Abstract

Stringent relations between the B(∗) → D(∗) form factors exist in the heavy quark limit and the leading symmetry breaking corrections are known. We reconsider their uncertainty and role in the analysis of recent Belle data for B → D(∗)ℓν with model-independent parametrizations and in the related prediction of R(D(∗)). We find |Vcb| = 41.5(1.3) 10−3 and |Vcb| = 40.6(− 1.3+ 1.2) 10−3 using input from Light Cone Sum Rules, and R(D∗) = 0.260(8).

Highlights

  • D∗ is at rest in the B rest frame

  • They are grounded in the same foundations, the CLN parametrization makes use of Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) relations between the B(∗) → D(∗) form factors in various ways in order to reduce the number of independent parameters

  • The main purpose of the present paper is to investigate to which extent the Heavy Quark Symmetry relations between the form factors affect the results of our previous analysis, once their uncertainty is properly accounted for

Read more

Summary

Uncertainty of the relations between form factors

As explained in refs. [11, 13] the unitarity constraints on the parameters of the z-expansion can be made stronger by adding other hadronic channels which couple tocΓb currents. It is useful to recall that several of the form factors do not receive NLO power corrections at zero recoil because of Luke’s theorem [18]. ΣHQET is the total parametric relative uncertainty of the NLO HQET calculation, obtained combining in quadrature the uncertainty from the QCD sum rule parameters, mb, and αs Another condition that the replicas (Fj/Fi)α must comply with is that the coefficients a(nFj) of the form factor Fj, computed by expanding in powers of z the expression. The bounds in the (aV14, aV24) plane depend little on the exact value of aV04 in that range, besides being anyway much weaker than those on the coefficients of A1,5 In this case we obtain a two-dimensional allowed region, shown in figure 3. In the future, when new lattice information on the slopes of these form factors will become available, the bounds can be simplified; they will become one-dimensional bounds on aF2 i only

A V P S intersection a2A5
HQET R1
The standard way: normalizing P1 to A1
Normalizing P1 to V1
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.