Strong coupling from inclusive semileptonic decay of charmed mesons

  • In this study, we employed the heavy quark expansion model with the kinetic scheme to evaluate αS(m2c), the strong coupling constant at the charm quark mass mc, using data on inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Using the experimental values of the semileptonic decay widths of the D0 and the D+, the value of αs(m2c) was determined to be 0.445±0.009±0.114, where the first uncertainty is experimental and the second is systematic. This value of αs(m2c) is in good agreement with the value of αs(m2c) which calculated by running αS(m2Z) at the Z0 boson mass mZ with the renormalization group evolution equation. In addition, the values of αs(m2c) obtained individually from each of the D0, D+, and D+s mesons were consistent, as they were of the same origin.
  • In the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD) is the gauge field theory for the strong interaction. In QCD, gluons are force mediators, and αS (the effective strong coupling constant) dictates many features of the strong interaction. Asymptotic freedom, in which the strength of αS increases as the energy scale decreases, is one of the primary features of QCD. The value of αS has been measured over the energy scale ranging from the τ lepton mass mτ to several TeV, and it has been found to be consistent with the theoretical prediction. However, αS has not been measured at energies below mτ . In this regime, the QCD physics may enter the non-perturbative scheme and exhibit unknown behaviors. Therefore, measuring αS at lower energies to further understand QCD and probe possible new physics is very desirable.

    In the past five decades, significant progress has been achieved in the theoretical description of inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed and B mesons using the framework of the heavy quark expansion (HQE) model [17]. In the HQE framework, the features of the inclusive semileptonic decays of heavy quarks are expressed in terms of αS, quark masses, Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements, and non-perturbative parameters. HQE calculations accurately describe experimental features of inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed and B mesons [510]. In addition, the HQE model has been employed as a reliable method for experimentally extracting the b quark mass and |Vcb| with inclusive semileptonic decays of B mesons [8, 1014]. In these studies, the b quark mass and |Vcb| were determined from the fits to the observables of inclusive semileptonic decays of B mesons, where αS was fixed to the value running from αS(m2Z).

    This procedure can also be applied to inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Experimental measurements of mc and |Vcs| have become more precise [1517], which will enable αS(m2c) to be determined as a parameter from charmed mesons, either by fixing the values of mc and |Vcs| to those measured in processes other than semileptonic D decays, or through a fit that simultaneously extracts mc, |Vcs|, and αS(m2c) from inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. In this article, we present a determination of αS(m2c) from inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons.

    In this study, the theoretical calculation [5] of the inclusive semileptonic decay width (ΓSL) for charmed mesons was employed to derive αS(m2c). In [5], the authors considered O(αS) and O(β0α2S) corrections [18, 19], as well as O(1/m3c) contributions [20], when calculating ΓSL. As shown in Eq. (1) [5], ΓSL is expressed in terms of αS(m2c), quark masses, the CKM matrix element |Vcs|, and non-perturbative corrections. In Eq. (1), GF is the Fermi coupling constant, r is the square of the ratio of the strange quark mass to the charm quark mass (m2s/m2c), αSαS(m2c), μ2π and μ2G are the kinetic and chromomagnetic dimension five operators [2123], respectively, and ρ3D and ρ3LS are the Darwin and the spin-orbital (LS) dimension six operators [23], respectively, in the HQE model. The weak annihilation (WA) contribution, BWA, depends on the type of spectator quark within each charmed meson.

    ΓSL=G2Fm5c192π3|Vcs|2[f0(r)+αSπf1(r)+α2Sπ2f2(r)+μ2πm2cfπ(r)+μ2Gm2cfG(r)+ρ3LSm3cfLS(r)+ρ3Dm3cfD(r)+32π2m3cBWA].

    (1)

    The coefficients of the perturbative and non-perturbative items, f0,1,2(r) and fπ,G,LS,D(r), respectively, were calculated using Eq. (2) [5], where nf is the number of active flavors and β0 is the QCD beta function, β0=112nf/3.

    f0(r)=18r+8r3r412r2log(r),f1(r)=2.86r3.84rlog(r),f2(r)=β0[8.16r1.21rlog(r)3.38],fπ(r)=f0(r)/2,fG(r)=12f0(r)2(1r)4,fLS(r)=fG(r),fD(r)=776+O(r)+8log(μ2WAm2c).

    (2)

    The infrared cutoff scale μ in the kinetic scheme was set to 0.5 GeV. In the theoretical expression for fD(r), 0.8 GeV was treated as the ¯MS renormalization scale (μWA) associated with the mix of Darwin and WA operators [5, 24, 25]. In Eq. (1), only the process of cslˉν (which was slightly different from experimental measurements [26, 27] because of missing Cabibbo-suppressed processes) was taken into account. A corresponding systematic uncertainty was assigned to cover the missing processes in the determination of αS(m2c).

    The χ2 minimization method was employed to determine αS(m2c) from fits of ˆΓSL, which is the ΓSL expression of Eq. (1) for different charmed mesons. The χ2 function is expressed as

    χ2(αS,θj)=i[ΓSL,DiˆΓSL(αS,θj)]2σ2ΓSL,Di+j(θjθj)2σ2θj,

    (3)

    where Di denotes D+, D0, or D+s; ΓSL,Di and σΓSL,Di are the measured inclusive semileptonic decay width and the corresponding uncertainty of Di, respectively; and θj= {mc, ms, |Vcs|, μ2G, μ2π, ρ3D, ρ3LS} represents the constrained parameters (the values and uncertainties of which are θj and σθj, respectively).

    The variable GF was fixed at 1.1663788×105 [15]. According to [5], the values of BWA for D+, D0, and D+s are fixed at 0.001, 0.001, and 0.002 GeV3, respectively. Except for GF and BWA, the parameters were allowed to float when determining αS(m2c). The value of |Vcs| has been measured to be 0.975±0.006 [15]. In the kinetic scheme, the expected values of μ2G and ρ3LS do not run with respect to the energy scale, and they have been determined to be 0.288±0.049 GeV2 and 0.113±0.090 GeV3, respectively, from inclusive semileptonic B decays [10]. In [5, 8, 28], the values of μ2π(0.5 GeV) and ρ3D(0.5 GeV) were determined to be 0.26±0.06 GeV2 and 0.05±0.04 GeV3, respectively, which were evolved to μ=0.5 GeV using O(α2S) expressions from values of μ=1 GeV. The mass of the strange quark was set to 93.4±8.6 MeV [15].

    The convergence of the perturbative series in the ΓSL expression is strongly affected by the mass definition of the charm quark [2932]. In [16], the pole mass and the ¯MS scheme exhibited bad convergence behaviors in the QCD corrections to ΓSL. To avoid the divergence, the kinetic scheme [29, 31, 33] was introduced to calculate ΓSL. The relationship between ¯MS and the kinetic mass of the charm quark has been investigated to three-loop order (N3LO) [16, 17]. For different choices of μs (¯MS scale), the value of mc at a scale of 0.5 GeV in the kinetic scheme mkinc(0.5 GeV) has been obtained separately using the relationship in [16, 17]:

    mkinc(0.5 GeV)=1336 MeV for ¯mc(μs=3 GeV),mkinc(0.5 GeV)=1372 MeV for ¯mc(μs=2 GeV),mkinc(0.5 GeV)=1404 MeV for ¯mc(μs=¯mc).

    (4)

    The average value of mkinc(0.5 GeV) from different μsvalues was treated as the input value of mc(0.5 GeV) in the χ2 fit, which was determined to be 1370 MeV. For a conservative estimate, the largest difference between mc(0.5 GeV) and mkinc(0.5 GeV) was taken as the uncertainty in mc(0.5 GeV). To evaluate the bias caused by the choice of mc and |Vcs|, the first fit was performed with mc as a free parameter and with |Vcs| allowed to vary within one standard error; the second fit was performed with mc and |Vcs| both fixed at the world average. The results for αS(m2c) from these fits were compared to check the consistency of the experiment.

    The experimental measurement of ΓSL was derived from the inclusive semileptonic decay branch fraction, BSL [26, 27], and the lifetime, τ [15], via Eq. (5), where Di denotes D+, D0, or D+s:

    ΓSL, Di=6.582×1025BSL(DiXeνe)τDi GeV.

    (5)

    In Eq. (5), τDi is the mean life of Di, and BSL(DiXeνe) is the branch fraction of the inclusive semileptonic decay for Di. The inclusive semileptonic branch fractions of D+, D0, and D+s have been measured by the CLEO-c [26] detector using 818 pb1 and 602 pb1 open-charm data at ECM=3.774 GeV and 4.170 GeV. Because of limited statistics, the uncertainty in BSL,D+s was much higher than that in BSL,D+/D0 in the CLEO-c measurements. Recently, BSL,D+s has also been measured by the BESIII instrument using 3.19 fb1, 2.08 fb1, and 1.05 fb1 e+e collision data at ECM=4.178 GeV, 4.1894.219 GeV, and 4.2254.230 GeV [27]. The uncertainty in BSL,D+s has been reduced by the additional data provided by the BESIII measurements. The BSL,D+/D0 value from CLEO-c and the BSL,D+s value from BESIII were adopted to calculate the ΓSL values of D+, D0, and D+s. In Table 1, the input values of BSL(DiXeνe), τDi, and ΓSL,Di are displayed. The consistent ΓSL values of D0 and D+ indicate the reliability of the HQE model for inclusive semileptonic decays of D0 and D+.

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Input values of BSL(DiXeνe), τDi, and ΓSL,Di.
    Di BSL (%) τ (1013s) ΓSL (1015GeV)
    D0 6.46±0.09±0.11 4.10±0.01 104±2
    D+ 16.13±0.10±0.29 10.33±0.05 103±2
    D+s 6.30±0.13±0.10 5.04±0.04 82±2
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Except for BSL, the distributions of electron momentum (|pe+|) in the laboratory frame have been measured for inclusive semileptonic decays of D+, D0, and D+s by CLEO-c and BESIII [26, 27], as shown in Fig. 1. The average |pe+| values of D0, D+, and D+s are also plotted in Fig. 1. Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests [34] between the distributions of |pe+| and ¯|pe+| were performed to further validate the reliability of the HQE model for inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. The results of the KS tests are shown in Table 2.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Distributions of |pe+| with |pe+|>200 MeV from inclusive semileptonic decays of D+, D0, and D+s in the laboratory frame. The green diamonds and orange triangles are the results of D0 and D+, respectively, measured by CLEO-c [26]. The blue dots are the results of D+s measured by BESIII [27]. The dashed gray line is the average of D0 and D+.

    Table 2

    Table 2.  Results of the KS tests, in which the null hypothesis was that the two tested distributions are identical.
    Test DistributionsTest StatisticP Value
    |pe+,D0| and ¯|pe+|0.1251.000
    |pe+,D+| and ¯|pe+|0.1251.000
    |pe+,D+s| and ¯|pe+|0.1320.992
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    The |pe+| distributions for D+, D0, and D+s were consistent. This was a strong indication that the HQE model was reliable for inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Because experimental measurements of |pe+| were not available in the center-of-mass frame of the charmed mesons, only ΓSL was used to extract αS(m2c) in this study.

    The value of αS(m2c) was extracted from D+, D0, and D+s, including

    D+, D0, and D+s, respectively.

    D+ and D0 combined.

    In the χ2 fit, high-order perturbative corrections needed to be taken into account for the inclusive semileptonic decays of the charmed mesons. The α3S order correction to bclˉν has been determined to be less than 1% in the kinetic scheme [7]. For a conservative estimate, 5% of ΓSL was taken as the high-order perturbative corrections for the inclusive semileptonic decays of the charmed mesons. Furthermore, the theoretical calculation of ΓSL in Eq. (1) was the contribution of cslˉν, in which Cabibbo-suppressed processes were missed. To cover missed Cabibbo-suppressed processes, |Vcd|2/(|Vcd|2+|Vcs|2)5% was treated as the uncertainty in the ΓSL expression. In total, 10% is taken as the theoretical uncertainty in the calculation of ΓSL for a more conservative estimate. The input values of the dimension six HQE matrix elements were evolved from the results obtained in the inclusive semileptonic B decays at μ = 1 GeV. The treatment of the inputs of the dimension six HQE matrix elements may have impacted the systematic uncertainties, which can be improved by obtaining more precise measurements of the inclusive semileptonic decays in the charm sector. Despite the fact that the kinetic scheme was adopted to improve the convergence of the perturbative series, the contribution of higher-order corrections was larger owing to the slow convergence behavior in the charm sector, which may have caused the systematic uncertainties to be underestimated. To reduce the corresponding systematic uncertainty, more measurements in the charm sector, such as spectral moments, can benefit the determination of higher-order corrections. High-order perturbative corrections played an important role in this study, and advanced theoretical calculations of high-order perturbative corrections are highly desirable.

    In Fig. 2 and Table 3, the fitted αS(m2c) value of each sample is shown and compared to αS(m2c) running from αS(m2Z) using RunDec [35] with a renormalization group evolution equation. Because of relatively heavy spectator quarks in D+s, the combined result of D+ and D0 was chosen to measure αS(m2c) in this study. Using the combined sample of D0 and D+, αS(m2c) was determined to be 0.445±0.009exp.±0.081mc±0.056trun.±0.057others at mc=1.3701 GeV, where the first uncertainty is experimental, the second is the uncertainty in mc, the third is associated with high-order perturbative corrections in the ΓSL expression, and the fourth is related to other sources. As shown in Fig. 3, the measured value of αS(m2c) was consistent within 1σ of the value running from αS(m2Z). The consistent values of αS(m2c) among different charmed mesons indicated the robustness of this method. In the fit for the combined D0 and D+ sample, the value of χ2/dof of the fit was 0.1/6, indicating good agreement between the data and the model. In Fig. 4, the profile contours of different samples confirmed the consistency among these charmed mesons and the robustness of this method.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) In the left panel, mc and |Vcs| were allowed to float in the fit; in the right panel, mc and |Vcs| were fixed in the fit. Points with error bars are the determined central values of αS(m2c), and the inner and the outer error bars are the experimental and total uncertainties, respectively. The dashed gray line and shaded box indicate the value of and uncertainty in αS(m2c) running to mc from αS(m2Z), respectively.

    Table 3

    Table 3.  Values of αS(m2c) obtained for each sample, where the values of mc and |Vcs| were allowed to change in the fit. The first and second uncertainties of αS(m2c) are the experimental and theoretical uncertainties, respectively. The result, which was jointly obtained from D0 and D+ (bold), was similar to 0.375±0.011, the value of αS running from mZ down to mc.
    Sample D0 D+ D+s, D0 D+s
    mc[GeV] 1.3701±0.0339 1.3699±0.0340 1.3701±0.0338 1.3699±0.0340
    αS(m2c)[103] 448±13±114 444±12±115 445±9±114 400±14±113
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Values of αS at different energy scales. The blue dot is the measured αS(m2c) value obtained in this study, where the inner and the outer error bars are the experimental and total uncertainties, respectively. The other points are measurements of αS at different energy scales [3646]. The solid and dashed gray lines are the values and uncertainties of αS running from αS(m2Z), respectively.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Profile contours of the different samples at the 68% confidence level. The solid blue curve and star are the contour and best-fit value for D0 and D+ combined, respectively. The dashed orange curve and cross are the contour and best-fit value for D+s, respectively. The dashed red and the green curves and crosses are the contours and best-fit values for D0 and D+, respectively.

    To check the stability of the results of this study, the value of mc was fixed at 1.370±0.034 GeV, and the corresponding uncertainty was estimated by varying the value of mc within ±1σ. Usually, the value of |Vcs| is obtained from exclusive semileptonic or leptonic charmed meson decays; however, this technique could have introduced bias in this study. Hence, obtaining a value for |Vcs| without involving semileptonic charmed meson decays was necessary to validate the results of this study. Using |Vcd|=0.2181±0.0049±0.0007 from the leptonic decays of D+ [47] and |Vcb|=(41.1±1.2)×103 [15], the value of |Vcs| without involving semileptonic charmed meson decays was calculated to be 0.975±0.001 via Eq. (6), which has a negligible bias in the determination of αS(m2c).

    |Vcs|=1|Vcd|2|Vcb|2=0.975±0.001

    (6)

    Figure 2 presents the fitted αS(m2c) values for different D meson samples for a fixed mc. The robustness of this study was confirmed by the consistent values of αS(m2c) obtained via fits with fixed and floating values of mc.

    In summary, the value of αS(m2c) at mc=1.37 GeV was determined to be 0.445±0.009±0.114 using the semileptonic decay widths of the D0 and D+ measured by CLEO-c, and it was cross-checked using the ΓSL of the D+s meson reported by BESIII. This result for αS(m2c) was in good agreement with the value obtained by running αS(m2Z) to mc. The values of αS(m2c) were derived for each of the D0, D+, and D+s mesons, and were found to be within ±1σ of each other, illustrating the robustness of the analysis method. The leading uncertainty in αS(m2c) was from the theoretical calculation of ΓSL, which can be reduced by detailed experimental studies on the semileptonic decays of the D mesons as well as superior HQE calculations. This study represents the first measurement of αS(m2c) obtained using a new approach. With additional statistical data and enhanced modeling of the HQE, the systematic uncertainty in the value of αS(m2c) may be significantly reduced in the future.

    The authors thank H. B. Li, X. T. Huang, X. Chen, G. Y. Zhang, J. L. Pei, H. Q. Zhang, Y. Q. Fang, and L. G. Shao for fruitful discussions.

    [1] J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 100, 313 (1975) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(75)90621-5
    [2] N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein et al., Phys. Rev. D 39, 799 (1989) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.39.799
    [3] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 496 (1993), arXiv: hep-ph/9304225 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.496
    [4] B. Blok, L. Koyrakh, M. Shifman et al., Phys. Rev. D 49, 3356 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.3356
    [5] P. Gambino and J. F. Kamenik, Nucl. Phys. B 840, 424 (2010), arXiv: 1004.0114 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.07.019
    [6] M. Fael, T. Mannel, and K. K. Vos, JHEP 12, 067 (2019) doi: 10.1007/JHEP12%282019%29067
    [7] M. Fael, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D 104, 016003 (2021), arXiv: 2011.13654 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016003
    [8] O. L. Buchmüller and H. U. Flächer, Phys. Rev. D 73, 073008 (2006) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.073008
    [9] D. King, A. Lenz, M. L. Piscopo et al., JHEP 08, 241 (2022) doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2022)241
    [10] G. Finauri and P. Gambino, arXiv: 2310.20324 [hep-ph]
    [11] P. Gambino, JHEP 09, 055 (2011) doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2011)055
    [12] P. Gambino and C. Schwanda, Phys. Rev. D 89, 014022 (2014), arXiv: 1307.4551 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014022
    [13] A. Alberti, P. Gambino, K. J. Healey et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 061802 (2015), arXiv: 1411.6560 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061802
    [14] F. Bernlochner, M. Fael, K. Olschewsky et al., arXiv: 2205.10274 [hep-ph]
    [15] R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [16] M. Fael, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 052003 (2020), arXiv: 2005.06487 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052003
    [17] M. Fael, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014005 (2021), arXiv: 2011.11655 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014005
    [18] A. Czarnecki and M. Jezabek, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 3 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9402326 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90266-6
    [19] V. Aquila, P. Gambino, G. Ridolfi et al., Nucl. Phys. B 719, 77 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0503083 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.04.031
    [20] M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6924 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9603448 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6924
    [21] I. I. Y. Bigi, N. G. Uraltsev, and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 293, 430 (1992), arXiv: hep-ph/9207214 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)90908-M
    [22] B. Blok and M. A. Shifman, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 459 (1993), arXiv: hep-ph/9209289 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90505-J
    [23] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, and N. Uraltsev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47, 591 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9703290 doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.47.1.591
    [24] P. Gambino, G. Ossola, and N. Uraltsev, JHEP 09, 010 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0505091 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/010
    [25] P. Gambino, P. Giordano, G. Ossola et al., JHEP 10, 058 (2007) doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/058
    [26] D. M. Asner et al. (CLEO collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 81, 052007 (2010), arXiv: 0912.4232 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.052007
    [27] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 012003 (2021), arXiv: 2104.07311 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.012003
    [28] P. Gambino and N. Uraltsev, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 181 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0401063 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s2004-01671-2
    [29] M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 301 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9402364 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90314-X
    [30] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev et al., Phys. Rev. D 50, 2234 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9402360 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.2234
    [31] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. Uraltsev et al., Phys. Rev. D 56, 4017 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9704245 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4017
    [32] K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 482, 99 (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/9912391 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00507-4
    [33] M. Antonelli et al., Phys. Rept. 494, 197 (2010), arXiv: 0907.5386 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.05.003
    [34] P. Virtanen et al., Nature Meth. 17, 261 (2020), arXiv: 1907.10121 [cs.MS] doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
    [35] F. Herren and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 333 (2018), arXiv: 1703.03751 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.014
    [36] A. Pich and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034027 (2016), arXiv: 1605.06830 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.034027
    [37] M. Davier, A. Höcker, B. Malaescu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2803 (2014), arXiv: 1312.1501 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2803-9
    [38] C. Peset, A. Pineda, and J. Segovia, JHEP 09, 167 (2018) doi: 10.1007/JHEP09%282018%29167
    [39] D. Boito, M. Golterman, K. Maltman et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 034003 (2015), arXiv: 1410.3528 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.034003
    [40] D. Boito, M. Golterman, A. Keshavarzi et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 074030 (2018), arXiv: 1805.08176 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.074030
    [41] S. Narison, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850045 (2018), arXiv: 1801.00592 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1142/S0217751X18500458
    [42] J. Schieck, S. Bethke, S. Kluth et al. (JADE collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2332 (2013), arXiv: 1205.3714 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2332-y
    [43] V. M. Abazov et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 111107 (2009), arXiv: 0911.2710 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.111107
    [44] H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 864, 1 (2012), arXiv: 1205.6153 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.06.006
    [45] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 718, 56 (2012), arXiv: 1207.4957 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.10.003
    [46] V. Andreev et al. (H1 collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 791 (2017), arXiv: 1709.07251 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5314-7
    [47] Y. S. Amhis et al. (HFLAV collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023), arXiv: 2206.07501 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.052008
  • [1] J. R. Ellis, M. K. Gaillard, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Nucl. Phys. B 100, 313 (1975) doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(75)90621-5
    [2] N. Isgur, D. Scora, B. Grinstein et al., Phys. Rev. D 39, 799 (1989) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.39.799
    [3] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 496 (1993), arXiv: hep-ph/9304225 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.496
    [4] B. Blok, L. Koyrakh, M. Shifman et al., Phys. Rev. D 49, 3356 (1994) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.3356
    [5] P. Gambino and J. F. Kamenik, Nucl. Phys. B 840, 424 (2010), arXiv: 1004.0114 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2010.07.019
    [6] M. Fael, T. Mannel, and K. K. Vos, JHEP 12, 067 (2019) doi: 10.1007/JHEP12%282019%29067
    [7] M. Fael, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D 104, 016003 (2021), arXiv: 2011.13654 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.016003
    [8] O. L. Buchmüller and H. U. Flächer, Phys. Rev. D 73, 073008 (2006) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.073008
    [9] D. King, A. Lenz, M. L. Piscopo et al., JHEP 08, 241 (2022) doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2022)241
    [10] G. Finauri and P. Gambino, arXiv: 2310.20324 [hep-ph]
    [11] P. Gambino, JHEP 09, 055 (2011) doi: 10.1007/JHEP09(2011)055
    [12] P. Gambino and C. Schwanda, Phys. Rev. D 89, 014022 (2014), arXiv: 1307.4551 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.014022
    [13] A. Alberti, P. Gambino, K. J. Healey et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 061802 (2015), arXiv: 1411.6560 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.061802
    [14] F. Bernlochner, M. Fael, K. Olschewsky et al., arXiv: 2205.10274 [hep-ph]
    [15] R. L. Workman et al. (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [16] M. Fael, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 052003 (2020), arXiv: 2005.06487 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.052003
    [17] M. Fael, K. Schönwald, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Rev. D 103, 014005 (2021), arXiv: 2011.11655 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.014005
    [18] A. Czarnecki and M. Jezabek, Nucl. Phys. B 427, 3 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9402326 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90266-6
    [19] V. Aquila, P. Gambino, G. Ridolfi et al., Nucl. Phys. B 719, 77 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0503083 doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2005.04.031
    [20] M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6924 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9603448 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.6924
    [21] I. I. Y. Bigi, N. G. Uraltsev, and A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 293, 430 (1992), arXiv: hep-ph/9207214 doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(92)90908-M
    [22] B. Blok and M. A. Shifman, Nucl. Phys. B 399, 459 (1993), arXiv: hep-ph/9209289 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(93)90505-J
    [23] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, and N. Uraltsev, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 47, 591 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9703290 doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.47.1.591
    [24] P. Gambino, G. Ossola, and N. Uraltsev, JHEP 09, 010 (2005), arXiv: hep-ph/0505091 doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/010
    [25] P. Gambino, P. Giordano, G. Ossola et al., JHEP 10, 058 (2007) doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2007/10/058
    [26] D. M. Asner et al. (CLEO collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 81, 052007 (2010), arXiv: 0912.4232 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.052007
    [27] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 104, 012003 (2021), arXiv: 2104.07311 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.012003
    [28] P. Gambino and N. Uraltsev, Eur. Phys. J. C 34, 181 (2004), arXiv: hep-ph/0401063 doi: 10.1140/epjc/s2004-01671-2
    [29] M. Beneke and V. M. Braun, Nucl. Phys. B 426, 301 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9402364 doi: 10.1016/0550-3213(94)90314-X
    [30] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. G. Uraltsev et al., Phys. Rev. D 50, 2234 (1994), arXiv: hep-ph/9402360 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.2234
    [31] I. I. Y. Bigi, M. A. Shifman, N. Uraltsev et al., Phys. Rev. D 56, 4017 (1997), arXiv: hep-ph/9704245 doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.4017
    [32] K. Melnikov and T. v. Ritbergen, Phys. Lett. B 482, 99 (2000), arXiv: hep-ph/9912391 doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00507-4
    [33] M. Antonelli et al., Phys. Rept. 494, 197 (2010), arXiv: 0907.5386 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2010.05.003
    [34] P. Virtanen et al., Nature Meth. 17, 261 (2020), arXiv: 1907.10121 [cs.MS] doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
    [35] F. Herren and M. Steinhauser, Comput. Phys. Commun. 224, 333 (2018), arXiv: 1703.03751 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2017.11.014
    [36] A. Pich and A. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Phys. Rev. D 94, 034027 (2016), arXiv: 1605.06830 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.034027
    [37] M. Davier, A. Höcker, B. Malaescu et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 74, 2803 (2014), arXiv: 1312.1501 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2803-9
    [38] C. Peset, A. Pineda, and J. Segovia, JHEP 09, 167 (2018) doi: 10.1007/JHEP09%282018%29167
    [39] D. Boito, M. Golterman, K. Maltman et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 034003 (2015), arXiv: 1410.3528 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.034003
    [40] D. Boito, M. Golterman, A. Keshavarzi et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 074030 (2018), arXiv: 1805.08176 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.074030
    [41] S. Narison, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33, 1850045 (2018), arXiv: 1801.00592 [hep-ph] doi: 10.1142/S0217751X18500458
    [42] J. Schieck, S. Bethke, S. Kluth et al. (JADE collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2332 (2013), arXiv: 1205.3714 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-013-2332-y
    [43] V. M. Abazov et al., Phys. Rev. D 80, 111107 (2009), arXiv: 0911.2710 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.111107
    [44] H. Abramowicz et al. (ZEUS collaboration), Nucl. Phys. B 864, 1 (2012), arXiv: 1205.6153 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2012.06.006
    [45] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 collaboration), Phys. Lett. B 718, 56 (2012), arXiv: 1207.4957 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2012.10.003
    [46] V. Andreev et al. (H1 collaboration), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 791 (2017), arXiv: 1709.07251 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5314-7
    [47] Y. S. Amhis et al. (HFLAV collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 107, 052008 (2023), arXiv: 2206.07501 [hep-ex] doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.052008
  • 加载中

Figures(4) / Tables(3)

Get Citation
Jinfei Wu, Xinchou Lou, Yuzhi Che, Gang Li, Yanping Huang, Manqi Ruan and Jingbo Ye. Strong Coupling from Inclusive Semi-leptonic Decay of Charmed Mesons[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad8baf
Jinfei Wu, Xinchou Lou, Yuzhi Che, Gang Li, Yanping Huang, Manqi Ruan and Jingbo Ye. Strong Coupling from Inclusive Semi-leptonic Decay of Charmed Mesons[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ad8baf shu
Milestone
Received: 2024-09-26
Article Metric

Article Views(1358)
PDF Downloads(39)
Cited by(0)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Strong coupling from inclusive semileptonic decay of charmed mesons

  • 1. Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 2. China Center of Advanced Science and Technology, Beijing 100190, China
  • 3. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson 75083, Texas, USA
  • 4. Center for High Energy Physics, Henan Academy of Sciences, Zhengzhou 450046, China
  • 5. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Abstract: In this study, we employed the heavy quark expansion model with the kinetic scheme to evaluate αS(m2c), the strong coupling constant at the charm quark mass mc, using data on inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Using the experimental values of the semileptonic decay widths of the D0 and the D+, the value of αs(m2c) was determined to be 0.445±0.009±0.114, where the first uncertainty is experimental and the second is systematic. This value of αs(m2c) is in good agreement with the value of αs(m2c) which calculated by running αS(m2Z) at the Z0 boson mass mZ with the renormalization group evolution equation. In addition, the values of αs(m2c) obtained individually from each of the D0, D+, and D+s mesons were consistent, as they were of the same origin.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • In the Standard Model of elementary particle physics, Quantum Chromo-Dynamics (QCD) is the gauge field theory for the strong interaction. In QCD, gluons are force mediators, and αS (the effective strong coupling constant) dictates many features of the strong interaction. Asymptotic freedom, in which the strength of αS increases as the energy scale decreases, is one of the primary features of QCD. The value of αS has been measured over the energy scale ranging from the τ lepton mass mτ to several TeV, and it has been found to be consistent with the theoretical prediction. However, αS has not been measured at energies below mτ . In this regime, the QCD physics may enter the non-perturbative scheme and exhibit unknown behaviors. Therefore, measuring αS at lower energies to further understand QCD and probe possible new physics is very desirable.

      In the past five decades, significant progress has been achieved in the theoretical description of inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed and B mesons using the framework of the heavy quark expansion (HQE) model [17]. In the HQE framework, the features of the inclusive semileptonic decays of heavy quarks are expressed in terms of αS, quark masses, Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix elements, and non-perturbative parameters. HQE calculations accurately describe experimental features of inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed and B mesons [510]. In addition, the HQE model has been employed as a reliable method for experimentally extracting the b quark mass and |Vcb| with inclusive semileptonic decays of B mesons [8, 1014]. In these studies, the b quark mass and |Vcb| were determined from the fits to the observables of inclusive semileptonic decays of B mesons, where αS was fixed to the value running from αS(m2Z).

      This procedure can also be applied to inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Experimental measurements of mc and |Vcs| have become more precise [1517], which will enable αS(m2c) to be determined as a parameter from charmed mesons, either by fixing the values of mc and |Vcs| to those measured in processes other than semileptonic D decays, or through a fit that simultaneously extracts mc, |Vcs|, and αS(m2c) from inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. In this article, we present a determination of αS(m2c) from inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons.

    II.   HEAVY QUARK EXPANSION MODEL IN THE KINETIC SCHEME
    • In this study, the theoretical calculation [5] of the inclusive semileptonic decay width (ΓSL) for charmed mesons was employed to derive αS(m2c). In [5], the authors considered O(αS) and O(β0α2S) corrections [18, 19], as well as O(1/m3c) contributions [20], when calculating ΓSL. As shown in Eq. (1) [5], ΓSL is expressed in terms of αS(m2c), quark masses, the CKM matrix element |Vcs|, and non-perturbative corrections. In Eq. (1), GF is the Fermi coupling constant, r is the square of the ratio of the strange quark mass to the charm quark mass (m2s/m2c), αSαS(m2c), μ2π and μ2G are the kinetic and chromomagnetic dimension five operators [2123], respectively, and ρ3D and ρ3LS are the Darwin and the spin-orbital (LS) dimension six operators [23], respectively, in the HQE model. The weak annihilation (WA) contribution, BWA, depends on the type of spectator quark within each charmed meson.

      ΓSL=G2Fm5c192π3|Vcs|2[f0(r)+αSπf1(r)+α2Sπ2f2(r)+μ2πm2cfπ(r)+μ2Gm2cfG(r)+ρ3LSm3cfLS(r)+ρ3Dm3cfD(r)+32π2m3cBWA].

      (1)

      The coefficients of the perturbative and non-perturbative items, f0,1,2(r) and fπ,G,LS,D(r), respectively, were calculated using Eq. (2) [5], where nf is the number of active flavors and β0 is the QCD beta function, β0=112nf/3.

      f0(r)=18r+8r3r412r2log(r),f1(r)=2.86r3.84rlog(r),f2(r)=β0[8.16r1.21rlog(r)3.38],fπ(r)=f0(r)/2,fG(r)=12f0(r)2(1r)4,fLS(r)=fG(r),fD(r)=776+O(r)+8log(μ2WAm2c).

      (2)

      The infrared cutoff scale μ in the kinetic scheme was set to 0.5 GeV. In the theoretical expression for fD(r), 0.8 GeV was treated as the ¯MS renormalization scale (μWA) associated with the mix of Darwin and WA operators [5, 24, 25]. In Eq. (1), only the process of cslˉν (which was slightly different from experimental measurements [26, 27] because of missing Cabibbo-suppressed processes) was taken into account. A corresponding systematic uncertainty was assigned to cover the missing processes in the determination of αS(m2c).

    III.   FITTING METHOD
    • The χ2 minimization method was employed to determine αS(m2c) from fits of ˆΓSL, which is the ΓSL expression of Eq. (1) for different charmed mesons. The χ2 function is expressed as

      χ2(αS,θj)=i[ΓSL,DiˆΓSL(αS,θj)]2σ2ΓSL,Di+j(θjθj)2σ2θj,

      (3)

      where Di denotes D+, D0, or D+s; ΓSL,Di and σΓSL,Di are the measured inclusive semileptonic decay width and the corresponding uncertainty of Di, respectively; and θj= {mc, ms, |Vcs|, μ2G, μ2π, ρ3D, ρ3LS} represents the constrained parameters (the values and uncertainties of which are θj and σθj, respectively).

      The variable GF was fixed at 1.1663788×105 [15]. According to [5], the values of BWA for D+, D0, and D+s are fixed at 0.001, 0.001, and 0.002 GeV3, respectively. Except for GF and BWA, the parameters were allowed to float when determining αS(m2c). The value of |Vcs| has been measured to be 0.975±0.006 [15]. In the kinetic scheme, the expected values of μ2G and ρ3LS do not run with respect to the energy scale, and they have been determined to be 0.288±0.049 GeV2 and 0.113±0.090 GeV3, respectively, from inclusive semileptonic B decays [10]. In [5, 8, 28], the values of μ2π(0.5 GeV) and ρ3D(0.5 GeV) were determined to be 0.26±0.06 GeV2 and 0.05±0.04 GeV3, respectively, which were evolved to μ=0.5 GeV using O(α2S) expressions from values of μ=1 GeV. The mass of the strange quark was set to 93.4±8.6 MeV [15].

      The convergence of the perturbative series in the ΓSL expression is strongly affected by the mass definition of the charm quark [2932]. In [16], the pole mass and the ¯MS scheme exhibited bad convergence behaviors in the QCD corrections to ΓSL. To avoid the divergence, the kinetic scheme [29, 31, 33] was introduced to calculate ΓSL. The relationship between ¯MS and the kinetic mass of the charm quark has been investigated to three-loop order (N3LO) [16, 17]. For different choices of μs (¯MS scale), the value of mc at a scale of 0.5 GeV in the kinetic scheme mkinc(0.5 GeV) has been obtained separately using the relationship in [16, 17]:

      mkinc(0.5 GeV)=1336 MeV for ¯mc(μs=3 GeV),mkinc(0.5 GeV)=1372 MeV for ¯mc(μs=2 GeV),mkinc(0.5 GeV)=1404 MeV for ¯mc(μs=¯mc).

      (4)

      The average value of mkinc(0.5 GeV) from different μsvalues was treated as the input value of mc(0.5 GeV) in the χ2 fit, which was determined to be 1370 MeV. For a conservative estimate, the largest difference between mc(0.5 GeV) and mkinc(0.5 GeV) was taken as the uncertainty in mc(0.5 GeV). To evaluate the bias caused by the choice of mc and |Vcs|, the first fit was performed with mc as a free parameter and with |Vcs| allowed to vary within one standard error; the second fit was performed with mc and |Vcs| both fixed at the world average. The results for αS(m2c) from these fits were compared to check the consistency of the experiment.

    IV.   EXPERIMENTAL INPUTS
    • The experimental measurement of ΓSL was derived from the inclusive semileptonic decay branch fraction, BSL [26, 27], and the lifetime, τ [15], via Eq. (5), where Di denotes D+, D0, or D+s:

      ΓSL, Di=6.582×1025BSL(DiXeνe)τDi GeV.

      (5)

      In Eq. (5), τDi is the mean life of Di, and BSL(DiXeνe) is the branch fraction of the inclusive semileptonic decay for Di. The inclusive semileptonic branch fractions of D+, D0, and D+s have been measured by the CLEO-c [26] detector using 818 pb1 and 602 pb1 open-charm data at ECM=3.774 GeV and 4.170 GeV. Because of limited statistics, the uncertainty in BSL,D+s was much higher than that in BSL,D+/D0 in the CLEO-c measurements. Recently, BSL,D+s has also been measured by the BESIII instrument using 3.19 fb1, 2.08 fb1, and 1.05 fb1 e+e collision data at ECM=4.178 GeV, 4.1894.219 GeV, and 4.2254.230 GeV [27]. The uncertainty in BSL,D+s has been reduced by the additional data provided by the BESIII measurements. The BSL,D+/D0 value from CLEO-c and the BSL,D+s value from BESIII were adopted to calculate the ΓSL values of D+, D0, and D+s. In Table 1, the input values of BSL(DiXeνe), τDi, and ΓSL,Di are displayed. The consistent ΓSL values of D0 and D+ indicate the reliability of the HQE model for inclusive semileptonic decays of D0 and D+.

      Di BSL (%) τ (1013s) ΓSL (1015GeV)
      D0 6.46±0.09±0.11 4.10±0.01 104±2
      D+ 16.13±0.10±0.29 10.33±0.05 103±2
      D+s 6.30±0.13±0.10 5.04±0.04 82±2

      Table 1.  Input values of BSL(DiXeνe), τDi, and ΓSL,Di.

      Except for BSL, the distributions of electron momentum (|pe+|) in the laboratory frame have been measured for inclusive semileptonic decays of D+, D0, and D+s by CLEO-c and BESIII [26, 27], as shown in Fig. 1. The average |pe+| values of D0, D+, and D+s are also plotted in Fig. 1. Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests [34] between the distributions of |pe+| and ¯|pe+| were performed to further validate the reliability of the HQE model for inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. The results of the KS tests are shown in Table 2.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Distributions of |pe+| with |pe+|>200 MeV from inclusive semileptonic decays of D+, D0, and D+s in the laboratory frame. The green diamonds and orange triangles are the results of D0 and D+, respectively, measured by CLEO-c [26]. The blue dots are the results of D+s measured by BESIII [27]. The dashed gray line is the average of D0 and D+.

      Test DistributionsTest StatisticP Value
      |pe+,D0| and ¯|pe+|0.1251.000
      |pe+,D+| and ¯|pe+|0.1251.000
      |pe+,D+s| and ¯|pe+|0.1320.992

      Table 2.  Results of the KS tests, in which the null hypothesis was that the two tested distributions are identical.

      The |pe+| distributions for D+, D0, and D+s were consistent. This was a strong indication that the HQE model was reliable for inclusive semileptonic decays of charmed mesons. Because experimental measurements of |pe+| were not available in the center-of-mass frame of the charmed mesons, only ΓSL was used to extract αS(m2c) in this study.

    V.   RESULTS
    • The value of αS(m2c) was extracted from D+, D0, and D+s, including

      D+, D0, and D+s, respectively.

      D+ and D0 combined.

      In the χ2 fit, high-order perturbative corrections needed to be taken into account for the inclusive semileptonic decays of the charmed mesons. The α3S order correction to bclˉν has been determined to be less than 1% in the kinetic scheme [7]. For a conservative estimate, 5% of ΓSL was taken as the high-order perturbative corrections for the inclusive semileptonic decays of the charmed mesons. Furthermore, the theoretical calculation of ΓSL in Eq. (1) was the contribution of cslˉν, in which Cabibbo-suppressed processes were missed. To cover missed Cabibbo-suppressed processes, |Vcd|2/(|Vcd|2+|Vcs|2)5% was treated as the uncertainty in the ΓSL expression. In total, 10% is taken as the theoretical uncertainty in the calculation of ΓSL for a more conservative estimate. The input values of the dimension six HQE matrix elements were evolved from the results obtained in the inclusive semileptonic B decays at μ = 1 GeV. The treatment of the inputs of the dimension six HQE matrix elements may have impacted the systematic uncertainties, which can be improved by obtaining more precise measurements of the inclusive semileptonic decays in the charm sector. Despite the fact that the kinetic scheme was adopted to improve the convergence of the perturbative series, the contribution of higher-order corrections was larger owing to the slow convergence behavior in the charm sector, which may have caused the systematic uncertainties to be underestimated. To reduce the corresponding systematic uncertainty, more measurements in the charm sector, such as spectral moments, can benefit the determination of higher-order corrections. High-order perturbative corrections played an important role in this study, and advanced theoretical calculations of high-order perturbative corrections are highly desirable.

      In Fig. 2 and Table 3, the fitted αS(m2c) value of each sample is shown and compared to αS(m2c) running from αS(m2Z) using RunDec [35] with a renormalization group evolution equation. Because of relatively heavy spectator quarks in D+s, the combined result of D+ and D0 was chosen to measure αS(m2c) in this study. Using the combined sample of D0 and D+, αS(m2c) was determined to be 0.445±0.009exp.±0.081mc±0.056trun.±0.057others at mc=1.3701 GeV, where the first uncertainty is experimental, the second is the uncertainty in mc, the third is associated with high-order perturbative corrections in the ΓSL expression, and the fourth is related to other sources. As shown in Fig. 3, the measured value of αS(m2c) was consistent within 1σ of the value running from αS(m2Z). The consistent values of αS(m2c) among different charmed mesons indicated the robustness of this method. In the fit for the combined D0 and D+ sample, the value of χ2/dof of the fit was 0.1/6, indicating good agreement between the data and the model. In Fig. 4, the profile contours of different samples confirmed the consistency among these charmed mesons and the robustness of this method.

      Figure 2.  (color online) In the left panel, mc and |Vcs| were allowed to float in the fit; in the right panel, mc and |Vcs| were fixed in the fit. Points with error bars are the determined central values of αS(m2c), and the inner and the outer error bars are the experimental and total uncertainties, respectively. The dashed gray line and shaded box indicate the value of and uncertainty in αS(m2c) running to mc from αS(m2Z), respectively.

      Sample D0 D+ D+s, D0 D+s
      mc[GeV] 1.3701±0.0339 1.3699±0.0340 1.3701±0.0338 1.3699±0.0340
      αS(m2c)[103] 448±13±114 444±12±115 445±9±114 400±14±113

      Table 3.  Values of αS(m2c) obtained for each sample, where the values of mc and |Vcs| were allowed to change in the fit. The first and second uncertainties of αS(m2c) are the experimental and theoretical uncertainties, respectively. The result, which was jointly obtained from D0 and D+ (bold), was similar to 0.375±0.011, the value of αS running from mZ down to mc.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Values of αS at different energy scales. The blue dot is the measured αS(m2c) value obtained in this study, where the inner and the outer error bars are the experimental and total uncertainties, respectively. The other points are measurements of αS at different energy scales [3646]. The solid and dashed gray lines are the values and uncertainties of αS running from αS(m2Z), respectively.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Profile contours of the different samples at the 68% confidence level. The solid blue curve and star are the contour and best-fit value for D0 and D+ combined, respectively. The dashed orange curve and cross are the contour and best-fit value for D+s, respectively. The dashed red and the green curves and crosses are the contours and best-fit values for D0 and D+, respectively.

      To check the stability of the results of this study, the value of mc was fixed at 1.370±0.034 GeV, and the corresponding uncertainty was estimated by varying the value of mc within ±1σ. Usually, the value of |Vcs| is obtained from exclusive semileptonic or leptonic charmed meson decays; however, this technique could have introduced bias in this study. Hence, obtaining a value for |Vcs| without involving semileptonic charmed meson decays was necessary to validate the results of this study. Using |Vcd|=0.2181±0.0049±0.0007 from the leptonic decays of D+ [47] and |Vcb|=(41.1±1.2)×103 [15], the value of |Vcs| without involving semileptonic charmed meson decays was calculated to be 0.975±0.001 via Eq. (6), which has a negligible bias in the determination of αS(m2c).

      |Vcs|=1|Vcd|2|Vcb|2=0.975±0.001

      (6)

      Figure 2 presents the fitted αS(m2c) values for different D meson samples for a fixed mc. The robustness of this study was confirmed by the consistent values of αS(m2c) obtained via fits with fixed and floating values of mc.

    VI.   SUMMARY
    • In summary, the value of αS(m2c) at mc=1.37 GeV was determined to be 0.445±0.009±0.114 using the semileptonic decay widths of the D0 and D+ measured by CLEO-c, and it was cross-checked using the ΓSL of the D+s meson reported by BESIII. This result for αS(m2c) was in good agreement with the value obtained by running αS(m2Z) to mc. The values of αS(m2c) were derived for each of the D0, D+, and D+s mesons, and were found to be within ±1σ of each other, illustrating the robustness of the analysis method. The leading uncertainty in αS(m2c) was from the theoretical calculation of ΓSL, which can be reduced by detailed experimental studies on the semileptonic decays of the D mesons as well as superior HQE calculations. This study represents the first measurement of αS(m2c) obtained using a new approach. With additional statistical data and enhanced modeling of the HQE, the systematic uncertainty in the value of αS(m2c) may be significantly reduced in the future.

    VII.   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • The authors thank H. B. Li, X. T. Huang, X. Chen, G. Y. Zhang, J. L. Pei, H. Q. Zhang, Y. Q. Fang, and L. G. Shao for fruitful discussions.

Reference (47)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return