text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The QCD-based theory of inclusive heavy flavor decays by now has made a long journey from its first fundamental results beginning with the QCD theorem  which established absence of the leading $`𝚲_{\mathrm{𝐐𝐂𝐃}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ power corrections to total decay rates. Based on the Wilsonian OPE, the heavy quark expansion is now a well developed field of QCD with many nontrivial phenomenological applications . The new generation of data provides accurate measurements of many inclusive characteristics in $`𝑩`$ decays. In practical terms,
$`\mathbf{}`$ An accurate and reliable determination of some heavy quark parameters is available directly from experiment;
$`\mathbf{}`$ Extracting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ from $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{)}`$ has good accuracy and solid grounds;
$`\mathbf{}`$ We have at least one nontrivial precision check of the OPE at the nonperturbative level.
The latter comes comparing the average lepton energy with the invariant hadronic mass, as explained in Sect. 3.

The present theory allows to aim for a percent accuracy in $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. Such a precision becomes possible owing to a number of theoretical refinements. The low-scale running masses $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, the expectation values $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}`$, … are completely defined and can be determined from experiment with an in principle unlimited accuracy. Violation of local duality potentially limiting theoretical predictability, has been scrutinized and found to be negligibly small in total semileptonic $`𝑩`$ widths ; it can be controlled experimentally with dedicated high-statistics measurements. Present-day perturbative technology makes computing $`𝜶_𝒔`$-corrections to the Wilson coefficients of nonperturbative operators feasible. It is also understood how to treat higher-order power corrections in a way which renders them suppressed .

The original motivation for the precision control of strong interaction effects in $`𝑩`$ decays was the quest for $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ and $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ as means to cross check the Standard Model. Interesting physics lies, however not only in the CKM matrix; knowledge of heavy quark masses and nonperturbative parameters of QCD is of high importance as well.

Some of the heavy quark parameters like $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are known beforehand. Proper field-theoretic definition allows its accurate determination from the $`𝑩^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑩`$ mass splitting: $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.35}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{.02}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{.03}}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ . A priori less certain is $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. However, the inequality $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{>}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ valid for any definition of kinetic and chromomagnetic operators respecting the QCD commutation relation $`\mathbf{[}𝑫_𝒋\mathbf{,}𝑫_𝒌\mathbf{]}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒊𝒈_𝒔𝑮_{𝒋𝒌}`$, and the corresponding sum rules essentially limit its range: $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.45}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.1}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$.

The important feature of the heavy quark parameters – in particular the nonperturbative ones – is that they represent well-defined physical quantities which take universal values independent of a process under consideration. As such they can be determined separately in quite different processes with $`𝒃`$ quarks. The best example is $`𝒎_𝒃`$ itself – it can be measured through the near-threshold production $`𝒆^\mathbf{+}𝒆^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝒃\overline{𝒃}`$, or in inclusive $`𝑩`$ decays. The extracted value must be the same, for it is just an actual $`𝒃`$ quark mass in actual QCD.

Recent experimental data on inclusive $`𝑩`$ decays generally show a nontrivial agreement between quite different – and a priori unrelated – measurements at the nonperturbative level, on one hand, and consistency with the QCD-based OPE theory. It is fair to note that some discrepancies have been reported as constituting obvious problems for the OPE. In my opinion, however, these claims are unjustified and rather rooted in a sloppy application of the heavy quark expansion, in particular of the OPE. The proper treatment, in fact seems to yield a good agreement between different measurements, well within correctly assessed theoretical accuracy. I shall illustrate this later in Sect. 3. At this point it is interesting to note that all data seem to point at a relatively low kinetic expectation value $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathbf{0.4}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$; the individual uncertainties are sizable, though.

## 2 BPS limit

An intriguing theoretical environment opens up if $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}`$ is eventually confirmed to be close enough to $`𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}`$ as currently suggested by experiment, say it does not exceed $`\mathbf{0.45}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. If $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ it is advantageous to analyze strong dynamics expanding around the point $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ . This is not just one point of a continuum in the parameter space, but a quite special ‘BPS’ limit where the heavy flavor ground state satisfies functional relations $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝅}\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$. This limit is remarkable in many respects; for example, it saturates the bound  $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}`$ for the slope of the IW function. It should be recalled that already quite some time ago there were dedicated QCD sum rules estimates of both $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}`$  and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$  yielding literal values nearly at the respective lower bounds, supporting this limit.

The SV heavy quark sum rules place a number of important constraints on the nonperturbative parameters. For instance, they yield a bound on the IW slope

$$𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜺}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{0.4}\text{GeV}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝜺}\mathbf{}\mathbf{<}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}$$
(1)
so that $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ can barely reach $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ being rather closer to $`\mathbf{0.85}`$. It is interesting that this prediction  turned out in a good agreement with the recent lattice calculation  $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.83}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{.11}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.01}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{.15}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{.24}}`$. It leaves only a small window for the slope of the actual $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ formfactor, excluding values of $`\widehat{\mathit{\varrho }}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in excess of $`\mathbf{1.15}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.2}`$. This would be a very constraining result for a number of experimental studies, in particular for extrapolating the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ rate to zero recoil. Since there is a strong correlation between the extrapolated rate and the slope, this may change the extracted value of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$. Therefore, it is advantageous to analyze the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝝂`$ data including the above constraint as an option, and I suggest our experimental colleagues explore this in future analyses.

The experimentally measured slope $`\widehat{𝝆}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ differs from $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by heavy quark symmetry-violating corrections. The estimate by Neubert that $`\widehat{𝝆}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ is smaller than $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`\widehat{𝝆}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.09}`$ seems to be ruled out by experiment. It is not clear if a better estimate can be made in a trustworthy way.

The whole set of the heavy quark sum rules is even more interesting. Their constraining power depends strongly on the actual value of $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. When it is at the lower end of the allowed interval, the BPS expansion appears the most effective way to analyze all the relations.

### 2.1 Miracles of the BPS limit

A number of useful relation for nonperturbative parameters hold in the limit $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$: they include $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}`$, $`\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝚺}`$, $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, relations for nonlocal correlators $`𝝆_{𝝅𝑮}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_{𝝅𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, $`𝝆_𝑨^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝝆_{𝝅𝑮}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}𝝆_{𝝅𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝝆_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{)}`$, etc.

This limit also extends a number of the heavy flavor symmetry relations for the ground-state mesons to all orders in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎`$:
$`\mathbf{}`$ There are no formal power corrections to the relation $`𝑴_𝑷\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝑸\mathbf{+}\overline{𝚲}`$ and, therefore to $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫`$. The routinely used spin-averaged mass difference, however is not stable.
$`\mathbf{}`$ For the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ amplitude the heavy quark limit relation between the two formfactors

$$𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫}{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}$$
(2)
does not receive power corrections.
$`\mathbf{}`$ For the zero-recoil $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ amplitude all $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^𝒌}`$ terms vanish.
$`\mathbf{}`$ For the zero-recoil formfactor $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}`$ controlling decays with massless leptons

$$𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}{\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}}$$
(3)
holds to all orders in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$.
$`\mathbf{}`$ At arbitrary velocity power corrections in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ vanish,

$$𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}{\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}}𝝃\mathbf{\left(}\frac{𝑴_𝑩^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(4)
so that the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ decay rate directly yields Isgur-Wise function $`𝝃\mathbf{(}𝒘\mathbf{)}`$.
It is interesting that experimentally the slope of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ amplitude is indeed smaller centering around $`\widehat{𝝆}_{\mathbf{(}𝑫\mathbf{)}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.15}`$ , indicating qualitative agreement with the BPS regime.

What about the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ amplitude, are the corrections suppressed as well? Unfortunately, the answer is negative. The structure of power corrections indeed simplifies in the BPS limit, however $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$, $`𝜹_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎^\mathrm{𝟑}}`$ are still very significant , and the literal estimate for $`𝑭_𝑫^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$ falls even below $`\mathbf{0.9}`$. Likewise, we expect too significant corrections to the shape of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ formfactors. Heavy quark spin symmetry controlling these transitions seems to be violently affected by strong interactions for charm.

A physical clarification must be added at this point. Absence of all power corrections in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ for certain relations may be naively interpreted as implying that they would hold for arbitrary, even small quark masses, say in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑲`$ transitions. This is not correct, though, for the statement refers only to a particular fixed order in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ expansion in the strict BPS limit. In fact the relations become more and more accurate approaching this limit only above a certain mass scale of order $`\overline{𝚲}`$, while below it their violation is of order unity regardless of proximity of the heavy quark ground state to BPS.

### 2.2 Quantifying deviations from BPS

Since the BPS limit cannot be exact in actual QCD, it is important to understand the accuracy of its predictions. The dimensionless parameter describing the deviation from BPS is

$$𝜷\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝝅_\mathrm{𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝈}\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝝅}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left(}\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{\right)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{}\text{}𝒏\text{ }\mathbf{|}𝝉_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}}^{\mathbf{(}𝒏\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}^{\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{.}$$
(5)
Numerically $`𝜷`$ is not too small, similar in size to generic $`\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansion parameter, and the relations violated to order $`𝜷`$ may in practice be more of a qualitative nature only. However, the expansion parameters like $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝜷^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ can be good enough. Moreover, we can count together powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ and $`𝜷`$ to judge the real quality of a particular heavy quark relation. Therefore understanding at which order in $`𝜷`$ the BPS relations get corrections is required. In fact, we need classification in powers of $`𝜷`$ to all orders in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$.

Relations (2) and (4) for the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ amplitudes at arbitrary velocity can get first order corrections in $`𝜷`$. Thus they may be not very accurate. The same refers to equality of $`𝝆_{𝝅𝑮}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝝆_{𝝅𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The other relations mentioned for heavy quark parameter are accurate up to order $`𝜷^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The other important BPS relations hold up to order $`𝜷^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ as well:
$`\mathbf{}`$ $`𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄`$ and $`𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{+}\overline{𝚲}`$
$`\mathbf{}`$ Zero recoil matrix element $`\mathbf{}𝑫\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒄}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟎}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}`$ is unity up to $`𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜷^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{}`$ Experimentally measured $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ formfactor $`𝒇_\mathbf{+}`$ near zero recoil receives only second-order corrections in $`𝜷`$ to all orders in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$:

$$𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}{\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}}\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}𝜷^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{.}$$
(6)
This is an analogue of the Ademollo-Gatto theorem for the BPS expansion.

The similar statement then applies to $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}`$ as well, and the heavy quark limit prediction for $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{/}𝒇_\mathbf{+}`$ must be quite accurate near zero recoil. It can be experimentally checked in the decays $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫𝝉𝝂_𝝉`$.

As a practical application of the results based on the BPS expansion, one can calculate the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ decay amplitude near zero recoil to use this channel for the model-independent extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ in future high-luminosity experiments. For power corrections we have

$$\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}{\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\overline{𝚲}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\overline{𝚺}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒄}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒃}\mathbf{\right)}\frac{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑫}{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}\mathbf{}𝓞\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)
We see that this indeed is of the second order in $`𝜷`$. Moreover, $`\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}\overline{𝚺}`$ is well constrained through $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_𝑮^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ by spin sum rules. Including perturbative corrections (which should be calculated in the proper renormalization scheme respecting BPS regime) we arrive at the estimate

$$\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{𝑴_𝑩𝑴_𝑫}}{𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{+}𝑴_𝑫}𝒇_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.03}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.025}\text{ }$$
(8)
It is valid through order $`𝜷^\mathrm{𝟐}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒄}`$ accounting for all powers of $`\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸`$ to order $`𝜷^\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Assuming the counting rules suggested above this corresponds to the precision up to $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟒}`$, essentially better than the “gold-plated” $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ formfactor where already $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms are large and not well known. Therefore, the estimate (8) must be quite accurate. In fact, the major source of the uncertainty seems to be perturbative corrections, which can be refined in the straightforward way compared to decade-old calculations.

## 3 Inclusive $`𝑩`$ decays, OPE and heavy quark parameters

Inclusive distributions in semileptonic and radiative decays are the portal to accurately determining the nonperturbative heavy quark parameters controlling short-distance observables in $`𝑩`$ decays. In this way one can extract the most precise and model-independent value of $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ from $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}`$, and possibly of $`𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}`$ if a number of experimental problems can be overcome.

High accuracy can be achieved in a comprehensive approach where many observables are measured in $`𝑩`$ decays to extract necessary ‘theoretical’ input parameters. It is crucial that here one can do without relying on charm mass expansion at all, i.e. do not assume charm quark to be really heavy in strong interaction mass scale. For reliability of the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansion is questionable. Already in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝑸^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ terms one has $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$; even for the worst mass scale in the width expansion, $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ is at least $`\mathrm{𝟖}`$ times smaller than $`\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}`$. There are indications  that the nonlocal correlators affecting meson masses can be particularly large – a pattern independently observed in the ’t Hooft model . This expectation is supported by the pilot lattice study  which – if taken at face value – suggests a very large value of a particular combination $`𝝆_{𝝅𝝅}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}𝝆_𝑺^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ entering in the conventional approach. On the other hand, non-local correlators are not measured in inclusive $`𝑩`$ decays, so that assumptions about them can hardly be verified.

The approach which is free from relying on charm mass expansion  was put forward at the CKM-2002 Workshop at CERN. It allows to utilize the full power of the comprehensive studies, and makes use of a few key facts :
$`\mathbf{}`$ Total width to order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is affected by a single new Darwin operator; the moments depend also on $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, albeit weakly.
$`\mathbf{}`$ No nonlocal correlators ever enter per se.
$`\mathbf{}`$ Deviations from the HQ limit in the expectation values are driven by the maximal mass scale, $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃`$ (and are additionally suppressed by proximity to the BPS limit); they are negligible in practice.
$`\mathbf{}`$ Exact sum rules and inequalities hold for properly defined Wilsonian parameters.

The strategy and how it works in practice has been described in detail in Refs. . Here I only recall a few salient facts.

The gross features of the lepton energy distribution are mainly shaped by the parton expressions and get only slightly corrected by nonperturbative effects. Consequently, a few lowest lepton moments depend primarily on one and the same combination of the heavy quark masses, $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.7}𝒎_𝒄`$, with insufficient sensitivity to the nonperturbative operators. This does not allow in practice to constrain more than one combination of the quark masses. Yet even these moments turn out informative for $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$, since $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}`$ depends on nearly the same combination of $`𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`𝒎_𝒄`$.

Moments of invariant mass square $`𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in the final state of semileptonic $`𝑩`$ decays appear more important in constraining the nonperturbative parameters, since it is ab initio dominated by nonperturbative terms. However, the first hadronic moment $`\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ turns out to depend on practically the same combination $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.7}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.1}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.2}𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ as the lepton moment. (Here and below all coefficients are assumed to be in the corresponding powers of GeV.) Not very constraining, this provides, however a highly nontrivial check of the HQ expansion. For example, taking DELPHI’s central value for $`\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ we would predict $`\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.375}\text{GeV}`$, while experimentally they obtain $`\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.383}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}`$ . In this respect such a comparison is more critical than among the lepton moments themselves. In particular, these two first moments together verify the heavy quark sum rule for $`𝑴_𝑩\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$ with the accuracy about $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟎}\text{MeV}`$!

The higher hadronic moments (with respect to the average) are already more directly sensitive to nonperturbative parameters $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝝆_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. Ideally, they would measure the kinetic and Darwin expectation values separately. At present, however, we have only an approximate evaluation and informative upper bound on $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝆}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$. The current sensitivity to $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝆}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is about $`\mathbf{0.1}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathbf{0.1}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, respectively. A more accurate measurement would also require refined theoretical description which is possible once the modified higher hadronic moments are measured at $`𝑩`$-factories .

The experimental constraints on the combination driving $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{)}`$ appear stronger for the hadronic moment. Using it instead of $`\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ we would arrive at

$$\frac{\mathbf{\left|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{\right|}}{\mathbf{0.042}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.14}\mathbf{\left[}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{}\mathbf{4.54}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right]}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.03}\mathbf{\left(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.15}\text{GeV}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.1}\mathbf{\left(}𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.4}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.1}\mathbf{\left(}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝆}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.12}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$

One finds that measuring the second and third hadronic moments which directly constrain $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝆}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ is an essential step in implementing the comprehensive program of extracting $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ (see figures in ). To illustrate, neglecting possible theoretical uncertainties in the above relations, we get

$$\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.0418}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.01}_{\mathrm{𝐒𝐋}\mathrm{𝐰𝐢𝐝𝐭𝐡}}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.02}_{\mathrm{𝐇𝐐}\mathrm{𝐩𝐚𝐫}}\mathbf{\right)}$$
(9)
from only the DELPHI hadronic moments. It is crucial that this extraction carries no hidden assumptions, and at no point we rely on $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansion. Charm quark could be either heavy, or light as strange or up quark, without deteriorating – and rather improving – the accuracy.

Incorporating other measurements further decreases the experimental uncertainty associated with the heavy quark parameters. However, another limiting factor becomes important – the accuracy of the theoretical expression for the moments used in the analyses. All the theoretical expressions relied upon have a limited accuracy, a fact discarded above for simplicity.

A similar analysis can be applied to the moments with a cut on lepton energy; in particular, CLEO measured a few lepton energy moments for $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.5}\text{GeV}`$ with unprecedented accuracy. They also fix more or less the same combination of masses and nonperturbative parameters. The value comes out close, but does not literally coincide with that obtained by DELPHI. This sometimes is referred to as a problem for theory. My opinion is different – we do not see here a convincing evidence of the theory failure: the intrinsic theory accuracy is essentially degraded by the relatively high cut employed, with the effective hardness deteriorated. The additional theoretical uncertainties are typically overlooked here.

### 3.1 Cuts and extracting heavy quark parameters

In order to enjoy in full the potential of a small expansion parameter provided by the heavy quark mass, the observable in question must be sufficiently inclusive. However experimental cuts imposed for practical reasons – to suppress backgrounds etc. – often essentially degrade the effective hardness $`𝓠`$ of the process. This brings in another expansion parameter $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝓠`$ effectively replacing $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ in certain QCD effects. The reliability of the expansion greatly deteriorates for $`𝓠\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$. This phenomenon is particularly important in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ decays where experiments so far have imposed cut $`𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}`$ or even higher.

The theoretical aspects of such limitations have been discussed during the last couple of years . In particular, the effective ‘hardness’ of the inclusive $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ decays with $`𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}`$ amounts to only about $`\mathbf{1.25}\text{GeV}`$, which casts doubts on the precision of the routinely used expressions incorporated into the fits of heavy quark parameters.

Ref.  has analyzed the numerical aspects and it was shown that these effects turn out significant, lead to a systematic bias that often exceeds naive error estimates and therefore cannot be ignored. Evaluating them in the most straightforward (although somewhat simplified) way we find, for instance for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ decays

$`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}_𝒃`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}\text{MeV}`$
$`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.15}\mathbf{÷}\mathbf{0.2}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (10)
where $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}_𝒃`$ and $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are the apparent values of the $`𝒃`$ quark mass and of the kinetic expectation value, respectively, as extracted from the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ spectrum in a usual way with $`𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}`$. Correcting for this bias eliminates alleged problems for the OPE in describing different data and rather leads to a too good agreement between the data on different types of inclusive decays.

Moreover, this resolves the controversy noted previously: while the values of $`\overline{𝚲}`$ and $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ reportedly extracted from the CLEO $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ spectrum were found to be significantly below the theoretical expectations, the theoretically obtained spectrum itself turned out to yield a good description of the observed spectrum when we evaluated it based on these theoretically preferred values of parameters .

The origin of these effects and why they are routinely missed in the standard application of the OPE and in estimates of the theoretical accuracy, have been discussed in detail in Ref. . Conceptually this is related to the limited range of convergence of the OPE for the width, determined in this case by the support of the heavy quark distribution function. Referring to the original publications  for details, here I give only the numerical estimates for the cut-induced bias in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ decays. Namely, we can compare the apparent values of the $`𝒃`$ quark mass $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒎}_𝒃`$ and of the kinetic operator $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ with the true ones $`𝒎_𝒃`$, $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ which would be measured if no cut were imposed, Fig. 1. The deficit in $`\overline{𝚲}`$ turns out quite significant.

The naive extraction of the kinetic expectation value through the variance of the truncated distribution undercounts it even more dramatically as Fig. 1b illustrates, since higher moments are more sensitive to the tail of the distribution.

Why are the effects of the cut so large? They are exponential in the inverse hadronic scale $`𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫}}`$, but are governed by the hardness $`𝓠\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}`$ rather than by $`𝒎_𝒃`$:

$$\overline{𝚲}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝚲}\mathbf{(}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫}}𝒆^{\mathbf{}\frac{𝓠}{𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫}}}}\mathbf{,}\text{ }𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝁}_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫}}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆^{\mathbf{}\frac{𝓠}{𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫}}}}$$
(11)
(the exponent may have a form of a power of $`𝓠\mathbf{/}𝝁_{\mathrm{𝐡𝐚𝐝𝐫}}`$). Even at $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ these effects survive unless $`𝓠`$ is made large as well!

From this comparison we conclude:
$`\mathbf{}`$ the value of $`𝒎_𝒃`$ as routinely extracted from the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ spectrum is to be decreased by an amount of order $`\mathrm{𝟕𝟎}\text{MeV}`$;
$`\mathbf{}`$ relative corrections to $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ are even more significant and can naturally constitute a shift of $`\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}0.2}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$. This arises on top of other potential effects.

### 3.2 Practical implications

One can imagine a dedicated analysis of the consistency of the OPE predictions for inclusive $`𝑩`$ decays through a simultaneous fit of all available experimental data with the underlying heavy quark parameters. For illustrative purposes here I adopt instead a much simpler and transparent procedure which yet gives convincing evidence that the OPE is in a good shape, and elucidates the actual root of alleged problems. Let me assume a rather arbitrary choice $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{=}\mathbf{4.595}\text{GeV}`$, $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.15}\text{GeV}`$, $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.45}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, $`\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝆}_𝑫^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.06}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$ and $`𝝆_{𝑳𝑺}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.15}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟑}`$, natural from the theoretical viewpoint. The precise values of the quark masses are adjusted, however to literally accommodate $`\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_{𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}`$ now well measured by BaBar and CLEO. We then obtain

$`\text{}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{4.434}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ }\mathbf{[}\text{cf. }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{4.542}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.105}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}\text{ (DELPHI)}\mathbf{]}`$
$`\text{}\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_{𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.5}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{4.177}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ }\mathbf{[}\text{cf. }\mathbf{4.180}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ (BaBar), }\mathbf{4.189}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ (CLEO)}\mathbf{]}`$
$`\text{}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{1.389}\text{GeV}\text{ }\mathbf{[}\text{cf. }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{1.383}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.015}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}\text{ (DELPHI)}\mathbf{]}`$
$`\text{}\mathbf{}𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{}_{𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`\mathbf{2.329}\text{GeV}\text{ }\mathbf{[}\text{cf. }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.346}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.034}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}\text{ (CLEO)}\mathbf{]}`$
$`\text{}\mathbf{}𝑬_𝜸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\overline{𝑬}_𝜸^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}_{𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝐆𝐞𝐕}}`$ $`\text{ }\mathbf{}`$ $`\text{ }_{\mathbf{0.0233}}^{\mathbf{0.0202}}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ }\mathbf{[}\text{cf. }\mathbf{(}\mathbf{0.0226}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0066}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.0020}\mathbf{)}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}\text{ (CLEO)}\mathbf{]}`$ (12)
The moments of the photon spectra have been calculated including the perturbative corrections as in Ref. , i.e. they incorporate the above ‘exponential’ cut-related shifts at face value.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The two values for the second $`E_\gamma `$-moment correspond to different light-cone ansätze; they are obtained discarding higher-order power corrections to the light-cone distribution function. Their counterpart for the semileptonic decays has not been included here, however. I also show in Fig. 2 the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^{\mathbf{}}`$-dependence of $`\mathbf{}𝑴_𝑿^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}`$ as it comes from the literal OPE expressions with the above values of parameters. Experimental data are from Refs. .

A quick glance shows that there is hardly any disagreement with theory, for both semileptonic and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ channels. Moreover, even the $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^{\mathbf{}}`$-dependence is naturally reproduced. This radically differs from the results reported in . I believe that what we have heard from Ligeti in this respect at this conference about the alleged problems for the OPE in describing the data, is not true.

As mentioned above, the first leptonic moment $`\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}`$ with cut at $`\mathbf{1.5}\text{GeV}`$, the CLEO’s $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ comes out slightly different: $`\mathbf{1.776}\text{GeV}`$ vs. $`\mathbf{1.7810}\text{GeV}`$ measured by CLEO. The difference is certainly significant if viewed experimentally. However, is it really, if examined by theory?

#### 3.2.1 Cuts in semileptonic moments

It was argued in Ref.  that similar cut-related ‘exponential’ biases missed in the naive OPE applications affect the truncated moments in the semileptonic decays as well. Their description, even simplified is less transparent and would be more involved, though, being given by a more complicated and non-universal object rather than the light-cone heavy quark distribution. Although the numerical aspects are rather uncertain, it is understood that they can be significant: the effective hardness

$$𝓠_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}\mathbf{}\sqrt{𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}$$
(13)
at $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.5}\text{GeV}`$ is about $`\mathbf{1.25}\text{GeV}`$ , nearly the same as for $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔\mathbf{+}𝜸`$ with $`𝑬_𝜸\text{ }\mathbf{}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}`$. Ref.  estimated that the exponential terms in semileptonic decays with $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.5}\text{GeV}`$ can introduce effects of the same scale as shifting $`𝒎_𝒃`$ upward by up to $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟓}`$ to $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}\text{MeV}`$ (assuming fixed $`𝒎_𝒄`$ and other heavy quark parameters). This rule of thumb – although very tentative – is useful to get an idea of the ultimate theoretical accuracy one can count on here.

For example, the CLEO’s cut moment $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{}𝑬_{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.5}\text{GeV }`$ is approximately given by

$$𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.776}\text{GeV}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.27}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{4.595}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.17}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.15}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}\text{ }\text{at }\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.08}$$
(14)
(the above mentioned values of the nonperturbative parameters are assumed). An increase in $`𝒎_𝒃`$ by only $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟎}\text{MeV}`$ would then change

$$𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.0055}\text{GeV}$$
(15)
perfectly fitting the central CLEO’s value $`\mathbf{1.7810}\text{GeV}`$. It is worth noting that the above equations make it evident that the imposed cut on $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}`$ degrades theoretical calculability of $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ far beyond its experimental error bars, the fact repeatedly emphasized over the last year. Unfortunately, this was not reflected in the fits of parameters which placed much weight on the values of $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}`$$`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ just owing to their small experimental uncertainties, whilst paying less attention to actual theoretical errors.

Even stronger reservations should be applied to the theoretical predictability for CLEO’s $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ representing the second moment with the cut, keeping in mind that the effective hardness deteriorates for higher moments.

The CLEO’s ratio $`𝑹_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the normalized decay rate with the cut on $`𝑬_{\mathbf{}}`$ as high as $`\mathbf{1.7}\text{GeV}`$, and for it hardness $`𝓠`$ is below $`\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}`$. A precision – beyond just semiquantitative – treatment of nonperturbative effects is then questionable, and far more significant corrections should be allowed for.

We see that – contrary to what one could typically hear over the last year about experimental check of dynamical heavy quark theory – there is a good agreement of most data referring to sufficiently ‘hard’ decay distributions with the theory based on the OPE in QCD, if the ‘robust’ OPE approach is used. The latter was put forward  to get rid of unnecessary vulnerable assumptions of usually employed fits of the data. This consistency likewise refers to the absolute values of the heavy quark parameters necessary to accommodate the data. Theory itself reveals, however that the expansion becomes deceptive with an increase in the experimental cuts. Here I mentioned the clearest effects, those from the variety of ‘exponential’ terms in the effective hardness. While presently not amenable to precise theoretical treatment, they can be estimated using most natural assumptions and are found to be very significant for $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^{\mathbf{}}\text{ }\mathbf{}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{1.5}\text{GeV}`$ and $`𝑬_{\mathrm{𝐜𝐮𝐭}}^𝜸\text{ }\mathbf{}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟐}\text{GeV}`$ often employed in experiment. Taking these corrections at face value and incorporating in our predictions, we get a good, more than qualitative agreement with “less short-distance” inclusive decays as well.

A dedicated discussion of what may be wrong in a number of analyses claimed problems for the OPE goes far beyond the scope of the present talk. Two elements must be mentioned largely responsible for this, they have been emphasized early enough , yet were mostly ignored. One is imposing unnecessary and dangerous constraint on the mass difference $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄`$ which relies on the too questionable $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansion, and applying the corresponding power counting rules which are inadequate numerically. The second is blind usage of the naive OPE expressions where their validity is severely limited by barely sufficient effective hardness. The terms exponential in the latter – yet invisible in the naive approach – blow up there. Rephrasing Ben Bradley, one may then think that the alleged problems originate from “Dealing in the expressions, not necessarily in (OPE) truths”. I would also mention that using the proper Wilsonian version of the OPE with running quark masses and nonperturbative parameters is helpful in arriving at correct conclusions, and is probably indispensable for reaching the ultimate numerical precision in extracting the underlying parameters.

### 3.3 Semileptonic decays with $`𝝉𝝂_𝝉`$

Experimental studies of the semileptonic decays $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{+}𝝉𝝂_𝝉`$ are much more difficult, however even accurate measurements may be feasible at future high-luminosity super–$`𝑩`$-factories. Relevant to physics discussed in Sect. 2, the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫𝝉𝝂_𝝉`$ amplitude does not vanish at zero recoil when $`\stackrel{\mathbf{}}{𝒒}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ keeping the contribution of $`𝒇_{\mathbf{}}`$ (still suppressed by the $`𝝉`$ mass). This opens an interesting way to check the BPS relation (2) and its accuracy dictated by the theorem (6). This would complement an independent determination of $`𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}`$ through the small-recoil $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ decay rate with light leptons.

Since the velocity range is rather limited for decays into $`𝝉`$ leptons, $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒘\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.43}`$ the total $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐑}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫𝝉𝝂_𝝉\mathbf{)}`$ can be predicted in terms of $`\mathit{\varrho }^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}`$, at least in the BPS regime.

Inclusive decay width $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒄\mathbf{+}𝝉𝝂_𝝉\mathbf{)}`$ is very sensitive to $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄`$, in contrast to $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.6}𝒎_𝒄`$ for conventional decays (the same applies to decay distributions), which would finally provide a constraint on an alternative mass combinations.

On the other hand, energy release is limited here, $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{}𝒎_𝝉\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.6}\text{GeV}`$. These decays therefore can be more sensitive to higher power corrections and represent a better candidate for studying local duality violations. One can also detect possible effects of the nonperturbative four-quark operators with charm quark, $`\mathbf{}𝑩\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒃}𝒄\overline{𝒄}𝒃\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}`$; their potential role was emphasized in Ref. .

I am curious if it is possible to measure here separately the decay widths induced by vector and axial-vector currents. As emphasized in Sect. 2, this makes a big difference for the nonperturbative effects in the exclusive transitions to $`𝑫`$ and $`𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$, respectively. Yet for inclusive decays there should be no much difference once one enters the short-distance regime. Therefore, such analysis would provide interesting insights into the difference between the heavy quark expansion for inclusive and exclusive decays.

## 4 Conclusions

The theory of heavy quark decays is now a mature branch of QCD. Recent experimental studies of inclusive decays yielded valuable information crucial – through the comprehensive application of all the elements of the heavy quark expansion – for a number of exclusive decays as well. This signifies an important new stage in the heavy quark theory, since only a few years ago exclusive and inclusive decays were often viewed as largely separated, if not as antipodes theory-wise.

Generally speaking, there is ample evidence that heavy quark symmetry undergoes significant nonperturbative corrections for charm hadrons. However, there appears a class of practically relevant relations which remain robust. They are limited to the ground-state pseudoscalar $`𝑩`$ and $`𝑫`$ mesons, but do not include spin symmetry in the charm sector.

The accuracy of these new relations based on the proximity to the “BPS limit” strongly depends on the actual size of the kinetic expectation value in $`𝑩`$ mesons, $`𝝁_𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\text{GeV}\mathbf{)}`$. The experiment must verify it with maximal possible accuracy and reliability, without invoking ad hoc assumptions often made in the past with limited data available. This can be performed through the inclusive decays already in current experiments. If its value is confirmed not to exceed $`\mathbf{0.45}\text{GeV}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫`$ decays can be reliably treated by theory, and the estimate $`𝓕_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{1.03}`$ can provide a good alternative element in the comprehensive program of model-independent extraction of $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$.

There are many other important consequences of the BPS regime. The slope of the IW function must be close to unity, and actually below it. The related constraints on the slope $`\widehat{𝝆}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of the experimentally observed combination of $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑫^{\mathbf{}}`$ formfactors should be incorporated in the fits aiming at extrapolating the rate to zero recoil.

Contrary to what is often stated, the OPE-based theory of inclusive decays so far is in good shape when confronted experiment. A nontrivial consistency between quite different measurements, and between experiment and QCD-based theory, at the nonperturbative level, has been observed. Yet this refers to a thoughtful application of the OPE using the robust approach instead of doubtful approximations. There are good reasons to hope that new round of data will not reverse the tendency, and that the comprehensive approach shall indeed allow us to reach a percent level of reliable accuracy in translating $`𝚪_{\mathrm{𝐬𝐥}}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{)}`$ to $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒄𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$, as was proposed last year.

A final note – I think that the semileptonic decays with $`𝝉`$ lepton and $`𝝂_𝝉`$ have an interesting potential for both inclusive and exclusive decays at high-luminosity machines.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the organizers of FPCP 2003 for the interesting conference and for provided support. I am indebted to I. Bigi and P. Gambino for joint work reported in this talk, and to M. Shifman and A. Vainshtein for valuable discussions of the BPS regime. Many discussions with and useful comments from O. Buchmueller and U. Langenegger are gratefully acknowledged, which initiated parts of the reported studies. This work was supported in part by the NSF under grant number PHY-0087419.


format: text

text:
# Impurities block the 𝛼 to 𝜔 martensitic transformation in titanium

## Abstract

The onset and kinetics of martensitic transformations are controlled by impurities trapped during the transformation. For the $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ transformation in Ti, ab initio methods yield the changes in both the relative stability of and energy barrier between the phases. Using the recently discovered transformation pathway, we study interstitial O, N, C; substitutional Al and V; and Ti interstitials and vacancies. The resulting microscopic picture explains the observations, specifically the suppression of the transformation in A-70 and Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloys.

Impurities control the onset and kinetics of martensitic phase transformations—diffusionless structural transformations proceeding near the speed of sound Olson and Owen (1992). The abundant use of martensitic materials in engineering technologies is not underpinned by a microscopic understanding of the effects of impurities during the transformation. The $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ martensitic transformation in Ti lowers its toughness and ductility, affecting its use in the aerospace industry. The 2 to 9 GPa range in the published transition pressures of nominally pure Ti Jayaraman et al. (1963); Zilbershtein et al. (1975) is believed to be caused by sample purity Sikka et al. (1982); Greeff et al. (2001). Systematic studies show a large sensitivity to small amounts of impurities Vohra et al. (1977); Gray et al. (1993). Two commercial Ti alloys—A-70 and Ti-6Al-4V—show no transformation up to 35 GPa Gray et al. (1993).

Impurities pose two theoretical challenges: The effect on the relative stability of the two phases and the energy barrier of the transformation. Understanding both of these requires the atomistic pathway for $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ to model the impurity motion during the transformation. The near sonic speed of the transition prohibits diffusion during the transformation, thus requiring impurities to move collectively with their local environment. Recently Trinkle et al. identified from all possible transformation pathways the $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ mechanism with the lowest energy barrier of 9 meV/atom.

This paper exploits this fast transformation that traps the impurities in their known path to systematically study a range of impurities, including those in the commercial Ti alloys A-70 and Ti-6Al-4V. (1) We study interstitial O, N, C; substitutional Al and V; Ti interstitials and vacancies. These impurities and defects affect the transformation by shifting the relative stability of and energy barrier between the $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ phases. (2) Interstitial impurity effects are governed primarily by their size, while substitutional impurities affect the transformation by changing the $`d`$-electron concentration. (3) The most important impurities, O in A-70 Ti and Al in Ti-6Al-4V, more than double the transition barrier and increase the energy of $`\omega `$ relative to $`\alpha `$, explaining the observed suppression of the $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ transition.

Method – The ab initio calculations are performed with VASP Kresse and Hafner (1993); Kresse and Furthmüller (1996), a density functional code using a plane-wave basis and ultrasoft Vanderbilt type pseudopotentials Vanderbilt (1990); Kresse and Hafner (1994). The generalized gradient approximation of Perdew and Wang is used Perdew and Wang (1992). A plane-wave kinetic-energy cutoff of 400 eV ensures energy convergence to 1 meV/atom. The k-point meshes for the different structures are chosen to guarantee the same accuracy. To avoid unphysical short distances between the atoms, it is necessary to include the Ti $`3p`$ states as valence states in addition to the usual $`4s`$ and $`3d`$ states. For the other elements the pseudopotentials describe the core states as follows: V \[Ar\], Al \[Ne\], O, N and C \[He\].

Impurity locations and formation energies are determined by relaxations using $`4\times 4\times 3`$ and $`3\times 3\times 4`$ supercells for the $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ phases with 96 and 108 atoms, respectively. This results in a 1% impurity concentration. A $`2\times 2\times 2`$ k-point mesh is used. The atom positions are relaxed until the total energy changes by less than $`1`$meV, corresponding to atomic-level forces $`F_{\mathrm{max}}20`$meV/Å. Altogether this provides an energy accuracy of 0.5 meV/atom.

NEB calculations with variable cell shape at constant pressure yield the energy barriers of the martensitic transformation Jónsson et al. (1998). The pathway is represented by 18 intermediate images of a 48 Ti atom supercell constructed using $`\sqrt{2}\times 2\sqrt{2}\times 2`$ cells of the TAO-1 mechanism with a $`4\times 4\times 4`$ k-point mesh. This results in an impurity concentration of 2%. Comparing the formation energies for the 48 atom supercell with the larger cells of 96 and 108 atoms provides an estimate of the finite size error of 0.05 eV. The images are relaxed until the energy of each image changes by less than 1 meV, corresponding to atomic-level forces $`F_{\mathrm{max}}50`$meV/Å and stresses $`\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}20`$MPa. Altogether this yields an energy barrier accuracy of 1 meV/atom, the same as the finite size error. To compare the effects of different defects, all energy barriers are reported relative to the $`\alpha `$ structure for that defect, and in units of meV per 48 Ti atoms.

Interstitial impurities – Figure 1 shows the location of interstitial impurities and the effect of the transformation on these sites. The interstitial impurity sites were found by placing O, N, and C impurities on all interstitial sites in $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ and relaxing the atomic positions. Each phase contains one unique octahedral, tetrahedral, and hexahedral site. However, the tetrahedral site in $`\alpha `$ is unstable for O, N, and C and relaxes to the nearby hexahedral site in the basal plane. The “hexahedral” site is a distorted double-tetrahedral site with five neighbors, formed by a triangle of the basal plane and the two atoms right above and below the center of the triangle. The instability of the tetrahedral site is unexpected from crystallographic considerations Conrad (1981) and is due to atomic relaxations. In $`\omega `$ the tetrahedral and hexahedral sites are both stable, and they are close in energy and location.

Table 1(a) shows the formation energies of the interstitial defects in $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$. The energy is measured relative to molecular O2, N2 and graphite, respectively. For both $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ the octahedral site is more stable than the tetrahedral or hexahedral sites. This is simply related to the size of the interstitial sites: larger sites have lower formation energies. Comparison between the $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ interstitial impurities shows that the octahedral formation energy is slightly lower for $`\alpha `$; this difference shifts the relative energy of the two crystal structures, decreasing the stability of $`\omega `$ over $`\alpha `$.

Figures 2(a) and (b) show octahedral sites in $`\alpha `$—favored by O, N, and C—transforming into two possible sites in $`\omega `$ and increase the energy barrier for the transformation. The TAO-1 pathway breaks the hexagonal symmetry and transforms a third of the octahedral sites into the $`\omega `$ octahedral site and two thirds into the $`\omega `$ hexahedral site. The presence of impurities increases the energy barrier regardless of the final site of the impurities; however, this increase is much larger for the octahedral to hexahedral pathway than for the octahedral to octahedral one. For all three impurities, despite their different chemistry, their similar size results in nearly identical barriers.

Substitutional impurities – Table 1(b) shows the formation energies of the substitutional Al and V for $`\alpha `$ and the A and B sites in $`\omega `$. These energies are defined relative to fcc Al and bcc V. Comparison between the $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ substitutional impurities shows that, for both Al and V, the favored $`\omega `$ site is lower than the $`\alpha `$ site. However, during the transformation, a random mixture of $`\omega `$ occupations will be produced in a $`1:2`$ ratio as shown in Figure 1. In that case, the formation energy combination $`\omega _\mathrm{A}/3+2\omega _\mathrm{B}/3`$ is lower than $`\alpha `$ for V, and higher for Al. This is expected to increase the stability of $`\omega `$ relative to $`\alpha `$ with V, and decrease the stability of $`\omega `$ with Al.

Figure 2(c) and (d) show how the $`\alpha `$ substitutional sites for Al and V transform to the two possible $`\omega `$ sites and effect the transformation barrier. The TAO-1 pathway lowers the symmetry and transforms a third of the $`\alpha `$ sites into $`\omega _\mathrm{A}`$ sites and two thirds into $`\omega _\mathrm{B}`$ sites. The presence of impurities changes the energy barrier in a similar fashion as the formation energies. Since the shift in the barrier matches the shift in the relative energies of $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$, we conclude it is due to the $`d`$-electron concentration. The $`d`$-electron effect is also seen in the alloying behavior: Transition metals with large $`d`$-electron concentrations such as V, Mo, Fe, Ta stabilize the $`\omega `$ phase, while simple metals and early transition metals such as Al favor $`\alpha `$ Sikka et al. (1982).

Titanium vacancies and interstitials – Table 1(c) and (d) show the formation energies of the vacancies and Ti-interstitial defects in $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$, respectively. The reference energy is the appropriate Ti crystal phase. For the vacancies, the $`\omega _\mathrm{B}`$ site—which relaxes the 6-fold B-sublattice rings into 5-fold rings—is most forgiving. However, during the transformation, a random mixture of $`\omega `$ occupations will be produced in a $`1:2`$ ratio; in that case, the formation energy combination $`\omega _\mathrm{A}/3+2\omega _\mathrm{B}/3`$ is nearly identical to the $`\alpha `$ vacancy. The interstitials are energetically favorable, as is expected for a closed-packed metal. While the $`\alpha `$-octahedral site has the lowest formation energy, there is an energetically close defect formed when the tetrahedral interstitial relaxes and forms a $`[0001]`$ dumbbell configuration. All the $`\omega `$ interstitial sites are nearly degenerate in energy. The increased formation energy for $`\omega `$ interstitials over $`\alpha `$ interstitials is expected to shift the relative energy of the two crystal structures, decreasing the stability of $`\omega `$ over $`\alpha `$.

Figure 2(e) and (f) show how vacancies and Ti-interstitials transform to two possible sites in $`\omega `$ and increase the energy barrier for the transformation. The TAO-1 pathway acts on vacancies and Ti-interstitials as for substitutional and interstitial impurities, respectively. The presence of vacancies increases the barrier in both cases, though the effect is much more pronounced when transforming to the $`\omega _\mathrm{A}`$ vacancy. The presence of interstitials increases the energy barrier regardless of the final site of the interstitial; unlike the impurities, there is not much difference between the octahedral and hexahedral pathways. Due to their inherently low concentration the self defects will not have any significant effect on the transformation.

Discussion – The $`\alpha `$-$`\omega `$ phase transition is sensitive to small energy changes. At zero pressure and temperature, the $`\omega `$ phase is about 4 meV/atom lower in energy than $`\alpha `$ Kutepov and Kutepova (2003) and the energy barrier from $`\alpha `$ to $`\omega `$ is 9 meV/atom Trinkle et al. (2003). It takes 10 GPa to overcome the energy barrier in shock experiments Gray et al. (1993) or 280 K to overcome the energy difference Rudin et al. (2003). Hence, we expect a significant change in transition temperature and pressure due to the energy shift caused by impurities.

Table 2 shows the effect of impurities in A-70 Ti and Ti-6Al-4V, especially the significant effect of O and Al. Overall, we find the presence of impurities in both alloys suppresses the $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ martensitic phase transition by increasing both the $`\omega `$ energy relative to $`\alpha `$ and the energy barrier. The increased energy barrier is expected to reduce nucleation and to slow down the transformation. The change of the $`\alpha `$-$`\omega `$ energy difference shifts the $`\alpha `$-$`\omega `$ phase boundary Rudin et al. (2003) downward by several hundred degrees and thus at room temperature increases the transformation pressure dramatically.

The other interstitial impurities, N and C, have an effect similar to O. Despite their different chemistry, all increase the energy barrier and the relative energy by nearly the same amount. This indicates the primary effect is steric, and hence, we expect other interstititals of comparable size to have similar effects. In the A-70 Ti and Ti-6Al-4V alloys the effect of N and C is smaller proportional to their lower concentration.

In contrast, the substitutional Al and V impurities have opposite effects due to the change in $`d`$-electron concentration. As expected from the alloying behavior of Ti Sikka et al. (1982), V decreases the energy of $`\omega `$ and Al increases it. We observe the same behavior for the energy barriers. The Al impurity reduces the $`d`$-electron concentration by two, while V increases it by one; thus Al has a larger effect on the $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ transformation. Commercial Ti-6Al-4V alloy contains both; however, the concentration of Al (11 at.%) is three times higher than the concentration of V (4 at.%), explaining the observed suppression of the $`\alpha `$$``$$`\omega `$ transformation.

Conclusion – We determined the energy and location of point defects in $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ Ti and showed how they suppress the martensitic transformation. Interstitial O, N, and C occupy the octahedral interstitial sites in $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$ and transform into the octahedral and hexahedral interstitial sites in $`\omega `$. The interstitial impurities retard the transformation by increasing the transformation energy barrier while the substitutional impurities Al and V influence the barrier by changing the $`d`$-electron concentration. The effect of impurities on relative energies and energy barriers is central to understanding martensitic transformations.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by NSF and DOE. Computational resources were provided by the Ohio Supercomputing Center and NERSC. We thank G. T. Gray for helpful discussions.


text:
# Kinematic Properties of the TDG Candidates of CG J1720-67.8

## 1. Introduction

Tidal tails in interacting/merging systems are sites of super-star cluster and dwarf galaxy formation. The dense environment of compact galaxy groups offers an extraordinary chance to observe this phenomenon. Here I investigate the kinematics of the prominent tidal tail of the compact galaxy group CG J1720-67.8 through integral field spectra obtained at the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAO) and a long-slit spectrum, kindly provided by F. Kerber, obtained at the Magellan telescope (LCO). This study complements a previous analysis (Temporin et al. 2003a,b) of the TDG candidates identified in this group.

## 2. Properties of TDG candidates

*Kinematics and Dynamics–* The prominent tidal tail of CG J1720-67.8 shows a general trend of decreasing radial velocity from north to south with a maximum velocity difference of $`400`$ km s-1, as we found from descrete measurements of the clumps along it (Temporin et al. 2003a). The TDG candidate “3+9” at the northern tip of the tail (Fig. 1a) shows a steeper velocity gradient (Fig. 1b): 150 to 200 km s-1 on a projected extent of $``$ 5 kpc (H0 = 75 km s-1 Mpc-1). The long-slit spectrum taken across the southern/central part of the tail shows that beside the already observed general trend, there are local velocity gradients within individual TDG candidates (Fig. 1c). The lack of a continuous trend between adjacent clumps suggests that they might be kinematically distinct structures. The observed local velocity gradients, of order of 20 km s-1 kpc-1, are comparable to those found in other TDGs (Mendes de Oliveira et al. 2001).

*Evolutionary History–* A previous analysis of optical colors indicated a young burst age for the TDG candidates, in the range 7 to 20 Myr (Temporin et al. 2003b). By comparing the observations with SB99 models (Leitherer et al. 1999), I found a good agreement of optical/near-infrared colors and H$`\alpha `$ equivalent widths with instantaneous burst models of age 5.5 to 8.5 Myr, once a correction for internal extinction was applied. Extinction-corrected spectra are in good agreement with model spectra of age $``$ 6 Myr and total masses of order 107 M (Fig. 1d). All pieces of evidence suggest that these clumps have bursts much younger than their parent galaxies, for which ages of $``$ 40 to 180 Myr were estimated.

In *conclusion*, the photometric and spectroscopic properties of these tidal objects are in agreement with what expected for TDGs. Although projection effects might explain part of the observed local velocity gradients, kinematic data seem to indicate the presence of self-gravitation in the individual clumps.

### Acknowledgments.

I am grateful to F. Kerber for providing me with observations from the Magellan telescope. I acknowledge financial support by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under project P15065.

## References

Leitherer, C. et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 3

Mendes de Oliveira, C., Plana, H., Amram, P., Balkowski, C., & Bolte, M. 2001, AJ, 121, 2524

Temporin, S., Weinberger, R., Galaz, G., & Kerber, F. 2003a, ApJ, 584, 239

Temporin, S., Weinberger, R., Galaz, G., & Kerber, F. 2003b, ApJ, 587, 671


text:
# Spin Glasses: Model systems for non-equilibrium dynamics

## 1 Introduction

Dilute magnetic alloys exhibit a second order phase transition at concentrations of magnetic constituents well below the percolation limit. This transition - the spin glass transition - has since its discovery  caused a lot of research activities and provided us with new magnetic phenomena. The conspicuous sharp cusp and frequency dependence of the ac susceptibility is exemplified in figure 1 by measurements on the 3d Ising system $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$. In low field dc magnetisation experiments, the spin glass transition is revealed by a maximum in the zero field cooled (ZFC) magnetisation, an irreversibility between the ZFC and the field cooled (FC) magnetisation and a continuous decay of the thermo remanent (TRM) magnetistion to zero at the temperature where the irreversibility between the ZFC and FC magnetisation appears (see figure 2). Static and dynamic scaling analyzes of the critical behaviour support the occurrence of a second order phase transition for both 3d Ising and Heisenberg spin glasses. As to the dynamics, it is of certain interest to note that in contrast to ordinary ferro- or antiferromagnetic phase transitions, the character of the spin glass transition allows experimental determination of the critical slowing down exponent, $`z\nu `$, on the time scales of low frequency ac-susceptibility experiments. In addition, the low temperature spin glass phase owns intriguing non-equilibrium dynamics, which is the main subject of the current article.

## 2 Critical dynamics

Experimentally it has been amply demonstrated that both Ising and Heisenberg systems exhibit dynamic critical behavior on approaching the spin glass temperature $`T_g`$. Analyzes of data from low frequency ac-susceptibility experiments indicate a divergence of the relaxation time as the glass temperature is approached, with a critical exponent, z$`\nu `$, that is of order 8-10. However, when comparing results from different experimental systems, it is yet not possible to distinguish significantly different values of the exponents on systems of different spin dimensionality. To illustrate the behaviour we quote analyzes of the slowing down of the dynamics close to $`T_g`$ of the model Ising system $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$. The result of these studies is that the dynamic exponent z$`\nu `$ should be about 10 for the 3d Ising system. Quite similar values are also obtained from analyzes of measurements on dilute magnetic alloys (Heisenberg systems) as well as on strongly interacting magnetic nano particle systems  (super spin glasses ). It is striking to learn from these experiments that the disordered and frustrated spin glass allows studies of critical behavior at time scales and reduced temperatures that for a pure ferro- or antiferromagnetic system would reach far away from the critical region. One could then expect that the critical behaviour of spin glasses should yield very reliable and unambiguous results as to the values of the critical exponents and possible differences between systems of different universality class. This is however not the case, due to strong limitations in how close to the transition it is possible to perform meaningful experiments, the slowing down of the dynamics and entrance into nonergodic regions limit the studies to only order of 0.01 in reduced temperature. The conclusion from dynamic scaling analyzes is that there is a spin glass transition in zero applied magnetic field, but is this also true in an applied magnetic field?

### 2.1 In-field criticality?

To understand spin glasses one needs a useful and predictive modelling of the systems. There are two main approaches to describe spin glasses - starting from phase space (mean field models) and real space (droplet scaling models). The mean field model predicts a finite spin glass temperature and a persistence of the phase also in applied magnetic fields, the spin glass and the paramagnetic phase separated by the AT-line . The droplet scaling theory of 3d Ising spin glasses on the other hand predicts that in the thermodynamic limit, any finite magnetic field destroys the spin glass phase, i.e. the in-field thermodynamic equilibrium phase is paramagnetic. Within this picture, this does not imply that critical dynamics cannot be seen in weak enough magnetic fields. A crucial point in this model is the correspondence between time and length scales, i.e an experimental probe that measures at a certain frequency or time scale also probes the system on a length scale set by the observation time (and the temperature). A finite field sets an upper limit to the correlation length in the spin glass: On shorter length scales the system appears unaffected by the field and on larger length scales the system is at equilibrium (paramagnetic). The ac susceptibility measured at low fields is dynamically limited by the frequency, $`\omega `$, of the varying ac field and the susceptibility (at observation time, t=1/$`\omega `$) increases with decreasing frequency. At temperatures above the freezing temperature (cusp in the real part of the susceptibility), the susceptibility becomes frequency independent on lowering the frequency. When a dc field is superposed on the system, the ac-susceptibility is unaffected if the field is weak enough, however after a certain field magnitude, the susceptibility cusp becomes suppressed and the freezing temperature is pushed to lower temperatures. However, at lower temperatures, the ac-susceptibility remains unaffected, i.e. one cannot distinguish the in field from the zero field data (see figure 3). An analysis of the in-field slowing down of the dynamics of the 3d Ising spin glass $`Fe_{0.5}Mn_{0.5}TiO_3`$ suggests that critical slowing down does not describe the behavior and that the spin glass transition is destroyed by any magnetic field. It should in this context be mentioned that a careful study using torque magnetometery of the spin glass transition on systems with varying degree of anisotropy is supportive of the existence of an in-field phase transition for Heisenberg spin glasses. Such a difference between the in-field behaviour of Ising and Heisenberg systems is of course remarkable, and is not expected within a droplet scaling picture of the spin glass.

## 3 Non-equilibrium dynamics

At temperatures below the spin glass temperature, the zero field spin glass never reaches equilibrium, the equilibration time is infinite. Experiments on this phase are thus looking at a non-equilibrium system and the results are age dependent. The non-equilibrium character can be experimentally observed from an age dependence of the magnetic response. In certain temperature ranges the aging imposes a magnetic response of instructive and almost simplistic character. There is an inflection point in a plot of the magnetisation ($`M`$) relaxation vs log $`t`$ at an observation time equal to the wait time, $`t_w`$, before the application (or removal) of a weak magnetic field, and the relaxation rate ($`S(t)=(1/H)dM(t)/dlogt`$) exhibits a maximum at the same observation time. This behaviour reveals much of the physics behind the aging phenomenon in spin glasses and together with results from experiments according to somewhat altered thermal protocols it has been possible to relate effective aging times to the sizes of equilibrium spin glass domains. This length-time scale (droplet model) approach to the spin glass problem will be adopted below to interpret the non-equilibrium dynamics as measured in low frequency ac-susceptibility and dc-magnetic relaxation experiments.

The time scale for spin reversal of an atomic spin is about $`10^{13}`$ in spin glasses. On approaching the glass temperature, correlation between spins occurs on longer and longer length scales and the response time of the system diverges at $`T_g`$. At lower temperatures the response time again decreases according to critical slowing down, however, the random spin structure that is obtained after a quench is not compatible with the competing interaction pattern, and there is a slow restructuring of the system on larger and larger length scales. In terms of the droplet scaling model this is governed by thermal activation over an energy barrier that increases with decreasing temperature and the growth occurs logarithmically in time. However, the equilibrium configuration at one temperature is different from the equilibrium structure at any other temperature (temperature chaos).

### 3.1 Isothermal aging

Quenching the system from a temperature above $`T_g`$ to a measurement temperature may seem to be a simple procedure, but experimentally, quenching in a magnetometer implies cooling rates of only some kelvin per minute. This is of course a slow cooling compared to a spin flip time of only $`10^{13}`$ s. We are however fortunate in the sense that also experiments in a magnetometer system are confined to long time scales compared to the spin flip time. Figure 4 shows results from an isothermal aging experiment on an Ising and a Heisenberg system, plotted in the figure is the magnetisation relaxation and the relaxation rate vs. time after the field application in a semi-logarithmic diagram. Both systems show a maximum relaxation rate at a time of the order wait time before applying the magnetic field. A striking difference between the behaviour of the two systems is that the aging has a much larger influence on the relaxation of the Heisenberg system than of the Ising system. In the measured time window, the relaxation rate rises a factor of about 5 above an estimated equilibrium relaxation rate in the Ag(Mn) spin glass but only a factor less than 1 for the Ising system. Additionally, for both systems it does not matter at what temperature we choose to make our measurement, an aging behaviour is always observed. In fact, provided the temperature step is large enough, one can make two sequential stops at a higher and a lower temperature, and the observed aging at the lower temperature is the same as if the system was immediately cooled from above $`T_g`$ without the stop. The aging is non-accumulative in both systems, however a larger separation between the two temperatures is required for the Ising than the Heisenberg system.

### 3.2 Memory

The non-accumulative nature of the aging and a preserved memory of the cooling process is best illustrated by a zero field cooled magnetisation vs temperature experiment under two different cooling protocols. The behaviour was introduced already in figure 2, where the low field ZFC, FC and TRM magnetisation of the Ag(Mn) sample was plotted vs. temperature. The protocol including a stop at a certain temperature shows in the ZFC case a rather narrow dip that has a logarithmically increasing depth with increasing stop time. A corresponding, but rather more shallow and broader dip is observed in experiments on the Ising sample. A memory of the spin structure attained at the stop temperature is imprinted and preserved during the succeeding cooling-heating process. The understanding of the non-equilibrium dynamics may be further elucidated by low frequency ac-susceptibility using the same thermal protocol as in the here described dc-magnetisation studies. Using such studies, the temperature memory behaviour  was first explicitly reported by Jonason et al  in measurement of the out of phase component of the ac-susceptibility vs temperature on a $`CdCr_{1.7}In_{0.3}S_4`$ spin glass.

Using the functional form of the decay of the out-of-phase component of ac-susceptibility under isothermal aging at different temperatures and frequencies, a quantitative measure of the increasing spin glass domain size in a Ag(Mn) spin glass in terms of the droplet scaling model has recently been derived by Jönsson et al . One ingredient of the description of the aging behaviour that these and other experimental results imply is the existence of an overlap on short length scales between a spin glass domain structure developed at one temperature and the domain structure at a different temperature $`T_m+\mathrm{\Delta }T`$. The concept accounting for this is the overlap length , the validation and influence of which can be further studied by experiments after applying perturbations (temperature steps or cyclings) to the system after an aging period.

### 3.3 The overlap length and ghost domains

There is a quite extensive literature on the influence of perturbations (temperature, field or bond) on the spin glass dynamics both from the point of view of experiments and simulations. One recent theoretical development of the droplet model introducing the ghost domain concept  provides a visual illustration of how an original domain structure is recovered after a perturbation that intuitively should destroy any memory of the preceding aging process. The procedure and process are illustrated in figure 5 for bond perturbations on a 2d Mattis model. In terms of a temperature cycling experiment, the important features are: The system is first aged at a constant temperature and spin glass domains of ”up” and ”down” sign grow. After a wait time at this temperature, the temperature of the system is shifted and the system is allowed to evolve under these new conditions. At this temperature, domains starts to grow starting from the overlap length and having a completely different structure than the original domains on larger length scales. The temperature is then shifted back to the original one. However, at this temperature, a (ghost) pattern of the original domain structure remains and the perturbation is seen as patches of the wrong domain kind within the original domains. Keeping the system at this temperature, the patches are gradually washed away and simultaneously the original domains continue to grow. The experiments that reflect and promote that these kind of internal processes occur are magnetic relaxation and relaxation of the ac susceptibility recorded after the perturbation protocols.

## 4 Conclusions

The Non-equilibrium dynamics of spin glasses is generic to both Ising and Heisenberg systems, however with some significant differences in the detailed behaviour. In a recent article by F. Bert et al  a systematic study of the effects of perturbations on the aging behaviour of spin glasses with different anisotropy ranging from purely Ising to closely isotropic systems was reported. Also other magnetic systems show spin glass like non-equilibrium dynamics; characteristic of Ising systems is the critical dynamics  and memory behaviour  of a near mono dispersed interacting nano particle system, whereas certain features of the aging and memory behaviour of a high temperature superconductor showing the paramagnetic Meissner effect  are more Heisenberg like.

Financial support from the Swedish Research Council (VR) and the European Union programme RTN through the network DYGLAGEMEM is acknowledged. Recent collaboration with Petra Jönsson, Roland Mathieu and Hajime Yoshino has been especially important for the current article.

## References