Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 1
|V|Vxbxb| from semileptonic| from semileptonicB decaysB decays
Paolo Gambino INFN Torino
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 2
A set of interdependent measurements
b→c l ν treeBR~10
%|Vcb|
b→u l ν tree ~10-3 |Vub|
b→s loop ~3 10-4 new physics, |Vts|
b→d loop ~ 10-6 new physics, |Vtd|
Not only BR are relevant: various asymmetries,
spectra etc
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 3
What do they have in common?
INCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE
OPE: non-pert physics described by B matrix elemnts of local operators can be extracted by exp suppressed by 1/mb
2
Form factors: in general computed by non pert methods (lattice, sum rules,...) symmetry can provide
normalization
Simplicity: ew or em currents probe the B dynamics
B
X
Simplicity is almost always destroyed in practical situations...
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 4
EXCLUSIVE
Determination of ADetermination of A
VCKM
A can be determined using |Vcb| or |Vts|
Two roads to |Vcb|
INCLUSIVE
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 5
|Vcb| from BD*l
At zero recoil, where rate vanishes.Despite extrapolation, exp error ~ 2%
Main problem is form factor F(1)
The non-pert quantities relevant for excl decays cannot be experimentally determined
Must be calculated but HQET helps.
Lattice QCD: F(1) = 0.91+0.03-0.04
Sum rules give consistent resultsNeeds unquenching (under way)Even slope may be calculable...
FB→D*(1) = ηA [1 - O(1/mb,1/mc)2]
BDl gives consistent but less precise results; lattice control is better
δVcb/Vcb~ 5% and agrees with inclusive det, despite contradictory exps
THE NON-PERT UNKNOWNSMUST BE CALCULATED,CANNOT BE MEASURED
B D*b c
d
l
v
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 6
F(1)BD =1.074(18)(16) first unquenched result Fermilab/MILC
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 7
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 8
far reaching consequences
• New Babar BD*lv
|Vcb|excl = 3.76 (3)stat(13)syst(18)th x10-2
2 away from previous result! and far from inclusive
next WA will likely be lower than it was but higher than this
• Reduction of systematics for lept endpoint |Vub|
extraction (better understanding of background)
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 9
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 10
The advantage of being The advantage of being inclusiveinclusive
ΛQCD«mb : inclusive decays admit systematic expansion in
ΛQCD/mb Non-pert corrections are generally small and can be controlled
Hadronization probability =1 because we sum over all statesApproximately insensitive to details of meson structure as ΛQCD«mb
(as long as one is far from perturbative singularities)
02
2
dqdqdE
d
l
can be expressed as double series in ααs s and and ΛQCD/mb
(OPE) with parton model as leading term No 1/mb
correction!
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 11
HQE = Heavy Quark Expansion
A double expansionA double expansion can be expressed in terms of structure
functions related to Im of0
2
2
dqdqdE
d
l
GbbcbDbcbbcJxJT 3
2
21)0()(OPE (HQE):
The leading term is parton model, ci are series in αs
New operators have non-vanishing expection values in B and are suppressed by powers of the energy released, Er~ mb-mc
No 1/mb correction! OPE predictions can be compared to exp only after SMEARING
and away from endpoints: they have no LOCAL meaning
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 12
Leptonic and hadronic spectra
Total rate gives CKM elmnts; global shape parameterstells us about B structure
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 13
heavy quark massesmust be carefully defined:short distance, low scale
State of the artKnown corrections up to 1/mb
3: OPE/HQE predictions are only functions of possible cuts and of
1,2
O(1/mb2): mean
kin.energy of b in B
BbDibB
MB
|)(|2
1 22
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 14
State of the artKnown corrections up to 1/mb
3: OPE/HQE predictions are only functions of possible cuts and of
1,2Gremm,Kapustin...1,2
33 , LSD
O(1/mb2): mean
kin.energy of b in B
BbDibB
MB
|)(|2
1 22
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 15
3
3
43
3
32
2
22
2
10
2
3
52
)()()()(1192 b
LS
b
D
b
G
bewcb
bFcl m
ram
ram
ram
rarzAVmG
Perturbative Corrections: full O(αs) and O(β0 αs2) available
For hadronic moments thanks to NEW calculations Trott Aquila,PG,Ridolfi,Uraltsev
Recent implementation for moments of lept and hadronic spectra including a cut on the lepton energy Bauer et al.,Uraltsev & PG
State of the artKnown corrections up to 1/mb
3: OPE/HQE predictions are only functions of possible cuts and of
1,2Gremm,Kapustin...1,2
33 , LSD
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 16
Using moments to extract HQE parameters
432222 1.064.052.16.44.03.1 GeVmmMM DcbXX
Central moments can be VERY sensitive to HQE parameters
Experiments at Υ(4s) require a CUT on the lepton energy El>0.6-1.5 GeV.
Provided cut is not too severe (~1.3GeV)the cut moments give additional info
We do know something on HQE par.need to check consistency.
•MB*-MB fixes G2= 0.35±0.03
•Sum rules: G2 2, ρD
3 -ρ3
LS...
BUT: OPE accuracy deteriorates for higher moments (getting sensitive to local effects)
Variance of mass distribution
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 17
Global fit to |Vcb|, BRsl,HQE Buchmuller & Flacher 06
Based on Gambino & Uraltsev,Benson et al
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 18
Bauer, Manohar, Ligeti, Luke, Trott 2005
Results in the 1S scheme
There are several differences• perturbative quark mass scheme• expansion in inverse powers of mc
• use of HQET relations• handling of higher orders• estimate of th errors...
mc(mc)= 1.224 ± 0.017exp±0.054th GeV
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 19
+unquenching+unquenching
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 20
Theoretical uncertainties
1. Missing higher power corrections 2. Missing perturbative effects in the Wilson
coefficients: O(s2), O(αs/mb
2) etc
3. Intrinsic charm Bigi, Uraltsev, Zwicky
4. Duality violations
How can we estimate all this?Different recipes for 1+3, results for |Vcb| unchanged
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 21
Testing parton-hadron Testing parton-hadron dualityduality
What is it?What is it? For all practical purposes: the OPE. No OPE, no duality
Do we expect violations?Do we expect violations? Yes, problems prevalently arise because OPE must be continued analytically. there are effects that cannot be described by the OPE, like hadronic thresholds. Expected small in semileptonic decays
Can we constrain them effectively?Can we constrain them effectively? in a self-consistent way: just check the OPE predictions. E.g. leptonic vs hadronic moments. Models may also give hints of how it
works
Caveats?Caveats? HQE depends on many parameters and we know only a few terms of the double expansion in αs and Λ/mb.
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 22
It is not just Vcb ...
HQE parameters describe universal properties of the B meson and of the quarks
• c and b masses can be determined with competitive accuracy (likely better than 70 and 50 MeV) mb-mc is already measured to better than 30 MeV: a benchmark for lattice QCD etc?
• It tests the foundations for inclusive measurements
• most Vub incl. determinations are sensitive to a shape function, whose moments are related to μ
2 etc,
• Bounds on , the slope of IW function (BD* form factor) that are perfectly satisfied by new measurement
• ...Need precision measurements to probe limits of HQE & test
our th. framework |Vcb| can be measured to 1%
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 23
Precision studies need
• Moments with higher cuts, eg Elcut>1.5 GeV
• High hadronic moments, eg <MX6>
• Modified Hadron moments <NXn> with NX
2= MX2-2 Λ EX +Λ2
need <EXn MX
2m>
• q2 moments, to constrain IC
• QED effects (also for background in b u)
• Moments in b→u, especially q2 moments with a cut
on El not above 1.5 GeV
• from theory: Wilson coefficients at O(s2),O(s/mb
2)
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 24
|V|Vubub| is now the priority | is now the priority
ρ = 0.197 ± 0.031
η = 0.351 ± 0.020
http://www.utfit.org
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 25
Strictly tree level
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 26
In detail
Bona et al
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 27
Really an inclusive problem?
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 28
b→ulv exclusive
There is NO normalization of form f.s from HQ symmetry
New first unquenched resultslattice errors still ~11-15%
Sum rules good at low q2
lattice at high q2: complementeach other
q2 extrapolation from theory bounds plus data: FF normaliza-
tion at 1 point is sufficient Ball-Zwicky, Becher-Hill etc
Lattice (distant) goal is 5-6%
New strategy using combinationof rare B,D decays Grinstein& Pirjol
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 29
|Vub| from B l
FF calculation Vub [10-3] Ball-Zwicky q2 < 16 3.36 § 0.15 +0.55-0.37
HPQCD q2 > 16 4.20 § 0.29 +0.63-0.43
FNAL q2 > 16 3.75 § 0.26 +0.65-0.43
APE q2 > 16 3.78 § 0.26 +1.45-0.67
full range
Unquenched results probably notyet mature: handle with care
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 30
|Vub| inclusive
Buchmuller & Flacher fit:
but life is not that easy!
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 31
|Vub| (not so much) inclusive
|Vub| from total BR(bul) almost exactly like incl |Vcb| but we need kinematic cuts to avoid the ~100x larger bcl background:
mX < MD El > (MB2-MD
2)/2MB q2 > (MB-MD)2 ...
or combined (mX,q2) cuts
The cuts destroy convergenceof the OPE, supposed to workonly away from pert singularities
Rate becomes sensitive to “local”b-quark wave function properties like Fermi motion
at leading in 1/mb SHAPE FUNCTION f(k+)
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 32
Luke, CKM workshop 2005
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 33
Each strategy has pros and cons
Luke, CKM workshop 2005
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 34
What do we know about the SF?
• Its moments can be expressed in terms of m.e. of local operators, those extracted from the b->c moments
• It can be extracted from b→s
• It can also be studied in b→ulv spectra
• It gets renormalized and we have learned how (delicate interplay with pert contributions)
• Various subleading SFs appear in bulv
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 35
Weak annihilation
Σq
q
b
u
coefficient of Darwin operator
adding 1loop corrections
-dep of WA sets natural scale of non-factorizable flavor-singlet contributions to BWA see PG,Ossola,Uraltsev
BAD: WA ≤3% in rate but gets enhanced in phase space cornersGOOD: WA small but can be experimentally constrained,not only in B+/B0
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 36
Vub inclusive results
Intense theoretical activity:
subleading shape functionsoptimization of cuts (P+,P- etc)weak annihilation contribs.Resum. pert. effectsrelation to bs spectrum (SF free relations, see eg Lange 05) SCET insight
REQUIRES MANY COMPLEMENTARY MEASUREMENTS (affected by different uncert.)
There is no Best Method
Need triple diff rate. Currently 2 groups haveprovided HFAG the necessary technology:
BLNP (Bosch,Lange,Neubert,Paz) & DGE (Andersen,Gardi)
A lot can be learned from exp
(on shape function from bs, WA, indirect constraints on s.f., subleading effects from cut dependence,...)
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 37
BLNP
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 38
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 39
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 40
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 41large 2 mostly driven by tension in the exp data
4% th error!!
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 42
Comments on BLNP & DGE
• BNLP: the 3 scales are very close, does resummation really improve at NLO, NNLO necessary? SF modelling and uncertainty estimates under control? transition to OPE region?
• DGE: difficult to swallow that 1 parameter (mb) works better than an infinity... BUT iff it fits data there may be a lesson to learn. Can systematically include error from subl SFs and other power corrections: there are assumptions but it’s not a model. Check error estimates.
• nice agreement so far. Both need full NNLO pQCD & other competitors
• Ultimately data decide: use them effectively, to scrutinize DGE & BLNP, any info on b u spectra is essential
and get as far from thresholds as possible!
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 43
Cutting the cuts...New exp analyses basedon fully reconstructed events allow high discrimination of charmed final states
2004
Unfolded MX spectrumBabar measured MX
moments. Results can beimproved by cutting in amilder way than usual
It’s time to start using b->u data to constrain SF !
Truncated moments are useful to validate theory and constrain f(k+) & WA: q2
moments and hadronic moments even at low cuts
PG,Ossola,Uraltsev
Paolo Gambino Beach 2006 Lancaster 44
Summary of main theory limitations
processquantity
Th error
needs goal
B→D*lv |Vcb| ~4% New lattice results
1%
B→Xclv |Vcb|~1.5%
New pert calculations
<1%
B→π lv |Vub| ~12% Lattice developments
5-6%
B→Xulv |Vub| ~6%More data,checks,synergy th/exp
<5%