text:
# On the effective Hamiltonian for QCD: An overview and status report

## 1 Introduction

This community has formed in 1991 at the first light-cone meeting in Heidelberg with the ambitious aim to solve the bound-state problem in gauge field theory particularly QCD.

How far did we get? Is it fair to say that we have not yet solved our homework problem?

However, the important contributions at this  and the last meeting  let expect a faster pace in the overseeable future. Over 80 participants show how alive the field continues to be even after 11 years. Its richness has become apparent last week. 13 speakers are alone in this session. I attempt therefore to combine an overview on the present session on “Effective Hamiltonians and chiral dynamics” with a review on effective interactions in general. This seems to be in place in view of the progress at this meeting, particularly on renormalization  and the possibility to solve instant form rather than front form equations  when working on the light cone.

## 2 Why working on the light-cone?

The Hamiltonian approach to a field theory was a no-go-topic for over fifty years. But combined with light-cone quantization and periodic boundary conditions , certain adventages inherent to the light-cone Hamiltonian approach were clear right from the outset, particularly

* the simple kinematical boosts and
* the simple vacuum properties.

This continues to be so. It was equally clear that a number of extremely difficult problems were on the road, among them zero modes, gauge invariance and gauge artifacts, the field theoretical many-body problem and Fock space truncation, non-perturbative renormalization, confinement, chiral phase transitions, just to name a few. Some of them have been solved, or better understood, as reviewed in .

What is the homework problem? Starting from the Lagrangian density $`_{\mathrm{𝑄𝐶𝐷}}`$, the light-cone approach to the bound-state problem aims at solving the eigenvalue equation

$$H_{LC}|\mathrm{\Psi }=M^2|\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(1)
If one disregards possible zero modes and works in the light-cone gauge, the (light-cone) Hamiltonian $`H_{LC}=P^\mu P_\mu `$ is a well defined Fock-space operator and given in . Its eigenvalues are the invariant mass-squares $`M^2`$ of physical particles associated with the eigenstates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. In general, they are superpositions of all possible Fock states with its many-particle configurations. For a meson, for example, holds

$`\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{meson}}& =& \underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)\hfill & |q\overline{q}\hfill \\ & +& \underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{gg}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)\hfill & |gg\hfill \\ & +& \underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}g}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)\hfill & |q\overline{q}g\hfill \\ & +& \underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}q\overline{q}}(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)\hfill & |q\overline{q}q\overline{q}\hfill \\ & +& \mathrm{}.\hfill & \end{array}`$

If all wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n(x_i,\stackrel{}{k}__i,\lambda _i)`$ are available, one can analyze hadronic structure in terms of quarks and gluons. For example, one can calculate the space-like form factor of a hadron quite straightforwardly by a sum of overlap integrals analogous to the corresponding non-relativistic formula .

## 3 What are possible alternatives?

This community tries hard to have a feedback to and from other fields and activities. All these approaches have their own virtues and merits. The adventages are usually emphasized by the proponents, and therefore I shall play the devils advocate passing them shortly review, with a sometimes over-critical attitude to make the point clear.

*Phenomenological models*. Practically all our knowledge on hadron structure comes from phenomenological models. The constituent quark model particularly continues to have great success. Phenomenological approaches usually do not address to the lighter mesons like the pion, but they are extremely succesfull for the heavier hadrons and for baryons. A particularly beautiful example was presented by Plessas . I do not care so much that his model has about twenty parameters, with only three of them fitted explicitly. Such work is a useful guideline to experiment. I dream of the day when front-form based work produces similar results. His work also shows the extreme difficulty to relate wave functions of constituents to actual cross sections.
*Chiral perturbation theory*. Leutwyler  demonstrates to which precision a well based formalism can be driven. To some extent this also holds for the similar NJL-models. I cannot quote the huge body of literature but I mention in passing that they are not renormalizable, that the relation to QCD is unclear, and that they deal mostly with the very light mesons. Heavy flavors cannot be treated, see also .
*Schwinger-Dyson approaches* are potentially able to cope with the bound-state problem. Roberts  emphasises the chiral aspects: Free quarks have the small current mass at large momentum, increasing to the large constituent mass at small momentum. Does this feature prevail in a bound state problem, and how?
*DLCQ and LC approaches*. Hiller  addresses to diagonalize by DLCQ the light-cone Hamiltonian in physical space-time (3+1). His renormalization à la Pauli-Villars yields promising results, but he needs a super-computer to produce them. He works in a truncated Fock space. But Ligterink  concludes that Fock-space suppression is less dangerous than believed, and both Mangin-Brinet  and Karmanov  report good stability of bound-state calculations in truncated spaces. The separation of soft and hard aspects by Schweiger  continue to be an important aspect of light-cone quantization.
*Technical problems*. Basis optimalization by Sugihara  and a new algorithm by van Iersel , applied here to the Yukawa model, are very important facets. In fact the break-through in non-perturbative renormalization by Frederico  and Frewer , and a new insight into the nature of Melosh-transforms by Krassnigg  represent progress on a technical level as well.

*Lattice Gauge Calculations* use practically all computer power in this world to generate a potential energy between quarks, but then a *non-relativistic* Schrödinger equation is used to calculate bound states . This is unsatisfactory. It is generally not known that LGC’s have considerable uncertainty to extrapolate their results down to such light mesons as a pion. It is equally unknown that lattice gauge calculations get  *always strict and linear confinement* even for QED, where we know the ionization threshold. The ‘breaking of the string’, or in a more physical language, the ionization threshold is one of the hot topics at the lattice conferences . Moreover, in order to get the size of the pion, thus the form factor, another generation of computers is required, as well as physicists to run them. Such considerations and the lacking perspectives on precision have motivated Wilson, among other, to quit.

*The new Wilson approach* to QCD is based almost entirely on the front form and renormalization group analysis . Walhout  gives an example for that. The original hope was to assemble the operators in an effective interaction according to their relevance with respect to the renormalization group. It is not unfair to state that not much of concrete hardcore technology has thus far emerged, despite the immense efforts over the years. In developing the formalism the similarity transform of Wilson and Glazek has played a major role . The basic idea is similar as in the preceding method *Hamiltonian flow* by Wegner . But as emphasized repeatedly by the latter, the similarity transform has a serious defect : As a built-in feature, it cannot account for the block structures in a gauge-field theoretical many-body Hamiltonian and therefore should be abandoned.

In conclusion, I believe that there is not much left than to proceed with the more conventional methods. In the sequel, I will briefly review only one of them, the method of iterated resolvents.

## 4 The method of iterated resolvents

Instead of diagonalizing the Hamiltonian by DLCQ, one might wish to reduce the many-body problem behind a field theory to an effective one-body problem. The derivation of the effective interaction becomes then the key issue.

Because of the inherent divergencies in a gauge field theory, the QCD-Hamiltonian in 3+1 dimensions must be regulated from the outset. One of the few practical ways is vertex regularization , where every Hamiltonian matrix element, particularly those of the vertex interaction (the Dirac interaction proper), is multiplied with a convergence-enforcing momentum-dependent function. It can be viewed as a form factor . The precise form of this function is unimportant here, as long as it is a function of a cut-off scale ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).

By definition, an effective Hamiltonian acts only in the lowest sector of the theory (here: in the Fock space of one quark and one anti-quark). And, again by definition, it has the same eigenvalue spectrum as the full problem. I have derived such an effective interaction by the method of iterated resolvents , that is by systematically expressing the higher Fock-space wave functions as functionals of the lower ones. In doing so the Fock-space is not truncated and all Lagrangian symmetries are preserved. The projections of the eigenstates onto the higher Fock spaces can be retrieved systematically from the $`q\overline{q}`$-projection, with explicit formulas given in .

Let me sketch the method briefly, details may be found in . DLCQ with its periodic boundary conditions has the advantage that the LC-Hamiltonian is a matrix with a finite number of Fock-space sectors, which we denumerate by $`n`$, with $`1<nN`$. The so called harmonic resolution $`K=LP^+/(2\pi )`$ acts as a natural cut-off of the particle number. As shown in Figure 1, $`K=3`$ allows for $`N=8`$, and $`K=4`$ for $`N=13`$ Fock-space sectors, for example. The Hamiltonian matrix is sparse: Most of the matrix elements are zero, particularly if one includes only the vertex interaction $`V`$. For $`n`$ sectors, the eigenvalue problem in terms of block matrices reads

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}i|H_n(\omega )|jj|\mathrm{\Psi }(\omega )=E(\omega )i|\mathrm{\Psi }(\omega ),`$ (2)
for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. I can always invert the quadratic block matrix of the Hamitonian in the last sector to define the $`n`$-space resolvent $`G_n`$, that is

$`G_n(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega H_n(\omega )}}.`$ (3)
Using $`G_n`$, I can express the projection of the eigenfunction in the last sector by

$`n|\mathrm{\Psi }(\omega )=G_n(\omega ){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}n|H_n(\omega )|jj|\mathrm{\Psi }(\omega ),`$ (4)
and substitute it in Eq.(2). I then get an effective Hamiltonian where the number is sectors is diminuished by 1:

$$H_{n1}(\omega )=H_n(\omega )+H_n(\omega )G_n(\omega )H_n(\omega ).$$
(5)
This is a recursion relation, which can repeated until one arrives at the $`q\overline{q}`$-space. The fixed point equation $`E(\omega )=\omega `$ determines all eigenvalues.

For the block matrix structure as in Figure 1, with its many zero matrices, the reduction is particularly easy and transparent. For $`K=3`$ one has a sequence of effective interactions:

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_8\hfill & =& T_8,\hfill & H_7\hfill & =& T_7+VG_8V,\hfill & \\ H_6\hfill & =& T_6+VG_7V,\hfill & H_5\hfill & =& T_5+VG_6V.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (8)
The remaining ones get more complicated, i.e.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}H_4\hfill & =& T_4+VG_7V+VG_7VG_6VG_7V,\hfill \\ H_3\hfill & =& T_3+VG_6V+VG_6VG_5VG_6V+VG_4V,\hfill \\ H_2\hfill & =& T_2+VG_3V+VG_5V,\hfill \\ H_1\hfill & =& T_1+VG_3V+VG_3VG_2VG_3V.\hfill \end{array}`$ (13)
For $`K=4`$, the effective interactions in Eq.(8) are different, see for example , but it is quite remarkable that they are the same in Eq.(13). In fact, the effective interactions in sectors 1-4 are independent of $`K`$: The *continuum limit $`K\mathrm{}`$ is then trivial*, and will be taken in the sequel.

In the continuum limit, the effective Hamiltonian in the $`q\overline{q}`$-space $`H_1=H_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}`$ is thus

$`\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_{\mathrm{𝑒𝑓𝑓}}\hfill & =& T\hfill & +\hfill & VG_3V\hfill & +\hfill & VG_3VG_2VG_3V,\hfill \\ & =& T\hfill & +\hfill & U_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟}}\hfill & +\hfill & U_{\mathrm{𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (16)
The effective interaction has two contributions: A flavor-conserving $`U_{\mathrm{𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟}}`$ and a flavor-changing piece $`U_{\mathrm{𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒}}`$. The flavor-changing interaction can not get active in flavor-off-diagonal mesons.

The dressed propagators in Eq.(16) and Figure 2 are exact. The iterated resolvents resum perturbative diagrams to all orders.

Their conversion to free propagators with effective vertices $`\alpha \overline{\alpha }(Q)`$, represented in Figure 3 by the thin lines and the open circles, respectively, is an approximation coupled with four well specified assumptions .

The wavy line in Figure 3 should not be mistaken as a single gluon exchange. The effective gluon corresponds to a particular resummation of infinitely many gluons.

Henceforward I deal only with the flavor conserving interaction.

## 5 The one-body equation

The effective one-body equation for flavor off-diagonal mesons (mesons with a different flavor for quark and anti-quark) becomes thus :

$`M^2\psi _{\lambda _1\lambda _2}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda _1^{},\lambda _2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^{}d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}}`$
$`\times U_{\lambda _1\lambda _2;\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})\psi _{\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}(x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})+`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}}\right]\psi _{\lambda _1\lambda _2}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{}),`$ (17)
an integral equation with the kernel

$`U_{\lambda _1\lambda _2;\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})={\displaystyle \frac{4\overline{m}_1\overline{m}_2}{3\pi ^2}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }(Q)}{Q^2}}\overline{R}(Q){\displaystyle \frac{S_{\lambda _1\lambda _2;\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})}{\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})}}}.`$ (18)
Here, $`M^2`$ is the eigenvalue of the invariant-mass squared. The associated eigenfunction $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }_{q\overline{q}}`$ is the probability amplitude $`x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};\lambda _1,\lambda _2|\psi `$ for finding a quark with momentum fraction $`x`$, transversal momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ and helicity $`\lambda _1`$, and correspondingly the anti-quark with $`1x`$, $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. The (effective) quark masses $`\overline{m}_1`$ and $`\overline{m}_2`$ and the (effective) coupling constant $`\overline{\alpha }`$ are given below. The mean Feynman-momentum transfer of the quarks is denoted by $`Q^2=Q^2(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})`$,

$`Q^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(k_1k_1^{})^2+(k_2k_2^{})^2\right],`$ (19)
the spinor factor $`S=S(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})`$ by

$`S_{\lambda _1\lambda _2;\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})=`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\overline{u}(k_1,\lambda _1)\gamma ^\mu u(k_1^{},\lambda _1^{})\right]\left[\overline{v}(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})\gamma _\mu v(k_2,\lambda _2)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\overline{u}(k_1,\lambda _1)\gamma ^\mu u(k_1^{},\lambda _1^{})\right]\left[\overline{u}(k_2,\lambda _2)\gamma _\mu u(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})\right],`$
since $`\overline{v}(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})\gamma _\mu v(k_2,\lambda _2)=\overline{u}(k_2,\lambda _2)\gamma _\mu u(k_2^{},\lambda _2^{})`$ holds as a general identity. One deals thus only with the $`u`$-spinors. Opposed to the earlier conventions  they are normalized in Eq.(5): $`\overline{u}(k,\lambda )u(k,\lambda ^{})=\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}.`$ The spinor factor S is tabulated explicitly in . The regulator function $`\overline{R}(x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{};\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ restricts the range of integration as function of some mass scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that Eq.(17) is a fully relativistic equation. I have derived essentially the same equation also with Wegner’s Hamiltonian flow equations, see .

## 6 Renormalization

The effective Hamiltonian in Eq.(17) depends on a regulator scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through three quantities.
First, it depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the effective quark masses $`\overline{m}_f\overline{m}_f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ which are hidden also in the Dirac spinors. They are given in Eq.(90) of  in terms of the bare $`\alpha `$ and $`m_f`$:

$`\overline{m}_f^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_f^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{n_c^21}{2n_c}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_g^2}}\right).`$ (21)
In the expression a second regularization parameter $`m_g`$ appears which conceptually is a kinematical gluon mass. The corresponding gluon mass diagram gives

$`\overline{m}_g^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_g^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}m_f^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{4m_f^2}},`$ (22)
see Eq.(91) of . The physical gluon mass must vanish due to gauge invarinace, thus $`\overline{m}_g=0`$, which expresses $`m_g`$ in terms of $`m_f`$.
Second, it depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the effective coupling $`\overline{\alpha }(Q)\overline{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$. The expression in Eq.(100) of  is rewritten here conveniently in terms of an arbitrary scale $`\kappa `$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{11n_c2n_f}{12\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\kappa ^2)`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11n_c}{12\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left((\mu _g^2+Q^2)/\kappa ^2\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left((\mu _f^2+Q^2)/\kappa ^2\right),`$
with $`\mu _f=2m_f`$ and $`\mu _g=2m_g`$.
Third, the Hamiltonian depends on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ through the regularization function which here is the soft cut-off

$`\overline{R}(Q)\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+Q^2}}.`$ (24)
The dependence on the unphysical parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be removed,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Lambda }}}H_{\mathrm{𝐿𝐶}}(\overline{m}(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\overline{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Lambda }),\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Lambda }))=0,`$ (25)
as required by renormalization theory, but how? The non-perturbative renormalization of $`H`$ was stuck for many years by the fact that the vertex function $`\overline{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ and the regulator $`\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are so intimately coupled in Eq.(17). It was always clear that one could add non-local counter terms , but it was utterly unclear how to construct them. The progress comes from the recent work on the $``$-model : Adding to $`\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$ a counterterm $`C(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$ and requiring that the sum $`R(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)=\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)+C(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$ be independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, determines $`C(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$. One remains with

$`R(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)=\overline{R}(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)+C(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}}.`$ (26)
In line with renormalization theory, one then can go to the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu `$ becomes a parameter of the theory.

The cut-off dependence in $`\overline{\alpha }(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)`$, Eq.(23), can then be removed by replacing the bare coupling constant $`\alpha `$ by the cut-off dependent running coupling constant $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, i.e.

$`\alpha _\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{6\pi }{11n_c2n_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa )}}.`$ (27)
The *renormalized* vertex function,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\alpha }(Q)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11n_c}{12\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left((\mu _g^2+Q^2)/\kappa ^2\right)`$ (28)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{12\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\mathrm{ln}\left((\mu _f^2+Q^2)/\kappa ^2\right),`$
does not depend explicitly on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and the scale $`\kappa `$ becomes an other parameter of the theory.

In completing renormalization for the masses, Eqs.(21) and (22) are first rewritten for $`n_c=3`$ as

$`\overline{m}_f^2`$ $`=`$ $`m_f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8m_f^2}{3\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}m_g/\kappa }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa }}\right)\alpha \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }},`$ (29)
$`m_g^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{2\pi }}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2m_f/\kappa }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa }}\right)\alpha \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }}.`$ (30)
Inserting the running coupling constant from Eq.(27) leaves us with

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{m}_f^2\hfill & =& m_f^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8m_f^2}{3\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi }{332n_f}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}m_g/\kappa }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa }}\right),\hfill \\ m_g^2\hfill & =& {\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi }{332n_f}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}2m_f/\kappa }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }/\kappa }}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$
Finally, I go to the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ and express the bare masses in terms of the dressed ones:

$`m_f^2={\displaystyle \frac{332n_f}{492n_f}}\overline{m}_f^2,m_g^2={\displaystyle \frac{3}{492n_f}}{\displaystyle \underset{f=1}{\overset{n_f}{}}}\overline{m}_f^2.`$ (32)
This completes the program of renormalization: For the first time, ever, the dependence on a cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has been removed completely from a field theoretical Hamiltonian. Notice that this step rests on the contributions  to this meeting.

## 7 The locking of the coupling constant

The Lagragian for QCD has 7 parameters: the 6 flavor quark masses $`m_f`$ and the coupling constant $`\alpha `$. The renormalized effective Hamiltonian has one parameter more: The 6 flavor masses $`\overline{m}_f`$, and the two scales $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$. This is in full accord with renormalization theory, since whatever the model, one has a scale at which one experiments.

The renormalized vertex function of Eq.(28) deserves some further discussion. Most importantly it has a *finite value at $`Q=0`$*. The coupling constant locks its-self, as one says.

One should think that $`\kappa `$ is entirely fixed by the coupling constant of measured at sufficiently high $`Q`$. But taking, as usual, the value $`\overline{\alpha }(M_Z)=0.118`$ at the Z mass $`M_Z=91.2\text{ GeV}`$, one observes a rather dramatic dependence of $`\kappa `$ on the number of flavors included:

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}n_f& \kappa & \alpha _0& \mu _g& \mu _b\\ & [\text{MeV}]& & [\text{MeV}]& [\text{MeV}]\\ 4& 153.1& 0.9566& 387.7& 336.7\\ 5& 87.84& 0.5446& 434.1& 359.6\\ 6& 45.33& 0.3848& 488.2& 467.2\end{array}`$ (38)
Changing $`n_f`$ from 4 to 6 changes $`\kappa `$ by a factor of 4! The dependence of $`\alpha _0\overline{\alpha }(0)`$ on $`n_f`$ is less pronounced even if one puts all flavor masses equal to $`\overline{m}_f=350\text{ MeV}`$, as done conveniently in Eq.(38). The corresponding functions $`\overline{\alpha }(Q)`$ are displayed in Figure 4. The $`n_f+1`$ parameters in Eq.(28) are unpleasant to work with and it is useful to introduce the approximate expression

$`\overline{\alpha }_b(Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\pi }{332n_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\left((\mu _b^2+Q^2)/\kappa ^2\right)}}.`$ (39)
The only parameter $`\mu _b`$ is fixed by $`\alpha _0`$ and given in Eq.(38) as well. As shown in Figures 4 and 5 by the dashed line, $`\overline{\alpha }_b(Q)`$ is almost un-discernible from $`\overline{\alpha }(Q)`$.

Using the more physical mass parameters from Eq.(53) produces

$`\begin{array}{ccccc}n_f& \kappa & \alpha _0& \mu _g& \mu _b\\ & [\text{MeV}]& & [\text{GeV}]& [\text{MeV}]\\ 4& 153.1& 0.4002& .9941& 1.007\\ 5& 87.88& 0.2133& 2.981& 4.099\\ 6& 75.23& .09844& 99.14& 685.8\end{array}`$ (45)
and the corresponding curves $`\overline{\alpha }(Q)`$ in Figure 5. Latest here I have to abandon my earlier conjecture  that a momentum-dependent vertex function could be related to confinement in any way. In fact, the above curves have so little structure that one can replace them in a bound state calculation by the constant $`\alpha _0`$. Henceforward I will give up thus $`\kappa `$ in favor of $`\alpha =\alpha _0`$ and change notation from $`\overline{m}_f`$ to $`m_f`$ .

## 8 The $``$-model as an application

In light-cone parametrization, the quarks are at relative rest when $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}=0`$ and $`x=\overline{x}m_1/(m_1+m_2)`$. For very small deviations from these equilibrium values the spinor matrix is proportional to the unit matrix, with

$`\lambda _1,\lambda _2|S|\lambda _1^{}\lambda _2^{}4m_1m_2\delta _{\lambda _1,\lambda _1^{}}\delta _{\lambda _2,\lambda _2^{}}.`$ (46)
For very large deviations from equilibrium, particularly for $`\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, holds

$`Q^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},\text{ and }\text{ }|S|2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}.`$ (47)
Both extremes are combined in the $``$-model :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{Q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}}+2R(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q),`$
$`\mathrm{with}R(\mathrm{\Lambda },Q)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}}.`$ (48)
It interpolates between two extremes: For small momentum transfer, the ‘2’ generated by the hyperfine interaction is unimportant and the dominant Coulomb aspects of the first term prevail. For large momentum transfers the Coulomb aspects are unimportant and the 2 dominates. Eq.(17) therefore is replaced by

$`M^2\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1x}}\right]\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dx^{}d^2\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{}}{\sqrt{x(1x)x^{}(1x^{})}}}\psi (x^{},\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{})\times `$ (49)
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{4m_1m_2}{Q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2}{\mu ^2+Q^2}}\right),`$
where $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})x,\stackrel{}{k}_{};,|\psi `$. With the canonical 8 parameters of the $``$-model ,

$`\begin{array}{cccccccc}\alpha & \mu & m_u& m_d& m_s& m_c& m_b& m_t\\ 0.690& 1.33& 406& 406& 508& 1.67& 5.05& 174\\ & \text{GeV}& \text{MeV}& \text{MeV}& \text{MeV}& \text{GeV}& \text{GeV}& \text{GeV},\end{array}`$ (53)
all masses of the physical mesons have been calculated according to Eq.(49). They are compiled in Table 1. The empirical masses are compiled in Table 2. The agreement between the two is amazing. To the best of my knowledge there is no other model which can describe  *all mesons* quantitatively from the $`\pi `$ up to the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ from a common point of view, which here is QCD.

The proposed pion of the $``$-model is rather different from the pions in the literature. I have found no evidence that the vacuum condensates are important, but I conclude that the pion is describable by a QCD-inspired theory: The very large coupling constant in conjunction with a very strong hyperfine interaction makes it a ultra strongly bounded system of constituent quarks. More then 80 percent of the constituent quark mass is eaten up by binding effects. No other physical system has such a property.

The numerical wavefunction $`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ can be fitted with only one free parameter, i.e.

$`\psi (x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩}{\sqrt{x(1x)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\left(2x1\right)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4x(1x)m^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\left(2x1\right)^2+\stackrel{}{k}_{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{4x(1x)p_a^2}}\right)^2}},`$ (54)
with $`p_a=1.338m`$ . The explicite form of the wavefunction can used to calculate the form factor and thus the exact root-mean-square radius $`r^2=6dF_2(Q^2)/dQ^2|_{Q^2=0}`$ analytically . The size of the $`q\overline{q}`$ wavefunction turns out as $`r^2=(0.33\text{ fm})^2`$, half as large as the empirical value $`r^2_{\mathrm{exp}}=(0.67\text{ fm})^2`$.

The parameter $`p_a=1.338m`$ in Eq.(54) plays the role of an effective Bohr momentum of the constituents in the pion. The mean momentum of the constituents is thus 40 percent larger than their mass, which means that they move highly relativistically quite in contrast to the constituents of atoms or nuclei. No wonder that potential models thus far have failed for the pion.

This completes one of my goals: I have a pion with the correct mass, and I have an analytic expression for its light-cone wave function. Eq.(54) could be used thus as a baseline for calculating the higher Fock-space amplitudes, as explained in . It could well be that the wavefunction obtained from such a simple model suffices already to be consistent with recent experiments .

## 9 Discussion: Front or instant form?

Eq.(17) is a frame frame-independent, covariant, and fully relativistic front-form equation, with certain boosts being kinematic and trivial . One pays for these advantages with the fact that the transversal components for total angular momentum $`\stackrel{}{J}=\stackrel{}{L}+\stackrel{}{S}`$ (the spin $`\stackrel{}{S}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)`$ is not to be confused with the spinor factors $`S`$) are complicated dynamical operators in the front form, see for example . Only $`J_z`$ is simple and kinematic. The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of Eq.(17) can thus not be labeled with $`J`$. Despite this, Trittmann and Pauli , in their numerical solution of the QED-version of Eq.(17) for different $`J_z`$, have done so by using the standard (non-relativistic) spectroscopic terms $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{J_z}`$. By inspection of the numerical results they found that the eigenvalues can be arranged in multiplets which are ($`2J+1`$)-fold degenerate modulo numerical accuracy. The authors could not find a plausible answer for that in terms of the light-cone formalism.

Now, we seem understand that better. In the contribution to this session, Krassnigg  shows that there exists a unitary tranformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which transforms the typical combination of Lepage-Brodsky spinors in Eq.(17) to an other combination with only Bjørken-Drell spinors.

Unitary transfomartions do not change the eigenvalue and Eq.(17) is identically transcribed to an equation for the reduced wave function $`\phi _{s_1s_2}(\stackrel{}{k})`$, which reads for equal masses

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & \left[M^24\left(m^2+\stackrel{}{k}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\right)\right]\phi _{s_1s_2}(\stackrel{}{k})\hfill & \\ & =\hfill & {\displaystyle \underset{s_1^{},s_2^{}}{}}{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{k}^{}\stackrel{~}{U}_{s_1s_2;s_1^{}s_2^{}}(\stackrel{}{k};\stackrel{}{k}^{})\phi _{s_1^{}s_2^{}}(\stackrel{}{k}^{})}.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (57)
Since the spinors $`u(k,s)`$ in the kernel

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & \stackrel{~}{U}_{s_1s_2;s_1^{}s_2^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{8m}{3\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\alpha }(Q)}{Q^2}}R(Q)\times \hfill & \\ & & \left[\overline{u}(k_1,s_1)\gamma ^\mu u(k_1^{},s_1^{})\right]\left[\overline{u}(k_2,s_2)\gamma _\mu u(k_2^{},s_2^{})\right],\hfill & \end{array}`$ (60)
by definition are Bjørken-Drell spinors, one can not recognize the front-form orign of this equation, see  for further details. They are a set of four coupled integral equations in the usual momentum space. Formally spoken, they are instant-form equations in the rest frame, and, by inspection, they are invariant under spatial rotations. Its eigenfunctions can therefore be labeled as $`\phi _{J(L)S}`$, as usual, with eigenvalues $`M_{J(L)S}^2`$ being ($`2J+1`$)-fold strictly degenerate multiplets.

These aspects can also be reversed. Suppose that some phenomenological model yields momentum space wavefunctions $`\phi _{s_1s_2}(\stackrel{}{k})`$. The transformations in , which lead to Eq.(57), can be inverted and used to generate light-cone wave functions $`\psi _{\lambda _1\lambda _2}(x,\stackrel{}{k}_{})`$ with helicities $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$. These can be used then as a reasonable approximation in existing formulas for the cross-sections.

## 10 Perspectives

The light-cone community has not yet solved its homework problem, but it has gone a long way: (1) The role of zero modes and vacuum structure is better understood. (2) Effective interactions can be formulated and even renormalized. (3) Bound-state wavefunctions can be calculated with a technical effort comparable to or less than in the instant form. (4) Simple models can generated which are not in conflict with experiments. (5) Last not least, much of the work can be done analytically.
Despite the limited progress one should not be discouraged from continued efforts on the homework problem. After all, the Hamiltonian approach to *any* field theory an in *any* form has been disrupted in 1949 when Feynmans action oriented approach did appear on the scene.

Not solved are the aspects of confinement. At present one does not understand its orign. Not solved are also the aspects of the chiral phase transition. But one should emphasize that the solution to the bound-state problem takes place at temperature zero, possibly after a phase transition. Due to the fit to experiment, quark masses are finite and actually large. The present approach thus can not contribute to question like “What happens if quark masses vanish?” It starts where other approaches end.

In QED, hyperfine interactions and the Lamb shift are comparable in size. For QCD, the importance of the hyperfine interaction has been quantified by the $``$-model, but the Lamb shift is a completely open question.

In QED, the Lamb shift arises by a photon in flight moving relative to the hydrogen bound-state. That alone suffices to give part of the answer for QCD, by Eq.(16). Going to the diagonal representation gives

$`U_{\mathrm{𝐿𝑎𝑚𝑏}}=VG_3V={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}V|n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega M_n^2}}n|V`$ (61)
The symbol $`_n`$ refers to a summation (or integration) over all meson states and gluon states. The invariant mass squared

$`M_n^2={\displaystyle \frac{M_b^2+q_{}^2}{1y}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q_{}^2}{y}}`$ (62)
corresponds to a free colored gluon with longitudinal momentum fraction $`y`$ and transversal momentum $`\stackrel{}{q}_{}`$. It moves back to back to a colored meson bound-state of mass $`M_b`$. We have not much of an idea on the bound-state spectrum of colored mesons, neither experimentally nor theoretically. We dont even know, whether such mesons are bound at all, but I see no immediate objection why one could not give it a try by the above methods, particularly a suitably adjusted $``$-model.

I conclude that the calculation of the Lamb shift in QCD is an interesting and important problem particularly for the pion. Can we challenge the lattice community to get help on that?


format: text

text:
# Cabibbo suppressed decays and the Ξ_𝑐⁺ lifetime

## Abstract

The problem of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime is considered in the framework of Heavy-Quark Expansion and $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ symmetry. The lifetime of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ is expressed in terms of measurable inclusive quantities of the other two charmed baryons belonging to the same $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ multiplet in a model-independent way. In such a treatment, inclusive decay rates of singly Cabibbo suppressed decay modes have a prominent role. An analogous approach is applied to the multiplet of charmed mesons yielding interesting predictions on $`D_s^+`$ properties. The results obtained indicate that a more precise measurement of inclusive decay quantities of some charmed hadrons (such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$) that are more amenable to experiment can contribute significantly to our understanding of decay properties of other charmed hadrons (such as $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$) where discrepancies or ambiguities exist.

Cabibbo suppressed decays; Heavy-Quark Expansion; Inclusive decays; $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$; Lifetimes of charmed baryons

The investigation of inclusive decays and lifetimes of hadrons containing heavy quarks review  is already a mature subject with many fruitful applications and numerous significant achievements. The fusion of the Operator Product Expansion (OPE) techniques developed in the nineties 90  with the phenomenological insights of the eighties 80  has created a consistent framework known as Heavy-Quark Expansion (HQE), within which one can systematically treat inclusive decays of heavy quarks and hadrons containing them. A host of experimental data, first on $`c`$ hadron decays and then, with the advent of $`B`$ factories, on $`b`$ decays, have made possible a comparison of experimental and theoretical results and revealed broad agreement with several notable exceptions 111Like the still present problem of the $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_b^0)/\tau (B_d^0)`$ ratio or the recently escalating problem of the $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)/\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ ratio.. Addressing these discrepancies has become one of the most important tasks in heavy-quark physics, given that data extracted from inclusive weak decays represent an essential input in research of fundamental questions of the Standard Model (such as CP violation) or its extensions. Increasing quantity and quality of experimental data opens new directions in treating inclusive weak decays which may contribute to the resolution of existing problems. Consideration of inclusive weak decay rates of Cabibbo suppressed modes as individual objects (not only as a small correction to inclusive weak decay rates of Cabibbo dominant modes) supported by the application of standard symmetries (such as $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ or Heavy-Quark Symmetry (HQS)) traces along one of these directions.

As the HQE depends crucially on the heaviness of the decaying heavy quark, the predictions are more reliable in the sector of $`b`$ hadrons than in the sector of $`c`$ hadrons. Nevertheless, rather acceptable predictions of lifetime hierarchies and lifetime ratios were obtained in the sector of charmed hadrons too. Furthermore, very reasonable agreement was achieved in the sector of singly-charmed baryons GM ; PDG2000 . However, recent measurements of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime by FOCUS focus  and CLEO cleo  collaborations indicate substantial discrepancy between new experimental data and the presently available theoretical result GM ; Bigi :

$`\left(\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)/\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)\right)_{FOCUS}`$ $`=`$ $`2.29\pm 0.14,`$
$`\left(\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)/\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)\right)_{CLEO}`$ $`=`$ $`2.8\pm 0.3,`$
$`\left(\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)/\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)\right)_{th}`$ $``$ $`1.3.`$ (1)
The results displayed above show that there is a difference by a factor of $`2`$ between experiment and theory. It is reasonable to pose a question whether the HQE can correctly describe lifetimes of singly-charmed baryons. The new experimental data on the lifetime of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ are certainly out of reach of the calculations performed so far. However, experimental data for other singly-charmed, weakly-decaying baryons ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$) are consistent with theoretical calculations of GM . However, as the data on the lifetimes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c^0`$ are presently of marginal quality, it is not excluded that future updates of these lifetimes might disturb the agreement in the case of these baryons, too. The theoretical procedure is based on some assumptions (e.g., calculation of four-quark operator matrix elements in a nonrelativistic quark model) that may limit its explanatory power in the case of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$. Therefore, it is justified to investigate if a theoretical procedure based on the HQE with relaxed assumptions of analysis GM  can be formulated so that it might explain new experimental results. To this end, one must invoke Cabibbo suppressed modes of decay as a new source of information.

Let us begin our analysis with a brief discussion about the inclusive weak decay rate. The principal result of the HQE is the expression for any inclusive weak decay rate of a heavy hadron given as a series of matrix elements of local operators with the inverse mass of the decaying heavy quark as an expansion parameter:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H_Qf)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F^2m_Q^5}{192\pi ^3}}V^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_{H_Q}}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{D=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_D^f{\displaystyle \frac{H_QO_DH_Q}{m_Q^{D3}}}\right],`$
where $`D`$ denotes the canonical dimension of the local operator $`O_D`$. The coefficients $`c_D`$ are calculated perturbatively (therefore given as a series in $`\alpha _S`$). $`V`$ stands for a product of CKM matrix elements appearing in a given weak decay mode. For the sake of practical calculations, one has to truncate the series at some point in the series hoping that the disregarded remainder of the series does not contribute significantly to the final result. The quality of such an approximation depends on the magnitude of the expansion parameter, i.e., on the speed of convergence of the series. The underlying hypothesis is that the inclusive hadron decay rates can be described by calculating the inclusive quark decay rates – the ansatz known as quark-hadron duality. The ansatz is not trivially obvious as one can see by inspection of the leading term in (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime). The decay rate is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{dec}m_Q^5`$ and this expression has, prima facie, nothing to do with the hadrons in the final states. This is, however, misleading since the summation of hadronic widths of different channels agrees with the widths computed at the quark level 222As nicely demonstrated in $`(1+1)`$-dimensional QCD 11QCD1 ; 11QCD2 ; Shifmandual .. Another problem stems from the matrix elements appearing in the expansion. They are dominated by nonperturbative dynamics and therefore so far there has been no systematic way of calculating them. The matrix elements of several operators of the lowest dimensions can be determined by applying Heavy-Quark Effective Theory (HQET), lattice QCD, or, in some cases, extracted from the lepton energy spectra, but the matrix elements of some operators essential for understanding lifetime differences of heavy hadrons (e.g., four-quark operators) are still not generally calculable in such a manner, but one must recourse to quark models, which introduces the undesirable feature of model dependence. A further source of uncertainty is the heavy-quark mass $`m_Q`$. Since in the leading order the inclusive weak decay rate depends on the fifth power of $`m_Q`$, very small uncertainties in the determination of this mass parameter can lead to a significant uncertainty in the inclusive weak decay rate. Finally, using a truncated expression instead of the entire series raises the possibility of violation of quark-hadron duality Shifmandual ; BUdual , which emerges as another possible source of contributions beyond the present theoretical control.

The OPE was originally formulated for deep Euclidean kinematics and its net effect was to factorize perturbative short-distance physics (Wilson coefficients) from soft, nonperturbative one (matrix elements). On the other hand, the quark-hadron duality is the concept dealing exclusively with Minkowskian dynamics 333 Therefore, it cannot be studied in lattice QCD, which is essentially a numerical Euclidean approach.. It appears that the small corrections that one safely neglects in the Euclidean regime often turn out to be enhanced in the Minkowski regime Shifmandual ; BUdual . The Wilson coefficients themselves are generally not free of nonperturbative (nonlogarithmic) terms. They are generated, e.g., by small-size instantons Shifmandual . Similarly, perturbative corrections appear in the soft physics of matrix elements. Generally, the truncation of the series (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) in $`\alpha _s`$ and condensate terms is known to be necessary since both series are factorially divergent Mueller . Therefore, a “practical” calculation at any given order $`\alpha _s^m`$ and $`m_Q^n`$ will have a “natural uncertainty” coming from the higher-order terms $`\alpha _s^{m+1}`$ and $`m_Q^{(n+1)}`$. The “natural uncertainty” also includes the ordinary uncertainties like the uncertainties in quark masses, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, etc. The uncertainties beyond this “natural uncertainty” are considered to be violations of quark-hadron duality.

Resolutions of the problems stated above presumably lead to the explanation of discrepancies between present experimental and theoretical results. Since the contributions of higher-dimensional operators, uncertainties in matrix elements and $`m_Q`$ as well as effects of duality violation are all intertwined in the full expression for the weak decay rate, it is very difficult to distinguish precisely which of these factors causes the problem and should be improved accordingly. One possible strategy is to eliminate or reduce the importance of all (in practice as many as possible) factors but one in order to test the influence of the remaining factor. In this paper we adopt this strategy and implement it using symmetries in multiplets of heavy hadrons. Investigations along similar lines (connecting the charmed with the beauty sector) were performed in Vol ; GMS1 ; GMS2 .

The standard procedure of truncating the series (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) is to keep operators of dimensions 3 (decay operator) and 5 (chromomagnetic operator) 444there are no operators of dimension 4 owing to color-gauge invariance, which are insensitive to the light-quark content of the heavy hadron (at least on the quark-gluon operator level). Operators of dimension 6, which are sensitive to flavors of light quarks (four-quark operators), also have to be kept in order to describe lifetime differences within multiplets of heavy hadrons. The effects of four-quark operators (clearly presented in GM ) are traditionally referred to as W-exchange, positive and negative Pauli interference in baryons, and W-annihilation, W-exchange, and negative Pauli interference in mesons. We shall adopt this procedure along with the assumption of $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ symmetry at the level of matrix elements. The validity of this assumption and its influence on the final result will be discussed below.

We start by expressing decay rates of individual Cabibbo modes for singly-charmed baryons within the framework that we have set. As already mentioned, operators of dimension 3 and 5 are insensitive to the light-(anti)quark content of a heavy hadron. Nevertheless, their coefficients comprise a phase-space correction coming from the fact that some of the resulting quarks in the decay of a heavy quark have a nonnegligible mass compared with the heavy-quark mass. Thus, contributions of operators of dimensions 3 and 5 have slightly different values in the treatment of various Cabibbo modes of the decay of the heavy quark. In the case of $`c`$ quark decays, these corrections are generally not large and we shall neglect them in our initial treatment. Their effect will be taken into account in the discussion of our results. The assumption of $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ symmetry guarantees that the matrix elements of operators of dimension 3 and 5 are the same for all hadrons in any $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ multiplet of heavy hadrons. These approximations allow us to describe the contribution of the aforementioned operators with a single quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}`$ in all Cabibbo modes, for all members of the multiplet, up to the product of the CKM matrix elements specific for every individual Cabibbo mode. The coefficients of four-quark operators also include phase-space corrections owing to the massive particles in the final state of the decay of the heavy quark. In this case, however, these corrections are at the percent level and can be safely disregarded in $`c`$ quark decays. The contributions of these operators of dimension 6 for the case of baryons can then be expressed in terms of several parameters (under the assumption of $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ symmetry) related to the aforementioned types of four-quark effects: W-exchange ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch}`$), negative Pauli interference ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint}`$), and positive Pauli interference ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}`$), again up to the CKM matrix elements. Analogous claims are valid in the case of charmed meson decays. We should emphasize that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s are conveniently chosen combinations of products of coefficients and operator matrix elements which appear in expressions for the inclusive weak decay rates of all Cabibbo modes. As we do not engage in a direct calculation of matrix elements, all these matrix elements can be taken as determined at the same scale $`\mu `$, i.e., there is no need for the hybrid renormalization in the case of four-quark operators. One needs to know nothing else about the matrix elements of the operators. In such a suitably defined theoretical environment one can express inclusive decay rates in a straightforward manner. The decay rates for nonleptonic modes are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint}`$ (3)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint}`$ (4)
for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch}`$ (5)
for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$. For the decay rates of the semileptonic modes one obtains ($`l=e,\mu `$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}^{SL}`$ (6)
for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}^{SL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}`$ (7)
for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}{|V_{cs}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}^{SL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}{|V_{cd}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{posint}^{SL}`$ (8)
for $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$. One can introduce the following notation for the CKM matrix elements: $`|V_{cs}|^2=|V_{ud}|^2=(\mathrm{cos}\theta _c)^2c^2`$ and $`|V_{cd}|^2=|V_{us}|^2=(\mathrm{sin}\theta _c)^2s^2`$. Combining relations from (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) and (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)\right)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^4}{c^4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ (9)
for the nonleptonic decay rates and from (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), and (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)+\frac{s^2}{c^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0))$$
(10)
for the semileptonic decay rates, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(X)`$, $`X=\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+,\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$. Expressions (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) and (10) show that all contributions to the total inclusive weak decay rate of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ are expressed in terms of some of the analogous contributions of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$. In this way, we have succeeded in expressing the lifetime of a “problematic” baryon $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ in terms of quantities of “nonproblematic” baryons $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$. If we introduce the notation

$$BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TOT}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)},$$
(11)
the final expression (after neglecting all terms $`s^4`$) for the ratio specified in (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)}{\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}}`$ $`=`$ $`[1+(2+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}})BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ (12)
$`+2(1{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{c^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)}{\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)}}BR_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)+2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{c^2}})BR_{SL}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)]^1.`$
This type of analysis can be extended to the sector of charmed mesons. The hierarchy of charmed meson lifetimes is in general well understood in the framework of the HQE Bigi95 , although some disrepancies exist that motivate alternative approaches Nussinov  and raise corresponding controversies Bigi2001 . We shall pursue our analysis in the framework of HQS and perform a model-independent analysis. This analysis, apart from its intrinsic value as a contribution to the understanding of charmed meson lifetimes, can also be a testing ground of our approach because of a higher quality of available experimental data for charmed mesons. Therefore, we conduct our analysis on a $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ antitriplet of charmed mesons. The inclusive weak decay rates for individual Cabibbo nonleptonic decay modes are ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s used in the mesonic case are different from those used in the baryonic case although the notation is very similar)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(D^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ann}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(D^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ann}`$ (13)
for $`D^+`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(D^0)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D^0)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D^0)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(D^0)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exch}`$ (14)
for $`D^0`$, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(D_s^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ann},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D_s^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ann}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D_s^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{ud}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(D_s^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2|V_{us}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{negint}`$ (15)
for $`D_s^+`$. For the decay rates of the semileptonic modes one obtains ($`l=e,\mu `$)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(D^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(D^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ann}^{SL}`$ (16)
for $`D^+`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(D^0)}{|V_{cs}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(D^0)}{|V_{cd}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}`$ (17)
for $`D^0`$, and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(D_s^+)}{|V_{cs}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ann}^{SL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(D_s^+)}{|V_{cd}|^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{35}^{SL}`$ (18)
for $`D_s^0`$. Combining relations from (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) and (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(D_s^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D^+)\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(D^+),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D_s^+)`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D_s^+)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D^+),`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{s}u}(D_s^+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s^4}{c^4}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{d}u}(D^+)`$ (19)
for the nonleptonic decay rates and from (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) and (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D_s^+)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^0)+\frac{c^2}{s^2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^0))$$
(20)
for the semileptonic decay rates, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(X)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{l}\nu _l}(X)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{l}\nu _l}(X)`$, $`X=D^+,D^0,D_s^+`$. Expressions (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) and (20) show that all contributions to the total inclusive weak decay rate of $`D_s^+`$ are expressed in terms of some of the analogous contributions of $`D^+`$ and $`D^0`$. Let us comment briefly on the findings of slCher ; slShif ; slVol  which indicate that the HQE could not reproduce semileptonic inclusive widths of charmed mesons. Let us point out that although the expressions for semileptonic inclusive decay widths are calculated using the HQE, the relations among them (such as (20)) simply state that inclusive semileptonic widths for all three charmed mesons are very close, which is satisfied very well experimentally PDG2000 . Therefore, the possibility that the HQE does not describe semileptonic inclusive widths ideally (although contributions of higher dimensional operators should be investigated before making this statement definite) does not bare a consequence on our final results which depend only on the relations among semileptonic decay widths. If we introduce the notation

$$BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(D^+)=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cs\overline{s}u}(D^+)+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{cd\overline{d}u}(D^+)\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TOT}(D^+)},$$
(21)
we obtain the following final expression (after neglecting terms $`s^4`$) for the ratio of lifetimes of $`D^+`$ and $`D^0`$ mesons

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\tau (D^+)}{\tau (D_s^+)}}(1BR_\tau (D_s^+))`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}}\right)BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(D^+)`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\tau (D^+)}{\tau (D^0)}}BR_{SL}(D^0)+2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}}\right)BR_{SL}(D^+),`$
where $`BR_\tau (D_s^+)`$ denotes the branching ratio of the leptonic $`D_s^+\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$ decay 555This mode contributes significantly only to the decays of the $`D_s^+`$ meson and therefore cannot be related to the analogous decay rates of other members of the $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ multiplet..

Once we have obtained the results (12) and (22), we can clearly see their theoretical and experimental appeal. These relations have an intrinsic value since they express the lifetime of one charmed hadron in terms of measurable quantities of other two charmed hadrons belonging to the same $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ multiplet. This result represents exploitation of advantages of the HQE at a new deeper level. The approach that leads to (12) and (22) also suppresses some of the problems referred to in the introduction. Let us briefly discuss these problems in the light of our approach.

The problem of convergence seems rather important in charmed baryon decays. The operators of the lowest dimension in (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), which are neglected in our approach, are some operators of dimension 6 (which are insensitive to the light content of the heavy hadron) followed by the operators of dimension 7 and higher. In our approach, all operators that are insensitive to the light content of heavy hadrons give the same contribution to the inclusive weak decay rate of each Cabibbo mode (up to the CKM matrix elements) and for every hadron within a given $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ multiplet. If we look at the relations (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (10), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), and (20) as relations between exact inclusive weak decay rates for individual Cabibbo modes (and not only as approximations with several lowest dimensional operators), we can see that contributions of all light-flavor insensitive operators (of any dimension) get cancelled. Thus, these relations are correct up to the contributions of higher light-flavor sensitive operators. Since apart from four-quark operators there are other operators of dimension 6 in (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime) but they are all light-flavor insensitive, the aforementioned relations get the first correction from those operators of dimension 7 (or higher) which are light-flavor sensitive. Therefore, relations (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (10), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), and (20) are in the form that ameliorates the convergence issue.

The phase-space corrections represent corrections which are different in various Cabibbo modes, depending on the number of massive quarks in the final state. Still, relations (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (10), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), and (20) are in such a form that the effect of phase space is significantly reduced. Let us consider the first equation of (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime): the sum of decay rates of two modes with one $`s`$ quark in the final state equals (up to the CKM matrix elements) the sum of decay rates of modes with two and zero $`s`$ quarks in the final state. Numerical values of the phase-space corrections to operators of dimensions 3 and 5 Bigi95  indicate that the sum of corrections for two $`s`$ quarks and zero $`s`$ quarks in the final state is very close to the double correction for one $`s`$ quark in the final state. The effects of phase-space corrections largely cancel. A similar situation appears in all other relations in (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (10), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), and (20). Therefore, inclusion of phase-space corrections does not notably worsen the accuracy of the aforementioned relations.

The problem of calculating matrix elements is in our approach completely avoided. From the span of lifetimes of charmed hadrons PDG2000  it is clear that four-quark operators must play a very prominent role. Since, in contradistinction to operators of dimension 3 and 5, the matrix elements of four-quark operators cannot be calculated in a model-independent way, it is clear that even a modest inaccuracy in their determination may lead to significant deviations from the correct result. Moreover, a recent analysis Voloshin  indicates that there might exist serious deviations from some standard approximations, such as the valence quark approximation. Evading these pitfalls is one of the greatest advantages of our approach.

Another advantage is that all crucial relations in this paper do not depend on the heavy quark mass $`m_Q`$ in the case when the assumed symmetries apply. In the realistic case, the form of relations (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), (10), (Cabibbo suppressed decays and the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime), and (20) reduces the dependence of results on $`m_Q`$ significantly (to the level of breaking of underlying symmetries).

Finally, there remains the assumption on $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ symmetry. The effects of breaking of this symmetry were analyzed in GM . From that analysis one can conclude that the effects of $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ breaking are generally less than $`30\%`$ and probably significantly smaller. Therefore, we expect the same level of accuracy in our treatment, too.

After the discussion of theoretical advantages and limitations of our approach there remains an important problem of confrontation of theoretical findings with experimental values. From the final relation for baryons (12) and mesons (22) it is evident that theoretical predictions depend on the branching ratios of the singly Cabibbo suppressed nonleptonic modes $`BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ and $`BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(D^+)`$, respectively. These values are not available from experiment and their determination represents a crucial step in numerical analysis. An estimate of these quantities can be obtained indirectly from exclusive modes and depends on the quality of data for these modes. From the flavor quantum numbers of the final decay products in heavy-hadron decays one can determine which Cabibbo mode governed that particular decay at the quark level. The only exceptions are the modes $`cs\overline{s}u`$ and $`cd\overline{d}u`$ which lead to the final hadronic state with the same flavor quantum numbers. However, this fact does not pose a problem since in all expressions the decay rates of these two modes appear in the form of sum and therefore there is no need to make difference between them. From the flavor quantum numbers of the final states of any particular exclusive mode one can determine whether it was governed by the Cabibbo dominant, singly Cabibbo suppressed, or doubly Cabibbo suppressed nonleptonic modes at the quark level. An analogous conclusion follows for semileptonic decays. It is, therefore, possible to obtain a decay rate for any Cabibbo inclusive mode (all decay channels coming from the same Cabibbo mode at the quark level) by summing the decay rates of associated exclusive modes. In performing this procedure one encounters the effect of quantum interference. Namely, different final states originating from the same quark decay mode can mix owing to final state strong interactions. The most notable manifestation of this effect is that summing of the branching ratios of all exclusive modes taken from PDG2000  can lead to a result well over $`100\%`$ (e.g., for $`D^0`$ or $`D^+`$). To minimize this effect, we invoke the following procedure: we calculate the inclusive decay rate of singly Cabibbo suppressed modes by summing the decay rates of all appropriate exclusive decay modes; then we calculate the total decay rate by summing decay rates of all exclusive modes and then divide the two numbers to obtain the wanted ratio. Using the sum of all exclusive modes instead of the measured lifetime for the total decay rate insures the same treatment of interference effects in both quantities in the ratio.

Other quantities appearing in the expressions (12) and (22) are lifetimes and semileptonic branching ratios, which are a standard part of information on any weakly decaying particle. In general, they are well measured and available in PDG2000 .

Let us first consider the presently very interesting question of the $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)/\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ ratio. The sum of branching ratios of all measured exclusive decay modes is approximately $`50\%`$ which shows that the set of available decay modes is not complete. The branching ratio $`BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ is obtained at the level of $`0.0295\pm 0.0115`$, which is probably an underestimated result since only a few exclusive modes corresponding to singly Cabibbo suppressed modes are available PDG2000 . Another problem is the lack of data on the semileptonic branching ratio of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0`$ baryon. This value can be taken from GM  to be $`BR_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)=(0.092\pm 0.006)`$. As the contribution coming from $`BR_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)`$ is the nonleading one (the leading one coming from the $`BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$), this mixing of theoretical and experimental results does not introduce a significant model dependence. Still, only the future arrival of experimental data on $`BR_{SL}(\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)`$ will complete the set of experimental values needed for a fully consistent analysis. The rest of the data is taken to be PDG2000 : $`BR_{SL}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=(0.045\pm 0.017)`$, $`\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)=(0.206\pm 0.012)\mathrm{ps}`$, and $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^0)=(0.098\pm 0.019)\mathrm{ps}`$. The analysis using the set of parameters specified above yields a result for the $`\tau (\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+)/\tau (\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ ratio which is far above the new experimental results and has a very large error. The principal reason for such a result can be seen from (12). The value of $`BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+)`$ is multiplied by a large factor $`c^2/s^2`$, which makes the final result very sensitive to the value of this branching ratio. The conclusion stemming from this analysis is that the presently available data on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ exclusive modes are insufficiently accurate and abundant to insure a reliable result. A more extensive and precise measurement of exclusive decay modes of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ (especially Cabibbo suppressed ones) can however lead to interesting new predictions on $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$.

Numerical analysis in the sector of charmed meson decays is more promising. Addition of the branching ratios of all exclusive modes of $`D^+`$ gives a value of $`110\%`$, which shows that the data on exclusive decay modes of $`D^+`$ can be considered complete. The branching ratio $`BR_{\mathrm{\Delta }C=1,\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}(D^+)`$ attains the value $`0.140\pm 0.026`$. Other values taken from PDG2000  are $`BR_{SL}(D^+)=0.172\pm 0.019`$, $`BR_{SL}(D^0)=0.0675\pm 0.0029`$, $`\tau (D^+)=(1.051\pm 0.013)\mathrm{ps}`$, and $`\tau (D^0)=(0.4126\pm 0.0028)\mathrm{ps}`$. Using the expression (22) one obtains the value $`(\tau (D^+)/\tau (D_s^+))(1BR_\tau (D_s^+))_{th}=2.63\pm 0.98`$. This result obtained from theoretical considerations can be compared with the value for the same quantity following from the experiment. To this end, we use the experimental values PDG2000 : $`\tau (D_s^+)=(0.496\pm 0.0095)\mathrm{ps}`$ and $`BR_\tau (D_s^+)=0.07\pm 0.04`$. This leads to a value $`(\tau (D^+)/\tau (D_s^+))(1BR_\tau (D_s^+))_{exp}=1.971\pm 0.096`$. Comparison of these two results shows that they are consistent within their errors. A relatively large error of the result obtained through relation (22) originates to a great extent from the expression (20) where the inclusive semileptonic decay rate of $`D_s^+`$ is expressed in terms of respective quantities for the other two charmed mesons. In this relation a large factor $`c^2/s^2`$ multiplies a small quantity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^+)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^0)`$ (the inclusive decay rates for these two charmed mesons are numerically very close). In the final expression, this fact contributes very little to the central value, but gives a significant contribution to the error since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^+)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^0)`$ are treated as independent quantities and their individual errors are significantly larger than their difference. The consequences of these facts can be better observed if one performs the following analysis. For the sake of error analysis, we take that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^+)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}(D^0)`$ are identically equal (while in reality they differ by the small Cabibbo suppressed correction). This approximation removes the problematic term of a large factor multiplying a small quantity. This procedure changes the central value at the permille level while the error is almost halved (even with this reduced errors our two results are in a 2$`\sigma `$ interval).

The procedures presented so far are by no means restricted to the calculation of the lifetimes of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ and $`D_s^+`$. Any inclusive quantity (such as semileptonic branching ratios) for these hadrons can be expressed by means of inclusive quantities of the other two charmed hadrons belonging to the same multiplet. Similar relations can also be established in multiplets of $`b`$ hadrons bearing in mind that, e.g., phase-space corrections in the $`b`$ case can be substantial. Nevertheless, the full success of this approach is dependent on accumulation of experimental data 666 The upcoming high-statistics measurements, especially for charmed baryons private , are in this respect very encouraging. and measurement of inclusive decay rates of suppressed decay modes.

Considerations displayed in this paper are motivated by recent experimental results on charmed baryon lifetimes and the need to establish whether a standard existing formalism can be brought into agreement with these results by eliminating or reducing some of its uncertainties. Our formalism procures model-inedependent results with the assumption of some symmetries. Apart from these desirable properties, the theoretical appeal of our approach consists in expressing some measurable quantity of a heavy hadron in terms of measurable quantities of other heavy hadrons from the same $`SU(3)_{flavor}`$ multiplet. This feature enables us to set a new course in testing the formalism of inclusive weak decays. Using relations such as (12) and (22) one can use the data for those hadrons the decays of which are more amenable to experimental determination to produce predictions for hadrons where experimental data lack or need theoretical verification (like in the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ case). As any advantage, this one has its price, too. One has to introduce inclusive decay rates of singly Cabibbo suppressed modes which so far have not been measured (as inclusive modes). Use of data on exclusive decay modes can give a reasonable estimate of necessary decay rates. Nevertheless, the full strength of our approach would manifest itself if direct measurements of inclusive decay rates of singly Cabibbo suppressed modes of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ should be possible in the near future. Even better and more detailed data on exclusive decay modes of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$ could improve our understanding of new experimental data on the $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ lifetime.

The real challenge now faces the experimental community. There is a clear indication that by measuring the parameters of one heavy hadron ( $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$) we can draw definite conclusions on the other heavy hadron ($`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$). These conclusions may clarify the question of applicability of the HQE in charmed decays or at least decide whether $`\mathrm{\Xi }_c^+`$ really fits into the, so far successful, description of charmed baryon lifetime hierarchy.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the referee for kind suggestions which have improved the comprehensibility of the paper. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under the contract No. 0098002.