B meson decays
 Marina Artuso^{1},
 Elisabetta Barberio^{2} and
 Sheldon Stone^{1}Email author
DOI: 10.1186/1754041033
© Stone et al 2009
Received: 20 February 2009
Accepted: 20 February 2009
Published: 20 February 2009
Abstract
We discuss the most important Physics thus far extracted from studies of B meson decays. Measurements of the four CP violating angles accessible in B decay are reviewed as well as direct CP violation. A detailed discussion of the measurements of the CKM elements V_{ cb }and V_{ ub }from semileptonic decays is given, and the differences between resulting values using inclusive decays versus exclusive decays is discussed. Measurements of "rare" decays are also reviewed. We point out where CP violating and rare decays could lead to observations of physics beyond that of the Standard Model in future experiments. If such physics is found by directly observation of new particles, e.g. in LHC experiments, B decays can play a decisive role in interpreting the nature of these particles.
PACS Codes: 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd, 14.65.Fy
1 Introduction
The forces of nature generally reveal their properties by how they act on matter. On the most fundamental material scale that we are aware of matter is formed from fermions. These take two forms, leptonic matter and quark matter. The former do not have any strong interactions, that is they lack a property called "color charge", which allow quarks to bind together either mesonically or baryonically. New and therefore as yet unknown forces could effect both leptons and quarks. Here, we concentrate on how such forces effect quarks, especially the b quark.
Light matter consists mostly of u, d and s quarks. In 1963 Cabibbo showed that weak interactions of mesons and baryons containing s quarks were suppressed with respect to those without s quarks by an amount tan θ_{ C }, where the "Cabibbo" angle θ_{ C }must be determined experimentally [1]. The s was further shown to have an important and at that time a mystifying role, by the discovery of CP violation in ${K}_{L}^{0}$ decays in 1964 [2, 3]. (In CP, C stands for charge conservation invariance and P for parity invariance. The operation of C takes a particle to antiparticle state and the operation of P changes left to right. [4–6].) When the c quark was discovered in Nov. 1974 [7, 8] (though its existence was speculated earlier [9–11]), it became clear that θ_{ C }was the mixing angle between two quark doublets, (c, s) and (u, d). However, it is not possible to generate a CP violating phase with only two quark doublets.
This was recognized even before the discovery of the charm quark by Kobayashi and Maskawa, who postulated the existence of yet another quark doublet (b, t) [12], in work for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2008. While the t quark is the heaviest, having a mass of 173 GeV, they are difficult to produce and decay before they can form a hadron, thus excluding many otherwise possible studies. Much interesting work has been done with the s and c quarks, but in this article we discuss the physics of the b quark, which turns out to be the most interesting of the six quarks to study.
1.1 How B's Fit Into the Standard Model
First we will discuss how particles formed with bquarks fit into current paradigm of particle physics, the "Standard Model" (SM) [13–15]. The SM has at its basis the gauge group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). The first term corresponds to the strong interaction and SU(3) describes the octet of colored gluons which are the strong force carriers of quantum chromodynamics. SU(2)xU(1) describes the weak interaction and is the product of weak isospin and hypercharge. We speak of the fundamental objects being spin1/2 quarks and leptons and the force carriers generally spin1 objects. The spin0 Higgs boson, yet to be discovered, is necessary for generating mass (to view a cartoon of the mechanism of Higgs mass generation, see [16]).
Particles containing b quarks can be B^{0}, B^{}, B_{ s }, or B_{ c }mesons, depending on whether the light antiquark that it pairs with is $\overline{d}$, $\overline{u}$, $\overline{s}$, or $\overline{c}$ or a baryon containing two other quarks. Mesons containing b and $\overline{b}$ quarks are also interesting especially for studies of quantum chromodynamics, but will not be discussed further in this article, as we will concentrate on weak decays and discuss strong interactions as an important and necessary complication that must be understood in many cases to extract information on fundamental b quark couplings.
The quarks come in three repetitions called generations, as do the leptons. The first generation is d u, the second s c and the third b t. In the second and third generations the charge +2/3 quark is heavier than the charge 1/3; the first generation has two very light quarks on the order of a few MeV with the d thought to be a bit heavier. (Isospin invariance is related to the equality of u and d quark masses. The PDG [17] gives the u quark mass between 1.5–3.3 MeV and the d mass between 3.5–6.0 MeV, where the large range indicates the considerable uncertainties.) Decays usually proceed within generations, so the c decays predominantly to the s quark via the quark level process c → W^{+} s, though some decays do go to the first generation as c → W^{+} d. The ratio of these amplitudes approximate the Cabibbo angle discussed earlier.
where the definition in terms of the CKM matrix elements is correct to all orders in λ [19] (see also [20]).
1.1.1 Dark Matter
"Dark Matter" was first shown to exist by Zwicky studying rotation curves of galaxies [23]. The motion could only be explained if there was massive cloud of matter that was not luminous. We still do not know what composes this dark matter, though hopes are it will be discovered at the LHC. An even more mysterious phenomena called "Dark Energy" may also have a connection to particle physics experiments [24], perhaps via "Extra Dimensions" [25].
1.1.2 Baryogenesis
When the Universe began with the Big Bang, there was an equal amount of matter and antimatter. Now we have mostly matter. How did it happen? Sakharov gave three necessary conditions: Baryon ($\mathcal{B}$) number violation, departure from thermal equilibrium, and C and CP violation [26]. (The operation of Charge Conjugation (C) takes particle to antiparticle and Parity (P) takes a vector $\overrightarrow{r}$ to  $\overrightarrow{r}$.)
These criteria are all satisfied by the Standard Model. $\mathcal{B}$ is violated in Electroweak theory at high temperature, though baryon minus lepton number is conserved; in addition we need quantum tunneling, which is powerfully suppressed at the low temperatures that we now have. Nonthermal equilibrium is provided by the electroweak phase transition. C and CP are violated by weak interactions. However the violation is too small. The ratio of the number of baryons to the entropy in the observed part of the Universe needs to be ~5 × 10^{11}, while the SM provides many orders of magnitude less. Therefore, there must be new physics [27].
1.1.3 The Hierarchy Problem
Our worry is why the Planck scale at ~10^{19} GeV is so much higher than the scale at which we expect to find the Higgs Boson, ~100 GeV. As Lisa Randall said [28] "The gist of it is that the universe seems to have two entirely different mass scales, and we don't understand why they are so different. There's what's called the Planck scale, which is associated with gravitational interactions. It's a huge mass scale, but because gravitational forces are proportional to one over the mass squared, that means gravity is a very weak interaction. In units of GeV, which is how we measure masses, the Planck scale is 10^{19} GeV. Then there's the electroweak scale, which sets the masses for the W and Z bosons. These are particles that are similar to the photons of electromagnetism and which we have observed and studied well. They have a mass of about 100 GeV. So the hierarchy problem, in its simplest manifestation, is how can you have these particles be so light when the other scale is so big." We expect the explanation lies in physics beyond the Standard Model [29].
1.2 BDecays as Probes for New Physics
When we make measurements on B decays we observe the contributions of SM processes as well as any other processes that may be due to physics beyond the SM or New Physics (NP). Other diagrams would appear adding to those in Figure 2 with new intermediate particles. Thus, when it is declared by those who say that there isn't any evidence of NP in B decays, we have to be very careful that we have not absorbed such new evidence into what we declare to be SM physics. There are several approaches that can be followed.
One approach is to simply predict the decay rate of a single process in the SM with known couplings and compare to the measurements. The classical case here is b → s γ and we will discuss this and other specific examples later. Another approach is make different measurements of the CKM parameters in different ways and see if they agree. This is normally done by measuring both angles and sides of the CKM triangle, but other quantities can also be used. This is the approach used by the CKM fitter [19] (see also [20]) and UT fit groups [30]. In yet a third approach, the exact same quantity can be measured in several ways, even if cannot be predicted in the SM. An example here is measuring the CP violating angle β using B^{0} → J/ψ K_{ S }decays that proceed through the diagram in Figure 2(b), at least in the SM, and another process that uses the "Penguin" diagram in Figure 2(f), e.g. B^{0} → ϕ K_{ S }.
The punch line is that if new, more massive particles exist in a mass range accessible to the LHC then they MUST contribute to rare and CP violating B decays! Even if measurements are precise enough only to limit the size of these effects, the properties of these new particles will be much better understood. This is the raison d'être for the further study of B decays.
2 Measurements of mixing and CP violation
2.1 Neutral BMeson Mixing
ΔΓ = Γ_{ L } Γ_{ H }= 2Γ_{12}cos ϕ
where H refers to the heavier and L the lighter of the two weak eigenstates, and ϕ = arg(M_{12}/Γ_{12}). We expect that ΔΓ is very small for B^{0} mesons but should be significant for B_{ s }mesons.
Data from many experiments has been combined by "The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group," (HFAG) to obtain an average value Δm_{ d }= (0.507 ± 0.004) × 10^{12} ps^{1} [34].
where B_{ B }is a parameter related to the probability of the d and $\overline{b}$ quarks forming a hadron and must be estimated theoretically, F is a known function which increases approximately as ${m}_{t}^{2}$, and η_{ QCD }is a QCD correction, with value about 0.8. By far the largest uncertainty arises from the decay constant, f_{ B }.
In principle f_{ B }can be measured. The decay rate of the annihilation process B^{} → ℓ^{} $\overline{\nu}$ is proportional to the product of ${f}_{B}^{2}{V}_{ub}{}^{2}$. Of course there is a substantial uncertainty associated with V_{ ub }. The experimental evidence for B^{} → τ^{} $\overline{\nu}$ is discussed in Section 5.1, and substantial uncertainty exists in the branching ratio measurement. Thus, we need to rely on theory for a value of f_{ B }.
ignoring the higher order term in V_{ ts }. Solving the ratio of the two above equations for $\left(\frac{1}{\lambda}\right)\frac{\left{V}_{td}\right}{\left{V}_{ts}\right}$ gives a circle centered at (1,0) in the ρ  η plane whose radius depends on x_{ d }/x_{ s }. The theoretical errors are now due to the difference between having a light quark versus a strange quark in the B meson, called SU(3) splitting.
For many years experiments at the Z^{0} using e^{+} e^{} colliders at both LEP and the SLC had set lower limits on ${B}_{s}^{0}$ mixing [17]. In 2006 B_{ s }mixing was measured by the CDF collaboration [36, 37]. The D0 collaboration had previously presented both a lower and an upper limit [38].
where t is the proper time.
where the first error is statistical and the second systematic.
In order to translate the mixing measurements to constraints on the CKM parameters ρ and η, we need to use theoretical values for the ratios $\frac{{B}_{B}}{{B}_{{B}_{s}}}$ and $\frac{{f}_{B}}{{f}_{{B}_{s}}}$ in Eq. 8. It is interesting that in practice it is not possible to measure either of these numbers directly. It is usually assumed, however, that ${f}_{{B}^{+}}$, which could in principle be measured via the process B^{} → τ^{} ν is the same as f_{ B }. There is no way to measure ${f}_{{B}_{s}}$. The charm system, on the other hand, provides us with both D^{+} → ℓ^{+} ν and ${D}_{s}^{+}$ → ℓ^{+} ν, and both rates have been measured. They also have been calculated in unquenched lattice quantum electrodynamics (QCD).
The combined efforts of the HPQCD and UKQCD collaborations predict ${f}_{{D}^{+}}$ = (207 ± 4) MeV [40], while the CLEO measurement is in astonishing agreement: (205.8 ± 8.5 ± 2.5) MeV [41]. Furthermore, the measurements of ${f}_{{D}_{s}^{+}}$ are not in such good agreement with the Follana et al calculation of (241 ± 3) MeV. The average of CLEO and Belle results as determined by Rosner and Stone is (273 ± 10) MeV [42]. (For updated results see [43, 44].) The discrepancy is at the 3 standard deviation level and not yet statistically significant, though it bears watching.
Unfortunately, the group that has calculated ${f}_{{D}^{+}}$ is not the same group that has determined ${f}_{{B}^{+}}$. The theoretical calculations used for the B_{ B }terms and the f_{ B }terms are summarized by Tantalo [45]. He suggests using values of ${f}_{{B}_{s}}$ = (268 ± 17 ± 20) MeV, ${f}_{{B}_{s}}$/f_{ B }= 1.20 ± 0.02 ± 0.05, ${B}_{{B}_{s}}$ = 0.84 ± 0.03 ± 0.055 and B_{ B }= 0.83 ± 0.01 ± 0.06. These numbers allow us to measure the length of one side of the CKM triangle using Eq. 8. Use of this measurement will be discussed in more detail in Section 6.
2.2 CP Violation in the BSystem
We have two quantum mechanical operators: Charge Conjugation, C, and Parity, P. When applied to a particle wavefunction C changes particle to antiparticle and viceversa. Applying P to a wavefunction ψ (r) we have P ψ (r) = ψ (r). The P operator can be thought of changing the natural coordinate system from righthanded to lefthanded. If nature was blind to handedness, then P would be always conserved. By applying the P operator twice we end up with P^{2}ψ (r) = ψ (r), so the eigenvalues of P are ± 1. Therefore wavefunctions, or particles represented by such wavefunctions, have either intrinsic positive parity +1 (righthanded) or 1 (lefthanded).
Weak interactions, characterized by a combination of vector minus axialvector currents, are known to be lefthanded. Therefore, handedness matters and its well known that Parity is maximally violated in weak decays [3]. Since C changes lefthanded particles to righthanded antiparticles, the product CP symmetry could have been preserved, but nature decided otherwise. Different particle transitions involve the different CP violating angles shown in Figure 1. Measuring these independently allows comparisons with measurements of the sides of the triangle and any differences in constraints in ρ and η can be due to the presence of new physics.
Any two amplitudes will do, though its better that they be of approximately equal size. Thus charged B decays can exhibit CP violation as well as neutral B decays. In some cases, we will see that it is possible to guarantee that $\mathrm{sin}({s}_{\mathcal{A}}{s}_{\mathcal{B}})$ is unity, so we can get information on the weak phases. In the case of neutral B decays, mixing serves as the second amplitude.
2.2.1 Formalism of CP Violation in Neutral BDecays
CP is violated if ϵ_{ B }≠ 0, which occurs if q/p ≠ 1.
where m = (m_{ L }+ m_{ H })/2, Δm = m_{ H } m_{ L }and Γ = Γ_{ L }≈ Γ_{ H }, and t is the decay time in the B^{0} rest frame, the socalled "proper time". Note that the probability of a B^{0} decay as a function of t is given by ⟨B^{0} (t)B^{0}(t)⟩*, and is a pure exponential, e^{Γt/2}, in the absence of CP violation.
2.2.2 CP Violation for BVia the Interference of Mixing and Decay
CPf_{ CP }⟩ = ± f_{ CP }⟩.
which requires only that λ acquire a nonzero phase, i.e. λ could be unity and CP violation can occur.
for either B^{0} or for B_{ s }mesons, separately.
A comment on neutral B production at e^{+} e^{} colliders is in order. At the ϒ(4S) resonance there is coherent production of B^{0} ${\overline{B}}^{0}$ pairs. This puts the B's in a C = 1 state. In hadron colliders, or at e^{+} e^{} machines operating at the Z^{0}, the B's are produced incoherently. For the rest of this article we will assume incoherent production except where explicitly noted.
This is quite lucky for the study of B_{ d }mesons, as the maximum size of the coefficient for any x is 0.5, close to the measured value of x_{ d }.
2.2.3 Measurements of sin(2β)
is real to order 1/λ^{4}.
which is real to order λ^{4}. It necessary to include this term, however, since there are other formulations of the CKM matrix than Wolfenstein, which have the phase in a different location. It is important that the physics predictions not depend on the CKM convention. (Here we do not include CP violation in the neutral kaon since it is much smaller than what is expected in the B decay.)
In summary, for the case of f = J/ψ K_{ s }, Imλ =  sin(2β). The angle β is the best measured CP violating angle measured in B meson decays. The process used is B^{0} → J/ψ K_{ S }, although there is some data used with the ψ (2S) or with K_{ L }(where the phase is + sin(2β)).
(Note that the sign of the $\mathcal{S}$ term changes depending on the CP of the final state, but not the $\mathcal{C}$ term.)
The most precise measurements of sin(2β) have been made by the BaBar and Belle experiments [47, 48]. These measurements are made at the ϒ(4S) resonance using e^{+} e^{} → ϒ(4S) → B^{0} ${\overline{B}}^{0}$, and with one of the neutral B's decaying into J/ψ K^{0}. Because the ϒ(4S) is a definite quantum state with C = 1, the formulae given above have to modified somewhat. One important change is the definition of t. The time used here is the difference between the decay time of the J/ψ K^{0} and the other B^{0}, also called the "tagging" B because we need to determine its flavor, whether B^{0} or ${\overline{B}}^{0}$, in order to make the asymmetry measurement.
The average value as determined by the Heavy Flavor Averaging Group is sin(2β) = 0.671 ± 0.024, where the dominant part of the error is statistical. No evidence is found for a nonzero $\mathcal{C}$ term with the measured average given as 0.005 ± 0.020.
Determining the sine of any angle gives a fourfold ambiguity in the angle. The decay mode B^{0} → J/ψ K*^{0}, K*^{0} → K_{ s }π^{0} offers a way of measuring cos 2β and resolving the ambiguities.
This is a subtle analysis that we will not go into detail on [51, 52]. The result is that $\beta ={42.14}_{1.83}^{+1.88}$ degrees.
2.2.4 Measurements of α
and
Im (λ) = Im (e^{2i β}e^{2i γ}) = Im (e^{2i α}) =  sin (2α
The nonzero value of $\mathcal{C}$ shows the presence of at least two amplitudes, presumably tree and penguin, in addition to the mixing amplitude, making extraction of α difficult. All is not lost, however. Gronau and London [56] showed that α could be extracted without theoretical error by doing a full isotopic spin analysis of the π π final state. The required measurements include: $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathcal{S}$, $\mathcal{B}$(B^{+} → π^{+}π^{0}), $\mathcal{B}$ (B^{0} → π^{0}π^{0}), and $\mathcal{B}$ (${\overline{B}}^{0}$ → π^{0}π^{0}). The last two items require a flavored tagged analysis that has not yet been done and whose prospects are bleak. Grossman and Quinn have showed, however, that an upper limit on Γ (B^{0} → π^{0}π^{0})/Γ(B^{+} → π^{+}π^{0}) can be used to limit the penguin shift to α [57–59]. Unfortunately, current data show a relative large $\mathcal{B}$(B^{0} → π^{0}π^{0}) = (1.55 ± 0.19) × 10^{6} rate, compared with $\mathcal{B}$(B^{0} → π^{+} π^{}) = (5.16 ± 0.22) × 10^{6}, implying a large penguin contribution [17, 34], and the limit is very weak.
Use of the ρ^{+} ρ^{} final state is in principle quite similar to π^{+} π^{}, with some important caveats. First of all, it is a vectorvector final state and therefore could have both CP + and CP components. It is however possible, doing a full angular analysis to measure the CP violating phase separately in each of these two amplitudes. The best method for this is in the "transversity" basis and will be discussed later [60] in Section 2.2.6. It is possible, however, for one polarization component to be dominant and then the angular analysis might not be necessary. In fact the longitudinal polarization is dominant in this case. BaBar measures the fraction as $0.992\pm {0.024}_{0.013}^{+0.026}$[61], and Belle measures it as ${0.941}_{0.040}^{+0.034}\pm 0.030$[62]. Thus we can treat this final state without worrying about the angular analysis and just apply a correction for the amount of transverse amplitude.
In addition, ρ mesons are wide, so nonB backgrounds could be a problem and even if the proper B is reconstructed, there are nonresonant and possible a_{1} π contributions.
Branching ratios B → ρ ρ modes in units of 10^{6}
The task at hand is to do a time dependent analysis of the magnitude of the decay amplitudes and phases. The analyses of both collaborations allow for ρ(1450) and ρ(1700) contributions in addition to the ρ(770). There are a total of 26 free parameters in the fit. The statistics for such an analysis are not overwhelming: BaBar has about 2100 signal events [66], while Belle has about 1000 [67].
The LHCb experiment expects to be able to significantly improve on the determination of α using the ρ π mode. They expect 14,000 events in for an integrated luminosity of 2 fb^{1}, with a signal to background ratio greater than 1 [70]. It is expected that this amount of data can be accumulated in one to two years of normal LHC operation.
2.2.5 The Angle γ
where r_{ B }reflects the amplitude suppression for the b → u mode and δ_{ B }is the relative phase. We have not yet used identical final states for D^{0} and ${\overline{D}}^{0}$ decays, yet we can see that there will be an ambiguity in our result between δ_{ B }and γ that could be resolved by using different D^{0} decay modes.
There are several suggestions as to different D^{0} decay modes to use. In the original paper on this topic Gronau and Wyler [72, 73] propose using CP eigenstates for the D^{0} decay, such as K^{+} K^{}, π^{+} π^{} etc.., combining with charge specific decays and comparing B^{} with B^{+} decays. In the latter, the sign of the strong phase is flipped with respect to the weak phase. In fact modes such as D*^{0} or K*^{} can also be used. (When using D*^{0} there is a difference in δ_{ B }of π between γ D^{0} and π^{0} D^{0} decay modes [74].)
Measurements have been made by the BaBar, Belle and CDF collaborations [75–79]. These data, however, are not statistically powerful enough by themselves to give a useful measurement of γ. Atwood, Dunietz and Soni suggested using doubleCabibbo suppressed decays as an alternative means of generating the interference between decay amplitudes [80]. For example the final state B^{} → D^{0} K^{} can proceed via the tree level diagram in Figure 2(a) when the W^{} → $\overline{u}$s. Then if we use the doublyCabibbo suppressed decay D^{0} → K^{+} π^{}, we get a final state that interferes with the ${\overline{D}}^{0}$K^{} final state with the ${\overline{D}}^{0}$ → K^{+} π^{}, which is Cabibbo allowed. The advantage of this method, besides extending the number of useful final states, is that both amplitudes are closer to being equal than in the above method, which can generate larger interferences. Any doublyCabibbo suppressed decay can be used. Similar equations exist relating the measured parameters to γ and the strong phase shift.
Measurements have been made mostly using the K^{±} π^{∓} final state [81, 82]. Again, these attempts do not yet produce accurate results.
Thus far, the best method for measuring γ uses the threebody final state K_{ S }π^{+} π^{}. Since the final state is accessible by both D^{0} and ${\overline{D}}^{0}$ decays interference results. By its very nature a threebody state is complicated, and consists of several resonant and nonresonant parts. It is typically analyzed by examining the Dalitz plot where two of the possible three submasses (squared) are plotted versus one another [83]. In this way, the phase space is described as a uniform density and thus any resonant structure is clearly visible. For our particular case a practical method was suggested by Giri et al [84], where the decay is analyzed in separate regions of the Dalitz plot. Results from this analysis have been reported by BaBar [85] (they also include the mode D^{0} → K_{ S }K^{+} K^{}) and Belle [86]. BaBar finds γ = (76 ± 22 ± 5 ± 5)°, and Belle finds $\gamma ={({76}_{13}^{+12}\pm 4\pm 5)}^{\circ}$. In both cases the first error is statistical, the second systematic, and the third refers to uncertainties caused by the Dalitz plot model. (There is also a mirror solution at ± 180°.)
It has been shown [87, 88] that measurement of the amplitude magnitudes and phases found in the decays of ψ (3770) → (CP ± Tag)(K_{ S }π^{+} π^{})_{ D }provide useful information that help the narrow model error. The CLEO collaboration is working on such an analysis, and preliminary results have been reported [89]. (CLEO also is working on incorporating other D^{0} decay modes.)
2.2.6 The Angle χ
Since there are usually two photons present in the η decay, experiments at hadron colliders, which can perform timedependent studies of B_{ s }mesons, preferentially use the J/ψ ϕ final state. This, unfortunately, introduces another complexity into the problem; as the B_{ s }is spinless the total angular momentum of the final state particles must be zero. For a decay into a vector and scalar, such as J/ψ η, this forces the vector J/ψ to be fully longitudinally polarized with respect to the decay axis. For a vectorvector final state both angular momentum state vectors are either longitudinal (L), both are transverse with linear polarization vectors parallel () or they are perpendicular (⊥) to one another [90]. Another way of viewing this is that a spin0 B decay into two massive vector mesons can form CP even states with L = 0 or 2, and a CP odd state with L = 1. The relative populations in the two CP states are determined by strong interactions dynamics, but to study the weak phase here we are not particularly interested in the actual amount, unless of course one state dominated. We do not expect this to be the case however, since the SU(3) related decay B^{0} → J/ψ K*^{0}, K*^{0} → K^{+} π^{} has a substantial components of both CP states; the PDG quotes gives the longitudinal fraction as (80 ± 8 ± 5)% [17].
where ϵ_{J/ψ}and ϵ_{ ϕ }are polarization 3vectors in the J/ψ rest frame, $\widehat{p}$ is a unit vector giving the direction of the ϕ momentum in the J/ψ rest frame, and E_{ ϕ }is the energy of the ϕ in the J/ψ rest frame. We note that the corresponding amplitude for the ${\overline{B}}_{s}$ decay are ${\overline{A}}_{0}$ = A_{0}, ${\overline{A}}_{\left\right}$ = A_{}, and ${\overline{A}}_{\perp}$ = A_{⊥}. The amplitudes are normalized so that
dΓ(B_{ s }→ J/ψ ϕ)/dt = A_{0}^{2} + A_{}^{2} + A_{⊥}^{2}.
The decay rate for ${\overline{B}}_{s}$ can be found by replacing A_{⊥} in the above expression with A_{⊥}.
The quantities δ_{⊥} and δ_{} are the strong phases of A_{⊥} and A_{} relative to A_{0}, respectively [92]. The expression for ${\overline{B}}_{s}$ mesons can be found by substituting ${\mathcal{U}}_{+}$ → ${\mathcal{U}}_{}$ and ${\mathcal{V}}_{+}$ → ${\mathcal{V}}_{}$.
The Standard Model allowed region is a very thin vertical band centered near zero at ϕ_{ s }of 0.036 ± 0.002 (shown in red). (Recall ϕ_{ s }≡ 2χ ≡ 2β_{ s }.) The region labeled "all" (green) shows the allowed region at 68% confidence level. Although the fit uses several input components besides the CP asymmetry measurements in B_{ s }→ J/ψ ϕ, including use of measured total widths introduced via the constraint equation $\Delta {\Gamma}_{s}=\mathrm{cos}{\varphi}_{s}\Delta {\Gamma}_{s}^{SM}$, it is the measurement of ϕ_{ s }that dominates the fit result. We see that there is a discrepancy that may be as large as 2.7 standard deviations [95, 96]. While this is as not yet significant, it is very tantalizing. The LHCb experiment plans to vastly improve this measurement [97].
It has been pointed out, however, that there is likely an Swave K^{+} K^{} contribution in the region of the ϕ that contributes 5–10% of the event rate as estimated using ${D}_{s}^{+}$ decays [98]. For example, analysis of the analogous channel B^{0} → J/ψ K*^{0} reveals about 8% Swave in the K_{ π }system under the K*^{0}, and BaBar has used this to extract a value for cos 2β thus removing an ambiguity in β [99]. The Swave amplitude and phase needs to be added to Eq. 53. Note that the errors will increase due to the addition of another amplitude and phase. The Swave can manifest itself as a π^{+} π^{}, so it is suggested that the decay B_{ s }→ J/ψ f_{0} (980) be used to measure χ; here the f_{0} → π^{+} π^{} [98]; the estimate is that the useful f_{0} rate would be about 20% of the ϕ rate, but the J/ψ f_{0} is a CP eigenstate, so an an angular analysis is unnecessary, and these events may provide a determination of χ with an error comparable to that using J/ψ ϕ.
2.2.7 Measurements of Direct CP Violation in B → K πDecays
showing a large statistical significance.
The difference between ${\mathcal{A}}_{{K}^{}{\pi}^{+}}$ and ${\mathcal{A}}_{{K}^{\mp}{\pi}^{0}}$ is not naively expected in the Standard Model and Belle suggests that this may be a sign of New Physics. Peskin commented on this possibility [103].
2.3 Conclusions from CPViolation Measurements
All CP violation in the quark sector is proportional to the parameter η in Eq. 1. In fact all CP asymmetries are proportional to the "Jarlskog Invariant", J = A^{2} λ^{6} η, which represents the equal area of all the CKM triangles [104]. Since we know the value of these three numbers, we do know the amount of CP violation we can expect, even without making the measurements. We also can estimate the amount of CP violation necessary using cosmology. To reproduce the observed baryon to entropy ratio requires many orders of magnitude more CP violation than thus far found in heavy quark decays [105]. Thus we believe there are new sources of CP violation that have not yet been found.
3 The CKM parameter V_{ cb }
There are two experimental methods to determine V_{ cb }: the exclusive method, where V_{ cb } is extracted by studying the exclusive $\overline{B}$ → D^{(*)} ℓ^{}$\overline{\nu}$ decay process; and the inclusive method, which uses the semileptonic decay width of bhadron decays. In both methods, the extraction of V_{ cb } is systematics limited and the dominant errors are from theory. The inclusive and exclusive determinations of V_{ cb } rely on different theoretical calculations of the hadronic matrix element needed to extract it from measured quantities, and make use of different techniques which, to a large extent, have uncorrelated experimental uncertainties. Thus, the comparison between inclusive and exclusive decays allows us to test our understanding of hadronic effects in semileptonic decays. The latest determinations differ by more than 2σ, with the inclusive method having a stated error half of the size of the exclusive one.
3.0.1 Beauty Quark Mass Definitions
Due to confinement and the nonperturbative aspect of the strong interaction, the concept of the quark masses cannot be tied to an intuitive picture of the rest mass of a particle, as for leptons. Rather, quark masses must be considered as couplings of the SM Lagrangian that have to be determined from processes that depend on them. As such the bquark mass (m_{ b }) is a schemedependent, renormalised quantity.
In principle, any renormalisation scheme or definition of 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, higherorder terms in the perturbative expansion of a quantity that depends on quark masses are affected by the particular scheme employed. There are schemes that are more appropriate and more convenient for some purposes than others. Here we examine the main quark mass definitions commonly used in the description of B decays.
• Pole mass: The pole mass definition is gaugeinvariant and infraredsafe [106–108] to all orders in perturbation theory and has been used as the standard mass definition of many perturbative computations in the past. By construction, it is directly related to the concept of the mass of a free quark. The presence of a renormalon ambiguity [109, 110] makes the numerical value of the pole mass an orderdependent quantity, leading to large perturbative corrections for Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET) parameters (see below for a discussion of HQET). These shortcomings are avoided by using quark mass definitions that reduce the infrared sensitivity by removing the Λ_{QCD} renormalon of the pole mass. Such quark mass definitions are generically called "shortdistance" masses.
• $\overline{MS}$mass: The most common shortdistance mass definition is the $\overline{MS}$ mass ${\overline{m}}_{b}$ (μ) [111–113], where the scale μ is typically chosen to be the order of the characteristic energy scale of the process. In the $\overline{MS}$ scheme the subtracted divergencies do not contain any infrared sensitive terms and the $\overline{MS}$ mass is only sensitive to scales larger than m_{ b }. The $\overline{MS}$ mass arises naturally in processes where the bquark is far offshell, but it is less adequate when the bquark has nonrelativistic energies.
where μ_{kin} is the nominal kinetic mass renormalisation scale. For μ_{kin} → 0 the kinetic mass reduces to the pole mass.
• 1S mass: The kinetic mass depends on an explicit subtraction scale to remove the universal infrared sensitive contributions associated with the nonrelativistic bquark dynamics. The 1S mass [117, 118] achieves the same task without a factorisation scale, since it is directly related to a physical quantity. The bquark 1S mass is defined as half of the perturbative contribution to the mass of the ϒ(S_{1}) in the limit m_{ b }≫ m_{ b }v ≫ m_{ b }v^{2} ≫ Λ_{QCD}.
List of m_{ b }determinations converted into the $\overline{MS}$ mass scheme.
3.1 Determination Based on Exclusive Semileptonic BDecays
The exclusive V_{ cb } determination is obtained by studying the decays B → D* ℓν and B → D ℓν, where ℓ denotes either an electron or a muon. The exclusive measurements of a single hadronic final state, e.g. the ground state D or D*, restrict the dynamics of the process. The remaining degrees of freedom, usually connected to different helicity states of the charmed hadron, can be expressed in terms of form factors, depending on the invariant mass of the leptonν pair, q^{2}. The shapes of those form factors are unknown but can be measured. However, the overall normalization of these functions needs to be determined from theoretical calculations.
Isgur and Wise formulated a theoretical breakthrough in the late 1980's. They found that in the limit of an infinitely heavy quark masses QCD possess additional flavor and spin symmetries. They showed that since the heavier b and c quarks have masses much heavier than the scale of the QCD coupling constant, they are heavy enough to posses this symmetry but that corrections for the fact that the quark mass was not infinite had to be made. They showed there was a systematic method of making these corrections by expanding a series in terms of the inverse quark mass [119]. This theory is known as Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET).
Note that the first term in the nonperturbative expansion in powers of 1/m_{ Q }vanishes [121]. QED corrections up to leading logarithmic order give η_{ A }= 0.960 ± 0.007. Different estimates of the 1/${m}_{Q}^{2}$ corrections, involving terms proportional to 1/${m}_{b}^{2}$, 1/${m}_{c}^{2}$ and 1/(m_{ b }m_{ c }), have been performed in a quark model with QCD sum rules, and, more recently, with an HQET based lattice gauge calculation. The best estimate comes from lattice QCD, ${h}_{{A}_{1}}$ (1) = $\mathcal{F}$ (1) = 0.921 ± 0.013 ± 0.020 [122]. This result does not include a 0.7% QED correction.
Since the phasespace factor $\mathcal{K}$(w) tends to zero as w → 1, the decay rate vanishes and the accuracy of the V_{ cb } value extracted with this method depends upon experimental and theoretical uncertainties in the extrapolation. Experiments determine the product $\mathcal{F}$(1)·V_{ cb }^{2} by fitting the measured dΓ/dw distribution.
This decay has been analyzed by CLEO, BaBar and Belle using B mesons from the ϒ(4S) decay, and by ALEPH, DELPHI, and OPAL at the Z^{0} center of mass energy. Experiments that exploit the ϒ(4S) have the advantage that w resolution is quite good. However, they suffer from lower statistics near w = 1 in the decay B → D*^{+} ℓν due to the lower reconstruction efficiency of the slow π^{±}. On the other hand, the decay B → D*^{0} ℓν is not affected by this problem [123]. In addition, kinematic constraints enable these experiments to identify the final state including D* without large contamination from the poorly known portion of semileptonic decays with a hadronic system recoiling against the leptonν pair with masses higher than the D and D*, commonly identified as 'D**'. Bfactories and CLEO fit for the signal and background components in the distribution of the cosine of the angle between the direction of the B and the direction of the D*ℓ system. At LEP, B mesons are produced with a large variable momentum (about 30 GeV on average), giving a relatively poor w resolution and limited physics background rejection capabilities. By contrast, LEP experiments benefit from an efficiency that is only mildly dependent upon w.
LEP experiments extracted V_{ cb } by performing a twoparameter fit, for $\mathcal{F}$(1)V_{ cb } and the slope ρ^{2}. The first measurements of both ratio R_{1} and R_{2}, and ρ^{2}, were made by the CLEO collaboration [124]. Belle [125] and BaBar [126] improved upon these measurements using the ${\overline{B}}^{0}$ → D*^{+} e^{} $\overline{\nu}$_{ e }decay. They determined R_{1}, R_{2}, and ρ^{2} using an unbinned maximum likelihood fit to the full decay distribution. BaBar and CLEO results are combined to give: R_{1} = 1.396 ± 0.060 ± 0.035 ± 0.027, R_{2} = 0.885 ± 0.040 ± 0.022 ± 0.013, and ρ^{2} = 1.145 ± 0.059 ± 0.030 ± 0.035. The stated uncertainties are the statistical from the data and systematic uncertainty, respectively.
Experimental results based on B → D*ℓν after the correction to common inputs and the world average as obtained by HFAG [243].
experiment  $\mathcal{F}$(1)V_{ cb } (×10^{3})  ρ ^{2}  Corr_{stat}  Branching fraction(%) 

ALEPH [132]  31.6 ± 1.8 ± 1.3  0.50 ± 0.20 ± 0.09  94%  5.44 ± 0.25 ± 0.20 
BaBar [244]  33.9 ± 0.3 ± 1.1  1.18 ± 0.05 ± 0.03  27%  4.53 ± 0.04 ± 0.13 
BaBar [245]  34.9 ± 0.8 ± 1.4  1.11 ± 0.06 ± 0.08  90%  5.40 ± 0.16 ± 0.25 
BaBar [246]  35.7 ± 0.2 ± 1.2  1.20 ± 0.02 ± 0.07  38%   
BELLE [125]  34.7 ± 0.2 ± 1.0  1.16 ± 0.04 ± 0.03  91%  † 
BELLE [247]  34.7 ± 0.2 ± 1.0  1.16 ± 0.04 ± 0.03  91%  4.75 ± 0.25 ± 0.19 
CLEO [248]  41.3 ± 1.3 ± 1.8  1.37 ± 0.08 ± 0.18  91%  6.02 ± 0.19 ± 0.20 
DELPHI(excl) [132]  36.3 ± 1.8 ± 1.9  1.04 ± 0.14 ± 0.15  89%  5.53 ± 0.19 ± 0.34 
DELPHI(part rec) [132]  35.8 ± 1.4 ± 2.3  1.18 ± 0.13 ± 0.25  94%  5.00 ± 0.15 ± 0.18 
OPAL(excl) [132]  36.9 ± 1.6 ± 1.5  1.24 ± 0.20 ± 0.14  77%  5.17 ± 0.20 ± 0.38 
OPAL(par rec) [132]  37.6 ± 1.2 ± 2.4  1.14 ± 0.13 ± 0.27  94%  5.63 ± 0.27 ± 0.43 
world average  35.4 ± 0.5  1.16 ± 0.05  20%  5.05 ± 0.10 
V_{ cb } = (38.2 ± 0.5_{ exp }± 1.0_{ theo }) × 10^{3},
where the dominant error is theoretical, and it will be difficult to improve upon.
Experimental results from B → Dℓν using corrections to the common inputs and world averages.
experiment  $\mathcal{G}$(1)V_{cb}(×10^{3})  ${\rho}_{D}^{2}$  Corr_{stat}  Branching fraction(%) 

ALEPH [132]  38.1 ± 11.8 ± 6.1  0.91 ± 0.98 ± 0.36  98%  2.25 ± 0.18 ± 0.36 
BaBar [249]  42.3 ± 1.9 ± 1.0  1.20 ± 0.09 ± 0.04  95%   
BaBar [250]  43.8 ± 0.8 ± 2.1  1.22 ± 0.04 ± 0.06  63%   
BaBar [251]        2.20 ± 0.11 ± 0.12 
BELLE [252]  40.7 ± 4.4 ± 5.1  1.12 ± 0.22 ± 0.14  96%  2.09 ± 0.12 ± 0.39 
CLEO [253]  44.5 ± 5.9 ± 3.4  1.27 ± 0.25 ± 0.14  95%  2.10 ± 0.13 ± 0.15 
World average  42.4 ± 0.7 ± 1.4  1.19 ± 0.04 ± 0.04  96%  2.16 ± 0.12 
In the limit of infinite quark masses, $\mathcal{G}$(w = 1) coincides with the IsgurWise function [129]. In this case there is no suppression of 1/m_{ Q }corrections and QCD effects on $\mathcal{G}$(1) are calculated with less accuracy than $\mathcal{F}$(1). Corrections to this prediction have recently been calculated with improved precision, based on unquenched lattice QCD [130], specifically $\mathcal{G}$(1) = 1.074 ± 0.018 ± 0.016. Using this result we get
V_{ cb } = (39.5 ± 1.4_{ exp }± 0.9_{ theo }) × 10^{3}
consistent with the value extracted from B → D⋆ℓν decay, but with an experimental uncertainty about twice as large.
BaBar recently has also studied the differential decay widths for the decays B^{} → D^{0} ℓν and B^{} → D⋆^{0}ℓν to extract the ratio $\mathcal{G}$(1)/$\mathcal{F}$(1) = 1.23 ± 0.09 [131], compatible with the lattice theory prediction of 1.16 ± 0.04.
3.2 B → D**ℓνDecays
It is important to understand the composition of the inclusive B semileptonic decay rate in terms of exclusive final states for use in semileptonic B decay analyses. The B → D^{(*)}ℓν decays are well measured, but a sizeable fraction of semileptonic B decay are to D**ℓν. The D** resonances have larger masses than the D* and not well studied. (D** refers to the resonant states, ${D}_{0}^{\ast}$, ${D}_{1}^{\ast}$, ${D}_{2}^{\ast}$ and D_{1}.) The measurements of these branching fractions require a good understanding of the different D^{(*)}nπ systems, which can be either resonant or nonresonant, each with characteristic decay properties.
There are four orbitally excited states with L = 1. They can be grouped in two pairs according to the value of the spin on the light system, j = L ± 1/2 (L = 1). States with j = 3/2 can have J^{P} = 1^{+} and 2^{+}. The 1^{+} state decays only through D*π, and the 2^{+} through D π or D*π. Parity and angular momentum conservation imply that in the 2^{+} the D* and π are in a D wave but allow both S and D waves in the 1^{+} state. However, if the heavy quark spin is assumed to decouple, conservation of j = 3/2 forbids S waves even in the 1^{+} state. A large Dwave component and the fact that the masses of these states are not far from threshold imply that the j = 3/2 states are narrow. These states have been observed with a typical width of 20 MeV/c^{2}. On the contrary, j = 1/2 states can have J^{P} = 0^{+}and 1^{+}, so they are expected to decay mainly through an S wave and manifest as broad resonances, with typical widths of several hundred MeV/c^{2}.
The ALEPH [132], CLEO [133], DELPHI [132], and D0 [134] experiments have reported evidence of the narrow resonant states (D_{1} and ${D}_{2}^{\ast}$) in semileptonic decays, whereas more recent measurements by the BaBar [135] and Belle [136] experiments provide semiinclusive measurements to D^{(*)}π ℓν final states [137, 138].
Inclusive versus sum of exclusive measured B semileptonic branching fractions (%).
$\mathcal{B}$(%)  BaBar  Belle  World Average  

B ^{0}  B ^{}  B ^{0}  B ^{}  B ^{0}  B ^{}  
B → Dℓν  2.20 ± 0.16  2.30 ± 0.10  2.09 ± 0.16    2.16 ± 0.12  2.32 ± 0.09 
B → D*ℓν  4.53 ± 0.14  5.37 ± 0.21  4.42 ± 0.25    5.05 ± 0.10  5.66 ± 0.18 
B → D πℓν  0.42 ± 0.09  0.42 ± 0.07  0.43 ± 0.09  0.42 ± 0.06  0.43 ± 0.06  0.42 ± 0.05 
B → D* πℓν  0.48 ± 0.09  0.59 ± 0.06  0.57 ± 0.22  0.68 ± 0.11  0.49 ± 0.08  0.61 ± 0.05 
Σ (Exc.)  7.63 ± 0.25  8.68 ± 0.25  7.51 ± 0.73    8.13 ± 0.19  9.01 ± 0.21 
Inc.  10.14 ± 0.43  10.90 ± 0.47  10.46 ± 0.38  11.17 ± 0.38  10.33 ± 0.28  10.99 ± 0.28 
Inc. – Σ (Exc.)  2.51 ± 0.50  2.22 ± 0.53  2.95 ± 0.82    2.20 ± 0.34  1.98 ± 0.35 
All measured rates for the D** narrow states are in good agreement. Experimental results seem to point towards a larger rate for broader states. If it is due mainly to ${{D}^{\prime}}_{1}$ and ${D}_{0}^{\ast}$ decay channels, these results disagree with the prediction of QCD sum rules. However, Belle set an upper limit for the ${{D}^{\prime}}_{1}$ channel below the rate measured by BaBar and DELPHI. More measurements need to be performed to elucidate this puzzle.
3.3 Determination Based on Inclusive Semileptonic BDecays
Inclusive determinations of V_{ cb } are obtained using combined fits to inclusive B decay distributions [139, 140]. These determinations are based on calculations of the semileptonic decay rate in the frameworks of the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) [141] and HQET [139, 142]. They predict the semileptonic decay rate in terms of V_{ cb }, the bquark mass m_{ b }, and nonperturbative matrix elements. The spectator model decay rate is the leading term in a welldefined expansion controlled by the parameter Λ_{QCD}/m_{ b }[142–146] with nonperturbative corrections arising to order 1/${m}_{b}^{2}$. The key issue in this approach is the ability to separate perturbative and nonperturbative corrections (expressed in powers of α_{ s }). Thus the accuracy of an inclusive determination of V_{ cb } is limited by our knowledge of the heavy quark nonperturbative matrix elements and the b quark mass. It also relies upon the assumption of local quark hadron duality. This is the statement that a hadronic matrix element can be related pointwise to a theoretical expression formulated in terms of quark and gluon variables.
Perturbative and nonperturbative corrections depend on the m_{ b }definition, i.e. the nonperturbative expansion scheme, as well as the nonperturbative matrix elements that enter the expansion. In order to determine these parameters, Heavy Quark Expansions (HQE) [139, 146, 147] express the semileptonic decay width Γ_{SL}, moments of the lepton energy and hadron mass spectra in B → X_{ c }ℓν decays in terms of the running kinetic quark masses ${m}_{b}^{\text{kin}}$ and ${m}_{c}^{\text{kin}}$ as well as the bquark mass ${m}_{b}^{1\text{S}}$ in the 1S expansion scheme. These schemes should ultimately yield consistent results for V_{ cb }. The precision of the bquark mass is also important for V_{ ub }.
The shape of the lepton spectrum and of the hadronic mass spectrum provide constraints on the heavy quark expansion, which allows for the calculation of the properties of B → X_{ c }ℓν transitions. So far, measurements of the hadronic mass distribution and the leptonic spectrum have been made by BaBar [148], Belle [149], CLEO [150, 151], DELPHI [152]. CDF [153] provides only the measurement of the hadronic mass spectrum with a lepton momentum cut of 0.6 GeV in the B rest frame.
corresponding to a distribution's width, kurtosis and so on.
The measurement of V_{ cb } from inclusive decays requires that these decays be adequately described by the OPE formalism. The motivation of the moment approach is to exploit the degree of experimental and theoretical understanding of each moment and for different ${\widehat{E}}_{\ell}^{\mathrm{min}}$, directly examining the dependence of the various coefficient functions f_{ i }on these terms. The possibility of deviations from the OPE predictions due to quark hadron duality violations have been raised [154]. To compare the OPE predictions with data, one also has to define how uncertainties from 1/${m}_{b}^{3}$ corrections are estimated. These uncertainties are hard to quantify reliably, as the only information on the size of the matrix elements of the dimension six operators comes from dimensional analysis. The only method to check the reliability of V_{ cb } extraction from inclusive semileptonic decays is how well the OPE fits the data.
To compare with theoretical predictions, the moments are measured with a well defined cut on the lepton momentum in the B rest frame. The measured hadronic mass distribution and lepton energy spectrum are affected by a variety of experimental factors such as detector resolution, accessible phase space, radiative effects. It is particularly important to measure the largest fraction of the accessible phase space in order to reduce both theoretical and experimental uncertainties. Each experiment has focused on lowering the lepton energy cut.
The hadronic mass spectrum in B → X_{ c }ℓν decays can be split into three contributions corresponding to D, D*, and D**, where D** here stands for any neutral charmed state, resonant or not, other than D and D*. Belle [149], BaBar [148] and CLEO [150] explored the moments of the hadronic mass spectrum ${M}_{X}^{2}$ as a function of the lepton momentum cuts. CLEO performs a fit for the contributions of signal and background to the full threedimensional differential decay rate distribution as a function of the reconstructed quantities q^{2}, ${M}_{X}^{2}$, cos θ_{ℓ}. Belle [155, 156] and BaBar [148] use a sample where one of the B mesons, produced in pairs from ϒ(4S) decays, is fully reconstructed and the signal side is tagged by a well identified lepton. The 4momentum p_{ X }of the hadronic system X, recoiling against the lepton and neutrino, is determined by summing the 4momenta of the remaining charged tracks and unmatched clusters. Belle reconstructs the full hadronic mass spectrum and measures the first, second central and second noncentral moments of the unfolded ${M}_{X}^{2}$ spectrum in B → X_{ c }ℓν, for lepton energy thresholds, E_{min}, varying from 0.7 to 1.9 GeV [149]. BaBar extracts the moments from the measured distributions using a calibration curve derived from Monte Carlo data, with a minimum momentum for the electron in the B meson rest frame of 0.9 GeV. The latest BaBar analysis [149] measures the first, second central and second noncentral moments of the ${M}_{X}^{2}$ spectrum for E_{min} from 0.9 to 1.9 GeV. The main systematic errors originate from background estimation, unfolding and signal model dependence.
DELPHI follows a different approach in extracting the moments, measuring the invariant mass distribution of the D** component only and fixing the D and D* components. DELPHI measures the first moment with respect to the spin averaged mass of D and D*. At LEP bquarks were created with an energy of approximately 30 GeV allowing the measurement of the hadronic mass moments without a cut on the lepton energy [152].
The shape of the lepton spectrum provides further constraints on the OPE. These measurements are sensitive to higher order OPE parameters and are considerably more precise experimentally. Moments of the lepton momentum with a cut p_{ℓ} ≥ 1.0 GeV/c have been measured by the CLEO collaboration [157]. BaBar [148] extract up to the third moment of this distribution, using a low momentum cut of p_{ℓ} ≥ 0.6 GeV/c. Both BaBar and CLEO use dilepton samples. The most recent measurement of the electron energy spectrum is from Belle [155, 156]. Events are selected by fully reconstructing one of the B mesons, produced in pairs from ϒ(4S) decays and it determines the true electron energy spectrum by unfolding [158] the measured spectrum in the B meson rest frame. Belle measures B^{0} and B^{+} weighted average partial branching fractions $\mathcal{B}{(B\to {X}_{c}\ell \nu )}_{{E}_{\ell}>{E}_{\mathrm{min}}}$ and the first four moments of the electron energy spectrum in B → X_{ c }e ν, for E_{min} from 0.4 to 2.0 GeV [159]. All the lepton moment measurements are consistent with theory and with the moment of the hadronic and b → s γ photon energy spectrum. Hadronic and lepton energy measurements are consistent within their errors. When compared with theory there is no sign of inconsistencies. The Bfactories provide the most precise HQE parameter estimates.
3.3.1 HQE Parameters
Using the moment measurements described above, it is possible to determine the CKM matrix element V_{ cb } and HQE parameters by performing global fits in the kinetic and 1S bquark mass schemes [160]. The photon energy moments in B → X_{ s }γ decays [161] are also included in order to constrain the bquark mass more precisely. Measurements that are not matched by theoretical predictions and those with high cutoff energies are excluded (i.e. semileptonic moments with E_{min} > 1.5 GeV and photon energy moments with E_{min} > 2 GeV). The results are preliminary.
Experimental results using corrections to the common inputs and world averages for the 1S scheme.
V_{ cb }(×10^{3})  ${m}_{b}^{1\text{S}}$ (GeV)  λ_{1}(GeV^{2})  χ^{2}/n.d.f.  

X_{ c }ℓν + X_{ s }γ  $41.81\pm {0.34}_{\text{fit}}\pm {0.08}_{{\tau}_{B}}$  4.700 ± 0.030  0.315 ± 0.026  24.7/56 
X_{ c }ℓν  $42.03\pm {0.42}_{\text{fit}}\pm {0.08}_{{\tau}_{B}}$  4.656 ± 0.060  0.343 ± 0.046  19.0/45 
Experimental results using corrections to the common inputs and world averages for the kinetic scheme.
V_{ cb }(×10^{3})  m_{ b }(GeV)  ${\mu}_{\pi}^{2}$(GeV^{2})  χ^{2}/n.d.f.  

X_{ c }ℓν + X_{ s γ }  $41.67\pm {0.47}_{fit}\pm {0.08}_{{\tau}_{B}}\pm {0.58}_{th}$  4.601 ± 0.034  0.440 ± 0.040  29.7/57 
X_{ c }ℓν + X_{ s γ }†  $40.85\pm {0.68}_{fit}\pm {0.08}_{{\tau}_{B}}\pm {0.57}_{th}$  4.605 ± 0.031  0.312 ± 0.060  54.2/46 
X_{ c }ℓν  $41.48\pm {0.47}_{fit}\pm {0.08}_{{\tau}_{B}}\pm {0.58}_{th}$  4.659 ± 0.049  0.428 ± 0.044  24.1/46 
All the measured moments of inclusive distributions in B → X_{ c }ℓν and B → s γ decays are used in a fit to extract V_{ cb } and the b and c quark masses. The V_{ cb } and m_{ b }values obtained are listed in the Table 7. The default fit also gives m_{ c }= 1.16 ± 0.05 GeV, and ${\mu}_{G}^{2}$ = 0.27 ± 0.04 GeV^{2}. The errors are experimental and theoretical (HQE and Γ_{SL}) respectively. In this fit the following variations were considered when in the extraction of the HQ parameters, ± 20 MeV for the b and c quark masses, ± 20% for ${\mu}_{p}^{2}i$ and ${\mu}_{G}^{2}$, ± 30% for the 3^{ rd }order non perturbative terms and α_{2} = 0.22 ± 0.04 for the perturbative corrections. The bias corrections uncertainties for B → s γ were varied by the full amount of their value.
There are open issues relating to the global fits. First of all, the χ^{2}/n.d.f. are very small, pointing to an underestimate in the theoretical correlations. In a recent study [163], the theoretical correlations used in the fit were scrutinized, and new correlation coefficients were derived from the theory expressions using a "toy Monte Carlo" approach, showing that the theoretical correlations were largely underestimated. The result of this new fit is shown in Table 7. The second issue is related the size of the theoretical error. Recently the NNLO full twoloop calculations become available [164–166]. In the Kinetic scheme NNLO calculations include an estimate of the nonBLM terms and lead to a roughly 0.6 % reduction of the V_{ cb } value 0.25 × 10^{3}. In the 1S scheme the shift on V_{ cb } is of about 0.14 × 10^{3} [167]. From the new power corrections at NLO we expect the chromomagnetic corrections to be more important as the tree level corrections are more important, and a change of about 20–30% in the extracted value of ${\mu}_{\pi}^{2}$ in the pole expansion (may be less with the other schemes) [168].
HQE has been carried out up to 1/${m}_{b}^{4}$ and the effects are expected to be of the order δ^{(4)}Γ/Γ ≈ 0.25% [169]. All these newly calculated results can be used to scrutinize the earlier error estimates. In the kinetic scheme, the full NNLO value for A_{ pert }= 0.919, which is in good agreement with A_{ pert }= Γ (B → X_{ c }ℓν)/Γ (B → X_{ c }ℓν)_{ tree }= 0.908 ± 0.009. In the 1S scheme the estimated uncertainty from the nonBLM twoloop is half of the BLM part, equivalent to 1.5% of the treelevel rate, more than 3 times the actual correction. The new results are not implemented in the global fits as they are available mainly in the polemass scheme.
3.4 Outlook
The error on the inclusive and exclusive determination of V_{ cb }is limited by theory. The two method have a 2σ disagreement, even when results in the same experiment are compared.
For exclusive determinations, the experimental determinations in B → D*ℓν from different experiments are not in agreement. Improving the statistical error for the determination from B → Dℓν will help in elucidating the origin of this discrepancy.
In the inclusive method, errors of less than 2% are quoted. However, the latest theoretical results and the introduction of better correlation between theoretical error show shifts in the central value larger than the quoted fit error. The situation needs to be reevaluated when all the new calculations and corrections are implemented in the fit. Another puzzling result of the global fit to B → X_{ c }ℓν moments only is the value of ${m}_{b}^{\text{kin}}$, which seems to be in disagreement with other determinations, such as the ones in Table 2. (For a detailed comparison between ${m}_{b}^{\text{kin}}$ and different mass determinations see A. Hoang, talk at Joint Workshop on V_{ ub } and V_{ cb } at the BFactories Heidelberg, December 14–16, 2007.)
4 The CKM parameter V_{ ub }
The parameter V_{ ub } determines one of the sides of the unitarity triangle, and thus affects one of the crucial tests of the Yukawa sector of the Standard Model. Also in this case, there are two general methods to determine this parameter, using B meson semileptonic decays. The first approach relies on the determination of branching fractions and form factor determinations of exclusive semileptonic decays, such as B → πℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ}. The relationship between experimental measurements and V_{ ub } requires a theoretical prediction of the hadronic form factors governing these decays. The complementary approach relies on measurements of inclusive properties of B meson semileptonic decays. In this case, the hadronic matrix element is evaluated in the context of the OPE.
Both methods pose challenges to both experimenters and theorists. The branching fractions are small, and a substantial background induced by the dominant b → cℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ} needs to be suppressed or accounted for. The large data samples accumulated at the two bfactories, Belle and BaBar, have made possible the development of new experimental techniques that have reduced the experimental errors substantially. In parallel, theorists devoted considerable efforts to devise measurable quantities for which reliable predictions could be produced, and to improve the accuracy of the predictions through refinements in the calculation. Although the precision of the stated errors improved, so did the difference in central values between the inclusive and exclusive estimates of V_{ ub }, at least in most determinations. Possible interpretations of this discrepancy will be discussed.
4.1 Determinations Based on Exclusive BSemileptonic Decays
where G_{ F }is the Fermi constant, $\lambda ({q}^{2})={({q}^{2}+{m}_{B}^{2}{m}_{\pi}^{2})}^{2}4{m}_{B}^{2}{m}_{\pi}^{2}$, and f_{+} (q^{2}) is the relevant form factor.
The first experimental challenge is to reconstruct this exclusive channel without significant background from the dominant charm semileptonic decays, and the additional background component from other b → uℓ$\overline{\nu}$ transitions. The advantage of e^{+} e^{} Bfactories is that the B decaying semileptonically originates from the decay e^{+} e^{} B $\overline{B}$. Thus, if the companion B is fully reconstructed, the $\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ} 4momentum can be inferred from the rest of the event.
CLEO pioneered this approach by reconstructing the ν from the missing energy (E_{ miss }≡ 2E_{ B } Σ_{ i }E_{ i }), and momentum $\left({\overrightarrow{p}}_{miss}\equiv {\displaystyle {\sum}_{i}{\overrightarrow{p}}_{i}}\right)$ in the event; in these definitions the index i runs over the well reconstructed tracks and photons, and cuts are applied to enhance the probability that the only missing particle in the event is the $\overline{\nu}$. This approach allows the application of a low momentum cut of 1.5 GeV on the lepton for B → πℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ} and 2 GeV for B →ρℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ}. Averaging the results from these two exclusive channels, they obtain $\left{V}_{ub}\right=\left(3.3\pm {0.2}_{0.4}^{+0.3}\pm 0.7\right)\times {10}^{3}$. Using their relatively modest full data set (16 fb^{1}) at the centerofmass energy of the ϒ(4S) and considering only the B → πℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ} channel, they get the branching fraction $\mathcal{B}$ (B → π^{+} ℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ}) = (1.37 ± 0.15 ± 0.11) × 10^{4}, and $\left{V}_{ub}\right=\left(3.6\pm 0.4\pm 0.2{\pm}_{0.4}^{+0.6}\right)\times {10}^{3}$[170].
BaBar [171] uses a sample of 206 fb^{1} to obtain $\mathcal{B}$(B → π^{+} ℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ}) = (1.46 ± 0.07 ± 0.08) × 10^{4}. Recently, the availability of very large data sets at Belle and BaBar have made possible tagged analyses, where semileptonic decays are studied in samples where the other B is fully reconstructed, thus defining the event kinematics even more precisely. The first implementation relies on the the partial reconstruction of exclusive B → D^{(⋆)} ℓ^{+} ν_{ℓ} decay to tag the presence of a B $\overline{B}$ event [172, 173].
Partial and total branching fractions, in units of 10^{4}, for the decay B → πℓ^{+}ν_{ℓ}.
Experiment  total  q^{2} > 16 GeV^{2}  Method 

CLEO [170]  1.37 ± 0.15 ± 0.11  0.41 ± 0.08 ± 0.04  Untagged Analysis 
BaBar [171]  1.46 ± 0.07 ± 0.08  0.38 ± 0.04 ± 0.04  Untagged Analysis 
Belle [172]  1.38 ± 0.19 ± 0.14 ± 0.03  0.36 ± 0.10 ± 0.04 ± 0.01  B→ D(*)ℓν Tag 
Belle^{†} [254]  1.49 ± 0.26 ± 0.06  0.31 ± 0.12 ± 0.01  B^{0} → π^{}ℓ+ν_{ℓ} (hadron tags) 
Belle^{†} [254]  1.53 ± 0.20 ± 0.06  0.39 ± 0.12 ± 0.02  Combined B^{0} and B^{+} tags 
BaBar [173]  1.33 ± 0.17 ± 0.11  0.46 ± 0.10 ± 0.06  Combined B^{0} and B^{+} tags 
combined [243]  1.34 ± 0.06 ± 0.05  0.37 ± 0.03 ± 0.02  HFAG ICHEP08 
In order to interpret these results, we need theoretical predictions for the form factor f_{+} (q^{2}). This problem can be split into two parts: the determination of the form factor normalization, f_{+} (0), and the functional form of the q^{2} dependence. Form factor predictions have been produced with quark models [174] and QCD sum rule calculations [175]. Lattice calculations provide evaluations of f_{+} (q^{2}) at specific values of q^{2} or, equivalently, pion momenta (p_{ π }).
maps t_{+} <t < ∞ onto z = 1 and ∞ <t < t_{+} onto the z interval [1,1].
All are refinements of the old ansatz of a simple pole shape, now rarely used. The first lattice calculations were carried out with the quenched approximation that ignores vacuum polarization effects [178, 179]. In 2004, preliminary unquenched results were presented by the Fermilab/MILC [180] and HPQCD [181] collaborations. These calculations employed the MILC collaboration N_{ f }= 2 + 1 unquenched configurations, which attain the most realistic values of the quark masses so far. Using these calculations and the most recent value of the partial branching fraction $\mathcal{B}$(B → π ℓν) for q^{2} > 16 GeV^{2}, shown in Table 8, we obtain V_{ ub } = (3.51 ± 0.096_{ exp }± 0.49_{ th }) × 10^{3} with the HPQCD normalization, and V_{ ub } = (3.70 ± 0.10_{ exp }± 0.37_{ th }) × 10^{3} with the Fermilab/MILC normalization. Fits to experimental data, combining lattice predictions, and dispersion relations reduce the theoretical errors. For example, [182] obtains V_{ ub } = (3.5 ± 0.17 ± 0.44) × 10^{3}, and, more recently, [183] obtains V_{ ub } = (3.47 ± 0.29) × 10^{3}. The most recent lattice calculation [184] performs a simultaneous fit of improved lattice numerical Monte Carlo results and the 12bin BaBar experimental data on V_{ ub }f_{+} (q^{2}) [185] and derives V_{ ub } = (3.38 ± 0.35) × 10^{3}. The ~10% error includes theoretical and experimental errors, not easily separable.
4.2 Determinations Based on Inclusive BSemileptonic Decays
where μ ~ m_{ b }is the scale at which α_{ S }needs to be evaluated, while the scale μ_{⋆} applies to the nonperturbative expansion parameters, namely the b quark mass m_{ b }, the chromomagnetic operator, λ_{2}, and the kinetic operator, μ_{ π }. It is clear that, even restricting our attention to the total width, a precise knowledge of the b quark mass is critical, and considerable theoretical effort has been devoted to a reliable extraction of this parameter from experimental observables. Other uncertainties, such as the effects of weak annihilation or violations of quarkhadron duality, will be discussed later.
Summary of the experimental V_{ ub } determinations using the lepton endpoint; V_{ ub } is extracted with the "shape function" method [186].
Experiment  Lepton energy range  $\mathcal{L}$_{ int }(fb^{1})  Δ$\mathcal{B}$(X_{u}ℓ$\overline{\nu}$_{ℓ}) (×10^{4})  V_{ ub } (×10^{3})  

ϒ(4S)  cont.  
CLEO [255]  2.6 GeV > E_{ℓ} > 2.1 GeV  9.1  4.3  3.28 ± 0.23 ± 0.75  $3.94\pm {0.46}_{0.33}^{+0.37}$ 
Belle [256]  2.6 GeV > E_{ℓ} > 1.9 GeV  27  8.8  5.72 ± 0.41 ± 0.65  $4.74\pm {0.44}_{0.30}^{+0.35}$ 
BaBar [257]  2.6 GeV > E_{ℓ} > 2.0 GeV  80  9.5  5.72 ± 0.41 ± 0.65  $4.29\pm {0.24}_{0.30}^{+0.35}$ 
Next a whole host of papers proposed alternative "model independent" approaches to measure V_{ ub } from inclusive decays [190–192], with the common goal of identifying a region of phase space where experimentalists can suppress the b → c background, and where the OPE works. The first proposal by Bigi, Dikeman, and Uraltsev proposed considering semileptonic events where M_{ X }≤ 1.5 GeV [190]. However, Bauer, Ligeti, and Luke pointed out [193] that the kinematic limit ${m}_{X}^{2}~{m}_{D}^{2}$ has the same properties of the lepton end point, and spoils the convergence of the OPE; the same authors proposed using dΓ/dq^{2} up to q^{2} = ${m}_{D}^{2}$ and argue that this distribution is better behaved in the kinematic region of interest. This is the theoretical foundation of the so called "improved end point" method, which encompasses the simultaneous study of E_{ℓ} and q^{2}. BaBar [194] used this technique, inferring the ν 4momentum from the missing momentum (${\overrightarrow{p}}_{miss}$) in the event. There results give V_{ ub } central values between (3.88–4.93)×10^{3}, depending on the explicit model and with total errors of ≈ 10% on each value.
An alternative approach [186], incorporates hadronic structure functions to model the region of large hadronic energy and small invariant mass, not well modeled by the OPE, and applies the OPE to the kinematic region where the hadronic kinematic variables scale with M_{ B }, and smoothly interpolates between them. This approach is commonly referred to as "shape function" method, and uses the γ spectrum in inclusive B → X_{ S γ }to reduce the theoretical uncertainties. It combines the experimental data on high momentum leptons from B decays with the constraints from inclusive radiative decays, to produce a precise value of V_{ ub } inclusive.
The study of charmless inclusive semileptonic decays benefits from the use of hadronic tags. Belle used the information of the tag momentum to boost the electron into the B meson rest frame and to select a sample of high purity. They then reconstruct the ν energy and momentum from the measured 4momentum vectors of the ϒ(4S), B tag, lepton, and the additional tracks not used to form the tag or the lepton. They then evaluate the invariant mass M_{ X }and the quantity ${P}^{+}=\left{E}_{X}{\overrightarrow{P}}_{X}\right$, where ${\overrightarrow{P}}_{X}={\overrightarrow{P}}_{beam}{\overrightarrow{P}}_{tag}{\overrightarrow{P}}_{\ell}{\overrightarrow{P}}_{v}$. Both M_{ X }and P^{+} are smaller for b → u transitions. They define different signal region for p_{ℓ} > 1 GeV: P_{+} < 0.66 GeV/c, M_{ X }< 1.7 GeV/c^{2}, and M_{ X }< 1.7 GeV/c^{2} combined with q^{2} > 8 GeV^{2}/c^{2}.
Inclusive V_{ ub } determinations with tagged samples.
Experiment  $\mathcal{L}$_{ int }(fb^{1})  V_{ ub } × 10^{3}  

ϒ(4S)  cont.  
Belle [256]  253  18 
