton and jet charge tag to infer the production flavour . Although this analysis is based on about 240,000 events, the total height of the oscillation amplitude is small ($`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.05}`$) due to an effective tagging efficiency of $`𝜺\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$ for each tag yielding a value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.500}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.052}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.043}\mathbf{)}`$ ps-1. In this analysis, a large mistag rate $`𝒑_𝑾`$ resulting in $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{)}`$ being small is compensated by the number of events $`𝑵`$ being large (see Eq. (63) ). This result can be compared to a measurement from BaBar  based on about $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟑𝟎𝟎}`$ neutral $`𝐁`$ mesons fully reconstructed in multihadronic modes (mainly $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃}^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}𝑿`$). An opposite lepton and kaon tag with low mistag fractions of $`𝒑_𝑾\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathbf{\%}`$, respectively, are the reason for an oscillation amplitude of $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}`$ in the mixed asymmetry as shown in Fig. 4.13(b). Note the statistical error on the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ value obtained by BaBar for this analysis: $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.516}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.016}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.010}\mathbf{)}`$ ps-1. From this example we can see the trade-off between a poor tagging power in high statistics $`𝐁`$ samples produced for example in a hadronic $`𝒑\overline{𝒑}`$ environment at the Tevatron and lower statistics analyses with superior tagging and low mistag probabilities in an $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ environment for example at the B factories. In addition, compared to inclusive methods, analyses with fully reconstructed $`𝐁`$ mesons have a higher sample purity.

Fig. 4.14 shows the result of two other $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ analyses. One of the most precise single measurements performed at the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ resonance is an inclusive $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}}`$ analysis by OPAL  using $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}𝝂`$ decays. High statistics $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays were reconstructed using the slow $`𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ from the $`𝐃^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}`$ decay while inferring the $`\overline{𝐃}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ with an inclusive technique. Same-sign lepton-pion pairs serve to constrain the combinatorial background in the opposite sign lepton-pion pair signature. A clear oscillation signal is observed in the fraction of mixed events as can be seen in Fig. 4.14(a). A value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.497}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.024}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{)}`$ ps-1 is extracted. Another example of a precise $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ analysis at the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ pole by DELPHI is shown in Fig. 4.14(b). A sample of 770,000 events with an inclusively reconstructed vertex has been selected. Tags based on several separating variables such as the jet charge, dipole charge and the transverse momentum of the (soft) lepton have been combined into a probability to determine the fraction of like-sign events as displayed in Fig. 4.14(b). DELPHI obtains a value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.531}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.007}\mathbf{)}`$ ps-1.

In order to combine all individual $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ results to obtain a world average value, possible statistical correlations between individual analyses have to be taken into account and also the systematic errors which are often not negligible have to be combined properly. The main sources of systematic uncertainties are determinations of sample compositions, mistag probabilities, $`𝒃`$ hadron production fractions and contributions from $`𝒃`$ hadron lifetimes. Before being combined, the measurements are adjusted on the basis of a common set of input values. Details of the averaging procedure are described in Ref. .

A compilation of all $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ measurements available as of the 2002 ICHEP conference, can be found in Fig. 4.15. The individual results from each experiment are combined and averaged using the procedure described above. There exist also time-integrated measurements of $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing from the ARGUS  and CLEO  collaborations which can be converted into a value for $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ assuming the width difference $`𝚫𝚪_𝒅`$ in the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ system to be zero and no $`𝑪𝑷`$ violation in $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing. The quoted world average, at the bottom of Fig. 4.15, also includes $`𝝌_𝒅`$ measurements by ARGUS and CLEO. The $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ averages per experiment are displayed in Fig. 4.16.

The different results from the combination procedure are :

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.491}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.041}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{Argus-CLEO (from }𝝌_𝒅\text{)}\hfill \\ \mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.498}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.013}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{LEP-SLD-CDF}\hfill \\ \mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.503}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.007}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{Belle-BaBar}\hfill \\ \mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.503}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.006}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill & \text{world average}\hfill \end{array}\mathbf{.}\end{array}$$
(64)
At the end of the LEP-CDF-SLD era, $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ has been determined with a relative precision of about $`\mathbf{2.6}\mathbf{\%}`$. The LEP-CDF-SLD results are in excellent agreement with the Belle-BaBar measurements. After the inclusion of the results from $`𝐁`$ factories, the precision on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ is improved by a factor of two. The world average $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing frequency is now dominated by the results of $`𝐁`$ factories.

#### 4.3.6 Results on $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. Limits on the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ frequency

$`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations have also been the subject of many studies by ALEPH , CDF , DELPHI , OPAL  and SLD . No oscillation signal has been observed to date. To set lower limits on the oscillation frequency $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$, all $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing analyses use the amplitude method  described in Sec. 4.3.3.1

Two examples of measured $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation amplitudes as a function of the mixing frequency $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ are shown in Fig. 4.17. The ALEPH collaboration recently presented an improved search for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations combining three analyses based on different final states . First, fully reconstructed decays of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons yield a small sample of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ candidates with excellent decay length and momentum resolution. Semileptonic decays with a reconstructed $`𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}`$ meson provide a second sample with larger statistics, high $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity but with a poorer momentum and decay length resolution due to the partial decay reconstruction. Finally, semileptonic $`𝐁`$ hadron decays are inclusively selected and yield the data sample with the highest sensitivity to $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations since the higher statistics compensates for the low average $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity and the poorer proper time resolution. Fig. 4.17(a) shows the fitted amplitude spectrum as a function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ for the third sample. From this inclusive semileptonic sample alone, ALEPH excludes all frequencies below 11.5 ps-1, while the combined 95% C.L. limit from all three analyses yields $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{>}\mathbf{10.9}`$ ps-1.

Fig. 4.17(b) shows the amplitude spectrum from an analysis by SLD . This analysis determined the $`𝐁`$ flavour at production time by exploiting the large forward-backward asymmetry of polarized $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$ decays and uses additional information from the hemisphere opposite to that of the reconstructed $`𝐁`$ decay such as the jet charge, the lepton and kaon tags. The $`𝐁`$ flavour at decay is tagged by a charge dipole method as explained in Sec. 4.3.4.2 Although this analysis is based on only 11,000 decays, it reaches a sensitivity of 8.8 ps-1 because of the slower rise of the uncertainty on the amplitude due to the excellent proper time resolution.

No $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation signal has been seen so far. The most sensitive analyses are the ones based on the inclusive lepton samples at LEP. Because of better proper time resolution, smaller data samples of inclusive decays analyzed at SLD as well as measurements using only a few fully reconstructed $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays at LEP, turn out to be very useful to explore the high $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ region. This point is illustrated in Fig. 4.18(a) showing the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ sensitivities for the different $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation analysis methods. The uncertainty on the amplitude $`𝑨`$ (actually $`\mathbf{1.645}𝝈_𝑨`$) is plotted as a function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ combining the existing results of the various $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ analyses methods from different experiments. The combination of all fully inclusive methods crosses the dashed line corresponding to the condition $`\mathbf{1.645}𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ used to define the 95% C.L. sensitivity at about 9.5 ps-1. This represents the combined sensitivity of all inclusive methods from the various experiments. Due to the combination of high statistics and adequate vertexing resolution, the inclusive lepton methods give currently the most sensitive results. The $`𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}`$-lepton samples also reach a high sensitivity while the exclusive methods that attempt to fully reconstruct hadronic $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays have a lower sensitivity because of the small number of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ candidates that have been exclusively reconstructed to date. However, the slow growth of the amplitude error for the exclusive method can be inferred from Fig. 4.18(a). Note, the visible scattering of points for the exclusive method which results from the small number of events contributing in these analyses.

All available results on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ oscillations can be combined into a world average exclusion limit using the amplitude method. All data on the measurements of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation amplitudes versus $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$, as provided by the experiments, are averaged to yield a combined amplitude $`𝑨`$ as a function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ as shown in Fig. 4.18(b). The individual results have been adjusted to common physics inputs and all known correlations have been accounted for. The sensitivities of the inclusive analyses which depend on the assumed fraction, $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$, of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons have been re-scaled to a common average of $`𝒇_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.093}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.011}`$ (see Table 4.4). Figure 4.18(b) includes all results as of the ICHEP 2002 conference. The measurements are dominated by statistical uncertainties. Neighbouring points are statistically correlated. The combined result is :

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ 𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{>}\mathbf{14.4}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐚𝐭}\mathbf{95}\mathbf{\%}𝐂\mathbf{.}𝐋\mathbf{.}\\ \mathrm{𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡}𝐚\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}𝚫𝐌_𝐬\mathbf{=}\mathbf{19.2}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}$$
(65)
Values between $`\mathbf{14.4}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ cannot be excluded because the data appear to be compatible with a signal in this region. The amplitude plot presents a deviation from $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ at about $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathbf{17.5}`$ ps-1 for which a significance of $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{2.2}𝝈`$ can be derived. This means that there is not enough sensitivity for the observation of a $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{}𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ signal at this frequency.

The different measurements of the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation amplitude as of the ICHEP 2002 conference are shown in Fig. 4.19, where the amplitudes for the various analyses are given at $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ ps-1 along with the relevant statistic and systematic errors. The exclusion sensitivities are also indicated Fig. 4.19 shows which analyses contribute most in the high $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ region. Note that the individual measurements are quoted as in the original publications, but the averages include the effects of adjustments to a common set of input parameters.

Although all $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing results are presently limited by statistics, a discussion of systematic uncertainties in these analyses is relevant for a future measurement of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. Critical analysis parameters ($`𝝈_𝑳`$, $`𝝈_𝒑`$ and $`𝒑_𝑾`$) are extracted from detailed Monte Carlo simulation and are subject to modelling uncertainties. A first level of control is typically achieved with detailed comparisons between data and MC. In addition, measurements from calibration samples are performed to cross-check the parameters directly from the data but not all critical parameters can be tested in this manner. Of particular importance to the sensitivity at large $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ values is the proper time resolution and, in particular, the decay length resolution. The latter has been tested with a variety of techniques: fit to the decay length distribution of $`𝝉`$ decays, fit for the primary vertex in $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays to light-flavour quarks, study of tracks with negative impact parameter. These studies find that the decay length resolution is typically understood at the 10% level or better.

#### 4.3.7 Future prospects for $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ determination

The current world average $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency constitutes a measurement at about 1$`\mathbf{\%}`$ precision. It is dominated by the results of the $`𝐁`$ factories which will further improve the precision on $`𝚫𝒎_𝒅`$. The uncertainty on the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime starts to become a main contributor to the systematic error on future measurements of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$. A simultaneous fit of the $`𝐁`$ lifetime and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ will improve this situation as demonstrated in Ref. . For a data sample of 300 fb-1, the BaBar and Belle experiments expect to improve the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency by a factor two, down to a precision of about 0.4%

The future interest in B mixing clearly lies in a measurement of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. Some of the still preliminary analyses from LEP and SLD are in the process of being finalized for publication while no new measurements or improved limits are to be expected. Since no $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons are produced at the $`𝐁`$ factories and running at the $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟓}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ resonance as a source of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons is not foreseen in the near future, the hopes of the heavy flavour community focus on the Tevatron Collider experiments CDF and DØ to measure $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. For such a measurement it is important that the resolution of the vertexing device is good enough to resolve the expected (rapid) oscillations while a small boost correction will prevent the measured oscillations to damp out with proper time. The path to measure $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations is therefore to use fully reconstructed $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons rather than higher statistics samples of partially reconstructed $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ candidates from e.g. semileptonic decays.

A measurement of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ will be the next crucial test of the Standard Model probing whether the obtained result will fit to the current constraints on the CKM triangle which are all in beautiful agreement (see results in Chapter 5). It is noteworthy to mention that physics with $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons is unique to the Tevatron until the start of the LHC in 2007.

##### 4.3.7.1 CDF and DØ detector upgrades in Run II at Tevatron

The Fermilab accelerator complex has undergone a major upgrade since the end of Run I in 1996. The centre-of-mass energy has been increased to 1.96 TeV and the Main Injector, a new 150 GeV proton storage ring, has replaced the Main Ring as injector of protons and anti-protons into the Tevatron. The Main Injector also provides higher proton intensity onto the anti-proton production target, with the goal to allow for more than an order of magnitude higher luminosities. Run II officially started in March 2001. The design luminosity during the first phase of Run II (Run IIa) is 5-8$`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟑𝟏}}`$ cm-2s-1 for a final integrated luminosity of $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ fb-1 by the end of Run IIa.

Since 1996, the CDF and DØ detectors have also undergone major upgrades  to allow operation at high luminosities and bunch spacing of up to 132 ns. Details of the DØ detector upgrade can be found elsewhere . The main upgrade for DØ is the installation of a tracking system contained in a 2T superconducting solenoid surrounded by a scintillator preshower detector. The tracking upgrade includes a silicon microstrip tracker which consists of six barrel segments with disks in between plus three more disks located at each end of the tracker. In addition, there are two large disks placed at the end of the silicon tracker to increase the pseudorapidity coverage. The silicon system is enclosed within a central fiber tracker providing momentum resolution at the level of $`𝝈\mathbf{(}𝒑_𝑻\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒑_𝑻\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.02}`$-0.05 for low-$`𝒑_𝑻`$ tracks with high tracking efficiency for charged particles with pseudo-rapidity $`𝜼\mathbf{<}\mathbf{2.5}`$. Vertex reconstruction is expected with a resolution of 15-30 $`𝝁`$m in the $`𝒓\mathit{\varphi }`$-plane and about 80 $`𝝁`$m in the $`𝒓𝒛`$-plane. A major upgrade of the muon system together with central and forward scintillators will allow DØ to trigger and reconstruct muon tracks. The $`𝐁`$ physics triggers at DØ allow to trigger on muons and electrons while a new Level 1 tracking trigger and a Level 2 silicon trigger are under construction.

The CDF detector improvements for Run II  were motivated by the shorter accelerator bunch spacing of up to 132 ns and the increase in luminosity by an order of magnitude. All front-end and trigger electronics has been significantly redesigned and replaced. A DAQ upgrade allows the operation of a pipelined trigger system. CDF’s tracking devices were completely replaced. They consist of a new Central Outer Tracker (COT) with 30,200 sense wires arranged in 96 layers combined into four axial and four stereo superlayers. It also provides d$`𝑬`$/d$`𝒙`$ information for particle identification. The Run II silicon vertex detector, covering a total radial area from 1.5-28 cm, consists of seven double sided layers and one single sided layer mounted on the beampipe. The silicon vertex detector covers the full Tevatron luminous region which has a RMS spread of about 30 cm along the beamline and allows for standalone silicon tracking up to a pseudo-rapidity $`\mathbf{|}𝜼\mathbf{|}`$ of 2. The forward calorimeters have been replaced by a new scintillator tile based plug calorimeter which gives good electron identification up to $`\mathbf{|}𝜼\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The upgrades to the muon system almost double the central muon coverage and extent it up to $`\mathbf{|}𝜼\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.5}`$.

##### 4.3.7.2 Prospects for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing at CDF

The most important improvements for $`𝐁`$ physics at CDF are a Silicon Vertex Trigger (SVT) and a Time-of-Flight (ToF) system with a resolution of about 100 ps. The later employs 216 three-meter-long scintillator bars located between the outer radius of the COT and the superconducting solenoid. More details about the CDF II Time-of-Flight detector and its performance can be found in Ref. . The ToF system will be most beneficiary for the identification of kaons with a 2 $`𝝈`$-separation between $`𝝅`$ and $`𝐊`$ for $`𝒑\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.6}`$ GeV/$`𝒄`$. This will enable CDF to make use of opposite side kaon tagging and allows to identify same side fragmentation kaons accompanying $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons .

In Run I, all $`𝐁`$ physics triggers at CDF were based on leptons including single and dilepton triggers. A newly implemented Silicon Vertex Trigger gives CDF access to purely hadronic $`𝐁`$ decays and makes CDF’s $`𝐁`$ physics program fully competitive with the one at the $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`𝐁`$ factories. The hadronic track trigger is the first of its kind operating successfully at a hadron collider. It works as follows: with a fast track trigger at Level 1, CDF finds track pairs in the COT with $`𝒑_𝑻\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.5}`$ GeV/$`𝒄`$. At Level 2, these tracks are linked into the silicon vertex detector and cuts on the track impact parameter (e.g. $`𝒅\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}𝝁`$m) are applied. The original motivation for CDF’s hadronic track trigger was to select the two tracks from the rare decay $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ but it will play a major role in collecting hadronic $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays for the measurement of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations. Since the beginning of Run II, much work has gone into commissioning the CDF detector. The Silicon Vertex Trigger was fully operational at the beginning of 2002. A detailed discussion of the SVT and its initial performance can be found elsewhere .

The CDF detector upgrades described above play an important role in CDF’s prospects for measuring $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing. The inner layer of silicon mounted on the beampipe improves the time resolution for measuring the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay length from originally $`𝝈_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.060}`$ ps to 0.045 ps. This will be important if $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ is unexpectedly large. The Time-of-Flight system will enhance the effectiveness of $`𝐁`$ flavour tagging, especially through same side tagging with kaons and opposite side kaon tagging, to a total expected $`𝜺𝓓^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{11.3}\mathbf{\%}`$ .

Fig. 4.20 shows the expected event yield of fully reconstructed $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays necessary for a 5 $`𝝈`$ observation of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations as a function of the mixing frequency $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ for different signal-to-background ratios. If the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing frequency is around the current Standard Model expectation of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟖}𝐩𝐬^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (see discussion in Sec. 5.6 of Chapter 5), Fig. 4.20 indicates that CDF would only need a few thousand fully reconstructed $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons to discover $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ flavour oscillations. Originally, CDF estimated to fully reconstruct a signal of about 75,000 $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ events from the two-track hadronic trigger in 2 fb-1 . This assumes all detector components and triggers work as expected. Although with the beginning of 2002, the CDF detector is in stable running conditions operating with reliable physics triggers, including the hadronic two-track trigger, there appear to be indications that the projected event yield might be overestimated. Given this and the small amount of data delivered by the Tevatron and recorded by CDF to date (about 100 pb-1 by the end of 2002) it will take some time until CDF can present first results on $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing .

##### 4.3.7.3 Prospects for $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing at DØ

The major difference for a search of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations at DØ is the collection of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ candidate events. DØ currently does not operate a hadronic track trigger. However, it will be able to collect $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ candidate events using lepton triggers. Various $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decay modes such as $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}𝝂`$ are under investigation by the DØ collaboration. The fully hadronic decay modes can be collected by single lepton triggers where the trigger lepton serves as an opposite side lepton tag and the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ meson is reconstructed on the other side. In this case the event yield is suppressed leaving DØ with a few thousand events of this type in a data sample of 2 fb-1. If the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency is small enough, semileptonic $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays can be used utilizing DØ’s lepton trigger data. But due to the escaping neutrino, the boost resolution is reduced limiting the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ reach. DØ expects to collect about 40,000 events in the semileptonic channel in 2 fb-1. Monte Carlo studies indicate that DØ will be able to measure $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations in this mode up to a mixing frequency of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}`$ ps-1.

### 4.4 Use of the amplitude spectrum for CKM fits

In this Section we discuss how to include $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ information in CKM fits starting from the amplitude spectrum given by the LEP Oscillation Working Group .

The 95% C.L. limit and the sensitivity (see definition in Eq. (63) ), are useful to summarize the results of the analysis. However to include $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ in a CKM fit and to determine probability regions for the Unitarity Triangle parameters, continuous information about the degree of exclusion of a given value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ is needed. We describe how to include this information in both Bayesian and frequentist approaches. The requirements for an optimal method are:

* the method should be independent of the significance of the signal: this criterion is important to avoid switching from one method to another because of the presence (absence) of a significant signal (whose definition is arbitrary);
* the probability regions derived should have correct coverage.

For the discussion in this Section we use the World Average computed by the LEP Oscillation Working Group  and presented a the CKM-Workshop, corresponding to a 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L. lower limit at 15.0 ps-1 and to a sensitivity at 18.0 ps-1.

In Sec. 4.4.1 we review and analyse how to include $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ information for the CKM fits. Sec. 4.4.2 describes the newly-proposed frequentist method for including $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ information in CKM fits.

#### 4.4.1 Review of the available methods. The likelihood ratio method

##### Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ method

The first CKM fits  used the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of the complete amplitude spectrum w.r.t. 1:

$`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑨}{𝝈_𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (66)
The main drawback of this method is that the sign of the deviation of the amplitude with respect to the value $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is not used. A signal might manifest itself by giving an amplitude value simultaneously compatible with $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and incompatible with $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$; in fact, with this method, values of $`𝑨\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (but still compatible with $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$) are disfavoured w.r.t. $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, while it is expected that, because of statistical fluctuations, the amplitude value corresponding to the “true” $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ value could be higher than $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. This problem was solved, in the early days of using $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ in CKM fits, by taking $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ whenever it was in fact higher.

A modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ has been introduced in  to solve the second problem:

$`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝐄𝐫𝐟𝐜}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathrm{𝐄𝐫𝐟𝐜}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑨}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝈_𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (67)
##### Relation between the log-likelihood and the Amplitude

The log-likelihood values can be easily deduced from $`𝑨`$ and $`𝝈_𝑨`$ using the expressions given in :

$`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑨\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝈_𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑨}{𝝈_𝑨}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}𝑨\mathbf{\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝈_𝑨^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (68)
$`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝈_𝑨^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}`$ (69)
$`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐱}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝈_𝑨^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{.}`$ (70)
The last two equations give the average log-likelihood value for $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ corresponding to the true oscillation frequency (mixing case) and for $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ being far from the oscillation frequency ($`\mathbf{|}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{}𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$, no-mixing case). $`𝚪`$ is here the full width at half maximum of the amplitude distribution in case of a signal; typically $`𝚪\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝝉_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$. Fig. 4.21 shows the variation of $`𝚫𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corresponding to the amplitude spectrum of Fig. 4.18(b).

##### Likelihood ratio method $`𝑹`$

Instead of the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ or the modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ methods, the log-likelihood function $`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ can be used: this is the log-likelihood referenced to its value obtained for $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}`$ . The log-likelihood values can easily be deduced from $`𝑨`$ and $`𝝈_𝑨`$, in the Gaussian approximation, by using the expressions given in Eqs.(68), (69), (70). The Likelihood Ratio $`𝑹`$, defined as,

$$𝐑\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{\right)}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝓛\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}}{𝓛\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}$$
(71)
has been adopted in  to incorporate the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ constraint.

##### Comparison between the two methods using the world average amplitude spectrum

The variation of the amplitude as a function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ and the corresponding $`𝚫\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}𝓛^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ value are shown in Fig. 4.22-(a) and (b). The constraints obtained using the Likelihood Ratio method ($`𝑹`$) and the Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ method ($`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) are shown in Fig. 4.22-(c). In this comparison the Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ has been converted to a likelihood using $`𝓛\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$.

It is clear that the two methods ($`𝑹`$ and $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) give very different constraints. In particular the Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ method, with the present World Average, corresponds to a looser constraint for CKM fits (and in particular for the determination of the $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`𝜸`$ parameters).

##### The toy Monte Carlo

In order to test and compare the statistical properties of the two methods it is necessary to generate several experiments having similar characteristics as the data used for the World Average. We will call equivalent those experiments having the same dependence of $`𝝈_𝑨`$ as a function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$.

The dependence of $`𝝈_𝑨`$ on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ can be reproduced by tuning the parameters of a fast simulation (toy-MC). The method used here is similar to the one presented in . The error on the amplitude can be written as:

$`𝝈_𝑨^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝑵}𝜼_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{ϵ}_𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑾\mathbf{(}𝝈_𝑳\mathbf{,}𝝈_𝑷\mathbf{,}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ (72)
where $`𝑵`$ is the total number of events, $`𝜼_{𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}}`$ the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ purity of the sample, $`\mathit{ϵ}_{𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒑\mathbf{)}}`$ the tagging purity at the decay (production) time, $`𝝈_𝑳`$ the uncertainty on the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ flight length and $`𝝈_𝒑`$ the relative uncertainty in the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ momentum. $`𝑾`$ is the function that accounts for the damping of the oscillation due to the finite proper time resolution. The parameters $`𝝈_𝑳`$, $`𝝈_𝒑`$ and the global factor that multiplies the $`𝑾`$ function are obtained by adjusting the simulated error distribution to the one measured with real events. Figure 4.23 shows the agreement between the toy-MC calculation and the real data up to $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (the upper value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ at which amplitudes are given).

An additional problem is that, in principle, one would like to define the likelihood within the interval $`\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{]}`$ whereas the amplitude spectrum is measured only up to a certain value. For the present World Average the value is $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. A procedure has to be introduced to continue $`𝝈_𝑨`$ and $`𝑨`$.

The continuation for $`𝝈_𝑨`$ is shown in Fig.4.23. The continuation of $`𝑨`$ is more delicate. In particular it is more sensitive to the real amplitude spectrum. Nevertheless if $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬}}\mathbf{<<}𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭}}`$, the significance $`𝑺`$ ($`𝑺\mathbf{=}𝑨\mathbf{/}𝝈_𝑨`$) is approximately constant. It is then a good approximation to continue using:

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭}}\mathbf{)}}{𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔^{\mathrm{𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭}}\mathbf{)}}𝝈_𝑨\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(73)
Although this procedure is reasonable, it should be stressed that it is very desirable to have all the amplitudes (with errors) up to the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ value where the significance remains stable.

##### Comparison of the methods in case of an oscillation signal

In this Section we compare the two methods in the presence of a clear $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ oscillation signal. We perform several $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ toy-MC analyses with the same $`𝝈_𝑨`$ versus $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ behaviour as the World Average analysis. For this study we have generated a $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ signal at $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟕}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. This value corresponds to the value where there is the bump in the World Average amplitude spectrum. The statistics of the virtual experiments is much larger than the registered data, at present, so that clear oscillation signals are expected.

The results in Fig. 4.24 show that only the Likelihood Ratio method is able to see the signal at the correct $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ value. The same exercise has been repeated for different generated values of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$, always giving the same result.

##### Test of the coverage of the two methods applied to CKM fits

In the absence of a clear $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation signal, the Likelihood Ratio method results in a $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ range which extends to infinity at any C.L. A criticism was made in  that it is then dangerous to use this information in a CKM fit. The best way to answer this objection is to test the coverage of the probability regions (68%, 95% and 99%) computed by the fit by performing a Monte Carlo simulation.

To do this we have prepared a simplified CKM fit where we measure the quantity $`𝑹_𝒕`$ (see Chapter 1), using only the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ constraints. The set of constraints on the quantity $`𝑹_𝒕`$ is:

$`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (74)
$`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{(or }𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}𝒂^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{)}`$ (75)
where $`𝒂`$ and $`𝒃`$ are Gaussian distributed parameters with errors $`𝝈_𝒂\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`𝝈_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$, thus taking into account the theoretical uncertainties.

Several experiments have been generated, each of them characterized by the following set of parameters:

| $`𝑹_𝒕`$ |  |
| --- | --- |
| $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$ | extracted from the $`𝒂`$ distribution |
| $`𝒃_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$ | extracted from the $`𝒃`$ distribution |
| $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}\mathbf{)}`$ | computed from $`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝒂`$ |
| $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}\mathbf{)}`$ | computed from $`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝒃`$ |
| $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{)}`$ | from $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}\mathbf{)}`$ smeared by the experimental resolution |
| Amplitude spectrum | from a toy-experiment generated with $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}\mathbf{)}`$ |

For each experiment the best-fit value for $`𝑹_𝒕`$ was determined and it was counted how many times it fell inside the $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}\mathbf{\%}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟗}\mathbf{\%}`$ probability regions defined by the Likelihood Ratio and by the Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ methods. This exercise was repeated 1000 times. The measured frequencies for the three probability regions using the Likelihood Ratio or the Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ method are given in Table 4.7 and 4.8 respectively.

For the Likelihood Ratio method the measured frequencies correspond to the confidence level intervals and the coverage is close to correct. This is not the case for the Modified $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ method where the confidence levels are significantly underestimated for the true value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. The effect stems from the fact that the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ defined in Eq. 67 reaches its minimum systematically above the true value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$.

##### Some conclusions

In this first part we have studied the problem of including in CKM fits the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ World Average amplitude spectrum. We have tested two different methods and compared the results in case of an oscillation signal. MC simulations also were performed for a CKM fit to test the coverage of the two methods. The conclusion is that the Likelihood Ratio method, proposed in , is optimal because it gives probability intervals with correct coverage and, in case of a signal, it also gives the correct value of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$.

#### 4.4.2 Use of the amplitude spectrum in a frequentist approach

The aim of this Section is to describe the frequentist method for incorporating experimental constraints derived from the amplitude spectrum as a function of the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillation frequency ($`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$) into a global CKM fit. In other words, we address the questions: what is the pdf of a likelihood measurement of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$, and what is the confidence level (CL) as a function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ to be associated with an observation obtained with a given level of sensitivity?

##### Infinite statistics

We assume that the $`𝒙_𝐬`$ measurement is performed using the log-likelihood. The measured value of $`𝒙_𝐬`$ ($`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$) is defined to be the one maximizing $`𝓛\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$: the outcome of one experiment $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$ is a random number. For infinite statistics, the $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{=}𝚫𝑴_𝒔𝝉_𝒃`$ random number follows a (leading-order: lo) Gaussian probability density function:

$$𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}^{𝒙_𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅}𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}}\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝐬}{𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(76)
where the standard deviation $`𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ is given by the second derivative of the expected $`𝓛`$, through the integral $`𝐀`$

$`\mathbf{(}\sqrt{𝑵}𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}{\overset{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\dot{𝐏}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐏_{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\dot{𝐏}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐏_\mathbf{+}}}\mathbf{\right)}𝐝𝒕_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{}𝐀\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ (77)
$`\dot{𝐏}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝐏_\mathbf{\pm }}{\mathbf{}𝒙_𝐬}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒇_𝐬{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝒅𝒕\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒆^\mathbf{}𝒕\mathbf{}𝐆_𝐭`$ (78)
$`𝑵`$ is the total number of mixed and unmixed events and the integrals are performed using the true value of $`𝒙_𝐬`$, not the measured one. It follows from Eq. (76) that one may set a confidence level $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}`$ on a given hypothetical value $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}`$ using the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ law:

$`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{<}}{\mathbf{}}}𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}^{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝐬}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝐝𝒙_{𝐬}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛}\mathbf{(}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ (79)
$`𝝌\mathbf{}𝝌^{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}{𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}}}`$ (80)
where the integral is performed over the $`𝒙_{𝐬}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ domain where $`𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}^{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝐬}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}^{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}`$, that is to say where $`\mathbf{|}𝝌^{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{𝐬}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{|}𝝌^{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}`$.

If the log-likelihood is parabolic near its maximum, as is the case for infinite statistics, then, in the vicinity of $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$, $`𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐬𝐭}\mathbf{=}𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}`$, and one can evaluate $`𝚺`$ as the second derivative of the experimental log-likelihood, taken at the measured value $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$. In effect:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝓛}{\mathbf{}𝒙_{𝐬}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}_{\mathbf{}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{=}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{𝐏}_{\mathbf{}}𝐏_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\dot{𝐏}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐏_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{+}}{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{𝐏}_\mathbf{+}𝐏_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\dot{𝐏}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝐏_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (81)
$`\stackrel{𝑵\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{=}}`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑵𝐀\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝚺^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (82)
where $`\ddot{𝐏}_\mathbf{\pm }`$ denotes the second derivative with respect to $`𝒙_𝐬`$:

$$\ddot{𝐏}_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathbf{}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐏_\mathbf{\pm }}{\mathbf{}𝒙_{𝐬}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒇_𝐬\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒅𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬𝒕\mathbf{)}𝒆^\mathbf{}𝒕\mathbf{}𝐆_𝐭$$
(83)
which does not appear in the final expression thanks to the normalization of the probability density function, and assuming that $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{=}𝒙_𝐬`$ (which is true for infinite statistics).

Equivalently, one can evaluate $`𝚺`$ by locating the value of $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}`$ which yields a drop of $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in the log-likelihood, for the experiment at hand, or one can compute the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ directly using the approximation

$$𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}}{𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝓛\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓛\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝌}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}$$
(84)
##### Finite statistics

For large enough $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}`$, the approximation $`𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}`$ breaks down since the sensitivity of the experiment vanishes: $`𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ for $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ . It follows that the likelihood is not parabolic for large enough $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}`$, however large the statistics.

The vanishing sensitivity makes $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, as defined by Eq. (80), a poor test statistic to probe for large $`𝒙_𝐬`$ values. Furthermore, it is not a straightforward task to infer the correct $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐡𝐲𝐩}}\mathbf{)}`$ from the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ value: Eq. (79) does not apply (i.e., it is not a true $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$) because Eq. (76) is a poor approximation\**\**\**The redefinition of the $`\chi ^2`$ using the right-hand side of Eq. (84) provides a test statistic more appropriate for large values of $`x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}}`$. Although Eq. (79) does not apply, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2`$ is capable of ruling out $`x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}}`$ values lying beyond the sensitivity reach (if $`(x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{mes}})`$ is large enough) provided one computes the CL using:
$$\mathrm{CL}(x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}})=\underset{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2(x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}})}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}}}(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2)d\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2$$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}}}`$ is the probability density function of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^2`$ test statistic, for $`x_\mathrm{s}=x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}}`$, obtained using a toy Monte Carlo. The rejection of $`x_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{hyp}}`$ values beyond the sensitivity reach is not a paradox: it uses the fact that large values are unlikely to yield an indication of a clear signal, especially at low values of $`x_\mathrm{s}`$. Such a treatment, as well as others (e.g., the minimum value of the likelihood could be used to define another test statistics) are satisfactory. We prefer here to use $`x_s^{\mathrm{mes}}`$, and only this quantity, because an analytical expression for its probability density function is available (Eq. 85) and thus the computation of the CL can be carried out in practice. This is nothing but the standard choice made when dealing with better defined measurements..

In the realistic case of finite statistics, the next-to-leading order statistical analysis of a likelihood measurement  is used here to obtain the key-formula expressing the probability density function of the random number $`𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$ beyond the Gaussian approximation:

$`𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐧𝐥𝐨}}^{𝒙_𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}^{𝒙_𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}\mathbf{)}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝐚_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒙_𝐬}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝐚_{\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒙_𝐬}𝝌\mathbf{)}`$ (85)
$`𝐚_{\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒙_𝐬}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐂\text{ }}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝐀}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\sqrt{𝑵𝐀}}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\dot{𝚺}`$ (86)
$`𝐚_{\mathrm{𝟑}}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝒙_𝐬}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟑}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐂\text{ }}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝐀}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\sqrt{𝑵𝐀}}}`$ (87)
where $`𝐀\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ is the integral defined in Eq. (77), $`𝐁\mathbf{(}𝐱_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝐂\text{ }\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ being two new integrals:

$`𝑩\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}{\overset{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{𝐏}_{\mathbf{}}\ddot{𝐏}_{\mathbf{}}}{𝐏_{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{𝐏}_\mathbf{+}\ddot{𝐏}_\mathbf{+}}{𝐏_\mathbf{+}}}\mathbf{\right)}𝐝𝒕_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$ (88)
$`𝑪\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathbf{}\mathbf{}}{\overset{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}}}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\dot{𝐏}_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝐏_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{(}\dot{𝐏}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{𝐏_\mathbf{+}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}𝐝𝒕_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐞𝐬}}`$ (89)
The integral $`𝐂\text{ }`$ tends to be small because, on the one hand the two contributions have opposite signs, and on the other hand the denominator is of order two: it follows that $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝐚_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The right hand side of Eq. (86) links the next-to-leading order correction terms $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ to the dependence on $`𝒙_𝐬`$ of $`𝚺`$. When $`𝚺`$ depends significantly on $`𝒙_𝐬`$, not only is the standard treatment of Sec. 4.4.2 invalid, but the well-known formula Eq. (79) itself becomes incorrect, even if one uses the correct $`𝚺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝐬\mathbf{)}`$.

The expression Eq. (85) is identical to Eq. (76) for small $`𝝌`$ values. Although it extends the range of validity to larger $`𝝌`$ values, it cannot be trusted too far away from the origin, where higher order corrections start to play a role. In particular, $`𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐧𝐥𝐨}}`$ becomes negative (hence meaningless) for $`𝝌\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}𝐚_{\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ ($`𝐚_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is negative since it is equal to minus the derivative of $`𝚺`$ with respect to $`𝒙_𝐬`$). Since $`𝚽`$ is sizable only when $`𝝌\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ the next-to-leading order terms, when relevant, are of the form $`𝑵^{\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐬}\mathbf{)}`$: they are negligible for large enough $`𝑵`$ and for small enough ratio of integrals. The double-sided CL is computed as in Eq. (79), replacing $`𝚽_{\mathrm{𝐥𝐨}}`$ by the next-to-leading order approximation. Using the right hand side of Eq. (79) to translate the confidence level thus obtained into a more familiar equivalent††††††In the CKMfitter package, it is this equivalent $`\chi ^2`$ which is added to the overall $`\chi ^2`$. $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, one obtains the results shown in Fig. (4.25) in two cases: first for the actual situation using the parametrization of the world average likelihood as described in Sec. 4.4.1 where the maximum of the likelihood is reached at the boundary of the experimental sensitivity; second for a hypothetical situation where the maximum of the likelihood would be reached well within the sensitivity region.

In conclusion, we have presented a frequentist analysis of the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ oscillation. Its domain of validity extends to the level of sensitivity reached by LEP and SLD. The treatment presented here provides, in a frequentist approach, a practical means to incorporate into a CKM fit the information on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ contained in the data, both present and future.

### References

1. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and P.H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B 347 (1990) 491.
2. A.J. Buras, W. Slominski and H. Steger, Nucl. Phys. B 245 (1984) 369.
3. S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys. B 419 (1994) 292, \[hep-ph/9310311\].
4. S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6505, \[hep-ph/9507262\].
5. S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys. B 476 (1996) 27, \[hep-ph/9604330\].
6. M. Jamin and U. Nierste (2003). Recent update for this document.
7. E. de Rafael, in Proceedings of TASI 1994 (1995), hep-ph/9502254.
8. J. Urban, F. Krauss, U. Jentschura and G. Soff, Nucl. Phys. B 523 (1998) 40, \[hep-ph/9710245\].
9. M. Ciuchini et al., JHEP 07 (2001) 013, \[hep-ph/0012308\].
10. C. Bernard et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 412, \[hep-lat/0110072\].
11. MILC Collaboration, C. Bernard et al., hep-lat/0209163.
12. C. Bernard et al., in Proceedings of Lattice 2002 (2002) hep-lat/0209086.
13. M.J. Booth, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 2338, \[hep-ph/9411433\].
14. A.S. Kronfeld and S.M. Ryan, Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 59, \[hep-ph/0206058\].
15. JLQCD Collaboration, N. Yamada et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 106 (2002) 397, \[hep-lat/0110087\].
16. N. Yamada, in Proceedings of 20th Int. Symp. on Lattice Field Theory, Lattice 2002, Boston, June 2002 (2002) hep-lat/0210035.
17. MILC Collaboration, C. Bernard et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 094501, \[hep-lat/0206016\].
18. D. Becirevic, S. Fajfer, S. Prelovsek and J. Zupan, hep-ph/0211271.
19. S.R. Sharpe and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 5125, \[hep-lat/9510037\].
20. A.V. Manohar and M.B. Wise, Heavy Quark Physics, vol. 10 of Cambridge Monographs on Particle Physics, Nuclear Physics and Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
21. CLEO Collaboration, S. Ahmed et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251801, \[hep-ex/0108013\].
22. UKQCD Collaboration, G.M. de Divitiis et al., JHEP 10 (1998) 010, \[hep-lat/9807032\].
23. A. Abada et al., hep-lat/0209092.
24. JLQCD Collaboration, S. Hashimoto et al., hep-lat/0209091.
25. L. Lellouch, in Proceedings of ICHEP 2002, 31st Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics, Amsterdam, July 2002, hep-ph/0211359.
26. D. Becirevic et al., Nucl. Phys. B 618 (2001) 241, \[hep-lat/0002025\].
27. UKQCD Collaboration, L. Lellouch and C.J.D. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 094501, \[hep-ph/0011086\].
28. UKQCD Collaboration, K.C. Bowler et al., Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 507, \[hep-lat/0007020\].
29. A.X. El-Khadra et al., Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 014506, \[hep-ph/9711426\].
30. CP-PACS Collaboration, A. Ali Khan et al., Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 034505, \[hep-lat/0010009\].
31. A. Ali Khan et al., Phys. Lett. B 427 (1998) 132, \[hep-lat/9801038\].
32. S. Collins et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 074504, \[hep-lat/9901001\].
33. JLQCD Collaboration, K.I. Ishikawa et al., Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 074501, \[hep-lat/9905036\].
34. CP-PACS Collaboration, A. Ali Khan et al., Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 054504, \[hep-lat/0103020\].
35. C.W. Bernard, T. Blum and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 014501, \[hep-lat/9801039\].
36. M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 385.
37. M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein and V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147 (1979) 448.
38. A.A. Penin and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054006, \[hep-ph/0108110\].
39. M. Jamin and B.O. Lange, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 056005, \[hep-ph/0108135\].
40. S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 520 (2001) 115, \[hep-ph/0108242\].
41. P. Colangelo and A. Khodjamirian, hep-ph/0010175.
42. K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 502 (2001) 104, \[hep-ph/0012002\].
43. K.G. Chetyrkin and M. Steinhauser, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 319, \[hep-ph/0108017\].
44. M. Jamin, Phys. Lett. B 538 (2002) 71, \[hep-ph/0201174\].
45. A.X. El-Khadra and M. Luke, hep-ph/0208114.
46. A.A. Ovchinnikov and A.A. Pivovarov, Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 333.
47. L.J. Reinders and S. Yazaki, Phys. Lett. B 212 (1988) 245.
48. S. Narison and A.A. Pivovarov, Phys. Lett. B 327 (1994) 341, \[hep-ph/9403225\].
49. K. Hagiwara, S. Narison and D. Nomura, Phys. Lett. B 540 (2002) 233, \[hep-ph/0205092\].
50. V. Chernyak, Nucl. Phys. B 457 (1995) 96 \[hep-ph/9503208\].
51. N. Cabibbo, G. Martinelli and R. Petronzio, Nucl. Phys. B 244 (1984) 381.
52. R.C. Brower, G. Maturana, M. Belen Gavela and R. Gupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 1318.
53. C.W. Bernard, in Proceedings of Gauge Theory On A Lattice, Argonne (1984), p. 85.
54. C.W. Bernard et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 55 (1985) 2770.
55. M.B. Gavela et al., Nucl. Phys. B 306 (1988) 677.
56. Staggered Collaboration, G. Kilcup, R. Gupta and S.R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 1654, \[hep-lat/9707006\].
57. JLQCD Collaboration, S. Aoki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 5271, \[hep-lat/9710073\].
58. SPQCDR Collaboration, D. Becirevic et al., \[hep-lat/0209136\].
59. CP-PACS Collaboration, A. Ali Khan et al., Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 114506, \[hep-lat/0105020\].
60. RBC Collaboration, T. Blum et al., hep-lat/0110075.
61. MILC Collaboration, T. DeGrand, hep-lat/0208054.
62. GGHLR Collaboration, N. Garron et al., hep-lat/0212015.
63. T. Blum and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 3595, \[hep-lat/9706023\].
64. M. Guagnelli et al., hep-lat/0110097.
65. N. Ishizuka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 24.
66. G. Kilcup, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 1677.
67. S. Sharpe, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 53 (1997) 181, \[hep-lat/9609029\].
68. J. Bijnens, H. Sonoda and M.B. Wise, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 2367.
69. S.R. Sharpe, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 3146, \[hep-lat/9205020\].
70. S.R. Sharpe, hep-ph/9412243.
71. M.F.L. Golterman and K.C. Leung, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 5703, \[hep-lat/9711033\].
72. J. Prades et al., Z. Phys. C 51 (1991) 287.
73. M. Jamin and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. B 425 (1994) 15, \[hep-ph/9402363\].
74. S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 351 (1995) 369, \[hep-ph/9409428\].
75. L.J. Reinders and S. Yazaki, Nucl. Phys. B 288 (1987) 789.
76. N. Bilic, C.A. Dominguez and B. Guberina, Z. Phys. C 39 (1988) 351.
77. W. Bardeen, A. Buras and J.M. Gérard, Phys. Lett. 211 (1988) 343.
78. T. Hambye, G.O. Köhler and P.H. Soldan, Eur. Phys. J. C 10 (1999) 271, \[hep-ph/9902334\].
79. S. Peris and E. de Rafael, Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 213, \[hep-ph/0006146\].
80. J. Bijnens and J. Prades, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2000) 002, \[hep-ph/9909244\].
81. S. Bertolini, J.O. Eeg, M. Fabbrichesi and E.I. Lashin, Nucl. Phys. B 514 (1998) 63, \[hep-ph/9705244\].
82. A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and P.H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B  347 (1990) 491.
83. J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and B.R. Holstein, Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 412.
84. LEP/SLD Electroweak Working Group, CERN-EP/2001-021.
85. LEP/SLD/CDF Collaborations, CERN-EP/2001-050.
86. DELPHI Collaborations, EPS-HEP99, contributed paper 5.515.
87. The LEP B Oscillation Working Group, http://www.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.
88. M. Gronau, A. Nippe and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 1988, \[hep-ph/9211311\].
89. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 (1998) 2057, \[hep-ex/9712004\].
90. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 032001, \[hep-ex/9806026\].
91. P.C. Rowson, D. Su and S. Willocq, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 51 (2001) 345, \[hep-ph/0110168\].
92. SLD Collaboration (1996). SLAC-PUB-7228, contribution to ICHEP96 Warsaw.
93. SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., SLAC-PUB-7229, contribution to ICHEP96 Warsaw.
94. SLD Collaboration, SLAC-PUB-7230, contribution to ICHEP96 Warsaw.
95. J.L. Wittlin (2001). Ph.D. thesis, SLAC-R-582.
96. ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 4 (1998) 367.
97. ALEPH Collaboration, R. Barate et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 7 (1999) 553, \[hep-ex/9811018\].
98. DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2000) 229, \[hep-ex/0105077\].
99. DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000) 555, \[hep-ex/0107077\].
100. OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al., Z. Phys. C 76 (1997) 417, \[hep-ex/9707010\].
101. OPAL Collaboration, K. Ackerstaff et al., Z. Phys. C 76 (1997) 401, \[hep-ex/9707009\].
102. J. Thom, SLAC-R-585 (2002).
103. CDF Collaboration, M. Paulini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14 (1999) 2791, \[hep-ex/9903002\].
104. BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091801, \[hep-ex/0107013\].
105. Belle Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091802, \[hep-ex/0107061\].
106. H.G. Moser and A. Roussarie, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 384 (1997) 491.
107. BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 221802, \[hep-ex/0112044\].
108. Belle Collaboration, T. Tomura et al., Phys. Lett. B 542 (2002) 207, \[hep-ex/0207022\].
109. BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., \[hep-ex/0212017\].
110. Belle Collaboration, K. Hara et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 251803, \[hep-ex/0207045\].
111. CDF Collaboration, T. Affolder et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 112004, \[hep-ex/9907053\].
112. OPAL Collaboration, G. Alexander et al., Z. Phys. C 72 (1996) 377.
113. ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al., Z. Phys. C 75 (1997) 397.
114. DELPHI Collaboration, P. Abreu et al., Z. Phys. C 76 (1997) 579.
115. OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Phys. Lett. B 493 (2000) 266, \[hep-ex/0010013\].
116. Belle Collaboration, Y. Zheng et al., to appear in Phys. ReV. D, \[hep-ex/0211065\].
117. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 051101.
118. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 072003, \[hep-ex/9903011\].
119. L3 Collaboration, M. Acciarri et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 5 (1998) 195.
120. BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 221803, \[hep-ex/0112045\].
121. Belle Collaboration, N. Hastings et al.,to appear in Phys. Rev. D, \[hep-ex/0212033\].
122. DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al., CERN-EP-2002-078.
123. ALEPH Collaboration, D. Buskulic et al., ALEPH-97/027, contribution to EPS-HEP97 Jerusalem.
124. ALEPH Collaboration, A. Heister et al., CERN-EP-2002-016.
125. CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 3576.
126. DELPHI Collaboration, J. Abdallah et al. DELPHI 2002-073, contribution to ICHEP 2002 Amsterdam.
127. OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 19 (2001) 241, \[hep-ex/0011052\].
128. SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 032009, \[hep-ex/0207048\].
129. OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 11 (1999) 587, \[hep-ex/9907061\].
130. SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., SLAC-PUB-8568, \[hep-ex/0012043\].
131. SLD Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 012006, \[hep-ex/0209002\].
132. ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht et al., Z. Phys. C 55 (1992) 357.
133. ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht et al., Phys. Lett. B 324 (1994) 249.
134. CLEO Collaboration, J. Bartelt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 (1993) 1680.
135. CLEO Collaboration, B.H. Behrens et al., Phys. Lett. B 490 (2000) 36, \[hep-ex/0005013\].
136. DELPHI Collaboration, W. Adam et al., Phys. Lett. B 414 (1997) 382.
137. Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001.
138. CDF-II Collaboration, R. Blair et al., FERMILAB-PUB-96-390-E.
139. D0 Collaboration, J. Ellison, prepared for 15th International Workshop on High-Energy Physics and Quantum Field Theory (QFTHEP 2000), Tver, Russia, 14-20 Sep 2000.
140. S. Cabrera et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 494 (2002) 416.
141. C. Grozis et al., hep-ex/0209027.
142. CDF Collaboration, A. Cerri, presented at 31st International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 2002), Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 24-31 Jul 2002.
143. CDF Collaboration, D. Lucchesi, presented at Beauty 2002: 8th International Conference on B Physics at Hadron machines, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 17-21 Jun 2002.
144. K. Anikeev et al., hep-ph/0201071.
145. CDF Collaboration, M. Paulini, hep-ex/0302016.
146. P. Paganini, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Phys. Scripta 58 (1998) 556, \[hep-ph/9711261\].
147. Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, S. Plaszczynski and M.H. Schune, Nucl. Phys. B 511 (1998) 69, \[hep-ph/9709288\].
148. F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Nuovo Cim. A 112 (1999) 833, \[hep-ex/9903063\].
149. A. Hoecker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace and F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 225, \[hep-ph/0104062\].
150. P. Checchia, E. Piotto and F. Simonetto (1999), hep-ph/9907300.
151. M. Ciuchini et al., JHEP 07 (2001) 013, \[hep-ph/0012308\].
152. G. Boix and D. Abbaneo, JHEP 08 (1999) 004, \[hep-ex/9909033\].
153. R.N. Cahn, Private communication.

## Chapter 5 FIT OF THE UNITARITY TRIANGLE PARAMETERS

Conveners : A.J. Buras, F. Parodi.
Contributors : M. Ciuchini, G. Dubois-Felsmann, G. Eigen, P. Faccioli, E. Franco, A. Hocker, D. Hitlin, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, F. LeDiberder, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Porter, P. Roudeau, L. Silvestrini, A. Stocchi, M. Villa

### 5.1 Introduction

In this Chapter we will discuss the determination of the Unitarity Triangle (UT) using as input the values of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from Chapters 2 and 3 and the constraints from $`𝜺_𝑲`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ with the values of the non-perturbative parameters $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$, $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$, $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}`$ and $`𝝃`$ determined in Chapter 4. We will also include in this analysis the most recent results for the CP asymmetry in $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝑺`$ that allows to determine the angle $`𝜷`$ of the UT essentially without any theoretical uncertainty. The list of the common quantities which have been used for the analyses performed in this Chapter are summarised in Table 5.1.

A very important issue in constraining the apex $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ of the UT is the treatment of the experimental and especially the theoretical uncertainties. In the literature five different approaches can be found: Gaussian approach , Bayesian approach , frequentist approach , $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L. scan method  and the simple (naive) scanning within one standard deviation. Moreover the fact that different authors often use different input parameters makes the comparison of various analyses very difficult.

This situation is clearly unsatisfactory as different analyses give generally different allowed ranges for $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. While all these analyses find presently the SM consistent with all the available data, the situation may change in the future when the experimental and theoretical uncertainties will be reduced and additional decays relevant for the determination of the UT will be available.

It is then conceivable that some approaches will find the SM consistent with the data whereas other will claim an indication for new physics contributions. This clearly would be rather unfortunate. However, even in the absence of new physics contributions, the increasing accuracy of the data and the expected reduction of theoretical uncertainties calls for an extensive comparison of the different methods to gain the best understanding on the UT.

Another important issue is the sensitivity of the UT analysis to theoretical uncertainties. Some theoretical parameters have more impact on this analysis than others and it is important to identify those for which the reduction of errors through improved non-perturbative calculations can contribute to the quality of the determination of the UT most efficiently.

The goals of this Chapter are:

* to describe in some detail two of the most developed methods: the Bayesian approach and the frequentist approach,
* to compare the resulting allowed regions for $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ obtained from the Bayesian and frequentist approaches for the same input parameters,
* to identify those non-perturbative parameters for which the reduction of the uncertainty is most urgent.

This Chapter is organized as follows. In Section 5.2 we express the constraints from $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`𝜺_𝑲`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}`$ in terms of Wolfenstein parameters  including the generalization of . The Bayesian method and the frequentist methods are discussed in Sections 5.3.1 and 5.3.2, respectively. The discussion in the frequentist case includes the Rfit and the scanning methods. In Section 5.4 the impact of the uncertainties of theoretical parameters on the determination of the UT is discussed in detail using both the Bayesian approach and the scanning method. Finally in Section 5.5 we compare the Bayesian and Rfit methods and draw conclusions. In Section 5.6 we show some important results obtained in testing the consistency of the CKM picture of the Standard Model.

### 5.2 Constraints on the Unitarity Triangle parameters

Five measurements restrict at present the range of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ within the SM:

* The $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ constraint:
The length of the side AC of the UT (see Fig. 5.1) is determined from

$$𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}}{𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{.}$$
(1)
The constraint in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane resulting from (1) is represented by a circle of radius $`𝑹_𝒃`$ that is centered at $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ ( for the visualisation of this and following constraints see Fig. 5.1).
* The $`𝜺_𝑲`$–constraint:

$$\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{)}𝑨^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}𝑺\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑷_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝜺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}𝑨^\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.187}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathbf{0.224}}{𝝀}\mathbf{\right)}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{,}$$
(2)
that follows from the experimental value for $`𝜺_𝑲`$ and the formula (Eq. (12) of Chapter 4). Here

$$𝑷_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝜺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\left[}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}𝒙_𝒄\mathbf{\right]}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{𝒎_𝐭^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴_𝐖^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(3)
$`𝑷_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝜺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.29}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$  summarizes the contributions of box diagrams with two charm quark exchanges and the mixed charm-top exchanges. We observe a very strong dependence of the r.h.s. in (2) on the parameter $`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$. However, this dependence is cancelled to a large extent by the $`𝝀`$ dependence of $`𝑷_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝜺\mathbf{)}`$ and of $`𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ that enter the l.h.s of (2). The main uncertainties in the constraint (2) reside then in $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ and to some extent in the factor $`𝑨^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ or equivalently $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ which multiplies the dominant term. The status of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ has been reviewed in Chapter 4. Eq. (2) specifies an hyperbola in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane. This hyperbola intersects the circle found from the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ constraint in two points which correspond to two solutions for the angle $`𝜸`$.
* The $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$–constraint:
The length $`𝑹_𝒕`$ of the side AB of the UT (see Fig. 5.1) can be determined from the observed $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing, parametrized by $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and given in Eq. 22 (in Chapter 4), with the result

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.85}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}}{\mathbf{7.8}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathbf{0.041}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(4)
where

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7.8}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟎}\text{MeV}}{\sqrt{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}}\mathbf{\right]}\sqrt{\frac{𝚫𝑴_𝒅}{\mathbf{0.50}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{0.55}}{𝜼_𝑩}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{2.34}}{𝑺_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{.}$$
(5)
Since $`𝒎_𝐭`$, $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and $`𝜼_𝑩`$ are already rather precisely known, the main uncertainty in the determination of $`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing comes from $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$. Its theoretical status has been reviewed in Chapter 4. $`𝑹_𝒕`$ suffers from additional uncertainty in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. The constraint in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane resulting from (4) is represented by a circle of radius $`𝑹_𝒕`$ that is centered at $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$.
* The $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$–constraint:
The measurement of $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing parametrized by $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ together with $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ allows to determine $`𝑹_𝒕`$ in a different manner:

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀}𝝃\sqrt{\frac{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒔}}{𝑴_{𝐁_𝒅}}}\sqrt{\frac{𝚫𝑴_𝒔}{𝚫𝑴_𝒅}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝝃\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_𝒔}}{𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_𝒅}}\mathbf{.}$$
(6)
This constraint follows from Eq. (22) (in Chapter 4) with the factor $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ representing the departure of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from unity. For $`\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}`$ this factor deviates from unity by less than $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\%}`$. Neglecting this correction gives ($`𝝀\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.224}`$)

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.86}\sqrt{\frac{𝚫𝑴_𝒅}{\mathbf{0.50}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathbf{18.4}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}}{𝚫𝑴_𝒔}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝝃}{\mathbf{1.18}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)
The advantage of determining $`𝑹_𝒕`$ by means of the ratio $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ with respect to the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ constraint are smaller hadronic uncertainties in $`𝝃`$ than in $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_𝒅}`$ and the absence of $`𝒎_𝒕`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ dependence. The present status of $`𝝃`$ has been reviewed in Chapter 4.
* The $`𝒂\mathbf{(}𝝍𝑲_𝑺\mathbf{)}`$–constraint:
The mixing induced CP asymmetry $`𝒂_{𝝍𝑲_𝑺}`$ in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝍𝐊_𝐒`$ allows to determine the angle $`𝜷`$ of the UT essentially without any hadronic uncertainties through

$$\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}_{𝝍𝑲_𝑺}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.734}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.054}\mathbf{.}$$
(8)
The value given in (8) is the world average from  and is dominated by the results of the BaBar  and Belle  Collaborations.

### 5.3 Statistical methods for CKM fits

In this Section we describe the basic ingredients for the different statistical approaches. The plots and the results presented here have to be taken as illustrations of the methods. Quantitative results and comparisons are given in the next Sections.

#### 5.3.1 Bayesian methods

In this Section we describe the basic ingredients of the Bayesian approach and discuss the role of the systematic and theoretical uncertainties in deriving probability intervals for the relevant parameters.

Each of Eqs. (1, 2, 4, 6, 8) relates a constraint $`𝒄_𝒋`$ to the parameters $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$, via the set of additional parameters $`𝐱`$, where $`𝐱\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}𝒙_𝑵\mathbf{\}}`$ stand for all experimentally determined or theoretically calculated quantities on which the various $`𝒄_𝒋`$ depend ($`𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝝃`$ …)

$$𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{=}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{;}𝐱\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(9)
In an ideal case of exact knowledge of $`𝒄_𝒋`$ and $`𝐱`$, each of the constraints provides a curve in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane. In a realistic case, the analysis suffers from several uncertainties on the quantities $`𝒄_𝒋`$ and $`𝐱`$. This means that, instead of a single curve (9) in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane, we have a family of curves which depends on the distribution of the set $`\mathbf{\{}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{\}}`$. As a result, the points in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane get different weights (even if they were taken to be equally probable a priori) and the confidence on the values of $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ clusters in a region of the plane.

The above arguments can be formalized by using the so called Bayesian approach (see  for an introduction). In this approach, the uncertainty is described in terms of a probability density function (pdf) which quantifies the confidence on the values of a given quantity. Applying Bayes Theorem in the case of a single constraint we obtain

$`𝒇\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{|}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝒇\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{|}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}`$ (10)
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝒇\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{|}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{|}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐱\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ (11)
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝒇\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{|}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐱\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}`$ (12)
where $`\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋`$ is the experimental best estimate of $`𝒄_𝒋`$ and $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ denotes the prior distribution.

The various steps follow from probability rules, by assuming the independence of the different quantities and by noting that $`\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋`$ depends on ($`\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱`$) only via $`𝒄_𝒋`$. This is true since $`𝒄_𝒋`$ is unambiguously determined, within the Standard Model, from the values of $`\overline{𝝆}`$, $`\overline{𝜼}`$ and $`𝐱`$.

The extension of the formalism to several constraints is straightforward. We can rewrite Eq. (10) as

$`𝒇\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{|}\widehat{𝒄}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}\widehat{𝒄}_𝐌\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐌}{\mathbf{}}}𝒇_𝒋\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{|}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐍}{\mathbf{}}}𝒇_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒊\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$ (13)
M and N run over the constraints and the parameters respectively. In the derivation of (13), we have used the independence of the different quantities. By integrating Eq. (13) over $`𝐱`$ we obtain

$$𝒇\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{|}\widehat{𝐜}\mathbf{,}𝐟\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓛\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝐜}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐟\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{𝐜}`$ stands for the set of measured constraints, and

$$𝓛\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝐜}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐟\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\underset{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐌}{\mathbf{}}𝒇_𝒋\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{|}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}\underset{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐍}{\mathbf{}}𝒇_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒊\mathbf{)}\text{d}𝒙_𝒊$$
(15)
is the effective overall likelihood which takes into account all possible values of $`𝒙_𝒋`$, properly weighted. We have written explicitly that the overall likelihood depends on the best knowledge of all $`𝒙_𝒊`$, described by $`𝒇\mathbf{(}𝐱\mathbf{)}`$. Whereas a priori all values for $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ are considered equally likely ($`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$=cst), a posteriori the probability clusters around the point which maximizes the likelihood.

In conclusion, the final (unnormalized) pdf obtained starting from a uniform pdf for $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ is

$$𝒇\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\underset{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐌}{\mathbf{}}𝒇_𝒋\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{|}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{,}𝐱\mathbf{)}\underset{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝐍}{\mathbf{}}𝒇_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒊\mathbf{)}\text{d}𝒙_𝒊\mathbf{.}$$
(16)
The integration can be performed by Monte Carlo methods and the normalization is trivial. Starting from the pdf for $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$, probability regions $`𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$ are defined by the conditions:

$`\begin{array}{c}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}\text{ if }𝒇\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{>}𝒛_𝒘\hfill \\ \mathbf{}_{𝑷\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}}𝒇\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}𝒅\overline{𝝆}𝒅\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}𝒘\hfill \end{array}`$
An example of the typical output of this fit approach is shown in Fig. 5.2 where the probability regions at 68$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ are shown together with the experimental constraints.

It is important to note that this method does not make any distinction on whether the individual likelihood associated with some constraint is different from zero only in a narrow region (and we usually refer to this case as “measurement”), or if it goes to zero only on one side (e.g. when $`𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$). In the latter case, the data only provide an upper/lower bound to the value of the constraint. This is precisely what happens, at present, with $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$. Therefore, the experimental information about this constraint enters naturally in the analysis.

One of the feature of the Bayesian approach is that there is no conceptual distinction between the uncertainty due to random fluctuations, which might have occurred in the measuring process, the uncertainty about the parameters of the theory, and the uncertainty about systematics of not-exactly-known value, which can be both of experimental or theoretical origin (in the Bayesian jargon there are often indicated as influence parameters).

We can simply extend the notation to include in $`𝐱`$ these influence parameters responsible for the systematic uncertainty, and use Eq. (15) in an extended way. Irrespectively of the assumptions made on the pdf of $`𝐱`$, the overall likelihoods $`𝒇\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝒄}_𝒋\mathbf{)}`$ are approximately Gaussian because of a mechanism similar to the central limit theorem (i.e. just a matter of combinatorics). This makes the results largely stable against variations within choices of the distributions used to describe the uncertainties due to theory or systematics. For this reason we simplify the problem, by reducing the choice to only two possibilities. We choose a Gaussian model when the uncertainty is dominated by statistical effects, or there are many comparable contributions to the systematic errors, so that the central limit theorem applies ($`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$). We choose a uniform pdf if the parameter is believed to be (almost) certainly in a given interval, and the points inside this interval are considered as equally probable. The second model is applied to some theoretical uncertainties. $`𝓤\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$ for $`𝒙\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{]}`$ and $`𝓤\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ elsewhere. The combined pdf $`𝓟`$ is then obtained by convoluting the Gaussian pdf $`𝓖`$ with the uniform pdf $`𝓤`$: $`𝓟\mathbf{=}𝓖\mathbf{}𝓤`$. When several determinations of the same quantity are available, the final p.d.f, in the Bayesian approach, is obtained by the product of the single pdfs.

An important point is how to evaluate the compatibility among individual constraints. In the CKM fits based on $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimization, a conventional evaluation of compatibility stems automatically from the value of the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ at its minimum.

The compatibility between constraints in the Bayesian method is evaluated by comparing partial pdfs obtained when removing each constraint at a time. The integral over the overlap between the pdf with and without a given constraint quantifies the compatibility. In case of poor overlap the difference $`𝚫_𝒋`$ between the two pdfs can be determined, for each constraint $`𝒄_𝒋`$, by substituting

$$𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{}𝒄_𝒋\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫_𝒋\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(18)
Further investigation (based on physics and not on statistics) will be necessary to tell if the difference $`𝚫_𝒋`$ comes from an incorrect evaluation of the input parameters or from new physics.

#### 5.3.2 Frequentist methods

As said in the introduction theoretical quantities play an important role in the formulae relating the measured quantities to the UT parameters. These quantities are often inferred from theoretical calculations with uncertainties which can be associated to approximations. Uncertainties due to approximations are often estimated from more or less educated guesswork. For example, we recall that i) The quenched approximation in Lattice QCD calculations; ii) Model calculations of form factors where model parameters are varied within some range; iii) Higher order terms neglected in a power series for which the error is estimated from the “natural size” of the expansion parameter or a scale dependence in a perturbative series where the error is estimated by varying the scale within some reasonable range. This has driven the developments of statistical approaches based on a frequentist understanding of systematic theoretical uncertainties, which cannot be treated as statistically distributed quantities.

In this framework two approaches are presented: the Rfit method and the Scanning method. In both methods, the “theoretically allowed” values for some theoretical parameters are “scanned”, i.e. no statistical weight is assigned to these parameters as long as their values are inside a “theoretically allowed” range.

The Rfit method starts by choosing a point in a parameter subspace of interest, e.g. a point in the $`\overline{𝝆}`$-$`\overline{𝜼}`$ plane, and ask for the best set of theoretical parameters for this given point. This set is determined by minimizing a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ function with respect to all model parameters, except $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$. The theoretical parameters are free to vary inside their theoretically allowed range without obtaining any statistical weight. In this way, upper limits of confidence levels in the parameter subspace of interest can be determined.

The basic idea of the Scanning method is to choose a possible set of values for the theoretical parameters and to ask whether this particular model leads to an acceptable fit for the given data set. If so, a confidence contour is drawn in a parameter subspace of interest, e.g. the $`\overline{𝝆}`$-$`\overline{𝜼}`$ plane, representing the constraints obtained for this particular set of model parameters. This procedure is repeated for a large number of possible theoretical models by scanning allowed ranges of the non-perturbative parameters. The single confidence level contours cannot be compared from a statistical point of view. This method has been extended to facilitate an analysis of the relative influence of experimental and theoretical uncertainties in determining the consistency of the measurements with theory.

##### 5.3.2.1 The Rfit approach

The CKM analysis using the Rfit method *** The Rfit method is implemented in the software package CKMfitter . More details can be found in . is performed in three steps: 1. Testing the overall consistency between data and the theoretical framework, here the SM. 2. If data and the SM are found to be in reasonable agreement, confidence levels (CL) in parameter subspaces are determined. 3. Testing extensions of the SM.

The quantity $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}𝓛\mathbf{(}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}\mathbf{)}`$ is minimized in the fit, where the likelihood function is defined by $`𝓛\mathbf{(}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{}𝒙_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{)}`$. The experimental part, $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$, depends on measurements, $`𝒙_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$, and theoretical predictions, $`𝒙_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$, which are functions of model parameters, $`𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}`$. The theoretical part, $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$, describes our “knowledge” of the theoretical parameters, $`𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}\mathbf{\}}`$. We set $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ within an “allowed range” $`𝓡`$ provided by a theoretical estimate, and $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ outside $`𝓡`$. That is, the $`𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$ are free to vary within $`𝓡`$ without changing the $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$ part of the $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ function. It should be kept in mind that the choice of $`𝓡`$ is statistically not well-defined and reflects an intrinsic problem of all statistical analyses when dealing with theoretical uncertainties.

It is worthwhile to emphasize that a uniform likelihood function is not identical to a uniform pdf. Whereas a uniform likelihood means that the theoretical parameter is free to vary within $`𝓡`$, a uniform pdf states that each value within $`𝓡`$ has equal probability and hence introduces a statistical weight. This has important consequences if more than one theoretical parameter enter a constraint or if the constraint depends on a nonlinear function of a theoretical parameter. For example, the $`𝜺_𝑲`$ constraint depends on the product $`𝑷\mathbf{=}\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$. The theoretical likelihood for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ reads $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for all theoretically allowed $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ values given by $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The theoretical likelihood for the product $`𝑷`$ reads $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝑷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for any value of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ given by $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, respectively. That is, in Rfit, no statistical weight is introduced for any value of $`𝑷`$, independent of the fact whether the single theoretical parameters are bound or unbound and independent of the particular parametrization chosen. On the contrary, the pdf for the theoretical part of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ is proportional to $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}}`$ if the theoretical pdf for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is chosen to be uniform. The pdf for the product $`𝑷`$ would be proportional to $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{|}`$ in leading order if the pdfs for $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ were chosen to be uniform .

The agreement between data and the SM is gauged by the global minimum $`𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{;}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, determined by varying freely all model parameters $`𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}`$. For $`𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{;}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, a confidence level CL(SM) is computed by means of a Monte Carlo simulation. For the optimal set of model parameters $`𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}`$, a large number of pseudo-measurements is generated using the experimental likelihood function $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$. For each set of pseudo-measurements, the minimum $`𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is determined and used to build a test statistics $`𝑭\mathbf{(}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. The CL is then calculated as $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{;}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathbf{}}𝑭\mathbf{(}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝒅𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ as illustrated in Fig. 5.3. If there is a hint of an incompatibility between data and the SM one has to investigate in detail which constraint leads to a small value for $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}\mathbf{)}`$.

If the hypothesis “the CKM picture of the SM is correct” is accepted, CLs in parameter subspaces $`𝒂`$, e.g. $`𝒂\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}`$, are evaluated. For a given point in $`𝒂`$, one determines the best agreement between data and theory. One calculates $`𝚫𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{;}𝝁}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝌_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{;}𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐦𝐨𝐝}}}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, by varying freely all model parameters $`𝝁`$ (including $`𝒚_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$) with the exception of $`𝒂`$. The corresponding CL is obtained from $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐝𝐨𝐟}}\mathbf{)}`$ (see e.g. Fig. 5.3) where $`𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐝𝐨𝐟}}`$ is the number of degrees of freedom, in general the dimension of the subspace $`𝒂`$. It has to be stressed that $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}`$ depends on the choice of $`𝓡`$. The usage of $`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐛}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑵_{\mathrm{𝐝𝐨𝐟}}\mathbf{)}`$ assumes Gaussian shapes for $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}`$. The CL obtained has been verified for several examples using a Monte Carlo simulation similar to the one described in the last section.

If the SM cannot accommodate the data, the analysis has to be repeated within extensions of the SM. Even in the case of a good agreement between data and the SM, it is worthwhile to perform the analysis for possible extensions of the SM in order to constrain New Physics parameters, see e.g. Ref. , or to determine the precision needed to study or exclude certain models.

##### 5.3.2.2 The Scanning Method

In the scanning method the following procedure is set to deal with “not-statistically” distributed quantities: we select a specific set of theoretical parameters called a “model”,

$$𝓜\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}𝓕_𝑫\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚪}_{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍}^𝒄\mathbf{,}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚪}_{𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒍}^𝒖\mathbf{,}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚪}_{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍}^𝒖\mathbf{,}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{,}\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{,}𝝃\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}𝜼_𝑩\mathbf{\}}\mathbf{,}$$
(19)
where $`𝓕_𝑫\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ is the Isgur-Wise function of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ at zero recoil corrected for finite $`𝒃`$-quark mass, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚪}_{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍}^𝒄`$ denotes the reduced decay rate for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}𝝂`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚪}_{𝒆𝒙𝒄𝒍}^𝒖`$ ($`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚪}_{𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍}^𝒖`$) represents the reduced decay rate for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}𝝂`$ ($`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}𝝂`$), $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{(}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{)}`$ is the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ decay constant, $`𝑩_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{,}𝑩_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ parameterize the values of the hadronic matrix elements appearing in $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing, $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing and $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing, respectively, $`𝝃\mathbf{=}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\mathbf{(}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{)}}`$, and $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, and $`𝜼_𝑩`$ denote QCD parameters. Such a set of theoretical parameters carries by definition non-probabilistic uncertainties but still may involve probabilistic errors. By choosing many different “models” we map out the allowed ranges of these theoretical parameters.

For each “model” $`𝓜`$ we construct and minimize the function

$$𝝌_𝓜^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑨\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{𝑬_𝒊\mathbf{}𝓔_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝑨\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{;}𝑪_𝒌\mathbf{;}𝓜\mathbf{)}}{𝝈_{𝑬_𝒊}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(20)
where the $`𝑬_𝒊`$ are observables based on measured quantities, $`𝓔_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝑨\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{;}𝑪_𝒌\mathbf{;}𝓜\mathbf{)}`$ is their parameterization in terms of $`𝑨`$, $`\overline{𝝆}`$, and $`\overline{𝜼}`$, $`𝑪_𝒌`$ denotes measured quantities that possess experimentally derived or other probabilistic uncertainties, such as masses and lifetimes, and the $`𝝈_{𝑬_𝒊}`$ denote all measurement uncertainties contributing to both $`𝑬_𝒊`$ and $`𝓔_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝑨\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{;}𝑪_𝒌\mathbf{;}𝓜\mathbf{)}`$. This includes all uncertainties on the theoretical parameters that are statistical in nature.

The inputs used are those given in Table 5.1. To incorporate results on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ searches we include a $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$-term defined as the maximum between the log-likelhood ratio used in  and 0:

$$\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒍𝒏𝓛_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝓐\mathbf{)}}{𝝈_𝓐^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}$$
(21)
$`𝓐`$ is the amplitude spectrum as function of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$.

The minimization solution $`\mathbf{(}𝑨\mathbf{,}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}_𝓜`$ for a particular “model” $`𝓜`$ incorporates no prior distribution for non-probabilistic uncertainties of the theoretical parameters and meets the frequency interpretation. All uncertainties depend only on measurement errors and other probabilistic uncertainties including any probabilistic component of the uncertainties on the theoretical parameters relevant to each particular measurement. At the moment, for practical reasons, we have treated the comparatively small uncertainties arising from $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}𝜼_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, and $`𝜼_𝑩`$ as probabilistic. The effects of this simplification will be explored in future fits.

A “model” $`𝓜`$ and its best-fit solution are kept only if the probability of the fit satisfies $`𝓟\mathbf{(}𝝌_𝓜^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{>}𝓟_{𝒎𝒊𝒏}`$, which is typically chosen to be $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$. For each “model” $`𝓜`$ accepted, we draw a 95% C.L. contour in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane. The fit is repeated for other “models” $`𝓜`$ by scanning through the complete parameter space specified by the theoretical uncertainties. This procedure derives from the technique originally described in .

The $`𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ minimization thus serves three purposes:

* If a “model” $`𝓜`$ is consistent with the data, we obtain the best estimates for the three CKM parameters, and 95% C.L. contours are determined.
* If a “model” $`𝓜`$ is inconsistent with the data the probability $`𝓟\mathbf{(}𝝌_𝓜^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ will be low. Thus, the requirement of $`𝓟\mathbf{(}𝝌_𝓜^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}_{𝒎𝒊𝒏}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ provides a test of compatibility between data and its theoretical description.
* By varying the theoretical parameters beyond their specified range we can determine correlations on them imposed by the measurements. The first results of this study are shown in Section 5.4.2

If no “model” were to survive we would have evidence of an inconsistency between data and theory, independent of the calculations of the theoretical parameters or the choices of their uncertainties. Since the goal of the CKM parameter fits is to look for inconsistencies of the different measurements within the Standard Model, it is important to be insensitive to artificially produced effects and to separate the non-probabilistic uncertainties from Gaussian-distributed errors.

In order to demonstrate the impact of the different theoretical quantities on the fit results in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane, Figs. 5.5a–f show contours for fits in which only one parameter was scanned while the others were kept at their central values. These plots demonstrate the impact of the model dependence in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ as well as that of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$, $`𝝃`$, and $`𝜼_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, respectively. For each parameter we consider nine different models which span its range equidistantly, starting with the smallest allowed value. Since these plots just serve illustrative purposes we use only the measurements of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$, and $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑲`$ in the fits, except for Fig. 5.5e where the information of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ has been included in addition. To guide the eye we show the boundaries of the three bands for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, and $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑲`$. Since the theoretical parameters are kept at their central values except for the one being varied, the bands corresponding to the other parameters reflect only experimental uncertainties.

We now turn to scanning all parameters simultaneously within their theoretically “allowed” ranges. Figure 5.6 shows the resulting contours for a set of representative “models”, when all available constraints are included. Note that there is no frequency interpretation for comparing which models are to be “preferred”, other than the statement that at most one model is correct. In this analysis we cannot, and do not, give any relative probabilistic weighting among the contours, or their overlap regions. Indeed, the entire purpose of the scanning method is to make clear the relative importance of measurable experimental errors and a-priori unknown theoretical uncertainties.

### 5.4 Impact of the uncertainties on theoretical quantities in CKM Fits

As described in the previous sections, the “correct” way to treat the theoretical parameters is not unambiguously defined but depends on the adopted statistical approach. In this section we will not discuss the problems and the virtues of the different statistical approaches on this point, and concentrate on the impact of the uncertainties on theoretical parameters in constraining $`\overline{𝝆}\mathrm{𝐚𝐧𝐝}\overline{𝜼}`$.

Two numerical analyses will be presented: one in the Bayesian framework and one in the frequentist framework. In the first analysis we study the effect on the UT fit from a modification (or a removal) of some theoretical parameter used as input parameter. The second analysis introduces a graphical method to represent, in the space of the theoretical parameters, the goodness of the UT fit and to evaluate the relevance of the knowledge on these parameters.

#### 5.4.1 Bayesian analysis

In the framework of the Bayesian method the input knowledge is expressed in terms of pdfs for all quantities (theoretical and experimental parameters). Following the procedure described in Section 5.3.1, the output pdf can be computed for $`\overline{𝝆}`$, $`\overline{𝜼}`$ and for any other quantity of interest.

The impact of the uncertainty on a given quantity, which enters as a parameter in a given constraint, is naturally evaluated by comparing the results obtained excluding the corresponding constraint or by varying the error of the input parameter. When the information on a certain quantity is excluded the corresponding input pdf is taken as uniform. The common set of inputs used for this analysis are the ones available at the time of the Workshop (Table 5.1).

##### 5.4.1.1 Determination of $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$

First we consider the $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$ parameter. Quite remarkably the remaining constraints determine precisely this quantity and, from the output distribution shown in the left part of Fig. 5.7, we get

$$𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟐𝟑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐞𝐕}$$
(22)
This is in perfect agreement with the results from lattice calculation (see Table 5.1) and has a significantly smaller error. This suggests that, unless the lattice error on $`𝑭_𝑩\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_𝑩}`$ does not become smaller than 12 MeV, the theoretical knowledge of this quantity is not quite relevant in UT fits. The Table in Fig. 5.7 quantifies the effect of changing the uncertainty on $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$ (keeping the same central value).

##### 5.4.1.2 Determination of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$

Here the same exercise has been repeated with the parameter $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. Assuming for $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ a uniform input distribution between 0 and 2, from the output distribution shown in Fig. 5.8 we obtain

$$\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.73}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.07}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.13}}$$
(23)
The fitted value is again in perfect agreement with the lattice value (see Table 5.1), but in this case the fitted (output) uncertainty is similar to the theoretical (input) one. We then expect that “lattice information” plays a non negligible role, in particular in the determination of $`\overline{𝜼}`$ (because of simple geometrical arguments). Table in Fig. 5.8 shows that, in fact, removing the information coming from Lattice QCD (last row) the error on $`\overline{𝜼}`$ increases by 50%.

##### 5.4.1.3 Determination of $`𝝃`$

Since $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ has not yet been measured, $`𝝃`$ cannot be determined by the data. Assuming a uniform distribution between 0.6 and 2 (the upper bound is obviously arbitrary), the output distribution shown in Fig. 5.9 is obtained. The tail on the right part of the plot shows that, at present, $`𝝃`$ is only weakly constrained by experimental data; for this reason the information on the $`𝝃`$ parameter is very important, in particular in the determination of $`\overline{𝝆}`$, as shown in the table in Fig. 5.9.

#### 5.4.2 Scan analysis

In the study of the sensitivity of the UT fit to a given theoretical parameter one should define how to treat the remaining parameters. In the Bayesian approach (described in the previous section) the remaining parameters are integrated using their input pdf while in the standard frequentist approach the confidence level for a parameter is computed irrespectively of the values of all the remaining parameters (logical “OR” over the values of the parameters).

The technique presented here aims at studying and visualizing the sensitivity of UT fits to theoretical uncertainties, in the theoretical parameters space (T), minimizing a priori inputs and intermediate combinations of parameters. The method tries to represent pairs or triplets of theoretical parameters while keeping some information on the remaining (undisplayed) parameters. The input knowledge on a theoretical parameter is described by a ”nominal central value” and a ”theoretical preferred range”. In two dimensions the procedure is as follows:

* Pick two of the parameters $`𝑻`$ for display. Call these the primary parameters, $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$.
* Pick a third $`𝑻`$ parameter, the secondary parameter $`𝑻_𝒔`$. This parameter is singled out for special attention to the effects of projecting over it.
* Call all the other T parameters the undisplayed parameters, $`𝑻_𝑿`$.
* For each point P in the grid of scanned values of $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, a number of fits will have been attempted, covering all the scanned values of $`𝑻_𝒔`$ and $`𝑻_𝑿`$. For each P, evaluate the following hierarchy of criteria against the ensemble of results of these fits, deriving for the point a value, we call it the “Level”, which is an integer between 0 and 5 inclusive:

1. Define a minimum acceptable value for $`𝑷\mathbf{(}𝝌^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. Did any of the fits for P pass this cut? If not, assign Level = 0 and stop; otherwise assign Level = 1 and continue.
    2. Did any of the remaining fits lie within the ”theoretically preferred region” for all the undisplayed parameters $`𝑻_𝑿`$? If not, stop; if yes, assign Level = 2 and continue.
    3. Did any of the remaining fits have the secondary parameter $`𝑻_𝒔`$ within its ”theoretically preferred region”? If not, stop; if yes, assign Level = 3 and continue.
    4. Did any of the remaining fits have $`𝑻_𝒔`$ equal to its ”nominal central value”? (That value must have been included in the scan grid for this to make sense.) If not, stop; if yes, assign Level = 4 and continue.
    5. Did any of the remaining fits have all the undisplayed parameters $`𝑻_𝑿`$ also at their ”nominal central values”? If not, stop; if yes, assign Level = 5 and stop.
* Now display contours of the quantity Level over the grid in the $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ plane. Assign a unique color to each parameter T, so the contours for $`𝑻_𝒔`$ at Level = 3,4 are drawn in the color corresponding to that parameter. The contours for Level = 4,5, which correspond to restrictions of parameters exactly to their central values, are also drawn distinctively, with dashing.

The Level 3 contour (solid, colored), in particular, displays the allowed region, at the selected confidence level, for $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, based on the experimental data and on limiting all other theoretical parameters to their preferred ranges. Study of the relative spacing of the Level 2, 3, and 4 contours readily reveals the effects of the application of the $`𝑻_𝒔`$ bounds on the fit results.
* Overlay the contours with straight lines showing the theoretically preferred ranges and nominal central values for $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, in their respective unique colors, again with dashing for the central value. This allows the theoretical bounds on $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to be evaluated directly for consistency against all other available data, yet avoiding any convoluted use of priors for these two parameters.

Comparison of these theoretical bounds for $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with the Level 3 contour that shows the experimental information, constrained by the application of the theoretical bounds on $`𝑻_𝒔`$ and the $`𝑻_𝒙`$, allows a direct visual evaluation of the consistency of all available information, with the effects of the application of all theoretical bounds manifest, not obscured by convolutions performed in the fit itself.

Figure 5.10 shows the results of the previous procedure, using $`𝑭_𝑩\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_𝑩}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$ as primary parameters, $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ as secondary parameter, while the undisplayed parameter (there is just one in this case) is $`𝝃`$. What can be seen immediately is that the entire theoretically allowed region for the primary parameters, shown by the crossing of the solid lines, is consistent with all the other data, including the theoretical bound on $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$, and that even when all parameters are constrained to their central values the resulting fit (there can be only one at that point) is fully consistent. Changing the role of primary, secondary, and undisplayed parameters in many different ways, helps to understand the role of these parameters in the fit.

These plots can be extended in three dimensions by drawing the three bi-dimensional projections of the allowed region. Several three dimensional plots and further details can be found in .

### 5.5 Fit comparison

In this section we compare the results on the CKM quantities obtained following two approaches: Bayesian and Rfit. The common set of inputs are the ones available at the time of the Workshop (Table 5.1). The Scan method has not been included in the comparison because it does not evaluate overall allowed regions for the CKM parameters. As explained in the previous sections, the main difference between the Bayesian and the Rfit analyses originates from the computation of the Likelihood functions (identified with pdfs in the Bayesian case) for each parameter and in the treatment of the Likelihood fit.

#### 5.5.1 Input likelihoods and combination of likelihoods

In general a determination of a given quantity is characterized by a central value, a statistical error and a systematical error. Starting from such a splitting of the errors Bayesian and frequentist approaches may describe this quantity according to different likelihood functions.

In the Bayesian approach, the basic assumption is that the value of any quantity is distributed according to a pdf. The final pdf of a certain quantity is obtained by convoluting the pdfs corresponding to the different uncertainties affecting the quantity. In particular, the uncertainty on a quantity is usually splitted in two parts: a statistical part which can be described by a Gaussian pdf, $`𝓖\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ (this part may contain many sources of uncertainties which have been already combined into a single pdf) and another part which is usually of theoretical origin and is often related to uncertainties due to theoretical parameters. In the following we will denote it as theoretical systematics. It is often described using an uniform pdf: $`𝓤\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}`$ for $`𝒙\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{]}`$ and $`𝓤\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ elsewhere. The combined pdf $`𝓟`$ is then obtained by convoluting the Gaussian pdf $`𝓖`$ with the uniform pdf $`𝓤`$: $`𝓟\mathbf{=}𝓖\mathbf{}𝓤`$.

In the frequentist analysis, no statistical meaning is attributed to the uncertainties related to theoretical systematics. The likelihood function $`𝓛`$ for the quantity $`𝒙`$ contains a statistical part, $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, described by a Gaussian with mean value $`𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and a “not-statistical” part, $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. The function $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$, as denoted Rfit likelihood, is a uniform function $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for $`𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{,}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{+}𝝈_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{]}`$ and $`𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ elsewhere. The final likelihood is given by the product $`𝓛\mathbf{=}𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{(}𝒙\mathbf{}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓛_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨}}\mathbf{(}𝒙_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$. In conclusion, when a quantity contains an uncertainty to which the frequentists do not attribute any statistical meaning, the likelihood which describes this quantity is obtained as a product between this uncertainty and the statistical one.

When several determinations of the same quantity are available one may combine them to obtain a single input for a quantity entering the fit (these considerations apply for example to the determinations of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$). We suppose, in the following, that these determinations are not correlated. In addition, it is assumed that the various determinations of these quantities are compatible. Then, for the combination, the Bayesian approach calculates the product of the single pdfs, whereas the frequentist approach calculates the product of the individual likelihoods. Hence, the mathematical concepts for the combination procedure of the two statistical approaches are identical.

#### 5.5.2 Distributions for the relevant quantities in the CKM fits

The relevant quantities entering the fit are summarized in Table 5.1 given at the beginning of this Chapter. Figures. 5.11 and 5.12 show the $`𝚫`$ Log(Likelihood) for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ ,$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and for the non-perturbative QCD parameters, $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$ , $`𝝃`$ and $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ as obtained following the Bayesian and the frequentist methods.

To be more explicit, in Table 5.2 we show the 68$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ ranges as obtained following the Bayesian and the Rfit methods. It can be noticed that differences on the input quantities between the two approaches can be important and depend upon the chosen splitting of the errors. In the Bayesian approach the splitting of the total error in two errors is not really important, since, the two errors are often, already, the results of the convolution of many different source of errors. It has been also shown that the choice of the shape of the pdf to be attributed to the error has a moderate impact on the final results , once the central value and the r.m.s. of the pdf has been fixed. In the Rfit this splitting is crucial and a careful breakdown of the sources of the errors which contribute to it should be done. For this comparison we have decided to keep this splitting and to classify certain errors as a flat pdf and “non statistical” for the Bayesian and Rfit approaches, respectively.

#### 5.5.3 Results and Comparison

For the comparison of the results of the fit we use $`\overline{𝝆}`$, $`\overline{𝜼}`$, sin 2$`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$. Those quantities are compared at the 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$, 99$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and 99.9$`\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L. It has to be stressed that in the frequentist approach those confidence levels correspond to $`\mathbf{}`$95$`\mathbf{\%}`$, $`\mathbf{}`$99$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and $`\mathbf{}`$99.9$`\mathbf{\%}`$. All the available constraints have been used: the measurements of $`\mathbf{\left|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{\left|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{\right|}`$, $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$, the amplitude spectrum for including the information from the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations, $`\mathbf{\left|}𝜺_𝑲\mathbf{\right|}`$ and the measurement of sin 2$`𝜷`$. It has to be stressed once more that the inputs used are the same in the two approaches (in term of Gaussian and uniform uncertainties), but they correspond to different input likelihoods, for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$, $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ and $`𝝃`$ as shown in the previous figures. Figure 5.13 shows the comparison on the ($`\overline{𝝆}`$, $`\overline{𝜼}`$) plane. The numerical results are given in Table 5.3 Figure 5.14 shows the comparison between the allowed regions obtained using Bayesian or Rfit methods if the constraint from the direct measurement of sin2$`𝜷`$ is removed from the fit.

##### 5.5.3.1 Further comparisons

To further the orogin of the residual difference between the two methods, we have performed the following test: both methods use the distributions as obtained from Rfit or from the Bayesian method to account for the information on input quantities. The results of the comparison using the input distributions as obtained from Rfit are shown in Figs. 5.15 (Table 5.4). In some cases (0.1$`\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L.) the ranges selected by the Bayesian approach are wider. The comparison using the input distributions, as obtained from the Bayesian method, give a maximal difference of 5%. These two tests show that, if same input likelihood are used, the results on the output quantities are very similar. The main origin of the residual difference on the output quantities, between the Bayesian and the Rfit method comes from the likelihood associated to the input quantities.

##### 5.5.3.2 Some conclusions on the fit comparison

The Bayesian and the Rfit methods are compared in an agreed framework in terms of input and output quantities. For the input quantities the total error has been splitted in two errors. The splitting and the p.d.f distribution associated to any of the errors is not really important in the Bayesian approach. It becomes central in the Rfit approach where the systematic errors are treated as “non statistical” errors. The result is that, even if the same central values and errors are used in the two methods, the likelihood associated to the input parameters, which are entering in the fitting procedure, can be different. The output results ($`\overline{𝝆}`$,$`\overline{𝜼}`$, sin2 $`𝜷`$, $`𝜸`$) differ by 15$`\mathbf{\%}`$-45$`\mathbf{\%}`$, 10$`\mathbf{\%}`$-35$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and 5-15$`\mathbf{\%}`$ if the 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$, 99$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and 99.9$`\mathbf{\%}`$ confidence regions are compared, respectively, with ranges from the frequentist method being wider. If the same likelihoods are used the output results are very similar.

### 5.6 Test of the CKM picture in the Standard Model

After comparing different statistical methods, in this final Section we show how the present data can be used to test the CKM picture of the Standard Model. The results presented here have been obtained with a Bayesian fit to the latest inputs of Table 5.1. The central values, errors and $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟖}\mathbf{\%}`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$) \[and $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟗}\mathbf{\%}`$\] C.L. ranges obtained for various quantities of interest are collected in Table 5.5.

The most crucial test is the comparison between the UT parameters determined with quantities sensitive to the sides of the UT (semileptonic B decays and oscillations) with the measurement of CP violation in the kaon sector ($`\mathbf{\left|}𝜺_𝑲\mathbf{\right|}`$) and, also with the one in the B (sin2$`𝜷`$) sector. This test is shown in Fig. 5.16.

It can be translated quantitatively into a comparison between the values of sin2$`𝜷`$ obtained from the measurement of the CP asymmetry in the $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝐒^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays and the one determined from “sides“ measurements:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ \mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{=}& \mathbf{0.685}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.052}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.581}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{0.789}\mathbf{)}& \mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬}\mathrm{𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲}\\ \mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{=}& \mathbf{0.734}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.054}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.628}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{0.840}\mathbf{)}& 𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝐒^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\end{array}`$ (25)
where, within parentheses, we give also the 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ probability region. The spectacular agreement between these values shows the consistency of the Standard Model in describing the CP violation phenomena in terms of one single complex parameter $`𝜼`$. Conversely, assuming the validity of the SM, this is also an important test of the OPE, HQET and LQCD theories which have been used to extract the CKM parameters. It has to be noted that the test is significant provided that the errors on sin 2$`𝜷`$ from the two determinations are comparable. Presently, the accuracy of both is at the 10$`\mathbf{\%}`$ level. It is also of interest to explicitly make predictions for quantities which will be measured in the next future. We concentrate on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ which will be soon measured at Tevatron. The results obtained by excluding (or including) the information from the $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ analyses are:

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \\ 𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathrm{𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐝}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}& \mathbf{18.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.7}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{15.6}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{22.2}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{15.1}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{27.0}\mathbf{]}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\\ 𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭}𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}& \mathbf{20.6}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{3.5}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{14.2}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{28.1}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{12.8}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{30.7}\mathbf{]}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{.}\end{array}`$ (27)
where, within parentheses, we give the 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ and the 99$`\mathbf{\%}`$ regions.

It will be interesting to compare these results with future measurements with the goal of identifying new physics contributions. Moreover a precise measurement of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ will reduce significantly the uncertainties in the output quantities in Table 5.5.

### References

1. A. Ali and D. London, Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 665;
S. Mele, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 113011;
D. Atwood and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. B 508 (2001) 17.
2. M. Ciuchini, G. D’Agostini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau, A. Stocchi, JHEP 0107 (2001) 013, \[hep-ph/0012308\].
3. A. Höcker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 225, \[hep-ph/0104062\].
4. Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, S. Plaszczynski and M.-H. Schune, Nucl. Phys. B 511 (1998) 69;
S. Plaszczynski and M.-H. Schune, hep-ph/9911280.
5. L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1945.
6. A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher and G. Ostermaier, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3433.
7. S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys. B 419 (1994) 192, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6505 and recent update by M. Jamin and U. Nierste.
8. Y. Nir, hep-ph/0208080.
9. B. Aubert et al., BaBar Collaboration, hep-ex/0207042.
10. K. Abe et al., Belle Collaboration, hep-ex/0208025.
11. G. D’Agostini, CERN Report 99–03.
12. CKMfitter: code, numerical results and plots”, http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr
13. S. Laplace, Z. Ligeti, Y. Nir, G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D 65:094040 (2002)
14. The BaBar Physics Book, BaBar Collaboration, (P.F. Harrison and H.R. Quinn, eds.). SLAC-R-0504 (1998).
15. G.P. Dubois-Felsmann D.G. Hitlin, F.C. Porter and G. Eigen, CALT 68-2396 (2002).
16. F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Nuovo Cim. 112A (1999) 833.

## Chapter 6 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This chapter contains a few contributions related to future possibilities for the extraction of the CKM elements and of the CP violating phases. They include general strategies for the determination of the CKM matrix elements, radiative rare B decays, weak phase determination from hadronic B decays and rare $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ decays. Since these topics have not been the subject of a dedicated working group at this meeting of the Workshop, we present them in the form of collected papers under individual authorship.

### 6.1 General strategies for the CKM matrix

A.J. Buras, F. Parodi and A. Stocchi

During the last two decades several strategies have been proposed that should allow one to determine the CKM matrix and the related unitarity triangle (UT). We have already discussed a number of processes that can be used for the determination of the CKM parameters in Chapters 2–4. Additional processes and the related strategies will be discussed in this part. They are also reviewed in . In this first opening section we want to address the determination of the CKM matrix and of the UT in general terms leaving the discussion of specific strategies to the following sections.

To be specific let us first choose as the independent parameters

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{,}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{.}$$
(1)
The best place to determine $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, as discussed already in detail in Chapters 2 and 3, are the semi-leptonic K and B decays, respectively. The question that we want address here is the determination of the remaining two parameters $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$.

There are many ways to determine $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. As the length of one side of the rescaled unitarity triangle is fixed to unity, we have to our disposal two sides, $`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝑹_𝒕`$ and three angles, $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$. These five quantities can be measured by means of rare K and B decays and in particular by studying CP-violating observables. While until recently only a handful of strategies could be realized, the present decade should allow several independent determinations of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ that will test the KM picture of CP violation and possibly indicate the physics beyond the Standard Model (SM).

The determination of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ in a given strategy is subject to experimental and theoretical errors and it is important to identify those strategies that are experimentally feasible and in which hadronic uncertainties are as much as possible under control. Such strategies are reviewed in  and in the following sections below.

Here we want to address a different question. The determination of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ requires at least two independent measurements. In most cases these are the measurements of two sides of the UT, of one side and one angle or the measurements of two angles. Sometimes $`\overline{𝜼}`$ can be directly measured and combining it with the knowledge of one angle or one side of the UT, $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$ can be found. Analogous comments apply to measurements in which $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$ is directly measured. Finally in more complicated strategies one measures various linear combinations of angles, sides or $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$.

Restricting first our attention to measurements in which sides and angles of the UT can be measured independently of each other, we end up with ten different pairs of measurements that allow the determination of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. The question then arises which of the pairs in question is most efficient in the determination of the UT? That is, given the same relative errors on $`𝑹_𝒃`$, $`𝑹_𝒕`$, $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$, we want to find which of the pairs gives the most accurate determination of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$.

The answer to this question depends necessarily on the values of $`𝑹_𝒃`$, $`𝑹_𝒕`$, $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$ but as we will see below just the requirement of the consistency of $`𝑹_𝒃`$ with the measured value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ implies a hierarchy within the ten strategies mentioned above.

During the 1970’s and 1980’s $`𝜶_{𝑸𝑬𝑫}`$, the Fermi constant $`𝑮_𝑭`$ and the sine of the Weinberg angle ($`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽_𝑾`$) measured in the $`𝝂`$-$`𝑵`$ scattering were the fundamental parameters in terms of which the electroweak tests of the SM were performed. After the $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ boson was discovered and its mass precisely measured at LEP-I, $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜽_𝑾`$ has been replaced by $`𝑴_𝒁`$ and the fundamental set used in the electroweak precision studies in the 1990’s has been $`\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝑸𝑬𝑫}\mathbf{,}𝑮_𝑭\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}`$. It is to be expected that when $`𝑴_𝑾`$ will be measured precisely this set will be changed to $`\mathbf{(}𝜶_{𝑸𝑬𝑫}\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}`$ or ($`𝑮_𝑭\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{,}𝑴_𝒁\mathbf{)}`$.

We anticipate that an analogous development will happen in this decade in connection with the CKM matrix. While the set (1) has clearly many virtues and has been used extensively in the literature, one should emphasize that presently no direct independent measurements of $`\overline{𝜼}`$ and $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$ are available. $`\mathbf{|}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{|}`$ can be measured cleanly in the decay $`𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$. On the other hand to our knowledge there does not exist any strategy for a clean independent measurement of $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$.

Taking into account the experimental feasibility of various measurements and their theoretical cleanness, the most obvious candidate for the fundamental set in the quark flavour physics for the coming years appears to be

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷$$
(2)
with the last two variables describing the $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}`$ coupling that can be measured by means of the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑩}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing ratio $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ and the CP-asymmetry $`𝒂_{𝝍𝐊_𝑺}`$, respectively. In this context, we investigate , in analogy to the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane and the planes $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$  and $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$  considered in the past, the $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ plane for the exhibition of various constraints on the CKM matrix. We also provide the parametrization of the CKM matrix given directly in terms of the variables (2).

While the set (2) appears to be the best choice for the coming years, our analysis shows that in the long run other choices could turn out to be preferable. In this context it should be emphasized that several of the results and formulae presented here are not entirely new and have been already discussed by us and other authors in the past. In particular in  it has been pointed out that only a moderately precise measurement of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶`$ can be as useful for the UT as a precise measurement of the angle $`𝜷`$. This has been recently reemphasized in , see contribution in this Chapter, Sec. 6.3.3. Similarly the measurement of the pair $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ has been found to be a very efficient tool for the determination of the UT  and the construction of the full CKM matrix from the angles of various unitarity triangles has been presented in . Next, the importance of the pair $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ has been emphasized recently in a number of papers . Many useful relations relevant for the unitarity triangle can also be found in . Finally, in a recent paper  we have presented a systematic classification of the strategies in question and their comparison. In fact the results of this paper constitute the main part of this section.

#### 6.1.1 Basic formulae

Let us begin our presentation by listing the formulae for $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ in the strategies in question that are labeled by the two measured quantities as discussed above.
$`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝜷`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜷\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒕\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{.}$$
(3)
$`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝜸`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒃\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒃\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸\mathbf{.}$$
(4)
$`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝑹_𝒕`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(5)
where $`\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ has been assumed.

$`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝜸`$
This strategy uses (4) with

$$𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸}\mathbf{.}$$
(6)
The two possibilities can be distinguished by the measured value of $`𝑹_𝒃`$.

$`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝜷`$
This strategy uses (3) and

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜷\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)
The two possibilities can be distinguished by the measured value of $`𝑹_𝒕`$.

$`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝜶`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶\mathbf{+}𝑹_𝒕\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜶\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶}\mathbf{,}$$
(8)
$$\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒕\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜶\mathbf{\left[}𝑹_𝒕\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜶\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ has been assumed. For $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the signs in front of the square roots should be reversed.

$`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝜶`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒃\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜶\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶}\mathbf{,}$$
(10)
$$\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}𝑹_𝒃\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜶\mathbf{\left[}𝑹_𝒃\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜶\mathbf{+}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜷\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ has been assumed.

$`𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜷}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}$$
(12)
and (5).

$`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜶}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜶}$$
(13)
and (5).

$`𝜶`$ and $`𝜷`$

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{+}𝜷\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜶}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜷}{\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜶}$$
(14)
and (5).

Finally we give the formulae for the strategies in which $`\overline{𝜼}`$ is directly measured and the strategy allows to determine $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$.
$`\overline{𝜼}`$ and $`𝑹_𝒕`$ or $`𝑹_𝒃`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{𝑹_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}$$
(15)
where in the first case we have excluded the + solution in view of $`𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}`$ as extracted from the experimental data on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$.
$`\overline{𝜼}`$ and $`𝜷`$ or $`𝜸`$

$$\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\overline{𝜼}}{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷}\mathbf{,}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{=}\frac{\overline{𝜼}}{\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜸}\mathbf{.}$$
(16)
#### 6.1.2 CKM matrix and the fundamental variables

It is useful for phenomenological purposes to express the CKM matrix directly in terms of the parameters selected in a given strategy. This can be easily done by inserting the formulae for $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ presented here into the known expressions for the CKM elements in terms of these variables  as given in Chapter 1.

Here we give explicit result only for the set (2). In order to simplify the notation we use $`𝝀`$ instead of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ as $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{=}𝝀\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}`$. We find

$$𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝀}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕𝒆^{𝒊𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(17)
$$𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝝀\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝀\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝀\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(18)
$$𝑽_{𝒄𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(19)
$$𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{=}𝝀\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}𝑹_𝒕𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝜷}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(20)
$$𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{\left[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒕𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝜷}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(21)
#### 6.1.3 Hierarchies of the various strategies

The numerical analysis of various strategies listed above was performed using the Bayesian approach as described in the previous Chapter. The main results of this analysis are depicted in Figs. 6.16.26.3 and 6.4. In Figs. 6.1 and 6.2 we plot the correlation between the precisions on the variables relevant for a given strategy required to reach the assumed precision on $`\overline{𝜼}`$ and $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$, respectively. For this exercise we have used, for $`\overline{𝜼}`$ and $`\overline{𝝆}`$, the central values obtained in the previous Chapter. Obviously strategies described by curves in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2 that lie far from the origin are more effective in the determination of the unitarity triangle than those corresponding to curves placed close to the origin.

Figures 6.1 and 6.2 reveal certain hierarchies within the strategies in question. In order to find these hierarchies and to eliminate the weakest ones not shown in these figures we divided first the five variables under consideration into two groups:

$$\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(22)
It turned out then that the four strategies $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ which involve pairs of variables belonging to the same group are not particularly useful in the determination of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. In the case of $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ this is related to the existence of two possible solutions as stated above. If one of these solutions can easily be excluded on the basis of $`𝑹_𝒕`$, then the effectiveness of this strategy can be increased. We have therefore included this strategy in our numerical analysis. The strategy $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ turns out to be less useful in this respect. Similarly the strategy $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ is not particularly useful due to strong correlation between the variables in question as discussed previously by many authors in the literature.

The remaining six strategies that involve pairs of variables belonging to different groups in (22) are all interesting. While some strategies are better suited for the determination of $`\overline{𝜼}`$ and the other for $`\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}`$, as clearly seen in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2, on the whole a clear ranking of strategies seems to emerge from our analysis.

If we assume the same relative error on $`𝜶`$, $`𝜷`$, $`𝜸`$, $`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝑹_𝒕`$ we find the following hierarchy:

$$\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(23)
We observe that in particular the strategies involving $`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝜸`$ are very high on this ranking list. This is related to the fact that $`𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{<}𝑹_𝒕`$ and consequently the action in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane takes place closer to the origin of this plane than to the corner of the UT involving the angle $`𝜷`$. Consequently the accuracy on $`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝜸`$ does not have to be as high as for $`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝜷`$ in order to obtain the same accuracy for $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. This is clearly seen in Figs. 6.1 and 6.2.

This analysis shows how important is the determination of $`𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝜸`$ in addition to $`𝜷`$ that is already well known. On the other hand the strategy involving $`𝑹_𝒕`$ and $`𝜷`$ will be most probably the cleanest one before the LHC experiments unless the error on angle $`𝜸`$ from B factories and Tevatron can be significantly decreased below $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ and the accuracy on $`𝑹_𝒃`$ considerably improved. The explicit strategies for the determination of $`𝜸`$ are discussed in the following sections.

The strategies involving $`𝜶`$ are in our second best class. However, it has to be noticed that in order to get 10$`\mathbf{\%}`$(15$`\mathbf{\%}`$) relative precision on $`\overline{𝜼}`$($`\overline{𝝆}`$) it is necessary (see Figs. 6.1 and 6.2) to determine $`𝜶`$ with better than 10$`\mathbf{\%}`$ relative precision. If $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶`$ could be directly measured this could be soon achieved due to the high sensitivity of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶`$ to $`𝜶`$ for $`𝜶`$ in the ball park of $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ as obtained from the standard analysis of the unitarity triangle. However, from the present perspective this appears to be very difficult in view of the penguin pollution that could be substantial as indicated by the most recent data from Belle . On the other hand, as the BaBar data  do not indicate this pollution, the situation is unclear at present. These issues are discussed in detail in the following sections.

We have also performed a numerical analysis for the strategies in which $`\mathbf{|}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{|}`$ can be directly measured. The relevant formulae are given in (15) and (16). It turns out that the strategy $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ can be put in the first best class in (23) together with the strategies $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$.

In Fig. 6.3 we show the resulting regions in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane obtained from leading strategies assuming that each variable is measured with $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ accuracy. This figure is complementary to Figs. 6.1 and 6.2 and demonstrates clearly the ranking given in (23).

While at present the set (2) appears to be the leading candidate for the fundamental parameter set in the quark flavour physics for the coming years, it is not clear which set will be most convenient in the second half of this decade when the B-factories and Tevatron will improve considerably their measurements and LHC will start its operation. Therefore it is of interest to investigate how the measurements of three variables out of $`𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃`$ and $`𝑹_𝒕`$ will determine the allowed values for the remaining two variables. We illustrate this in Fig. 6.4 assuming a relative error of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ for the constraints used in each plot. While this figure is self explanatory a striking feature consistent with the hierarchical structure in (23) can be observed. While the measurements of $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ as seen in the first two plots do not appreciably constrain the parameters of the two leading strategies $`\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, respectively, the opposite is true in the last two plots. There the measurements of $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ give strong constraints in the $`\mathbf{(}𝜷\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ plane, respectively. The last two plots illustrate also clearly that measuring only $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$ does not provide a strong constraint on the unitarity triangle.

#### 6.1.4 Results for the presently available strategies

At present the concrete results can be obtained only for the strategies ($`𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷`$), ($`𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕`$) and ($`𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜷`$) as no direct measurements of $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜶`$ are available.

The results for $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ for the three strategies in question are presented in Table 6.1 and in Figs. 6.5, 6.6 and 6.7. To obtain these results we have used the direct measurement of sin 2$`𝜷`$ , $`𝑹_𝒕`$ as extracted from $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ by means of the formulae in  and $`𝑹_𝒃`$ as extracted from $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$.

The experimental and theoretical inputs are summarized in Chapter 4 It should be emphasized that these three presently available strategies are the weakest among the leading strategies listed in (23). Among them $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ appear to be superior to $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ at present. We expect that once $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ has been measured and the error on $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ reduced, the strategy $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ will be leading among these three. Therefore in Fig. 6.8 we show how the presently available constraints look like in the $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ plane.

#### 6.1.5 Summary

We have presented a numerical analysis of the unitarity triangle from a different point of view, that emphasizes the role of different strategies in the precise determination of the unitarity triangle parameters. While we have found that the pairs $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ are most efficient in determining $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$, we expect that the pair $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ will play the leading role in the UT fits in the coming years, in particular, when $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ will be measured and the theoretical error on $`𝝃`$ decreased. For this reason we have proposed to plot available constraints on the CKM matrix in the $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ plane.

It will be interesting to compare in the future the allowed ranges for $`\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathit{\varrho }}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ resulting from different strategies in order to see whether they are compatible with each other. Any discrepancies will signal the physics beyond the SM. We expect that the strategies involving $`𝜸`$ will play a very important role in this comparison.

For the fundamental set of parameters in the quark flavour physics given in (2) we find within the SM

$`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2240}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.3}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.7}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.91}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{22.4}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}`$
where the errors represent one standard deviations and the result for $`𝜷`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.705}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.035}`$.

A complete analysis of the usefulness of a given strategy should also include the discussion of its experimental feasibility and theoretical cleanness. Extensive studies of these two issues can be found in  and in these proceedings. Again among various strategies, the $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ strategy is exceptional as the theoretical uncertainties in the determination of these two variables are small and the corresponding experiments are presently feasible. In the long run, when $`𝜸`$ will be cleanly measured in $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝐃𝝅`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔𝐊`$ decays and constrained through other decays as reviewed in the following sections, we expect that the strategy $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ will take over the leading role. Eventually the independent direct determinations of the five variables in question will be crucial for the tests of the SM and its extensions.

### 6.2 Radiative rare B decays

A. Ali and M. Misiak

The transitions $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ receive sizable contributions from loops involving the top quark (Fig. 6.9). Their dependence on $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}`$ may be used to test unitarity of the CKM matrix and to overconstrain the Wolfenstein parameters $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$. The considered transitions manifest themselves in exclusive $`\overline{𝐁}`$-meson decays like $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$, $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$$`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝝆\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$. The corresponding inclusive decays $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝜸`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ are experimentally more challenging, but the theoretical predictions are significantly more accurate, thanks to the use of OPE and HQET. The exclusive processes remain interesting due to possible new physics effects in observables other than just the total branching ratios (photon polarization, isospin- and CP-asymmetries), as well as due to information they provide on non-perturbative form-factors. This information is particularly required in analyzing exclusive modes generated by the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ transition, in which case there is little hope for an inclusive measurement.

In this section we discuss briefly the generic features of the CKM phenomenology in the considered rare B-decays. The transitions $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ involve the CKM matrix elements from the second and third column of this matrix, with the unitarity constraint taking the form $`\mathbf{}_{𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒕}𝝀_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, with $`𝝀_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒊𝒃}𝑽_{𝒊𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}`$. This equation yields a unitarity triangle which is highly squashed, as one of the sides of this triangle $`𝝀_𝒖\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑨𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{}𝒊\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ is doubly Cabibbo suppressed, compared to the other two sides $`𝝀_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{=}𝑨𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$. Hence, the transitions $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ are not expected to yield useful information on the parameters $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$, which define the apex of the unitarity triangle of current interest (see Chapt. 1). The test of unitarity for the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔`$ transitions in rare B-decays lies in checking the relation $`𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒄`$, which holds up to corrections of order $`𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

The impact of the decays $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ on the CKM phenomenology is, however, quite different. These transitions involve the CKM matrix elements in the first and third column, with the unitarity constraints taking the form $`\mathbf{}_{𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒕}𝝃_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, with $`𝝃_𝒊\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒊𝒃}𝑽_{𝒊𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Now, all three matrix elements are of order $`𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, with $`𝝃_𝒖\mathbf{}𝑨𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{}𝒊\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝝃_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝑨𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, and $`𝝃_𝒕\mathbf{}𝑨𝝀^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{}𝒊\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. This equation leads to the same unitarity triangle as studied through the constraints $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$, $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ (or $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}`$). Hence, the transitions $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$ lead to complementary constraints on the CKM parameters $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$, as illustrated in the following. Thus, the role of rare B-decays is that they provide complementary constraints on the CKM matrix elements, hence test the CKM unitarity, but they also constrain extensions of the Standard Model, and by that token can act as harbinger of new physics.

A theoretical framework for analyzing the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ transition is set by the effective interaction Hamiltonian

$$𝓗_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}\underset{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}{\overset{\mathrm{𝟖}}{\mathbf{}}}𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{.}$$
(24)
The generic structure of the operators $`𝑸_𝒊`$ is as follows:

$$𝑸_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝚪_𝒊𝒄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒄}𝚪_{\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{𝒊}}^{\mathbf{}}𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\hfill & 𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝚪_𝒊𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}_𝒒\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒒}𝚪_{\underset{\mathbf{¯}}{𝒊}}^{\mathbf{}}𝒒\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\hfill & 𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒃\mathbf{)}\hfill \\ \frac{𝒆𝒎_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\overline{𝒔}_𝑳𝝈^{𝝁𝝂}𝒃_𝑹𝑭_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{,}\hfill & 𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{,}\hfill \\ \frac{𝒈_𝒔𝒎_𝒃}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}\overline{𝒔}_𝑳𝝈^{𝝁𝝂}𝑻^𝒂𝒃_𝑹𝑮_{𝝁𝝂}^𝒂\mathbf{,}\hfill & 𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
Here, $`𝚪_𝒊`$ and $`𝚪_𝒊^{\mathbf{}}`$ denote various combinations of the colour and Dirac matrices. Everything that is not important for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ at the leading order in $`𝜶_{\mathrm{𝐞𝐦}}`$, $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑾`$, $`𝒎_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ has been neglected in Eq. (24).

Perturbative calculations (see Ref.  and refs. therein) are used to find the Wilson coefficients in the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ scheme, at the renormalization scale $`𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$

$$𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑪_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}𝑪_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑪_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$
(26)
Here, $`𝑪_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ depend on $`𝜶_𝒔`$ only via the ratio $`𝜼\mathbf{}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, where $`𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝑾`$. In the Leading Order (LO) calculations, everything but $`𝑪_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ is neglected in Eq. (26). At the Next-to-Leading Order (NLO), one takes $`𝑪_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ into account. The Wilson coefficients contain information on the short-distance QCD effects due to hard gluon exchanges between the quark lines of the leading one-loop electroweak diagrams (Fig. 6.9). Such effects enhance the perturbative branching ratio $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ by roughly a factor of three .

The same formalism applies to $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$, too. The corresponding operators $`𝑸_𝒊`$ are obtained by replacing $`\overline{𝒔}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}`$ in Eq. (25), and by including the $`𝒖`$-quark analogues of $`𝑸_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. The latter operators are no longer CKM-suppressed. The matching conditions $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ and the solutions of the RG equations, yielding $`𝑪_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, coincide with those needed for the process $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$.

#### 6.2.1 Inclusive $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝜸`$ decay

The inclusive branching ratio $`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ was measured for the first time by CLEO in 1995 . The present world averages

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.6}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.28}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.36}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.41}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}`$ (27)
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.40}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.37}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.42}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}`$ (28)
are found from the following four measurements

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{3.88}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.36}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.37}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬}}\mathbf{(}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.23}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.43}}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲}}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\text{(BABAR [}\text{31}\text{]),}`$
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{3.21}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.43}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.27}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬}}\mathbf{(}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.10}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.18}}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲}}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\text{(CLEO [}\text{32}\text{]),}`$
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{[}\mathbf{3.36}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.53}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.42}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬}}\mathbf{(}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.54}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.50}}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲}}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\text{(BELLE [}\text{33}\text{]),}`$
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.11}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.80}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.72}_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐲𝐬}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}\text{(ALEPH [}\text{34}\text{]),}`$
in which full correlation of the “theory” errors has been assumed. The averages (27) and (28) are perfectly consistent with the SM predictions

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.6}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.57}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.30}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}`$ (29)
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{(}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{3.70}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{.}`$ (30)
By convention, contributions to $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ from the intermediate real $`𝝍`$ and $`𝝍^{\mathbf{}}`$ are treated as background, while all the continuum $`𝒄\overline{𝒄}`$ states are included assuming quark-hadron duality. Non-continuum states other than $`𝝍`$ and $`𝝍^{\mathbf{}}`$ have negligible effect.

When the theoretical result (29) is reevaluated without use of the CKM unitarity in the dominant contributions (i.e. everywhere except for three small $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{2.5}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections), comparison with the experiment (27) leads to the following constraint on the CKM matrix elements

$$\mathbf{\left|}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1.69}𝝀_𝒖\mathbf{+}\mathbf{1.60}𝝀_𝒄\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.60}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{\right|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}0.94}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{.}$$
(31)
After using the numerical values of $`𝝀_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{41.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{2.1}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝝀_𝒖`$ from the PDG , this equation yields $`𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟕}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ with an error of around 17%. This is consistent with the unitarity relation $`𝝀_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒕`$. This relation, however, holds in the SM with much better accuracy than what has just been derived from Eq. (31). On the other hand, if the SM with 3 generations is not valid, Eq. (31) is not valid either.

Contrary to $`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, the branching ratio $`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, if measured, would provide us with useful constraints on the Wolfenstein parameters $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$. After using the CKM unitarity, it can be written as

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{|}𝝃_𝒕\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑫_𝒕\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{|}𝝃_𝒖\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑫_𝒖\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑹𝒆\mathbf{(}𝝃_𝒕^{\mathbf{}}𝝃_𝒖\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑫_𝒓\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑰𝒎\mathbf{(}𝝃_𝒕^{\mathbf{}}𝝃_𝒖\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑫_𝒊\mathbf{.}`$ (32)
The factors $`𝝃_𝒊`$ have been defined earlier. The quantities $`𝑫_𝒂`$ $`\mathbf{(}𝒂\mathbf{=}𝒕\mathbf{,}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒓\mathbf{,}𝒊`$), which depend on various input parameters such as $`𝒎_𝒕`$, $`𝒎_𝒃`$, $`𝒎_𝒄`$, $`𝝁_𝒃`$ and $`𝜶_𝒔`$, are given in Ref. . Typical values of these quantities (in units of $`𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}`$) are: $`𝑫_𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.154}\mathbf{,}𝑫_𝒖\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.012}\mathbf{,}𝑫_𝒓\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.028}`$, and $`𝑫_𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.042}`$, corresponding to the scale $`𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ GeV, and the pole quark mass ratio $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.29}`$. The charge-conjugate averaged branching ratio $`\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ is obtained by discarding the last term on the right hand side of Eq. (32).

It is convenient to consider the ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}{\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{|}𝝃_𝒕\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑫_𝒖}{𝑫_𝒕}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{|}𝝃_𝒖\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑫_𝒓}{𝑫_𝒕}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑹𝒆\mathbf{(}𝝃_𝒕^{\mathbf{}}𝝃_𝒖\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{|}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}`$ (33)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑫_𝒖}{𝑫_𝒕}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑫_𝒓}{𝑫_𝒕}}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{0.036}\mathbf{[}\text{for}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{0.35}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{.}`$
The above result together with Eq. (30) implies $`\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.3}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ in the SM. Thus, with $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟖}\mathbf{)}`$ $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ events already collected at the B factories, $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ decays are already produced. However, extracting them from the background remains a non-trivial issue.

Apart from the total branching ratios, the inclusive decays $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝜸`$ provide us with other observables that might be useful for the CKM phenomenology. First, as discussed in Chapt. 3, the $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ photon spectrum is used to extract the HQET parameters that are crucial for the determination of $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. Second, CP-asymmetries contain information on the CKM phase. These asymmetries can be either direct (i.e. occur in the decay amplitudes) or induced by the $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ mixing.

The mixing-induced CP-asymmetries in $`\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_{𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}𝜸`$ are very small ($`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝒎_{𝒔\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$) in the SM, so long as the photon polarizations are summed over. It follows from the particular structure of the dominant operator $`𝑸_\mathrm{𝟕}`$ in Eq. (25), which implies that photons produced in the decays of B and $`\overline{𝐁}`$ have opposite circular polarizations. Thus, in the absence of new physics, observation of the mixing-induced CP-violation would require selecting particular linear photon polarization with the help of matter-induced photon conversion into $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ pairs .

The SM predictions for the direct CP-asymmetries read

$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_{\overline{𝒔}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_{\overline{𝒔}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝀_𝒕^{\mathbf{}}𝝀_𝒖\mathbf{)}𝑫_𝒊}{\mathbf{|}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑫_𝒕}}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{0.27}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.5}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}`$ (34)
$`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐗_𝐝𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝐗_𝐝𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐗_{\overline{𝐝}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝐗_𝐝𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐗_{\overline{𝐝}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}\mathbf{(}𝝃_𝐭^{\mathbf{}}𝝃_𝐮\mathbf{)}𝐃_𝐢}{\mathbf{|}𝝃_𝐭\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐃_𝐭}}`$ $`\mathbf{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.27}\overline{𝜼}}{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜼}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}\mathbf{\%}\mathbf{,}`$ (35)
where $`\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.35}`$ have been used in the numerical estimates. As stressed in Ref. , there is considerable scale uncertainty in the above predictions, which would require a NLO calculation of $`𝑫_𝒊`$ to be brought under theoretical control. The smallness of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ is caused by three suppression factors: $`𝝀_𝒖\mathbf{/}𝝀_𝒕`$, $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝝅`$ and $`𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. This SM prediction is consistent with the CLEO bound $`\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.27}\mathbf{<}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.10}`$ at 95% C.L. .

No experimental limit has been announced so far on either the branching ratio $`𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ or the CP asymmetry $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒅𝜸\mathbf{)}`$. While experimentally challenging, the measurement of these quantities might ultimately be feasible at the B-factories which would provide valuable and complementary constraints on the CKM parameters.

#### 6.2.2 Exclusive radiative B decays

The effective Hamiltonian sandwiched between the B-meson and a single meson state (say, $`𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`𝝆`$ in the transitions $`𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝝆\mathbf{)}𝜸`$) can be expressed in terms of matrix elements of bilinear quark currents inducing heavy-light transitions. These matrix elements are dominated by strong interactions at small momentum transfer and cannot be calculated perturbatively. They have to be obtained from a non-perturbative method, such as the lattice-QCD and the QCD sum rule approach. As the inclusive branching ratio $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ in the SM is in striking agreement with data, the role of the branching ratio $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ is that it will determine the form factor governing the electromagnetic penguin transition, $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$.

To get a firmer theoretical prediction on the decay rate, one has to include the perturbative QCD radiative corrections arising from the vertex renormalization and the hard spectator interactions. To incorporate both types of QCD corrections, it is helpful to use a factorization Ansatz for the heavy-light transitions at large recoil and at leading order in the inverse heavy meson mass, introduced in Ref. . Exemplified here by the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑽𝜸^{\mathbf{}}`$ transition, a typical amplitude $`𝒇_𝒌\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ can be written in the form

$$𝒇_𝒌\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑪_\mathbf{}𝒌𝝃_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑪_\mathbf{}𝒌𝝃_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚽_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑻_𝒌\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚽_𝑽\mathbf{,}$$
(36)
where $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ are the two independent form factors in these decays remaining in the heavy quark and large energy limit; $`𝑻_𝒌\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ is a hard-scattering kernel calculated to $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$; $`𝚽_𝑩`$ and $`𝚽_𝑽`$ are the light-cone distribution amplitudes of the B- and vector-meson, respectively, the symbol $`\mathbf{}`$ denotes convolution with $`𝑻_𝒌`$, and $`𝑪_𝒌\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ are the hard vertex renormalization coefficients. In a number of papers , the factorization Ansatz of Eq. (36) is shown to hold in $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$, leading to the explicit $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corrections to the amplitudes $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑽𝜸`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑽\mathbf{}^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}`$.

We first discuss the exclusive decay $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$, for which data from the CLEO, BABAR, and BELLE measurements are available and given in Table 6.2 for the charge conjugated averaged branching ratios. We note that the BELLE data alone has reached a statistical accuracy of better than 10%.

Adding the statistical and systematic errors in quadrature, we get the following world averages for the branching ratios:

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.08}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.26}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.05}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.35}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{.}`$ (37)
The two branching ratios are completely consistent with each other, ruling out any significant isospin breaking in the respective decay widths, which is not expected in the SM  but anticipated in some beyond-the-SM scenarios. Likewise, the CP asymmetry in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays, which in the SM is expected to be of the same order of magnitude as for the inclusive decay, namely $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\%}`$, is completely consistent with the present experimental bounds, the most stringent of which is posted by the BELLE collaboration : $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.022}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.048}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.017}`$. In view of this, we shall concentrate in the following on the branching ratios in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays to determine the form factors.

Ignoring the isospin differences in the decay widths of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays, the branching ratios for $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐊}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}𝜸`$ can be expressed as:

$`𝓑_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝝉_𝑩𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝝉_𝑩{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟒}}}𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left[}𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^{\mathbf{(}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒎_𝐊^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝑴^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}\mathbf{+}𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝑮_𝑭`$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $`𝜶\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟕}`$ is the fine-structure constant, $`𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}`$ is the pole $`𝒃`$-quark mass, $`𝑴`$ and $`𝑴_𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ are the B- and $`𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$-meson masses, and $`𝝉_𝑩`$ is the lifetime of the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$\- or $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}`$-meson. The quantity $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ is the soft part of the form factor $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ in the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ transition, to which the symmetries in the large energy limit apply. The two form factors $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ are related by perturbative $`\mathbf{(}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ and power $`\mathbf{(}𝑶\mathbf{(}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ corrections . Thus, one could have equivalently expressed the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$-corrected branching ratio for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ in terms of the QCD form factor $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, and a commensurately modified expression for the explicit $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ correction in the above equation . In any case, the form factor $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ or $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}`$ has to be determined by a non-perturbative method.

The function $`𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ in Eq. (6.2.2) can be decomposed into the following three components:

$$𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑨_{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐯𝐞𝐫}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{(}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(39)
Here, $`𝑨_{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐯𝐞𝐫}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}`$ are the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ (i.e. NLO) corrections due to the Wilson coefficient $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}`$ and in the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ vertex, respectively, and $`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐩}}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}}`$ is the $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ hard-spectator correction to the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ amplitude computed in . This formalism leads to the following branching ratio for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays:

$$𝓑_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐡}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{7.2}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.1}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝝉_𝑩}{\mathbf{1.6}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝒎_{𝒃\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐞}}}{\mathbf{4.65}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}}{\mathbf{0.35}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(40)
where the default values of the three input parameters are made explicit, with the rest of the theoretical uncertainties indicated numerically; the default value for the form factor $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ is based on the light-cone QCD sum rule estimates .

The non-perturbative parameter $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ can now be extracted from the data on the branching ratios for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays, given in Eq. (37), leading to the current world average $`\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$, which then yields

$$\overline{𝝃}_{\mathbf{}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.25}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left[}\overline{𝑻}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.27}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(41)
where we have used the $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ relation between the effective theory form factor $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ and the full QCD form factor $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝒎}_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$, worked out in . This estimate is significantly smaller than the corresponding predictions from the QCD sum rules analysis $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.38}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}`$  and from the lattice simulations $`𝑻_\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{(}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.32}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.04}}`$ . Clearly, more work is needed to calculate the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decay form factors precisely.

As already discussed, inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ transitions are not yet available experimentally. This lends great importance to the exclusive decays, such as $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{,}𝝎𝜸`$, to whose discussion we now turn. These decays differ from their $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ counterparts, in that the annihilation contributions are not Cabibbo-suppressed. In particular, the isospin-violating ratios and CP-asymmetries in the decay rates involving the decays $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸`$ are sensitive to the penguin and annihilation interference in the amplitudes.

We recall that ignoring the perturbative QCD corrections to the penguin amplitudes the ratio of the branching ratios for the charged and neutral B-meson decays in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸`$ can be written as

$$\frac{𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left|}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{ϵ}_𝑨𝐞^{𝒊\mathit{\varphi }_𝑨}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}{𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(42)
where $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑨𝐞^{𝒊\mathit{\varphi }_𝑨}`$ includes the dominant $`𝑾`$-annihilation and possible sub-dominant long-distance contributions. We shall use the value $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑨\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.30}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$ for the decays $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$ , obtained assuming factorization of the annihilation amplitude. The corresponding quantity for the decays $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸`$ is suppressed due to the electric charge of the spectator quark in $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ as well as by the unfavourable colour factors. Typical estimates for $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑨`$ in $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸`$ put it at around 5% . The strong interaction phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑨`$ vanishes in $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ in the chiral limit and to leading twist , giving theoretical credibility to the factorization-based estimates. Thus, in the QCD factorization approach the phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑨`$ is expected to be small and one usually sets $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝑨\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Of course, $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ vertex and hard spectator corrections generate non-zero strong phases, as discussed later. The isospin-violating correction depends on the unitarity triangle phase $`𝜶`$ due to the relation:

$$\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}{𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}{𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right|}𝐞^{𝒊𝜶}\mathbf{.}$$
(43)
The NLO corrections to the branching ratios of the exclusive decays $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸`$ are derived very much along the same lines as outlined for the decays $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$. Including the annihilation contribution, the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸`$ branching ratios, isospin- and CP-violating asymmetries are given in .

Concentrating on the decays $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$, the expression for the ratio $`𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$) (where an average over the charge-conjugated modes is implied) can be written as

$$𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑺_𝝆\mathbf{\left|}\frac{𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}}{𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝝆^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑲^{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}}𝜻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(44)
where $`𝑺_𝝆\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for the $`𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }`$ meson, and $`𝜻\mathbf{=}𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝝆\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$, with $`𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝝆\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝝃_{\mathbf{}}^𝑲^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ being the form factors (at $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$) in the effective heavy quark theory for the decays $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$. The quantity $`\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑹\mathbf{)}`$ entails the explicit $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{)}`$ corrections, encoded through the functions $`𝑨_𝐑^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}}`$, $`𝑨_𝐑^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒕}`$ and $`𝑨_𝐑^𝒖`$, and the long-distance contribution $`𝑳_𝐑^𝒖`$. For the decays $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathbf{\pm }𝜸`$, this can be written after charge conjugated averaging as

$`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left|}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖𝑳_𝑹^𝒖}{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒔}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑨_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒔}{\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒔\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (45)
$`\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒔\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖𝑳_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑨_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒕}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝑨_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}`$
In the SM, $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{=}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}`$, as in the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ decays; however, in beyond-the-SM scenarios, this may not hold making the decays $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸`$ interesting for beyond-the-SM searches . The definitions of the quantities $`𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑲^{\mathbf{}}}`$, $`𝑨^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒕}`$, $`𝑨^𝒖`$ and $`𝑳_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{=}\mathit{ϵ}_𝑨𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐞𝐟𝐟}}`$ can be seen in . Their default values together with that of $`𝜻`$ are summarized in Table 6.3, where we have also specified the theoretical errors in the more sensitive parameters $`𝜻`$ and $`𝑳_𝑹^𝒖`$.

What concerns the quantity called $`𝜻`$, we note that there are several model-dependent estimates of the same in the literature. Some representative values are: $`𝜻\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.76}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}`$ from the light-cone QCD sum rules ; a theoretically improved estimate in the same approach yields : $`𝜻\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.75}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$; $`𝜻\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.88}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{!}\mathbf{)}`$ using hybrid QCD sum rules , and $`𝜻\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.69}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ in the quark model . Except for the hybrid QCD sum rules, all other approaches yield a significant SU(3)-breaking in the magnetic moment form factors. In the light-cone QCD sum rule approach, this is anticipated due to the appreciable differences in the wave functions of the $`𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝝆`$-mesons. To reflect the current dispersion in the theoretical estimates of $`𝜻`$, we take its value as $`𝜻\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.76}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}`$. A lattice-QCD based estimate of the same is highly desirable.

The isospin breaking ratio

$$𝚫\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathbf{(}𝚫^{\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{+}𝚫^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}𝚫^{\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}$$
(46)
is given by

$`𝚫\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{\left|}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖𝑳_𝑹^𝒖}{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅}}\mathbf{\right|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{(}𝑨_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒕}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝑨_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}`$ (47)
$`\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖𝑳_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑨_𝑹^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒕}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝑨_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}`$
and the CP asymmetry $`𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ is

$$𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖𝑳_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑨_𝑰^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝒕}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖^{\mathbf{}}𝑨_𝑰^𝒖\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}}{\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}^𝒅\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖𝑳_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{.}$$
(48)
The observables $`𝑹^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ (where $`\overline{𝓑}`$ is the average of the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ modes) and $`𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝓑\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ are obtained from Eqs. (44, 45, 48) in the limit $`𝑳_𝑹^𝒖\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝑺_𝝆\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

The numerical estimates for the various observables depend, apart from the hadronic parameters specific to the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑽𝜸`$ ($`𝑽\mathbf{=}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝝆\mathbf{)}`$ decays, also on the CKM parameters, in particular $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$. A typical analysis of the constraints in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane from the unitarity of the CKM matrix , including the measurements of the CP asymmetry $`𝒂_{𝝍𝑲_𝒔}`$ in the decays $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝒔`$ (and related modes)  is shown in Fig. 6.10. Note that for the hadronic parameters $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}`$ and $`𝝃_𝒔`$, the recent lattice estimates  have been adopted that take into account uncertainties induced by the so-called chiral logarithms . These errors are extremely asymmetric and, once taken into account, reduce sizeably the impact of the $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ lower bound on the unitarity triangle analysis, as shown in Fig. 6.10. The $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ CL contour is drawn taking into account chiral logarithms uncertainties. The fitted values for the Wolfenstein parameters are $`\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.07}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.35}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}`$. This yields $`𝚫𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.055}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.130}`$ and $`𝚫𝑹^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.110}`$ . The impact of the current upper limit $`𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.047}`$  is also shown. While not yet competitive to the existing constraints on the unitarity triangle, this surely is bound to change with the anticipated $`𝑶\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐚𝐛}\mathbf{)}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$ $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ data over the next three years at the B-factories.

Taking into account these errors and the uncertainties on the theoretical parameters presented in Table 6.3, leads to the following SM expectations for the $`𝐁\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝝆\mathbf{)}𝜸`$ decays :

$`𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.023}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.012}\mathbf{,}`$ (49)
$`𝑹^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.011}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.006}\mathbf{,}`$ (50)
$`𝚫\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.04}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.07}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.14}}\mathbf{,}`$ (51)
$`𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.10}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.03}}\mathbf{,}`$ (52)
$`𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{.}`$ (53)
The above estimates of $`𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑹^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ can be combined with the measured branching ratios for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays given earlier to yield:

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.93}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.49}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{,}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.45}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.24}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{.}$$
(54)
The errors include the uncertainties on the hadronic parameters and the CKM parameters $`\overline{𝝆}`$, $`\overline{𝜼}`$, as well as the current experimental error on $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$. While there is as yet no experimental bounds on the isospin- and CP-violating quantities, $`𝚫\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑨_{𝑪𝑷}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, the upper limits on the branching ratios $`𝑹^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝑹^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ have been significantly improved by the BABAR  and BELLE  collaborations recently. Averaged over the charge conjugated modes, the current best upper limits are : $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.4}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$, $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathbf{\pm }𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{2.3}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$ and $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝎𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$ (at 90% C.L.). They have been combined, using isospin weights for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸`$ decays and assuming $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝎𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, to yield the improved upper limit $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.9}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$. The current measurements of the branching ratios for $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸`$ decays by BABAR , $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.23}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.40}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ and $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.83}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.62}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.22}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$, are then used to set an upper limit on the ratio of the branching ratios $`𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.047}`$ (at 90% C.L.) . This bound is typically a factor 2 away from the SM estimates given above . However, in beyond-the-SM scenarios, this bound provides highly significant constraints on the relative strengths of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒅𝜸`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ transitions .

The extremal values of $`𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ compatible with the SM UT-analysis are shown in Fig. 6.11 where the bands correspond to the values $`\mathbf{0.037}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.007}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.013}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.003}`$ (the errors are essentially driven by the uncertainty on $`𝜻`$). The meaning of this figure is as follows: any measurement of $`𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, whose central value lies in the range $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.013}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{0.037}\mathbf{)}`$ would be compatible with the SM, irrespective of the size of the experimental error. The error induced by the imprecise determination of the isospin breaking parameter $`𝜻`$ limits currently the possibility of having a very sharp impact from $`𝑹\mathbf{(}𝝆𝜸\mathbf{/}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ on the UT analysis. This aspect needs further theoretical work.

### 6.3 Weak phases from hadronic B decays

M. Beneke, G. Buchalla (coordinator), M. Ciuchini, R. Fleischer, E. Franco, Y.-Y. Keum, G. Martinelli, M. Pierini, J.L. Rosner and L. Silvestrini

The next five contributions discuss the problem of extracting weak phases from hadronic B decays. The emphasis is on determining the CKM parameters $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜶`$, or equivalent constraints on $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$, from exclusive modes with two light mesons in the final state, such as $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$. This problem is difficult since the underlying weak interaction processes are dressed by QCD dynamics, which is prominent in purely hadronic decays. Despite the general difficulty, there are several circumstances that help us to control strong interaction effects and to isolate the weak couplings:

* Flavour symmetries: The impact of strong interactions may be reduced by eliminating hadronic matrix elements through a combination of different channels, exploiting approximate flavour symmetries of QCD. Important examples are isospin, $`𝑼`$-spin (doublet ($`𝒅`$, $`𝒔`$)) or, more generally, $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}_𝑭`$.
* Heavy-quark limit: The fact that $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}`$ can be used to simplify the theoretical description of QCD dynamics in B decays. Within this framework amplitudes are expanded in $`𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$, long-distance and short-distance contributions are factorized, and the latter can be treated in perturbative QCD. As a result the impact of nonperturbative hadronic physics is reduced.
* Rich phenomenology: A large number of decay channels exists, which allows us to explore different approaches, to apply various strategies based on QCD flavour symmetries and to obtain cross-checks for dynamical calculations based on factorization.

It has to be emphasized that this field is in a state of ongoing development, both theoretically and experimentally. On the theory side important questions still need further study (general proof of factorization, light-cone dynamics of the B meson, numerical accuracy of heavy-quark limit in various situations, size of $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}_𝑭`$-breaking corrections), while many valuable new data continue to be collected by the experiments. It is worth noting that the approaches based on flavour symmetries and those using dynamical calculations in the heavy-quark limit are complementary to each other. For instance, corrections from flavour symmetry breaking can be estimated within factorization. One may expect that the most important results might eventually be obtained from the combined use of all the available options mentioned above.

The following contributions summarize the status of the subject as it was discussed at this workshop. The contributions of J.L. Rosner and R. Fleischer highlight strategies based on QCD flavour symmetries to extract $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$, $`𝝅𝝅`$ decays. The status of factorization is outlined by M. Beneke. A critical point of view on extracting $`𝜸`$ from global fits to hadronic modes is presented by M. Ciuchini et al.. Finally, a phenomenological analysis based on the hypothesis of hard-gluon dominance of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅`$ form factors is described by Y.-Y. Keum.

#### 6.3.1 Weak coupling phases

J.L. Rosner*** J.L. Rosner would like to thank C.-W. Chiang, M. Gronau, Z. Luo, M. Neubert, and D. Suprun for enjoyable collaborations on these subjects.

The phases of CKM matrix elements describing charge-changing weak couplings of quarks are fundamental quantities. They are sometimes described in terms of angles $`𝜶\mathbf{=}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝜷\mathbf{=}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ in the unitarity triangle. Now that BaBar and Belle are converging on a value of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$, attention has turned to ways of learning $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸\mathbf{=}𝝅\mathbf{}𝜷\mathbf{}𝜶`$. This summary describes some recent work on the subject.

In Sec. 6.3.1.1 we discuss $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ in the light of recent measurements at BaBar  and Belle  of time-dependent asymmetries. This work was performed in part in collaboration with M. Gronau  and in part with Z. Luo . We then mention how to learn $`𝜸`$ from various $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ decays (Sec. 6.3.1.2, collaboration with M. Gronau  and with M. Neubert ), $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}𝝅`$ (Sec. 6.3.1.3, collaboration with D. Suprun and C.W. Chiang ), and $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$ from tree-penguin interference in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑷𝑷\mathbf{,}𝑷𝑽`$ decays, where $`𝑷`$ is a light pseudoscalar and $`𝑽`$ a light vector meson (Sec. 6.3.1.4, collaboration with C.W. Chiang ). Sec. 6.3.1.5 is a short guide to other recent work, while we summarize in Sec. 6.3.1.6

##### 6.3.1.1 Determination of $`𝜶`$ from $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays

We regard $`𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜸`$ as uncertain to about $`𝝅\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟒}`$: $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜶\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟑}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}`$ , in accord with $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜶\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ . If $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ were dominated by the “tree” amplitude $`𝑻`$ with phase $`𝜸\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐀𝐫𝐠}\mathbf{(}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{)}`$, the parameter $`𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{}𝒆^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒊𝜷}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ would be just $`𝒆^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒊𝜶}`$ and the indirect CP-violating asymmetry $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐈𝐦𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ would be $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶`$. Here

$$\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝒕}\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝒇\\ \overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝒇\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝚪𝒕}\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{\pm }𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝑴_𝒅𝒕\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}$$
(55)
$`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$, and $`𝚫𝚪\mathbf{}𝚫𝑴_𝒅\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ has been neglected. In the presence of non-zero $`𝚫𝚪`$ one can also measure $`𝑨_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐑𝐞𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. Since $`\mathbf{|}𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑨_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ one has $`\mathbf{|}𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. However, one also has a penguin amplitude $`𝑷`$ involving a $`\overline{𝒃}\mathbf{}\overline{𝒅}`$ loop transition involving contributions $`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$, $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$, and $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$. The decay amplitudes are then

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{|}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_𝑻}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{|}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_𝑷}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{|}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_𝑻}𝒆^{\mathbf{}𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{|}𝒆^{𝒊𝜹_𝑷}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(56)
where the strong phase difference $`𝜹\mathbf{}𝜹_𝑷\mathbf{}𝜹_𝑻`$. It will be convenient to define $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐞}}`$, where $`\overline{𝓑}`$ refers to a branching ratio averaged over $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$. One may use $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ to learn $`𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜹`$, resolving a discrete ambiguity with the help of $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}`$ . Alternatively, one may directly use $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$, $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$, and $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}`$ to learn $`𝜶`$, $`𝜹`$, and $`\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻\mathbf{|}`$ .

Explicit expressions for $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}`$, $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ may be found in . In  we estimated $`\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.276}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.064}`$ (see also ), obtaining $`\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ via (broken) flavor SU(3) and $`\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$. Plotting $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ against $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ for various values of $`𝜶`$ in the likely range, one obtains curves parametrized by $`𝜹`$ which establish a one-to-one correspondence between a pair $`\mathbf{(}𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{,}𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{)}`$ and a pair $`\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{,}𝜹\mathbf{)}`$ as long as $`\mathbf{|}𝜹\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. However, if $`\mathbf{|}𝜹\mathbf{|}`$ is allowed to exceed about $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ these curves can intersect with one another, giving rise to a discrete ambiguity corresponding to as much as $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ uncertainty in $`𝜶`$ when $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. In this case, when $`𝜹\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ or $`𝝅`$, one has $`\mathbf{|}𝝀_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝜶\mathbf{+}𝚫𝜶\mathbf{)}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝜶\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ is typically $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}`$. One can resolve the ambiguity either by comparing the predicted $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}`$ with experiment (see  for details) , or by comparing the allowed $`\mathbf{(}𝝆\mathbf{,}𝜼\mathbf{)}`$ region with that determined by other observables . An example is shown in .

Once errors on $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}`$ are reduced to $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}`$ (they are now about three times as large ), a distinction between $`𝜹\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝜹\mathbf{=}𝝅`$ will be possible when $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, as appears to be the case for BaBar . For the Belle data , which suggest $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the distinction becomes easier; it becomes harder for $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. With 100 fb-1 at each of BaBar and Belle, it will be possible to reduce $`𝚫\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑻\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ from its present error of 44% and $`\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ from its present error of 21% each to about 10% , which will go a long way toward this goal. In an analysis independent of $`\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻\mathbf{|}`$ performed since the workshop, the somewhat discrepant BaBar and Belle values of $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$, when averaged, favor $`𝜶`$ between about $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ (see Fig. 1 of ).

##### 6.3.1.2 Determination of $`𝜸`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ decays

##### $`𝜸`$ from $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$

We mention some results of  on information provided by $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays, which involve both a penguin $`𝑷^{\mathbf{}}`$ and a tree $`𝑻^{\mathbf{}}`$ amplitude. One can use the flavor-averaged branching ratio $`\overline{𝓑}`$ and the CP asymmetry in these decays, together with $`𝑷^{\mathbf{}}`$ information from the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ decay rate (assuming it is equal to the charge-conjugate rate, which must be checked) and $`𝑻^{\mathbf{}}`$ information from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ and flavor SU(3), to obtain constraints on $`𝜸`$. One considers the ratio $`𝑹\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{[}𝝉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}𝝉_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{]}`$, where the $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ lifetime ratio $`𝝉_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{/}𝝉_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is about 1.07. Once the error on this quantity is reduced to $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ from its value of $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.14}`$ as of February 2002, which should be possible with 200 fb<sup>-1</sup> at each of BaBar and Belle, one should begin to see useful constraints arising from the value of $`𝑹`$, especially if errors on the ratio $`𝒓\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑻^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝑷^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}`$ can be reduced with the help of better information on $`\mathbf{|}𝑻^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}`$.

##### $`𝜸`$ from $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$

One can use the ratio $`𝑹_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ to determine $`𝜸`$ . Given the values as of February 2002, $`𝑹_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.25}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.22}`$, $`𝑨_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{[}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.13}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.17}`$, and $`𝒓_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}𝑻^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{+}𝑪^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝒑^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.230}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.035}`$ (here $`𝑪^{\mathbf{}}`$ is a color-suppressed amplitude, while $`𝒑^{\mathbf{}}`$ is a penguin amplitude including an electroweak contribution), and an estimate  of the electroweak penguin contribution, one finds $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ at the $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝝈`$ level, updating an earlier bound  $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. A useful determination would involve $`𝚫𝑹_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}`$, achievable with 150 fb-1 each at BaBar and Belle.

##### 6.3.1.3 Determination of $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}𝝅`$ decays

The “right-sign” (RS) decay $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, governed by the CKM factor $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}`$, and the “wrong-sign” (WS) decay $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$, governed by $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$, can interfere through $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing, leading to information on the weak phase $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸`$. One must separate out the dependence on a strong phase $`𝜹`$ between the RS and WS amplitudes, measuring time-dependent observables

$$𝑨_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑹^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝚫𝒎𝒕\mathbf{,}𝑩_\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{\pm }𝜹\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝚫𝒎𝒕\mathbf{,}$$
(57)
where $`𝑹\mathbf{}\mathbf{|}\mathrm{𝐖𝐒}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝐑𝐒}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}𝒓\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒅}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.02}𝒓`$, with $`𝒓`$ a parameter of order 1 which needs to be known better. In Ref.  we use the fact that $`𝑹`$ can be measured in the decay $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ to conclude that with 250 million $`𝐁\overline{𝑩}`$ pairs one can obtain an error of less than $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ on $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$, which is expected to be greater than about 0.89 in the standard model. Thus, such a measurement is not likely to constrain CKM parameters, but has potential for an interesting non-standard outcome.

##### 6.3.1.4 Determination of $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝑷𝑷\mathbf{,}𝑷𝑽`$ decays

Some other processes which have a near-term potential for providing information on tree-penguin interference (and hence on $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$) are the following \[70: (1) the CP asymmetries in $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝜼`$ and $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝜼^{\mathbf{}}`$; (2) rates in $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝜼^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝜼^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$; (3) rates in $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝜼𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝜼𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$; and (4) rates in $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝎𝐊^\mathbf{+}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝎𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Other interesting branching ratios include those for $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}`$, $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝆^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝆^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝎`$, and $`𝐁^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{}𝜼^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^{\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}`$, with a story for each . In order to see tree-penguin interference at the predicted level one needs to measure branching ratios at the level of $`𝚫\overline{𝓑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$.

##### 6.3.1.5 References to other work

For other recent suggestions on measuring $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$, see the review of  and the contributions of  on the isospin triangle in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ ($`𝜶`$),  on $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐃𝐊}^\mathbf{+}`$ ($`𝜸`$),  on $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐃𝐊}_𝑺`$ ($`\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}𝜸`$),  on $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ ($`𝜸`$),  on $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊_{\mathbf{}}`$ ($`𝜸`$), and  on $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁_𝐬\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ ($`𝜸`$). These contain references to earlier work.

##### 6.3.1.6 Summary

CKM phases will be learned in many ways. While $`𝜷`$ is well-known now and will be better-known soon, present errors on $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$ are about $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}`$. To reduce them to $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ or less, several methods will help. (1) Time-dependent asymmetries in $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ already contain useful information. The next step will come when both BaBar and Belle accumulate samples of at least 100 fb-1. (2) In $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ an ambiguity between a strong phase $`𝜹`$ near zero and one near $`𝝅`$ (if the direct asymmetry parameter $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ is small) can be resolved experimentally, for example by better measurement of the $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ branching ratio and the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅\mathbf{}𝝂`$ spectrum. (3) Several $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ modes, when compared, can constrain $`𝜸`$ through penguin-tree interference. This has been recognized, for example, in . (4) The rates in several $`𝐁\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐏𝐏}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝐏𝐕}`$ modes are sensitive to tree-penguin interference. One needs to measure branching ratios with errors less than $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$ to see such effects reliably.

#### 6.3.2 Extracting $`𝜸`$ through flavour-symmetry strategies

R. Fleischer R. Fleischer would like to thank Andrzej Buras, Thomas Mannel and Joaquim Matias for pleasant collaborations on the topics discussed below.

An important element in the testing of the Kobayashi–Maskawa picture of CP violation is the direct determination of the angle $`𝜸`$ of the unitarity triangle of the CKM matrix. Here the goal is to overconstrain this angle as much as possible. In the presence of new physics, discrepancies may arise between different strategies, as well as with the “indirect” results for $`𝜸`$ that are provided by the usual fits of the unitarity triangle, yielding at present $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ .

There are many approaches on the market to determine $`𝜸`$ (for a detailed review, see Ref. ). Here we shall focus on $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ modes , , which can be analysed through flavour-symmetry arguments and plausible dynamical assumptions, and the $`𝑼`$-spin-related decays $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ . The corresponding flavour-symmetry strategies allow the determination of $`𝜸`$ and valuable hadronic parameters with a “minimal” theoretical input. Alternative approaches, relying on a more extensive use of theory, are provided by the recently developed “QCD factorization”  and “PQCD”  approaches, which allow furthermore a reduction of the theoretical uncertainties of the flavour-symmetry strategies discussed here. Let us note that these approaches are also particularly promising from a practical point of view: BaBar, Belle and CLEO-III may probe $`𝜸`$ through $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ modes, whereas the $`𝑼`$-spin strategy, requiring also a measurement of the $`𝐁_𝒔`$-meson decay $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$, is already interesting for run II of the Tevatron , and can be fully exploited in the LHC era . A variant for the B-factories , where $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ is replaced by $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$, points already to an exciting picture .

##### 6.3.2.1 Studies of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ decays

Using the isospin flavour symmetry of strong interactions, relations between $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ amplitudes can be derived, which suggest the following combinations to probe $`𝜸`$: the “mixed” $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝐊`$, $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system , the “charged” $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝐊`$, $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system , and the “neutral” $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊`$, $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ system . Interestingly, already CP-averaged $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ branching ratios may lead to non-trivial constraints on $`𝜸`$ . In order to determine this angle, also CP-violating rate differences have to be measured. To this end, we introduce the following observables :

$$\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝑹\\ 𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝐝^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\text{BR}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁_𝐝^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\frac{𝝉_{𝑩^\mathbf{+}}}{𝝉_{𝑩_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}}$$
(58)
$$\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝑹_𝐜\\ 𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝐜\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}$$
(59)
$$\mathbf{\left\{}\begin{array}{c}𝑹_𝐧\\ 𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^𝐧\end{array}\mathbf{\right\}}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\pm }\text{BR}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{BR}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{BR}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\overline{𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{.}$$
(60)
If we employ the isospin flavour symmetry and make plausible dynamical assumptions, concerning mainly the smallness of certain rescattering processes, we obtain parametrizations of the following structure  (for alternative ones, see Ref. ):

$$𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\text{functions}\mathbf{(}𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(61)
Here $`𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ denotes the ratio of electroweak (EW) penguins to “trees”, $`𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ is the ratio of “trees” to QCD penguins, and $`𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ the strong phase between “trees” and QCD penguins. The EW penguin parameters $`𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ can be fixed through theoretical arguments: in the mixed system , we have $`𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, as EW penguins contribute only in colour-suppressed form; in the charged and neutral $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ systems, $`𝒒_𝐜`$ and $`𝒒_𝐧`$ can be fixed through the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour symmetry without dynamical assumptions . The $`𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ can be determined with the help of additional experimental information: in the mixed system, $`𝒓`$ can be fixed through arguments based on factorization  or $`𝑼`$-spin , whereas $`𝒓_𝐜`$ and $`𝒓_𝐧`$ can be determined from the CP-averaged $`𝐁^\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ branching ratio by using only the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ flavour symmetry . The uncertainties arising in this programme from $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$-breaking effects can be reduced through the QCD factorization approach , which is moreover in favour of small rescattering processes. For simplicity, we shall neglect such FSI effects in the discussion given below.

Since we are in a position to fix the parameters $`𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$, we may determine $`𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝜸`$ from the observables given in (61). This can be done separately for the mixed, charged and neutral $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ systems. It should be emphasized that also CP-violating rate differences have to be measured to this end. Using just the CP-conserving observables $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$, we may obtain interesting constraints on $`𝜸`$. In contrast to $`𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ and $`𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$, the strong phase $`𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ suffers from large hadronic uncertainties. However, we can get rid of $`𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ by keeping it as a “free” variable, yielding minimal and maximal values for $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$:

$$𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐭}}\mathbf{|}_{𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\text{function}\mathbf{(}𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(62)
Keeping in addition $`𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ as a free variable, we obtain another – less restrictive – minimal value

$$𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}}\mathbf{|}_{𝒓_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\text{function}\mathbf{(}𝒒_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{.}$$
(63)
These extremal values of $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ imply constraints on $`𝜸`$, since the cases corresponding to $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{<}𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐧}}`$ and $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝐞𝐱𝐩}}\mathbf{>}𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐚𝐱}}`$ are excluded. Present experimental data seem to point towards values for $`𝜸`$ that are larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which would be in conflict with the CKM fits, favouring $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ . Unfortunately, the present experimental uncertainties do not yet allow us to draw definite conclusions, but the picture should improve significantly in the future.

An efficient way to represent the situation in the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ system is provided by allowed regions in the $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧\mathbf{)}}`$ planes , which can be derived within the Standard Model and allow a direct comparison with the experimental data. A complementary analysis in terms of $`𝜸`$ and $`𝜹_{𝐜\mathbf{,}𝐧}`$ was performed in Ref. . Another recent $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ study can be found in Ref. , where the $`𝑹_{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{)}}`$ were calculated for given values of $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{(}𝐜\mathbf{)}}`$ as functions of $`𝜸`$, and were compared with the B-factory data. In order to analyse $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ modes, also certain sum rules may be useful .

##### 6.3.2.2 The $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ decays

As can be seen from the corresponding Feynman diagrams, $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ is related to $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ through an interchange of all down and strange quarks. The decay amplitudes read as follows :

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{}𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\left[}𝒆^{𝒊𝜸}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(64)
where the CP-conserving strong amplitudes $`𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}`$ and $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}`$ measure, sloppily speaking, ratios of penguin to tree amplitudes in $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$, respectively. Using these general parametrizations, we obtain expressions for the direct and mixing-induced CP asymmetries of the following kind:

$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\text{function}\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜽\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\text{function}\mathbf{(}𝒅\mathbf{,}𝜽\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{)}$$
(65)
$$𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\text{function}\mathbf{(}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\text{function}\mathbf{(}𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝜽^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝜸\mathbf{,}\mathit{\varphi }_𝒔\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(66)
Consequently, we have four observables at our disposal, depending on six “unknowns”. However, since $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ are related to each other by interchanging all down and strange quarks, the $`𝑼`$-spin flavour symmetry of strong interactions implies

$$𝒅^{\mathbf{}}𝒆^{𝒊𝜽^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{=}𝒅𝒆^{𝒊𝜽}\mathbf{.}$$
(67)
Using this relation, the four observables in (65,66) depend on the four quantities $`𝒅`$, $`𝜽`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ and $`𝜸`$, which can hence be determined . The theoretical accuracy is only limited by the $`𝑼`$-spin symmetry, as no dynamical assumptions about rescattering processes have to be made. Theoretical considerations give us confidence into (67), as it does not receive $`𝑼`$-spin-breaking corrections in factorization . Moreover, we may also obtain experimental insights into $`𝑼`$-spin breaking .

The $`𝑼`$-spin arguments can be minimized, if the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$, which can be fixed through $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝐒`$, is used as an input. The observables $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ allow us then to eliminate the strong phase $`𝜽`$ and to determine $`𝒅`$ as a function of $`𝜸`$. Analogously, $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ allow us to eliminate the strong phase $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ and to determine $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ as a function of $`𝜸`$. The corresponding contours in the $`𝜸`$$`𝒅`$ and $`𝜸`$$`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}`$ planes can be fixed in a theoretically clean way. Using now the $`𝑼`$-spin relation $`𝒅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒅`$, these contours allow the determination both of the CKM angle $`𝜸`$ and of the hadronic quantities $`𝒅`$, $`𝜽`$, $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$; for a detailed illustration, see Ref. . This approach is very promising for run II of the Tevatron and the experiments of the LHC era, where experimental accuracies for $`𝜸`$ of $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$  and $`𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$  may be achieved, respectively. It should be emphasized that not only $`𝜸`$, but also the hadronic parameters $`𝒅`$, $`𝜽`$, $`𝜽^{\mathbf{}}`$ are of particular interest, as they can be compared with theoretical predictions, thereby allowing valuable insights into hadron dynamics. For other recently developed $`𝑼`$-spin strategies, the reader is referred to .

##### 6.3.2.3 The $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ decays and implications for $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay

A variant of the $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ approach was developed for the $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$ B-factories , where $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ is not accessible: as $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ are related to each other through an interchange of the $`𝒔`$ and $`𝒅`$ spectator quarks, we may replace the $`𝐁_𝒔`$ mode approximately through its $`𝐁_𝒅`$ counterpart, which has already been observed by BaBar, Belle and CLEO. Following these lines and using experimental information on the CP-averaged $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ and $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ branching ratios, the relevant hadronic penguin parameters can be constrained, implying certain allowed regions in observable space . An interesting situation arises now in view of the recent B-factory measurements of CP violation in $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, allowing us to obtain new constraints on $`𝜸`$ as a function of the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing phase $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$, which is fixed through $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊_𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ up to a twofold ambiguity, $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$ or $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$. If we assume that $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ is positive, as indicated by recent Belle data, and that $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ is in agreement with the “indirect” fits of the unitarity triangle, i.e. $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$, also the corresponding values for $`𝜸`$ around $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ can be accommodated. On the other hand, for the second solution $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we obtain a gap around $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and could easily accommodate values for $`𝜸`$ larger than $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Because of the connection between the two solutions for $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ and the resulting values for $`𝜸`$, it is very desirable to resolve the twofold ambiguity in the extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_𝒅`$ directly. As far as $`𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ is concerned, the data on the CP-averaged $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }`$ branching ratios imply a very constrained allowed region in the space of $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐦𝐢𝐱}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓐_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒔\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ within the Standard Model, thereby providing a narrow target range for run II of the Tevatron and the experiments of the LHC era . Other recent studies related to $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ can be found in Refs. .

#### 6.3.3 Determining $`𝜸`$ with QCD factorization

M. Beneke  M. Beneke would like to thank Gerhard Buchalla, Matthias Neubert and Chris Sachrajda for collaborations on the topics discussed in this article.

##### 6.3.3.1 Outline of the method

The QCD factorization approach  puts the well-known factorization ansatz  for hadronic two-body B decay matrix elements on a firm theoretical basis. It replaces the factorization ansatz by a factorization formula that includes radiative corrections and spectator scattering effects. Where it can be justified, the factorization ansatz emerges in the simultaneous limit, when $`𝒎_𝒃`$ becomes large and when radiative corrections are neglected.

The QCD factorization approach uses heavy quark expansion methods ($`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$) and soft-collinear factorization (particle energies $`\mathbf{}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}`$) to compute the matrix elements $`\mathbf{}𝒇\mathbf{|}𝑶_𝒊\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}`$ relevant to hadronic B decays in an expansion in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝜶_𝒔`$. Only the leading term in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ assumes a simple form. The basic formula is

$`\mathbf{}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑶_𝒊\mathbf{|}\overline{𝐁}\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑭^{𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟏}}𝒅𝒖𝑻^𝑰\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{)}𝚽_{𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{)}`$ (68)
$`\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅𝝃𝒅𝒖𝒅𝒗𝑻^{𝑰𝑰}\mathbf{(}𝝃\mathbf{,}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒗\mathbf{)}𝚽_𝑩\mathbf{(}𝝃\mathbf{)}𝚽_{𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}𝚽_{𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒖\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝑭^{𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is a (non-perturbative) form factor, $`𝚽_{𝑴_𝒊}`$ and $`𝚽_𝑩`$ are light-cone distribution amplitudes and $`𝑻^{𝑰\mathbf{,}𝑰𝑰}`$ are perturbatively calculable hard scattering kernels. Although not strictly proven to all orders in perturbation theory, the formula is presumed to be valid when both final state mesons are light. ($`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the meson that picks up the spectator quark from the B meson.) The formula shows that there is no long-distance interaction between the constituents of the meson $`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and the $`\mathbf{(}𝑩𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}`$ system at leading order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$. This is the precise meaning of factorization. For a detailed discussion of (68) I refer to . A summary of results that have been obtained in the QCD factorization approach is given in .

Factorization as embodied by (68) is not expected to hold at subleading order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$. Some power corrections related to scalar currents are enhanced by factors such as $`𝒎_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒖\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝒅\mathbf{)}𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{)}`$. Some corrections of this type, in particular those related to scalar penguin amplitudes nevertheless appear to be calculable and turn out to be important numerically. On the other hand, attempts to compute subleading power corrections to hard spectator-scattering in perturbation theory usually result in infrared divergences, which signal the breakdown of factorization. At least these effects should be estimated and included into the error budget. All weak annihilation contributions belong to this class of effects and often constitute the dominant source of theoretical error.

##### 6.3.3.2 Uses of QCD factorization

If the corrections to (68) were negligible and if all the quantities in (68) were known or computed with sufficient accuracy, the QCD factorization approach would allow one to determine directly weak CP-violating phases from branching fraction or CP asymmetry measurements, if the corresponding decay has two interfering amplitudes with different phases. In practice, depending on the particular decay mode, one is often far from this ideal situation. Depending on the theoretical uncertainty or one’s confidence in theoretical error estimates, I can imagine the following uses of the QCD factorization approach, where in ascending order one makes stronger use of theoretical rather than experimental input.

* Many strategies to determine $`𝜸`$ are based on relating the strong interaction dynamics of different decay channels such that a sufficient set of measurements yields the weak phase together with the strong amplitudes (see the contributions by Fleischer and Rosner in this Chapter). QCD factorization can complement this approach where it has to rely on assumptions. For instance, it may be used to estimate SU(3) flavour symmetry breaking or to provide an estimate of small contributions to the decay amplitude that one would otherwise have to neglect to make use of the amplitude relations.
* The QCD factorization approach generically predicts small strong rescattering phases, because rescattering is either perturbatively loop-suppressed, or power-suppressed in the heavy-quark limit. (Exceptions to the rule of small phases occur when the leading term in the $`𝜶_𝒔`$\- or $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$-expansion is suppressed, for instance by small Wilson coefficients.) Even if the quantitative prediction of the strong phases turns out to be difficult, the qualitative result of small phases can be used to sharpen the bounds on $`𝜸`$ that follow from some amplitude relations, or to turn the bounds into determinations of $`𝜸`$. An example of this in the context of a method suggested in  will be discussed below.
* For predicting CP violation the ratio of two strong interaction amplitudes, $`𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻`$, (often a ratio of a pure penguin and a dominantly tree amplitude, which are multiplied by different weak phases) is a particularly important quantity. While $`𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻`$ is computed in the QCD factorization approach, one may decide to use only the calculation of the absolute value $`\mathbf{|}𝑷\mathbf{/}𝑻\mathbf{|}`$ and to dismiss the quantitative phase information. The rationale for this procedure could be that the calculation of the imaginary part is usually less accurate than the real part, because a one-loop calculation determines the phase only to leading order. For the same reason the value of the phase is more sensitive to uncalculable power corrections. In this procedure the phase information must be provided by an additional measurement, for instance a direct CP asymmetry.
* The full information of the QCD factorization approach is employed to compute two-body branching fractions as functions of the parameters of the CKM matrix. Since the $`𝒃`$ quark mass is not very large it will be important to estimate the theoretical error from power corrections.

The development of QCD factorization has not yet reached the stage where one can decide which of these strategies will turn out to be most useful. (The strategy of choice obviously also depends on the amount of experimental information available that would allow one to drop one or the other piece of theoretical input.) Calculations of $`𝝅𝝅`$ and $`𝝅𝑲`$ final states showed  that one obtains naturally the right magnitude of penguin and tree amplitudes. The accuracy of the calculation of strong phases is less clear at present, but forthcoming measurements of direct CP asymmetries should shed light on this question. The current limits favour small strong phases, but a quantitative comparison may require a complete next-to-leading order calculation of the absorptive parts of the amplitudes. It will also be important to clarify the relevance of weak annihilation effects in the decay amplitudes. While the current data do not favour the assumption of large annihilation contributions, they can also not yet be excluded. Bounds on rare annihilation-dominated decays will limit the corresponding amplitudes.

##### 6.3.3.3 Results related to the determination of $`𝜸`$

The possibility to determine the CP-violating angle $`𝜸`$ by comparing the calculation of branching fractions into $`𝝅𝝅`$ and $`𝝅𝐊`$ final states with the corresponding data has been investigated in  (see also ). In the following I summarize the main results, referring to  for details and to  for partial updates of the analysis of .

##### $`𝜸`$ from CP-averaged charged $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ decay

The ratio

$$𝑹_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\text{Br}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{Br}\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{[}\text{Br}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{Br}\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}}\mathbf{,}$$
(69)
currently measured as $`\mathbf{0.71}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}`$, provides a useful bound on $`𝜸`$ . The theoretical expression is

$`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝜺}_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜺}_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒒\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{+}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ (70)
$`\mathbf{<}`$ $`\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜺}_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{|}𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸\mathbf{|}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\overline{𝜺}_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜸\mathbf{,}`$
where $`\overline{\mathit{ϵ}}_{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒆^{𝒊\mathit{\varphi }}`$ is a tree-to-penguin ratio, whose magnitude can be fixed with SU(3) symmetry, and $`𝒒`$ an electroweak penguin contribution, which can be determined theoretically. (In this expression, a rescattering contribution $`𝜺_𝒂`$, which QCD factorization predicts to be small, is neglected.) The inequality is obtained by allowing the relative strong phase $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ to take any value. If $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}`$ is smaller than one, the bound implies an exclusion region for $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜸`$. The bound can be considerably sharpened, and the requirement $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ relaxed, if the phase is known to be small. QCD factorization as well as bounds on direct CP asymmetries suggest that $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.9}`$. In  it was shown that assuming the more conservative range $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }\mathbf{>}\mathbf{0.8}`$, the measurement of $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}`$ combined with $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ provides a determination of $`𝜸`$ with a theoretical error of about $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, if $`𝑹_{\mathbf{}}`$ is close to 1.

##### $`𝜸`$ from $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay

The QCD factorization approach allows us to interpret directly the mixing-induced and direct CP asymmetry in $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay without resort to other decay modes, since the tree and penguin amplitudes are both computed. The time-dependent asymmetry is defined by

$`𝑨_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}^{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Br}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\text{Br}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{\text{Br}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\text{Br}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}}`$ (71)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝑩𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}𝚫𝑴_𝑩𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}`$
Assuming that the $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}`$ mixing phase is determined experimentally via the mixing-induced CP asymmetry in $`𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{(}𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊`$ decay, both $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ are measures of CP violation in the decay amplitude and determine $`𝜸`$. In  it was shown that even a moderately accurate measurement of $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ translates into a stringent constraint in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane. The predicted correlation between $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ is shown in .

##### 6.3.3.4 $`𝜸`$ from CP-averaged $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊\mathbf{,}𝝅𝝅`$ decay

Since the branching fractions are computed as functions of the Wolfenstein parameters $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$, one can perform a fit of $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ to the six measured CP-averaged $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅\mathbf{,}𝝅𝐊`$ branching fractions. The result of this fit is shown in Fig. 6.12 based on the data as of May 2002. (The details of the fit procedure can be found in , the input data in ). The result of the fit is consistent with the standard fit based on meson mixing and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. However, the $`𝝅𝝅`$, $`𝝅𝐊`$ data persistently exhibit a preference for $`𝜸`$ near $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, or, for smaller $`𝜸`$, smaller $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. The significance and interpretation of this observation remains to be clarified.

##### 6.3.3.5 Weak annihilation

Weak annihilation contributions are power-suppressed and not calculable in the QCD factorization approach. (This is one of the important differences between the QCD factorization approach and the pQCD approach described by Y. Keum in this Chapter.) The results discussed above include an estimate of annihilation effects together with an uncertainty derived from a $`\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ variation of this estimate, encoded in the constraint $`\mathbf{|}𝝆_𝑨\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for a certain weak annihilation parameter . Since this constraint is often a key factor in the overall theoretical uncertainty estimate, it will be important to obtain experimental information on weak annihilation. The current data on $`𝝅𝝅`$ and $`𝝅𝐊`$ final states do not favour large annihilation contributions, but also do not exclude this possibility. The upper limits on annihilation-dominated charmless decays are not yet tight enough to provide interesting constraints. However, we can adapt the estimate of annihilation contributions to $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅\mathbf{}𝐃^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ performed in  to the annihilation-dominated decay $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$, recently observed with a branching fraction $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.8}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.1}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ . This results in a branching fraction estimate of $`\mathbf{1.2}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ for central parameters, or an upper limit $`\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ upon assigning a $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ error to the annihilation amplitude. While the annihilation mechanism in $`\overline{𝐁}_𝒅\mathbf{}𝐃_𝒔^\mathbf{+}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}`$ is not identical to the dominant penguin annihilation term in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$ decay, the comparison nevertheless supports the phenomenological treatment of annihilation suggested in .

#### 6.3.4  $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$, charming penguins and the extraction of $`𝜸`$

M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, M. Pierini and L. Silvestrini

##### 6.3.4.1 Main formulae

In this section we collect the main formulae for the amplitudes of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅\mathbf{,}𝝅𝝅`$, introducing the parametrization used in the analysis. We refer the reader to the literature for any detail on the origin and the properties of these parameters . From Ref. , one reads

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝝀_𝒕^𝒔𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒖^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}`$
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝝀_𝒕^𝒔𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒖^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{+}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑨`$
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒕^𝒔𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒖^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑨`$
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒕^𝒔𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒖^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑨`$ (72)
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}\mathbf{\left(}𝝀_𝒕^𝒅\mathbf{(}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒖^𝒅\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{\right)}`$
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒖^𝒅\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑨`$
$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁_𝒅\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒕^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝀_𝒖^𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{+}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}𝚫𝑨\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝝀_𝒒^{\mathbf{}}^𝒒\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒒^{\mathbf{}}𝒒}𝑽_{𝒒^{\mathbf{}}𝒃}^{\mathbf{}}`$. Neglecting the $`𝑨_𝒊`$, these parameters can be rewritten as

$`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝒄𝑨_{𝝅𝐊}\mathbf{,}𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒄𝑨_{𝑲𝝅}\mathbf{,}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}`$
$`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝒄𝑨_{𝝅𝑲}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟒}^𝒖\mathbf{)}𝑨_{𝝅𝑲}\mathbf{+}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{.}`$ (73)
The terms proportional to $`𝒂_𝒊^𝒒`$ give the parameters computed in the limit $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ using QCD factorization. Their definition, together with those of $`𝑨_{𝝅𝑲}`$, $`𝑨_{𝑲𝝅}`$, etc., can be found for instance in Refs. , although power-suppressed terms included there, proportional to the chiral factors $`𝒓_{𝑲\mathbf{,}𝝅}^𝝌`$, should be discarded in eqs. (73). In our case, in fact, terms of $`𝑶\mathbf{(}𝚲_{𝑸𝑪𝑫}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ are accounted for by two phenomenological parameters: the charming-penguin parameter $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and the GIM-penguin parameter $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}`$ . In $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ there are no other contributions, once flavour $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$ symmetry is used and few other doubly Cabibbo-suppressed terms, including corrections to emission parametes $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑬_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, some annihilations ($`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟏}`$) and the Zweig-suppressed contractions ($`𝚫𝑨`$), are neglected . On the contrary, further power-suppressed terms ($`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}`$) enter the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ amplitudes, all with the same power of the Cabibbo angle. Therefore, these modes are subject to a larger uncertainty than the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ ones.

Using the inputs collected in Table 6.4, we fit the value of the complex parameter $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.13}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{)}𝒆^{\mathbf{\pm }𝒊\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟒}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathbf{)}^{\mathbf{}}}`$. Notice that the sign of the phase is practically not constrained by the data. This result is almost independent of the inputs used for the CKM parameters $`𝝆`$ and $`𝜼`$, namely whether these parameters are taken from the usual unitarity triangle analysis (UTA)  or only the constraint from $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is used.

For the sake of simplicity, we also neglect here the contribution of $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}`$. The $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ data do not constrain this parameter very effectively, since its contribution is doubly Cabibbo suppressed with respect to $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$. The remaining $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ mode alone is not sufficient to fully determine the complex parameter $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}`$. It is interesting, however, to notice that the GIM-penguin contribution is potentially able to enhance the $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ up to few $`\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}`$ .

Table 6.5 shows the predicted values of the CP-averaged branching ratios $`𝓑`$ and the absolute value of the CP-asymmetries $`\mathbf{|}𝓐_{𝑪𝑷}\mathbf{|}`$ for the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ modes, since the data are not able to fix the sign of asymmetries. Charming penguins are able to reproduce the $`𝐊𝝅`$ data and are also consistent with the only $`𝝅𝝅`$ mode measured so far. It is interesting to notice that the latest measurements improve the consistency, for a comparison see refs. .

##### 6.3.4.2 Remarks on different approaches

Since the different approaches aiming at evaluating power-suppressed terms contain phenomenological parameters, it is natural to ask whether, after all, they are equivalent or not, even if the physical mechanism invoked to introduce the parameters is not the same. To answer this question, it is useful to compute the parameters $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}`$ within improved QCD factorization. They read

$$\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒓_𝑲^𝝌𝒂_\mathrm{𝟔}^𝒄𝑨_{𝝅𝑲}\mathbf{+}𝒃_\mathrm{𝟑}𝑩_{𝝅𝑲}\mathbf{,}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{𝑮𝑰𝑴}\mathbf{=}𝒓_𝑲^𝝌\mathbf{(}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟔}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟔}^𝒖\mathbf{)}𝑨_{𝝅𝑲}\mathbf{,}$$
(74)
where the functions $`𝒂_𝒊^𝒒`$ ($`𝒃_𝒊`$) contain the complex parameter $`𝝆_𝑯`$ ($`𝝆_𝑨`$), see Ref.  for the definitions. These two parameters account for chirally-enhanced terms, originating from hard-spectator interactions and annihilations respectively, which are not computable within the improved QCD factorization.

The functional dependence of the amplitudes on the phenomenological parameters in the two approaches is different. For instance, the GIM-penguin parameter is a pure short-distance correction in the improved QCD factorization, since the $`𝝆_𝑯`$ dependence cancels out in the difference $`𝒂_\mathrm{𝟔}^𝒄\mathbf{}𝒂_\mathrm{𝟔}^𝒖`$. In practice, however, the main contribution of the phenomenological parameters to the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ amplitudes comes from the annihilation term $`𝒃_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, i.e. from $`𝝆_𝑨`$ . This term behaves effectively as the charming-penguin parameter, enhancing the Cabibbo-favored amplitude.

Notice that a vanishing $`𝝆_𝑨`$ (and $`𝝆_𝑯`$), which turns out to be compatible with the data, does not mean that the phenomenological contribution is negligible. In fact, the parameters are defined so that the phenomenological terms are functions of $`𝑿_{𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑯\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝝆_{𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑯\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐥𝐨𝐠}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝑩\mathbf{/}𝝁_𝒉\mathbf{)}`$, where the scale $`𝝁_𝒉`$ is assumed to be 0.5 GeV .

##### 6.3.4.3 On the possibility of extracting $`𝜸`$

The presence of complex phenomenological parameters in the amplitudes makes the extraction of $`𝜸`$ very problematic. Using the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$-constrained fit, almost any value of $`𝜸`$ is allowed, given the uncertainty on $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝑷}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, see Fig. 6.13 (left). This seems a general problem which make us doubt recent claims proposing non-leptonic B decays as an effective tool for the CKM matrix determination. Even more, we think that the combination of the constraint from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ decays on $`𝜸`$ with the others can even be misleading. The reason is very simple: $`𝜸`$ is looked for through the effect of interefence terms in the branching ratios. The presence of a competing amplitude with a new phase, i.e. the one containing the phenomenological parameter, makes the extraction of $`𝜸`$ much more complicated. Although weak and strong phases can be disentangled in principle, in practice we checked that not only the task is very difficult now, but the situation improves slowly as data become more accurate, even when the CP asymmetries will be measured.

Concerning various analyses based on the improved QCD factorization claiming to find a “large” value of $`𝜸\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$, we just notice that, as far as we know, they all assume the bound $`\mathbf{|}𝝆_𝑨\mathbf{|}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, suggested in Ref.  as a theoretical prejudice and supported by the observation that even $`\mathbf{|}𝝆_𝑨\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ produces a good fit to $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅\mathbf{)}`$. A better fit, however, can be obtained letting $`\mathbf{|}𝝆_𝑨\mathbf{|}`$ take values up to about $`\mathrm{𝟑}`$. As shown in the right plot of Fig. 6.13, by doing so, the contribution of the constraint from non-leptonic B decays to a global fit of $`𝜸`$ becomes totally negligible. In other words, for $`\mathbf{|}𝝆_𝑨\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$, the annihilation amplitude containing $`𝝆_𝑨`$ becomes competitive with the others, improving the fit to the $`𝓑`$s on the one hand and weakening the predictivity on $`𝜸`$ on the other.

#### 6.3.5 Determination of the weak phases $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅\mathbf{,}𝐊𝝅`$ in the pQCD method

Y.-Y. Keum§§§ Y.-Y. Keum would like to thank G. Buchalla and members of PQCD working group for fruitful collaboration and joyful discussions..

In this section, we focus on the $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐊𝝅`$ processes, providing promising strategies to determine the weak phases of $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, by using the perturbative QCD method. The perturbative QCD method (pQCD) has a predictive power demonstrated sucessfully in exclusive two body B-meson decays, specially in charmless B-meson decay processes. By introducing parton transverse momenta $`𝒌_{\mathbf{}}`$, we can generate naturally the Sudakov suppression effect due to resummation of large double logarithms $`𝑬𝒙𝒑\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\frac{𝜶_𝒔𝑪_𝑭}{\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒌_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$, which suppress the long-distance contributions in the small $`𝒌_{\mathbf{}}`$ region and give a sizable average $`\mathbf{<}𝒌_{\mathbf{}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{}\overline{𝚲}𝑴_𝑩`$. This can resolve the end point singularity problem and allow the applicability of pQCD to exclusive decays. We found that almost all of the contribution to the exclusive matrix elements come from the integration region where $`𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{/}𝝅\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.3}`$ and the pertubative treatment can be justified.

In the pQCD approach, we can predict the contribution of non-factorizable term and annihilation diagram on the same basis as the factorizable one. A folklore for annihilation contributions is that they are negligible compared to W-emission diagrams due to helicity suppression. However the operators $`𝑶_{\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟔}}`$ with helicity structure $`\mathbf{(}𝑺\mathbf{}𝑷\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝑺\mathbf{+}𝑷\mathbf{)}`$ are not suppressed and give dominant imaginary values, which is the main source of strong phase in the pQCD approach. So we have a large direct CP violation in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{,}𝐊^\mathbf{\pm }𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, since large strong phase comes from the factorized annihilation diagram, which can distinguish pQCD from other models (see the previous two subsections).

##### 6.3.5.1 Extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{=}𝜶\mathbf{)}`$ from $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay

Even though isospin analysis of $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ can provide a clean way to determine $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, it might be difficult in practice because of the small branching ratio of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$. In reality to determine $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$, we can use the time-dependent rate of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝐭\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ including sizable penguin contributions. In our analysis we use the c-convention. The amplitude can be written as:

$$𝑨\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{|}𝐓_𝐜\mathbf{|}𝐞^{𝐢𝜹_𝐓}𝐞^{𝐢\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝐏_𝐜\mathbf{|}𝐞^{𝐢𝜹_𝐏}\mathbf{)}$$
(75)
Penguin term carries a different weak phase than the dominant tree amplitude, which leads to generalized form of the time-dependent asymmetry.

When we define $`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝑩𝒓}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}\overline{𝑩𝒓}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}_{𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒆}`$, where $`\overline{𝑩𝒓}`$ stands for a branching ratio averaged over $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the explicit expression for $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ are given by:

$`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒄\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝑹_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}`$ (76)
$`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒄\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathbf{}𝑹_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒔𝒊𝒏\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}`$ (77)
$`𝑹_{𝝅𝝅}𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹_𝒄\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹\mathbf{.}`$ (78)
with $`𝑹_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝑷_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝑻_𝒄\mathbf{|}`$ and the strong phase difference between penguin and tree amplitudes $`𝜹\mathbf{=}𝜹_𝑷\mathbf{}𝜹_𝑻`$. The time-dependent asymmetry measurement provides two equations for $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ and $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$ in terms of $`𝑹_𝒄\mathbf{,}𝜹`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

If we know $`𝑹_𝒄`$ and $`𝜹`$, then we can determine $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ from the experimental data on $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}`$ versus $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}`$.

Since the pQCD method provides $`𝑹_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.23}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.05}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.07}}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{<}𝜹\mathbf{<}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}`$, the allowed range of $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ at present stage is determined as $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{<}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$ as shown in Fig. 6.14. Since we have a relatively large strong phase in pQCD, in contrast to the QCD-factorization ($`𝜹\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}`$), we predict large direct CP violation effect of $`𝑨_{𝒄𝒑}\mathbf{(}𝑩^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐𝟑}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\%}`$ which will be tested by more precise experimental measurement in future. Since the data by Belle Collaboration  is located outside allowed physical regions, we only considered in the numerical analysis the recent BaBar measurement with $`\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ C.L. interval taking into account the systematic errors:

* $`𝑺_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.02}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.34}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ \[-0.54, +0.58\]
* $`𝑪_{𝝅𝝅}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.30}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.25}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.04}`$ \[-0.72, +0.12\].

The central point of BaBar data corresponds to $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟕𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}`$ in the pQCD method.

##### 6.3.5.2 Extraction of $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{=}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ from $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ decays

By using tree-penguin interference in $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝐓^{^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{+}𝐏^{^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{)}`$ versus $`𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}𝐏^{^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{)}`$, CP-averaged $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ branching fraction may lead to non-trivial constraints on the $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ angle . In order to determine $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$, we need one more useful information on CP-violating rate differences. Let’s introduce the following observables :

$`𝑹_𝑲`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝑩𝒓}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝝉_\mathbf{+}}{\overline{\mathrm{𝐁𝐫}}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}𝝉_\mathrm{𝟎}}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝒓_𝑲\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝒓_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}`$
$`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝚪\mathbf{(}\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^{\mathbf{}}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}}{𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}}}`$ (80)
$`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝑨_{𝒄𝒑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝐑_𝐊\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝐫_𝐊\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹\mathbf{.}`$
where $`𝒓_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{|}𝑻^{^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{/}𝑷^{^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{|}`$ is the ratio of tree to penguin amplitudes in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ and $`𝜹\mathbf{=}𝜹_𝑻^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝜹_𝑷^{\mathbf{}}`$ is the strong phase difference between tree and penguin amplitudes. After elimination of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜹`$ in Eqs. (8)–(9), we have

$$𝑹_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒓_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\pm }\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟒}𝒓_𝑲^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐭}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{.}$$
(81)
Here we obtain $`𝒓_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.201}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.037}`$ from the pQCD analysis and $`𝑨_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.11}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.065}`$ by combining recent BaBar measurement on CP asymmetry of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$: $`𝑨_{𝒄𝒑}\mathbf{(}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝐊^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{10.2}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{5.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.6}\mathbf{\%}`$  with present world averaged value of $`𝑹_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.10}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.15}`$ .

From Table 2 of Ref. , we obtain $`𝜹_𝑷^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$, $`𝜹_𝑻^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.4}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and the negative $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹`$: $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.91}`$. As shown in Fig. 6.15, we can constrain the allowed range of $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ within $`\mathrm{𝟏}𝝈`$ range of World Averaged $`𝑹_𝑲`$ as follows:

* For $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝒓_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.164}`$: we can exclude $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}`$.
* For $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝒓_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.201}`$: we can exclude $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}`$.
* For $`\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜹\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟎}`$, $`𝒓_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.238}`$: we can exclude $`\mathrm{𝟎}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}^{\mathbf{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔𝟐}^{\mathbf{}}`$.

When we take the central value of $`𝒓_𝑲\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.201}`$, $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is allowed within the ranges of $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟏}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟗}^{\mathbf{}}`$, which is consistent with the results of the model-independent CKM-fit in the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plane.

##### 6.3.5.3 Conclusion

We discussed two methods to determine the weak phases $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ within the pQCD approach through 1) Time-dependent asymmetries in $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$, 2) $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ processes via penguin-tree interference. We can already obtain interesting bounds on $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ from present experimental measurements. Our predictions within pQCD method is in good agreement with present experimental measurements in charmless B-decays. Specially our pQCD method predicted a large direct CP asymmetry in $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^{\mathbf{}}`$ decay, which will be a crucial touch stone in order to distinguish our approach from others in future precise measurements. More detail works on other methods in $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊𝝅`$ and $`𝐃^{\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)}}𝝅`$ processes will appear elsewhere .

### 6.4 $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ decays

G. Isidori and D.E. Jaffe

#### 6.4.1 Theoretical description

The $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝒅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ transition is one of the rare examples of weak processes whose leading contribution starts at $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$. At the one-loop level it receives contributions only from $`𝒁`$-penguin and $`𝑾`$-box diagrams, as shown in Fig. 6.16, or from pure quantum electroweak effects. Separating the contributions to the one-loop amplitude according to the intermediate up-type quark running inside the loop, we can write

$`𝓐\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}𝒅𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{,}𝒄\mathbf{,}𝒕}{\mathbf{}}}𝑽_{𝒒𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒒𝒅}𝓐_𝒒\mathbf{}\mathbf{\{}\begin{array}{cc}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟓}𝒎_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒊𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟓}𝒎_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\hfill & _{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒕\mathbf{)}}\hfill \\ 𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒊𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟓}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\hfill & _{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒄\mathbf{)}}\hfill \\ 𝓞\mathbf{(}𝝀𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\hfill & _{\mathbf{(}𝒒\mathbf{=}𝒖\mathbf{)}}\hfill \end{array}`$ (85)
where $`𝑽_{𝒊𝒋}`$ denote the elements of the CKM matrix. The hierarchy of these elements would favour up- and charm-quark contributions; however, the hard GIM mechanism of the perturbative calculation implies $`𝓐_𝒒\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, leading to a completely different scenario. As shown on the r.h.s. of (85), where we have employed the standard CKM phase convention ($`\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$) and expanded the $`𝑽_{𝒊𝒋}`$ in powers of the Cabibbo angle, the top-quark contribution dominates both real and imaginary parts. This structure implies several interesting consequences for $`𝓐\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}𝒅𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$: it is dominated by short-distance dynamics, therefore its QCD corrections are small and calculable in perturbation theory; it is very sensitive to $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}`$, which is one of the less constrained CKM matrix elements; it is likely to have a large CP-violating phase; it is very suppressed within the SM and thus very sensitive to possible new sources of quark-flavour mixing.

Short-distance contributions to $`𝓐\mathbf{(}𝒔\mathbf{}𝒅𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$, are efficiently described, within the SM, by the following effective Hamiltonian

$$𝓗_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭}{\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\frac{𝜶}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝚯_𝑾}\underset{𝒍\mathbf{=}𝒆\mathbf{,}𝝁\mathbf{,}𝝉}{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{\left[}𝝀_𝒄𝑿_{𝑵𝑳}^𝒍\mathbf{+}𝝀_𝒕𝑿\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒅\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝂}_𝒍𝝂_𝒍\mathbf{)}_{𝑽\mathbf{}𝑨}\mathbf{,}$$
(86)
where $`𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and, as usual, $`𝝀_𝒒\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒒𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒒𝒅}`$. The coefficients $`𝑿_{𝑵𝑳}^𝒍`$ and $`𝑿\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}`$, encoding charm- and top-quark loop contributions, are known at the NLO accuracy in QCD  and can be found explicitly in . The theoretical uncertainty in the dominant top contribution is very small and it is essentially determined by the experimental error on $`𝒎_𝒕`$. Fixing the $`\overline{\mathrm{𝐌𝐒}}`$ top-quark mass to $`\overline{𝒎}_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟔}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}`$ GeV we can write

$$𝑿\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.51}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\overline{𝒎}_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟔}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{1.15}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.51}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}\mathbf{.}$$
(87)
The simple structure of $`𝓗_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}`$ leads to two important properties of the physical $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ transitions:

* The relation between partonic and hadronic amplitudes is exceptionally accurate, since hadronic matrix elements of the $`\overline{𝒔}𝜸^𝝁𝒅`$ current between a kaon and a pion can be derived by isospin symmetry from the measured $`𝐊_{𝒍\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ rates.
* The lepton pair is produced in a state of definite CP and angular momentum, implying that the leading SM contribution to $`𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ is CP-violating.

The largest theoretical uncertainty in estimating $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ originates from the charm sector. Following the analysis of Ref. , the perturbative charm contribution is conveniently described in terms of the parameter

$$𝑷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝑿\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑿_{𝑵𝑳}^𝒆\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}}𝑿_{𝑵𝑳}^𝝉\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.42}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.06}\mathbf{.}$$
(88)
The numerical error in the r.h.s. of Eq. (88) is obtained from a conservative estimate of NNLO corrections . Recently also non-perturbative effects introduced by the integration over charmed degrees of freedom have been discussed . Despite a precise estimate of these contributions is not possible at present (due to unknown hadronic matrix-elements), these can be considered as included in the uncertainty quoted in Eq. (88). The natural order of magnitude of these non-perturbative corrections, relative to the perturbative charm contribution is $`m_K^2/(m_c^2\mathrm{ln}(m_c^2/M_W^2))2\%`$. Finally, we recall that genuine long-distance effects associated to light-quark loops are well below the uncertainties from the charm sector .

With these definitions the branching fraction of $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ can be written as

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\overline{𝜿}_\mathbf{+}}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝝀_𝒄𝑷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝑿\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝐑𝐞}𝝀_𝒕𝑿\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(89)
where

$$\overline{𝜿}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{=}𝒓_{𝑲^\mathbf{+}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}𝜶^\mathrm{𝟐}𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟒}𝚯_𝑾}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{7.50}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}$$
(90)
and $`𝒓_{𝑲^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.901}`$ takes into account the isospin breaking corrections necessary to extract the matrix element of the $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝒔}𝒅\mathbf{)}_𝑽`$ current from $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{)}`$ .

The case of $`𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ is even cleaner from the theoretical point of view . Because of the CP structure, only the imaginary parts in (86) –where the charm contribution is absolutely negligible– contribute to $`𝓐\mathbf{(}𝐊_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$. Thus the dominant direct-CP-violating component of $`𝓐\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ is completely saturated by the top contribution, where QCD corrections are suppressed and rapidly convergent. Intermediate and long-distance effects in this process are confined only to the indirect-CP-violating contribution  and to the CP-conserving one , which are both extremely small. Taking into account the isospin-breaking corrections to the hadronic matrix element , we can write an expression for the $`𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ rate in terms of short-distance parameters, namely

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\overline{𝜿}_𝑳}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.16}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{\times }\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\overline{𝒎}_𝒕\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔𝟕}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}\mathbf{\right]}^{\mathbf{2.30}}\mathbf{\left[}\frac{\mathrm{𝐈𝐦}𝝀_𝒕}{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟓}}\mathbf{\right]}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{,}$$
(91)
which has a theoretical error below $`\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\%}`$.

At present the SM predictions of the two $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ rates are not extremely precise owing to the limited knowledge of both real and imaginary parts of $`𝝀_𝒕`$. Taking into account all the indirect constraints in a global Gaussian fit, the allowed ranges read  As pointed out in Ref. , the errors in Eqs. (92)–(93) can be reduced if $`\mathrm{Re}\lambda _t`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t`$ are directly extracted from $`a_{\mathrm{CP}}(BJ/\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{K}_S)`$ and $`ϵ_K`$; however, this procedure introduces a stronger sensitivity to the probability distribution of the (theoretical) estimate of $`B_K`$.

$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.72}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.21}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{,}`$ (92)
$`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐌}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.28}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.10}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\mathbf{.}`$ (93)
The high accuracy of the theoretical predictions of $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ in terms of modulus and phase of $`𝝀_𝒕\mathbf{=}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}`$ clearly offers the possibility of very interesting tests of flavour dynamics. Within the SM, a measurement of both channels would provide two independent pieces of information on the unitary triangle, or a complete determination of $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$ from $`𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ transitions. In particular, $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ defines an ellipse in the $`\overline{𝝆}`$$`\overline{𝜼}`$ plane and $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝐋^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ an horizontal line (the height of the unitarity triangle). Note, in addition, that the determination of $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ which can be obtained by combining $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝐋^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ is extremely clean, being independent from uncertainties due to $`𝒎_𝒕`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ (contrary to the separate determinations of $`\overline{𝝆}`$ and $`\overline{𝜼}`$) .

In principle a very precise and highly non-trivial test of the CKM mechanism could be obtained by the comparison of the following two sets of data : the two $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ rates on one side, the ratio $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ and $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿𝑲_𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ on the other side. The two sets are determined by very different loop amplitudes ($`𝚫𝑺\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ FCNCs and $`𝚫𝑩\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ mixing) and both suffer from very small theoretical uncertainties. In particular, concerning the $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ mode, we can write

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝜿}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟒}𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\left[}𝝈𝑹_𝒕^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝝈}\mathbf{\left(}𝑹_𝒕\mathrm{𝐜𝐨𝐬}𝜷\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀^\mathrm{𝟒}𝑷_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝑿\mathbf{)}}{\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝑿\mathbf{(}𝒙_𝒕\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\right)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{,}$$
(94)
where $`𝑹_𝒕`$ is determined by $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ ,\**\**\** As usual we define $`\xi =(F_{B_s}/F_{B_d})\sqrt{B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}}`$ and $`\sigma =1/(1\frac{\lambda ^2}{2})^2`$.

$$𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{=}\frac{𝝃}{𝝀}\sqrt{\frac{𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}}{𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}}}$$
(95)
and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}𝜷`$ from $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{)}`$. In the next few years, when the experimental determination of $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, and $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ will substantially improve, this relation could provide one of the most significant tests of the Standard Model in the sector of quark-flavour dynamics.

Present experimental data on $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ rates do not allow yet to fully explore the high-discovery potential of these CKM tests. Nonetheless, we stress that the evidence of the $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ decay obtained by BNL-E787 already provides highly non-trivial constraints on realistic scenarios with large new sources of flavour mixing (see e.g. Ref. ).

#### 6.4.2 Experimental status and future prospects

The Brookhaven experiment E787  searched for the decay $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ by stopping approximately 25% of a 670, 710, 730 or 790 MeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$ $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}`$ beam at $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}`$ MHz with $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}\mathbf{\%}`$ $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}`$ contamination in a scintillating-fiber target along the axis of a 1-T solenoidal magnetic spectrometer. The range ($`𝑹`$), momentum ($`𝑷`$) and energy ($`𝑬`$) of charged decay products are measured using the target, central drift chamber and a cylindrical range stack composed of 21 layers of plastic scintillator with two layers of tracking chambers. Detection of the decay sequence $`𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝒆^\mathbf{+}`$ in the range stack provided a powerful tool against $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝁^\mathbf{+}𝝂\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{)}`$ decays. A $`\mathrm{𝟒}𝝅`$-sr calorimeter consisting of lead/scintillator layers in the barrel (14 radiation lengths) and undoped CsI crystals in the endcap (13.5 radiation lengths) were used to veto photons and suppress $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ background. Incident kaons were detected and identified by Čerenkov, tracking and energy loss detectors along the beam that aided in the suppression of backgrounds due to scattered beam pions and the charge exchange process that resulted in $`𝐊_𝑳^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}𝝂`$ decays ($`\mathbf{}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}`$,$`𝝁^{\mathbf{}}`$) in the target.

E787 has a long history, summarized in Fig. 6.17, that has lead to the development of a relatively robust analysis strategy. The strategy begins with a priori identification of background sources and development of experimental tools to suppress each background source with at least two independent cuts. In the search for such rare processes, background rejection cannot be reliably simulated, instead it is measured by alternatively inverting independent cuts and measuring the rejection of each cut taking any correlations into account. To avoid bias, cuts are determined using 1/3 of the data and then the backgrounds rates are measured with the remaining 2/3 sample. Background estimates are verified by loosening cuts and comparing the observed and predicted rates, first in the 1/3 sample, then in the 2/3 sample. Simulated signal events are used to measure the geometrical acceptance for $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ and the acceptance is verified with a measurement of $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$. The pre-defined signal region in $`𝑹`$, $`𝑷`$ and $`𝑬`$ is not examined until all background estimates are verified. It is anticipated that similar strategies will be employed in further investigations of $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ decays.

Brookhaven E787 was completed in 1998 and has observed two candidates for the decay $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ in the pion momentum region 211 to 229 MeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$ with an estimated background of $`\mathbf{0.15}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.05}`$ in a sample of $`\mathbf{5.9}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ stopped $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}`$ that corresponds to

$$𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{15.7}{}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{8.2}}{}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{17.5}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}\mathbf{.}$$
(96)
The probability that the two candidates are entirely due to background is $`\mathbf{0.02}\mathbf{\%}`$ . In addition a search in the momentum interval 140 to 195 MeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$ in a sample of $`\mathbf{1.1}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ stopped $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}`$ yielded a single candidate upon an estimated background of $`\mathbf{0.73}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.18}`$ corresponding to a limit $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟒𝟐𝟎}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟏}}`$ at 90% C.L. . Such a search below the peak of the two body $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays has the potential not only to augment the statistics of the higher momentum sample, but also to investigate the shape of the $`𝑷\mathbf{(}𝝅^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ distribution predicted by the SM. In addition, the search is somewhat complementary to that of the higher momentum interval because the background is dominated by $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays in which the charged pion undergoes a nuclear interaction in the target near the kaon decay vertex.

E949 is an upgraded version of E787 with an expected net increase in sensitivity of at least a factor of 5 based on 6000 hours of running time or 5-10 SM events . The main detector upgrades are an increased photon veto capability, both in the endcap and barrel regions, as well as trigger and data acquisition improvements. E949 recently accumulated $`\mathbf{1.9}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ stopped kaons ($`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟗}`$ of E949’s goal) and additional running is expected in 2003 assuming sufficient funding is forthcoming.

The CKM experiment at Fermilab expects to attain a single event sensitivity of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ that would correspond to $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}`$ $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ events assuming the SM value of the branching fraction . Such a measurement would achieve a statistical precision comparable to the current theoretical uncertainty in the branching fraction. CKM departs from the E787/E949 technique by using kaon decays in flight in a 22 GeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$, 50 MHz debunched beam with 60% kaon purity. The experiment will use photon veto technology similar to E787 and KTeV with the addition of ring-imaging Čerenkov detectors to aid in kinematic suppression of backgrounds. The use of in-flight kaon decays means that the dominant $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ background in E787’s search in the lower momentum region should not be present at CKM . CKM should be taking data in the second half of this decade.

The progress concerning the neutral mode is much slower. No dedicated experiment has started yet and the best direct limit is more than four orders of magnitude above the SM expectation . An indirect model-independent upper bound on $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ can be obtained by the isospin relation

$$𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝚪\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}$$
(97)
which is valid for any $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝒅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ local operator of dimension $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟖}`$ (up to small isospin-breaking corrections). Using the BNL-E787 result (96), this implies $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{1.7}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟗𝟎}\mathbf{\%}\mathrm{𝐂𝐋}\mathbf{)}`$. Any experimental information below this figure can be translated into a non-trivial constraint on possible new-physics contributions to the $`𝒔\mathbf{}𝒅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ amplitude.

The first $`𝐊_𝑳\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ dedicated experiments are E391a at KEK  and KOPIO at Brookhaven . E391a is envisioned as a two-stage experiment and will attempt to use a highly collimated $`𝐊_𝐋^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ beam and a hermetic veto to observe high transverse momentum $`𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ near the endpoint of the $`𝐊_𝐋^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ spectrum with a technique similar to previous searches . The first stage of E391a is regarded as a pilot experiment and will use the KEK 12 GeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$ proton beam and should begin data taking in 2003. If successful, it could push the limit on $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊_𝐋^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ to within an order of magnitude of the SM expectation (Fig. 6.18). An aggressive second stage envisions use of the high intensity 50 GeV$`\mathbf{/}𝒄`$ proton beam from the Japanese Hadron Facility(JHF) to reach a single event sensitivity of $`\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}}`$ or, equivalently, $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎𝟎}`$ SM events.

The KOPIO experiment will attempt a new approach, using a microbunched, low momentum beam, time-of-flight and a high precision electromagnetic preradiator and calorimeter to fully reconstruct the kinematics of the $`𝐊_𝐋^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ decay. Coupled with highly efficient charged particle and photon vetoes, KOPIO will be able to exploit the E787 strategy of independent kinematic and veto cuts to measure all backgrounds with the data. The goal of KOPIO is a single event sensitivity of $`\mathbf{7.5}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^{\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟑}}`$ or the capability to obtain 40 SM events with a signal to background of 2 corresponding to a precision on $`𝓙`$ or $`\overline{𝜼}`$ of $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$.

As anticipated, one of the most interesting test of the CKM mechanism could be obtained by the comparison of the two $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ rates on one side vs. the ratio $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}`$ and $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝐁\mathbf{}𝐉\mathbf{/}𝚿𝐊_𝐒\mathbf{)}`$ on the other side. As an illustration, in Figure 6.18 we consider the comparison of the two B-physics measurements, assumed to be $`𝒂_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿𝐊_𝑺\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.75}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}`$ and $`𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒅}\mathbf{/}𝚫𝑴_{𝑩_𝒔}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{17.0}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{1.7}\mathrm{𝐩𝐬}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, with the two $`𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ rates, both assumed to be twice the corresponding SM prediction. The uncertainties on $`𝓑\mathbf{(}𝐊\mathbf{}𝝅𝝂\overline{𝝂}\mathbf{)}`$ measurements are those expected by E949, CKM and KOPIO experiments attaining their expected sensitivities. The corresponding constraints in the $`\overline{𝝆}`$$`\overline{𝜼}`$ plane have been derived assuming Gaussian uncertainties for all quantities, using the Bayesian statistics option of the CKM fitter program . Negligible uncertainty in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is assumed in placing the $`𝐊`$ measurements in this B-centric rendering of the UT. Note that the alternative, equally fundamental, parametrization of the UT using the $`𝝀_𝒕`$ plane would remove the need for this assumption .

### References

1. The BaBar Physics Book, eds. P. Harrison and H. Quinn, 1998, SLAC report 504.
2. B Decays at the LHC, eds. P. Ball, R. Fleischer, G.F. Tartarelli, P. Vikas and G. Wilkinson, hep-ph/0003238.
3. B Physics at the Tevatron, Run II and Beyond, K. Anikeev et al., hep-ph/0201071.
4. A.J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Adv Ser. Direct. High. Energy Phys. 15 (1998) 65; \[hep-ph/9704376\].
5. A.J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336, lectures at the International Erice School, August, 2000;
Y. Nir, hep-ph/0109090, lectures at 55th Scottish Univ. Summer School, 2001.
6. A.J. Buras, F. Parodi and A. Stocchi, JHEP 0301 (2003) 029 \[hep-ph/0207101\].
7. J.M. Soares and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 1021; Y. Nir and U. Sarid, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2818; Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 313 (1993) 126; R. Barbieri, L.J. Hall and A. Romanino, Phys. Lett. B 401 (1997) 47; M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Giusti, V. Lubicz and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. B 573 (2000) 201-222; P. Paganini, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Physica Scripta  58 (1998) 556-569; F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi Nuovo Cimento 112A (1999) 833.
8. A. Höcker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace and F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 225.
9. G. Buchalla and A.J. Buras, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6782.
10. M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 606 (2001) 245.
11. M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 013004 \[E: D 65 (2002) 079901\].
12. Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054027.
13. A.J. Buras, M.E. Lautenbacher and G. Ostermaier, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3433.
14. A.J. Buras, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 476; Nucl. Instr. Meth. A368 (1995) 1.
15. R. Aleksan, B. Kayser and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 18;
J.P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 5331;
I.I. Bigi and A.I. Sanda, hep-ph/9909479.
16. A.J. Buras, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S. Jäger and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 161.
17. A. Ali and D. London, Eur. Phys. J. C 9 (1999) 687 \[hep-ph/9903535\]; Phys. Rep. 320 (1999), 79 \[hep-ph/9907243\]; hep-ph/0002167; Eur. Phys. J. C 18 (2001) 665.
18. A.J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 115010.
19. A.J. Buras, P.H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, Nucl. Phys. B 619 (2001) 434.
20. G. D’Ambrosio and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B 530 (2002) 108.
21. G.C. Branco, L. Lavoura and J. Silva, (1999), CP Violation, Oxford Science Publications, Press Clarendon, Oxford.
22. F.J. Botella, G.C. Branco, M. Nebot and M.N. Rebelo, Nucl. Phys. B 651 (2003) 174 \[hep-ph/0206133\].
23. L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 1945.
24. Belle Collaboration, K. Abe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 071801, hep-ex/0204002.
25. Talk by A. Farbin (BaBar Collaboration), XXXVIIth Recontres de Moriond, Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 9-16 March 2002, http://moriond.in2p3.fr/EW/2002/.
26. Average from Y. Nir hep-ph/0208080 based on: R. Barate et al. (ALEPH Collaboration) Phys. Lett.492 (2000), 259; K. Ackerstaff et al. (OPAL Collaboration) Eur. Phys.5 (1998) 379; T. Affolder at al. Phys. ReV. D61 (2000) 072005; B. Aubert et al. (Babar Collaboration) hep-ex/0207042; K. Abe at al. (Belle Collaboration) hep-ex/0207098.
27. M. Ciuchini, G. D’Agostini, E. Franco, V. Lubicz, G. Martinelli, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau, A. Stocchi, JHEP 0107 (2001) 013 \[hep-ph/0012308\].
28. T. Hurth, Rev. Mod. Phys. (to appear) \[hep-ph/0212304\]; A. J. Buras and M. Misiak, Acta Phys. Pol. B 33 (2002) 2597 \[hep-ph/0207131\].
29. S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 180;
N.G. Deshpande et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 183.
30. M. S. Alam et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 2885.
31. B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration), hep-ex/0207076.
32. S. Chen et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 251807 \[hep-ex/0108032\].
33. K. Abe et al. (BELLE Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 511 (2001) 151 \[hep-ex/0103042\].
34. R. Barate et al. (ALEPH Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 169.
35. P. Gambino and M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B 611 (2001) 338 \[hep-ph/0104034\].
36. A.J. Buras, A. Czarnecki, M. Misiak and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B 631 (2002) 219 \[hep-ph/0203135\].
37. K. Hagiwara et al. (Particle Data Group Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 010001.
38. A. Ali, H. Asatrian and C. Greub, Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 87 \[hep-ph/9803314\];
A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094012 \[hep-ph/9803368\].
39. Y. Grossman and D. Pirjol, JHEP 0006 (2000) 02 \[hep-ph/0005069\].
40. T.E. Coan et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 5661 \[hep-ex/0010075\].
41. M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 1914 \[hep-ph/9905312\].
42. M. Beneke, T. Feldmann and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B 612 (2001) 25 \[hep-ph/0106067\].
43. S. W. Bosch and G. Buchalla, Nucl. Phys. B 621 (2002) 459 \[hep-ph/01060\].
44. A. Ali and A. Y. Parkhomenko, Eur. Phys. J. C 23 (2002) 89 \[hep-ph/0105302\].
45. T. E. Coan et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 5283 \[hep-ex/9912057\].
46. S. Nishida (BELLE Collaboration), Talk presented at the 31st. International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 24 - 31, 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
47. B. Aubert et al. (BABAR Collaboration) Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 101805 \[hep-ex/0110065\].
48. A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. B 539, 227 (2002) \[hep-ph/0110078\].
49. P. Ball and V. M. Braun, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094016 \[hep-ph/9805422\].
50. M. Beneke and T. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B 592 (2001) 3 \[hep-ph/0008255\].
51. A. Ali, V. M. Braun and H. Simma, Z. Phys. C 63 (1994) 437 \[hep-ph/9401277\].
52. L. Del Debbio, J. M. Flynn, L. Lellouch and J. Nieves (UKQCD Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 416 (1998) 392 \[hep-lat/9708008\].
53. A. Ali, L. T. Handoko and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 014014 \[hep-ph/0006175\].
54. B. Grinstein and D. Pirjol, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 093002 \[hep-ph/0002216\].
55. A. Ali and V. M. Braun, Phys. Lett. B 359 (1995) 223 \[hep-ph/9506248\].
56. A. Khodjamirian, G. Stoll and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B 358 (1995) 129 \[hep-ph/9506242\].
57. A. Ali and E. Lunghi, DESY-02-089, hep-ph/0206242.
58. S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 327 (1994) 354 \[hep-ph/9403370\].
59. D. Melikhov and B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 014006 \[hep-ph/0001113\].
60. Y. Nir, hep-ph/0208080.
61. See, for example, L. Lellouch, plenary talk at the 31st. International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 24 - 31, 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
62. A. S. Kronfeld and S. M. Ryan, Phys. Lett. B 543 \[hep-ph/0206058\].
63. C. Jessop (BABAR Collaboration), Talk presented at the 31st. International Conference on High Energy Physics, July 24 - 31, 2002, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
64. BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., SLAC preprint SLAC-PUB-9229, hep-ex/0205082, presented at 37th Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France, 9–16 Mar 2002.
65. M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 093012.
66. M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 119901.
67. M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B 441 (1998) 403.
68. M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 5076.
69. D. A. Suprun, C.-W. Chiang, and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 054025.
70. C.-W. Chiang and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 074035.
71. A. Höcker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, and F. Le Diberder, in Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics, Pasadena, California, 10–13 Sep 2001, AIP Conf. Proc. 618 (2002) 27.
72. J. Charles, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 054007.
73. R. Fleischer, in Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics, Pasadena, California, 10–13 Sep 2001, AIP Conf. Proc. 618 (2002) 266.
74. M. Gronau, D. London, N. Sinha, and R. Sinha, Phys. Lett. B 514 (2001) 315.
75. M. Gronau, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 037301.
76. D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 036005.
77. B. Kayser and D. London, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2000) 116013.
78. A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000) 97.
79. R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B 459 (1999) 306.
80. M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. B 482 (2000) 71.
81. R. Fleischer, Phys. Rep. 370 (2202) 537 \[hep-ph/0207108\].
82. M. Gronau, J. L. Rosner and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73 (1994) 21.
83. R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B 365 (1996) 399.
84. R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 2752.
85. M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 6843.
86. R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 6 (1999) 451.
87. M. Neubert, JHEP 9902 (1999) 014.
88. A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 11 (1999) 93.
89. R. Fleischer and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 074004.
90. M. Bargiotti et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 24 (2002) 361.
91. H.-n. Li and H. L. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) 2480;
Y. Y. Keum, H.-n. Li and A. I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 504 (2001) 6;
Y. Y. Keum and H.-n. Li, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 074006.
92. R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 16 (2000) 87.
93. R. Fleischer and J. Matias, Phys. Rev. D. 66 (2002) 054009, \[hep-ph/0204101\].
94. J. Matias, Phys. Lett. B 520 (2001) 131.
95. M. Gronau, Phys. Lett. B 492 (2000) 297.
96. R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C 10 (1999) 299, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 073008;
P. Z. Skands, JHEP 0101 (2001) 008.
97. M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 093012, 113008 and hep-ph/0205323;
C.-D. Lü and Z.-j. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 074011 \[hep-ph/0205134\].
98. M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Nucl. Phys. B 591 (2000) 313.
99. M. Wirbel, B. Stech and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C 29 (1985) 637;
M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C 34 (1987) 103.
100. M. Beneke, in: Proceedings of the 5th KEK Topical Conference: Frontiers in Flavor Physics (KEKTC5), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, 20-22 Nov 2001 \[hep-ph/0202056\].
101. D. Du, H. Gong, J. Sun, D. Yang and G. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 074001.
102. M. Beneke, in: Proceedings of: Flavor Physics and CP Violation (FPCP), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 16-18 May 2002 \[hep-ph/0207228\].
103. M. Neubert, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Heavy Quarks and Leptons, Salerno, Italy, 27 May - 1 Jun 2002 \[hep-ph/0207327\].
104. BaBar Collaboration, hep-ex/0207053; P. Krokovny \[Belle Collaboration\], talk at ICHEP2002, Amsterdam, July 2002.
105. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 501 (1997) 271 \[hep-ph/9703353\].
106. M. Ciuchini, R. Contino, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 512 (1998) 3 \[Erratum-ibid. B 531 (1998) 656\] \[hep-ph/9708222\].
107. A. J. Buras and L. Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys. B 569 (2000) 3 \[hep-ph/9812392\].
108. M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, M. Pierini and L. Silvestrini, Phys. Lett. B 515 (2001) 33 \[hep-ph/0104126\].
109. R. Patterson, summary talk at FPCP02, http://www.hep.upenn.edu/FPCP/talks/1803/180303Patterson.pdf.
110. M. Ciuchini, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 109 (2002) 307 \[hep-ph/0112133\].
111. Y.Y. Keum, H.n. Li and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B 504 (2001) 6; Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 054008; hep-ph/0201103; Y.Y. Keum and H.n. Li, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 074006; C.D. Lu, K. Ukai and M.Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 074009; C.-H. Chen, Y.Y. Keum and H.-n. Li, Phys.Rev.D 64 (2001) 112002; hep-ph/0204166; S. Mishima, Phys.Lett. B 521 (2001) 252.
112. BaBar Collaboration (B. Aubert et al.), hep-ex/0207055.
113. R. Bartoldus, talk on Review of rare two-body B decays at FPCP workshop, May 17, 2002.
114. Y.Y. Keum, Proceeding at the 3rd workshop on Higher Luminosity B Factory, Aug. 6-7, 2002; hep-ph/0209002; hep-ph/0209014; Y.Y. Keum et al., in preparation.
115. G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B 548 (1999) 309 \[hep-ph/9901288\].
116. G. Buchalla and A. J. Buras, Nucl. Phys. B 398 (1993) 285; 400 (1993) 225; 412 (1994) 106 \[hep-ph/9308272\];
117. M. Misiak and J. Urban, Phys. Lett. B. 451 (1999) 161 \[hep-ph/9901278\].
118. A. F. Falk, A. Lewandowski and A. A. Petrov, Phys. Lett. B. 505 (2001) 107 \[hep-ph/0012099\].
119. M. Lu and M. Wise, Phys. Lett. B. 324 (1994) 461 \[hep-ph/9401204\].
120. W.J. Marciano and Z. Parsa, Phys. Rev. D 53 (1996) R1.
121. L. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 3322.
122. G. Buchalla and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B. 440 (1998) 170 \[hep-ph/9806501\];
D. Rein and L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Rev. D39 (1989) 3325.
123. G. D’Ambrosio and G. Isidori, Phys. Lett. B. 530 (2002) 108 \[hep-ph/0112135\].
124. S. Kettell, L. Landsberg and H. Nguyen, hep-ph/0212321.
125. A. J. Buras et al., Nucl. Phys. B 566 (2000) 3 \[hep-ph/9908371\].
126. Y. Grossman and Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. B 398 (1997) 163 \[hep-ph/9701313\].
127. S. Adler et al. \[E787 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 041803 and references therein.
128. S. Adler et al. \[E787 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B 537 (2002) 211 \[hep-ex/0201037\].
129. http://www.phy.bnl.gov/e949/
130. P.S. Cooper, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 99B (2001) 121;
http://www.fnal.gov/projects/ckm/Welcome.html
131. M.V.Diwan, hep-ex/0205089, La Thuile, Italy, 2002.
132. A. Alavi-Harati et al. \[KTeV Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 072006 \[hep-ex/9907014\].
133. http://psux1.kek.jp/$`\mathbf{}`$e391/
134. A. Konaka, hep-ex/9903016; http://pubweb.bnl.gov/people/e926/
135. H. Höcker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace and F. Le Diberder, Eur. Phys. J. C 21 (2001) 225, hep-ph/0104062, http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr/
136. L.S. Littenberg, hep-ex/0201026, to appear in the Proc. 9th Intl. Symp. on Heavy Flavor Physics.

## Chapter 7 SUMMARY AND HIGHLIGHTS

With over two hundred participants, more than eighty presentations in plenary and parallel sessions, and twelve discussion sessions, the first Workshop on the CKM Unitarity Triangle provided an opportunity for an exploration of the status, open issues, and future directions in the understanding of the quark mixing matrix. Thirteen more months for the preparation of this report have allowed to update results, refine most of the studies presented in February 2002, and add coherence to their presentation. It has also been an opportunity for the participants to discuss further, and to reach a consensus on several issues which had been debated at the Workshop. As a result, these proceedings could be written in the form of a coherent document with a common signatory list for each chapter, corresponding to the original working groups. On some issues we agreed to disagree: the continuation of this Workshop series will have to address these subjects.

The main goal of this first Workshop was to review the status of the CKM Unitarity Triangle at the end of the B physics studies at LEP, SLD and CESR and during the hand-over of the responsibility for their continuation, with even higher accuracy and sensitivity, to the B factories and the Tevatron. Chapter 1 introduces the CKM matrix and the Unitarity Triangle (UT), briefly describes the theoretical framework, and recalls the development of the B physics studies throughout a decade characterized by the operation of the LEP and SLC colliders, the Tevatron Run I, and their role in complementing the data obtained at CESR.

The cleanest way to measure the individual elements of the CKM mixing matrix is the determination of the yield of tree-level semileptonic processes which can be reliably computed. These measurements have reached their full maturity thanks to both the increasingly large data sample available, and the advancements in the theoretical understanding. Chapter 2 is devoted to the determination of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ decays and that of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ from super-allowed Fermi transitions and neutron beta decay. The relative accuracy on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ has now reached the 1% level while that on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ is approaching a factor of twenty better. This requires special attention in evaluating the theoretical uncertainties that affect these determinations. In fact, they represent a large fraction of the total uncertainty in both cases. A likely explanation of the present 2.2 $`𝝈`$ discrepancy in the unitarity relation $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is an underestimate of these effects. In the absence of a clear indication of which uncertainty has been underestimated, it has been proposed to take the value $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.2240}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0036}`$ as a conservative estimate of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$, which assumes CKM unitarity. Possible improvements, which can be expected for both $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$ in the near future, are discussed. Particularly promising is the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝑲_\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}`$ decays. Here we soon expect new, precise data with a consistent treatment of radiative corrections and, at the same time, new theoretical evaluations of the $`𝑺𝑼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$ breaking effects. Concerning $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$, a challenging opportunity for experiment is offered by the theoretically clean $`𝝅_{𝒆\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ decay.

The other class of tree-level decays which is central to the CKM UT studies is represented by the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ processes, which give access to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, respectively. The discussion of the status of the extraction of these two CKM elements has attracted a large part of the participants and of the presentations at the Workshop. The third chapter of this report tries to summarize the status, with important updates from the Summer 2002 conferences.

With the statistical accuracy approaching the few percent level for some of these measurements, an important issue here is to carefully test the underlying theoretical assumptions. Both inclusive and exclusive decays are routinely studied. The measurement of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from exclusive decays is limited by the theoretical uncertainty on the value of the form factor at maximum $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (see Table 7.1). A detailed analysis of lattice QCD results and their uncertainty is now available. Progress in these studies, as well as more precise data from the B factories, are expected. Important progress has been made during and after the Workshop on the $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ extraction from inclusive semileptonic decays. The current accuracy of experimental measurements is at the percent level. While perturbative QCD corrections have been studied in different frameworks and the related uncertainty seems under control, the non-perturbative parameters appearing in the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) have to be constrained using experimental data. Several new analyses of the moments of distributions in semileptonic and radiative decays have appeared in the last year. Their results demonstrate that a significant fraction of the uncertainty on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, arising from these parameters, can be absorbed in the experimental uncertainty. As shown in Table 7.1, the remaining theoretical uncertainty is now at the level of a percent. The consistent picture emerging from these preliminary studies represents a remarkable success for the OPE and bolsters confidence in the inclusive $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ determination, as no violation of parton-hadron duality has been detected at the present level of accuracy.

The CKM-suppressed counterpart of the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ process is the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ decay which measures $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, the smallest element in the CKM mixing matrix. Since its rate is only about 1/60 of that for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒄`$ transition, measuring this charmless decay accurately is a formidable experimental challenge. We have known for more than a decade that this process is present, thanks to pioneering measurements by ARGUS and CLEO. The non-vanishing of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ is a pre-requisite for explaining CP violation within the Standard Model (SM). Knowing its magnitude accurately is a top priority for testing the CKM UT. In this respect, significant progress has been made. Theorists have devised a number of strategies to pin down the value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ with good accuracy. Large data sets, complementary kinematical characteristics of the signal events at $`𝚼\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}𝑺\mathbf{)}`$ and $`𝒁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ energies, and experimental ingenuity have provided a significant set of results. None of them is approaching the accuracy obtained on $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and the debate in the community on these fairly recent developments is still lively. But the results, obtained with very different methods, are all consistent and the overall accuracy amounts to better than 15% (see Table 7.1).

Another important area of studies of tree-level B decays, discussed in Chapter 3, is represented by the determination of the exclusive and inclusive $`𝒃`$-hadron lifetimes. Those for the lighter mesons are presently known to an accuracy of one percent, or better. For $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝒃`$-baryons important data has already been gathered and the Tevatron is expected to reach soon a similar accuracy. Lifetime differences between $`𝒃`$-hadrons have been compared with expectations from OPE to test our understanding of the non-spectator contributions to beauty hadron decays. While this comparison has shown a consistent agreement between predictions and measurements in the meson sector, the measured ratio of baryon to meson lifetimes deviates from its initial expectation. This has been interpreted as a possible signal of problems in the underlying theory assumptions. However, much better agreement with data is re-established once the NLO corrections are included.

There remain two CKM elements, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}\mathbf{|}`$, which have been so far accessed only through box diagrams. They can be probed by $`𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐊}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and $`𝐁_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\overline{𝐁}_{𝒅\mathbf{,}𝒔}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mixing. The experimental status of these studies and that of the non-perturbative calculations of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$, $`\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$, $`\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒔}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒔}`$, and $`𝝃`$ is reviewed in Chapter 4.

The theoretical discussion has centred on the determination of the non-perturbative parameters for neutral meson mixing. For $`𝑭_{𝑩_𝒒}`$ and $`𝝃`$, lattice calculations with two dynamical flavours of quarks are becoming common and the first $`\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ dynamical calculations have appeared. Much attention has focused on the chiral extrapolations needed to obtain the physical results, particularly for $`𝝃`$, with a final lattice value for UT fits given as $`𝝃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.24}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{)}`$. QCD sum rules give very consistent results for the B meson decay constants, slightly less so for the $`𝑩`$-parameters. For neutral kaon mixing the benchmark lattice calculations are quenched and lead to the final result given in Table 7.1. The systematic uncertainty includes the estimate for quenching effects and is considered to be very conservative (a more aggressive error estimate is given in Sec. 4.2.2 of Chapter 4). The best-developed alternative technique to evaluate $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ is the large-$`𝑵_𝒄`$ expansion and gives a consistent result, although the chiral corrections are more than $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎𝟎}\mathbf{\%}`$ in this case.

The time structure of $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝐁}^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations has been precisely measured in the $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ sector. The LEP, Tevatron and SLC results are in excellent agreement with those obtained at the B factories. After the inclusion of the latter, the oscillation frequency $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ is known with a precision of about 1$`\mathbf{\%}`$ (see Table 7.1). Further improvements are expected, which should bring the accuracy on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$ to a few per mille.

On the other hand, $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$-$`\overline{𝐁}_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ oscillations have not been observed yet, even though the experimental effort has allowed to largely exceed the anticipated sensitivity. Today we know that $`𝐁_𝒔^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons oscillate at least thirty times faster than $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ mesons. The final result of the searches at LEP and SLC is $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{>}\mathbf{14.4}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{at 95\% C.L.}`$, with a sensitivity of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔\mathbf{=}\mathbf{19.2}`$ ps-1. While this much sought-after phenomenon has so far eluded searches, the consequent lower limit on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ has already a significant impact on the determination of the UT parameters.

The extraction of the UT parameters from all these inputs, within the Standard Model, is discussed in Chapter 5, which represents a central part of this Workshop. Five quantities have been considered to constrain the upper apex of the UT in the $`\overline{𝝆}`$-$`\overline{𝜼}`$ plane. These are $`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑲`$, $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, $`𝚫𝑴_𝒅`$, the limit on $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ and sin 2$`𝜷`$ from the measurement of the CP asymmetry in the $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝝍𝐊^\mathrm{𝟎}`$ decays. Comparing the measured values of these observables with their theoretical predictions (in the SM or in a different model) yields a set of constraints, which however depend on several parameters, like quark masses, decay constants of B mesons and non-perturbative parameters, such as $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$. Their values are constrained by both measurements and theoretical calculations which are reviewed in Chapter 4.

Different methods have been proposed to combine this information and extract the UT parameters. They differ in the treatment of the theoretical uncertainties for which they adopt either a frequentist or a Bayesian approach. Despite much interest in these studies, no systematic comparison of these methods had been performed before this Workshop. Moreover, different assumptions on the input parameters made any comparison of published results difficult. At the Workshop, different groups agreed to share a common set of input values (see Table 5.1), provided by the relevant working groups. In spite of using the same central values and errors, the likelihood functions associated with the input parameters are different in the two approaches. As a consequence, the region defining the 95$`\mathbf{\%}`$ (99$`\mathbf{\%}`$) confidence level for the UT parameters is wider by 30$`\mathbf{\%}`$ (20$`\mathbf{\%}`$) in the frequentist as compared to the Bayesian approach. Further tests have shown that, if the same likelihoods are used for input quantities, the output results become almost identical. The main origin of the difference between the results in the Bayesian and the frequentist method is therefore the likelihood associated to the input quantities. But these differences will decrease progressively as the theoretical uncertainties will be reduced or related to experimental ones. An example of the latter is the extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from inclusive decays, where — as already mentioned — experimental constraints from the moments have replaced theoretical estimates in the aftermath of the Workshop. It is also expected that additional inputs will be determined using unquenched Lattice simulations.

Independently of the statistical method adopted, a crucial outcome of these investigations is the remarkable agreement of the UT parameters, as determined by means of CP conserving quantities sensitive to the UT sides, with the CP violation measurements in the kaon sector ($`\mathit{ϵ}_𝑲`$) and in the B sector (sin2$`𝜷`$). This agreement tells us that, at the present level of accuracy, the SM mechanism of flavour and CP violation describes the data well. At the same time, it is also an important test of the OPE, HQET and Lattice QCD, on which the extraction of the CKM parameters rests. The present accuracy is at the 10% level; the B factories and a next generation of facilities will improve the sensitivity of these tests by an order of magnitude. The study of the impact of the uncertainties in the theoretical parameters on the UT fits has shown that the uncertainties in $`\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ have to be decreased by at least a factor of two in order to have a significant impact on the UT fits — unless future calculations result in $`\sqrt{\widehat{𝑩}_{𝑩_𝒅}}𝑭_{𝑩_𝒅}`$ values which differ significantly from present results. In the case of $`\widehat{𝑩}_𝑲`$ and in particular $`𝝃`$, even a modest reduction of the theoretical uncertainty could already have an important impact on the UT fits.

The output for various quantities of interest can be found in Table 5.5; a pictorial representation of the fit is shown in Fig. 5.2. UT fits can also be used to obtain predictions for quantities that will only be measured in the future, such as the $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ oscillation frequency, predicted to be $`\mathbf{<}\mathbf{22.2}\text{ps}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$, and the angle $`𝜸`$, predicted to be between 49.0 and 77.0. These 95% confidence levels ranges may be considered as a reference to which the direct measurements will need to be compared for identifying possible signals of New Physics.

While the determination of the triangle sides and the definition of the procedures for the UT fits had a central role at the Workshop, a number of topics, which will become of increasing importance at future meetings, started to be addressed. They are presented as individual contributions in Chapter 6. At this stage, general strategies for the determination of the UT need to be formulated. Preliminary studies show that the pairs of measurements $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$, $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}𝑹_𝒃\mathbf{)}`$ and $`\mathbf{(}𝜸\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ offer the most efficient sets of observables to determine $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$. On the other hand the pair $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ will play the leading role in the UT fits in the coming years and for this reason it has been suggested to plot the available constraints on the CKM matrix in the $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ plane. The present $`\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝒕\mathbf{,}𝜷\mathbf{)}`$ plot corresponding to the usual $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ plot can be found in Fig. 6.5.

There are more measurements of B decays which are relevant to the CKM studies. Radiative rare B-decays, very sensitive to New Physics in loops, have been reviewed for their potential relevance in probing the CKM UT. The combined studies of radiative decays into non-strange hadrons are sensitive to $`\mathbf{(}\overline{𝝆}\mathbf{,}\overline{𝜼}\mathbf{)}`$ and could in principle provide interesting constraints on the UT, provided that the theoretical errors can be reduced and that the branching fractions are accurately measured.

The decays $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝐊`$, $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝝅𝝅`$ and $`𝐁\mathbf{}𝐊\overline{𝐊}`$ are emphasised as useful tools for the determination of the angles $`𝜶`$ and $`𝜸`$. Here flavour symmetries and recent dynamical approaches like QCD factorization and pQCD play the dominant role in the phenomenology. The status of QCD factorization has been outlined and also the critical points in view of a possible extraction of $`𝜸`$ have been described.

Finally, the potential of the rare decays $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`𝐊_𝐋\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟎}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ with respect to the determination of the UT has been discussed. These decays are essentially free of theoretical uncertainties but are subject to parametric uncertainties such as $`𝒎_𝒄`$ for $`𝐊^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}𝝅^\mathbf{+}𝝂\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ for both decays. These uncertainties should be reduced in the coming years so that the future measurements of these decays will provide very important independent measurements of $`𝑽_{𝒕𝒅}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐬𝐢𝐧}\mathrm{𝟐}𝜷`$ and more generally of the UT parameters. The comparison of these measurements with those obtained by B decays offers a very powerful tool for testing the SM and its extensions.

The CKM Workshop contributed to demonstrate the richness and variety of the physics landscape related to the CKM matrix and the Unitarity Triangle. Results from the LEP, SLC, CESR and Tevatron experiments have already provided us with an impressionistic outline of this landscape, which the B factories and the Run II at the Tevatron are now revealing in greater detail. While the CKM matrix appears likely to be the dominant source of flavour and CP violation, New Physics contributions may still modify the shape of the UT and be revealed by forthcoming studies. In this context the measurements of the angle $`𝜸`$ in non-leptonic B decays and those of $`𝚫𝑴_𝒔`$ will mark important new steps in the search for New Physics in the $`\overline{𝝆}`$-$`\overline{𝜼}`$ plane. The present deviation from the SM expectation of the CP asymmetry in $`𝐁_𝒅^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varphi }𝐊_𝑺`$ also awaits a clarification, and the improved data on several rare decays will be very important in this programme. All this will be the subject of future CKM Workshops.