%Paper: 
%From: Ulrich Nierste <nierste@feynman.t30.physik.tu-muenchen.de>
%Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 18:00:09 +0200

% tum71.tex
% Paper for conference proceedings "QCD 94" in Montpellier, France
%
% $Id:$
%

\documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2,epsf]{article}




\title{\hfill \normalsize TUM-T31-71/94 \\[-2truemm]
\hfill \normalsize  \\[-2truemm]
\hfill \normalsize August 1994 \\
The determination of $|V_{cb}|$ from semileptonic inclusive
       decay rates}

\author{Ulrich Nierste\address{Physik--Department T31, Technische Universit\"at
        M\"unchen, 85747 Garching,
        Germany}\thanks{supported by BMFT under grant no.\ 06-TM-732.
Talk given at the QCD 1994 conference in Montpellier, France,
7th to 13th July 1994.} }

\begin{document}

\begin{abstract}
We report on the determination of $|V_{cb}|$ from the comparison of the
semileptonic inclusive decay rates of  B-- and D--mesons using the heavy
quark symmetry of QCD.
While the renormalization scale ambiguity
does not allow for a  reliable estimate of the
quark masses,  it almost cancels in the prediction for $|V_{cb}|$, which reads
\begin{center}
   $|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,{\rm ps})^{1/2} = 0.036\pm 0.005$,
\end{center}
where the error stems from the uncertainty in the kinetic energy
of the heavy quark inside the meson, in the experimental branching
ratios, in QCD input parameters, and from scale uncertainties.
\end{abstract}

% typeset front matter (including abstract)
\maketitle

\section{Introduction}
The following talk is based on research done in collaboration with
Patricia Ball \cite{bn}.

In the recent years the study of HQET, the effective theory of QCD
expanded in inverse powers of the heavy quark mass $m_Q$,
has considerably
enlarged our understanding of low--energy  QCD.
%Being successfully applied to a number of exclusive
%decay processes of heavy--light systems containing one heavy quark and
%one or two light quarks, it likewise supplies us with a number of
%relations between static properties of such systems like the particle
%spectrum and leptonic decay constants.
%
%Yet many authors have applied
%HQET  to inclusive processes as well, following the work of
Bigi, Uraltsev and Vainshtein \cite{buv} have started to apply
HQET to inclusive processes and have been succeeded by many
authors.
Two important
statements about inclusive decays could be obtained: first, in leading
order they are essentially free quark decays, and second, the leading
corrections to the free quark decay are of order $1/m_Q^2$.
These results stimulated new determinations of the quark masses $m_c$
and $m_b$ and the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ from the experimental
measurements of the semileptonic branching ratios $B(D\to Xe\nu)$
and $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$
\cite{ls,bu,ln}.
Now  the determination of $|V_{cb}|$ from {\em exclusive} decay rates
requires the analysis of the few experimental data points near the endpoint
of the lepton spectrum and moreover needs some
model--dependent input on a formfactor. The {\em inclusive} decay rates
to order $1/m_Q^2$, however,  only  involve two real parameters $\lambda_1$
and $\lambda_2$, of which the latter is well known from the
$B^\ast - B$ mass splitting. On the other hand they are proportional to
the  fifth powers of the poorly known quark masses, which are moreover
renormalization--scheme dependent quantities. These points will be
discussed in the following section, where the analytic expression
for the inclusive decay rate will be introduced. Section 3 will
in detail describe the phenomenological analysis.

\section{The inclusive decay rate}
When physical observables are calculated with the help of HQET,
at first some QCD Green function is matched to its counterpart in
HQET.
In the case of the semileptonic
inclusive decay rate this is the self energy
$\Sigma$  of the decaying heavy quark with a lepton pair and a quark
in the intermediate state:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{\Sigma _{\rm QCD} ( m_Q,\mu _Q ) \;  = } \nonumber \\
&& \!\!\!\!\!\!
 C_1 ( m_Q , \mu _Q )
       \left[ \Sigma_{\rm HQET}^{(0)}
           + \frac{1}{2 m_{Q,{\rm pole}}^2 }
       \Sigma_{\rm HQET}^{(1)}
  \right] \nonumber \\
&& \!\!\!\!\!\! +
C_2 ( m_Q , \mu _Q )
            \frac{1}{2 m_{Q,{\rm pole}}^2 }
       \Sigma_{\rm HQET}^{(2)}
    + O \! \left(\frac{1}{m_Q^3}\right) , \label{match}
\end{eqnarray}
whose imaginary part
is related to the desired rate via the optical theorem.
In (\ref{match})
$C_1$ and $C_2$ are Wilson coefficients and the HQET matrix elements
read in terms of the heavy quark field $h$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma _{\rm HQET} ^{(0)}\!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \frac{1}{2 M_Q}
       \langle {\cal M} | \bar{h} h | {\cal M} \rangle
              =  1 \nonumber , \\
\Sigma _{\rm HQET} ^{(1)} \!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \frac{1}{2 M_Q}
       \langle {\cal M} | \bar{h} (iD )^2 h | { \cal M }\rangle
              =  \lambda _1 \nonumber , \\
\Sigma _{\rm HQET} ^{(2)}\!\!\! &=& \!\!\! \frac{1}{6 M_Q}
       \langle {\cal M} | \bar{h} \frac{g}{2}  \sigma _{\mu \nu }
                 F^{\mu \nu }   h | { \cal M }  \rangle
              =  \lambda _2 (\mu _Q) , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\cal M$ is the heavy meson  with mass $M_Q$. Heavy quark symmetry
dictates that the $\lambda _i$'s  are the same for
${\cal M}=B$ and ${\cal M}=D$.
The matching scale $\mu _Q$ in (\ref{match}) must be of order $m_Q$,
where both perturbative QCD and HQET are valid.
As indicated in (\ref{match}) the expansion parameter in the HQET
matrix elements is the QCD pole mass. The Wilson coefficients $C_1,
C_2 \propto m_Q ^5$, however,
contain the mass parameter of the renormalization scheme
chosen to calculate the QCD Green function on the left hand side of
(\ref{match}).
In view of the fact that the Wilson coefficients
contain the short distance physics from scales larger than $\mu _Q$, while
the interaction  from lower scales is contained in the matrix elements,
we have used a short distance mass $m_Q^{\overline{\rm MS}}$
evaluated at the matching scale $\mu _Q$
in the $C_i$'s. Clearly, the fifth power of $m_Q$ causes a sizeable
dependence of the decay rate on the renormalization scheme used
to define $m_Q$.
Recently Beneke and  Braun  and Bigi et al.\ \cite{bbb} have  found
that  the perturbation series defining the pole mass $m_{\rm pole}$
suffers from an extra IR--renormalon  imposing an ambiguity of order
$\Lambda _{\rm QCD}$ onto $m_{\rm pole}$. When the inclusive decay rate
is expressed in terms of $m_{\rm pole}$, the perturbation series
multiplying $m_{\rm pole}^5$ exhibits the same renormalon ambiguity,
which, however,  vanishes, when the rate is expressed
in terms of some short distance mass \cite{bbz}.
%In the case at hand only one--loop expressions are used and the
%transition from the pole mass to some current mass changes the
%prediction for $|V_{cb}|$ by about 10\%

Taking  the absorptive part of (\ref{match}) results in
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
\Gamma( {\cal M} \to X \ell \nu) =
     \frac{ G_F ^2 (m^R_Q)^5}{192\pi^3} |V_{\rm CKM}|^2
       \cdot } \nonumber \\
 \!\!\!\! &&
\left[ \left\{ 1-\frac{2}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s^R (\mu_Q)}{\pi}\,
g^R\!\left(  x^R \right) + \frac{\lambda_1}{2m_{Q}^2} \right\}
f_1\!\left(x^R \right) \right. \nonumber \\
\!\!\!\! &&
\left. {}  - \frac{9 \lambda_2}{2 m_{Q} ^2}\,
f_2\!\left( x^R \right) + {\cal O}\left( \frac{1}{m_Q^3},
(\alpha_s^R)^2, \frac{\alpha_s^R}{m_Q } \right) \right].
\label{gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
Here $R$ marks the renormalization scheme dependent quantities.
In the following section we exploit (\ref{gamma}) for
$({\cal M} ,  m^R_Q ,V_{\rm CKM}, x^R    )=
  ( B , m_b^{\overline{\rm MS}} (\mu_b) ,V_{cb},
  m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu _b) /m_b^{\overline{\rm MS}} (\mu_b)  ) $
and
$ = ( D , m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}} (\mu_c) ,V_{cs},
  m_s^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu_c)/m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu_c)  ) $.
The matching scales $\mu_b \approx m_b $  and $\mu_c \approx m_c $
will be varied to judge the renormalization scale dependence.
%of  the truncation of the perturbation series.
The analytic expressions for $g(x)$ and the phase space factors $f_i(x)$
can be found in \cite{bn}.



\section{The determination of $|V_{cb}|$}
The input of our phenomenological analysis is similar to \cite{ls,bu,ln}.
It consists of four steps:

{\bf Step 1:}
Extract $m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_c)$ from
the experimental result for
$\Gamma (D \to X e \bar{\nu})$ as given in (\ref{gamma})
as a function of
$\mu_c, \lambda_1, m_s(1 \mbox{GeV})$ and $ \Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}  $.

{\bf Step 2:}
Get $m_b^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_b)$  from
 $m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_c)$ via the heavy quark symmetry,
which relates pole masses:
\begin{eqnarray}
m_b^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_b) & = &   m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_c) +
\Sigma_b^{(1)} -\Sigma_c^{(1)}  +
m_B  \nonumber \\
&& - m_D + \frac{\lambda_1+3 \lambda_2}{2 m_b} -
  \frac{\lambda_1+3 \lambda_2}{2 m_c},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Sigma_q^{(1)}$ is the one--loop QCD quark self energy.

{\bf Step 3:}
Insert $m_b^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_b)$ into  (\ref{gamma}), but now  for
$\Gamma (B \to X_c e \bar{\nu})$, to find $|V_{cb}|$.

{\bf Step 4:}
Vary the two matching scales $\mu_c$ and $\mu_b$ to estimate the
renormalization scale dependence and also the physical paramaters
$\lambda_1, m_s^{\overline{\rm MS}}(1 \mbox{GeV}) \ldots$ to judge
the total error of the theoretical prediction.

The one--loop expression for the decay rate (\ref{gamma})
exhibits a large scale dependence, especially for the D--decay.
This fact obscurs the determination of the quark masses
as displayed in fig.\ 1., for which we find
\begin{eqnarray}
m_c^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_c) &=& (1.35\pm 0.20)\,\mbox{GeV} , \nonumber
\\
m_b^{\overline{\rm MS}}(m_b) &=& (4.6\pm 0.3 )\,\mbox{GeV}. \label{mass}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=0.35 \textwidth
\epsfbox{fig1neu.ps.bb}}
\vspace{-5ex}
\caption[]{\small $m_c(m_c)$ vs.\ the renormalization scale
$\mu_c$ for  the
branching ratio $B(D\to Xe\nu)= 0.172$,
$m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = 0.2\,\mbox{GeV}$,
$\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}} = 300\,\mbox{MeV}$.
Solid, \mbox{long--,} short--dashed line:
$\lambda_1 = 0\,\mbox{GeV}^2 ,
-0.35,-0.7 \,\mbox{GeV}^2$. \vspace{-2ex}  }
\end{figure}
This shows that one has to calculate higher orders in (\ref{gamma})
in order to reduce the scale dependence,
if one wants to extract quark masses from the inclusive decay rates.
In the determination of $|V_{cb}|$ the scale dependence, however,
reduces drastically as displayed in fig.\ 2.
\begin{figure*}[tb]
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=0.7 \textwidth
\epsfbox{fig2neu.ps.bb}}
\vspace{-5ex}
\caption[]{\small \underline{Left}:
$|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2}$ vs.\
$\lambda_1$ for $\mu_Q=m_Q $.
\underline{Right}:
$|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2}$ vs.\
$\mu_Q/m_Q$ for $\lambda_1 = 0 $.
Solid line:
$B(D\to Xe\nu)= 0.172$, $m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) =
0.2\,\mbox{GeV}$ and $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\rm MS}}
= 300\,\mbox{MeV}$ and
$B(B\to X_c e\nu)= 0.107$.
The dashed lines correspond to the the experimental error in
$B(B\to X_ce\nu)$:
$B=0.102$ (short),
$B=0.112$ (long).
}
\end{figure*}
Here we have taken $\mu_c/m_c=\mu_b/m_b$, because by varying the
scale we want to estimate the importance of the yet uncalculated
higher order terms in the perturbation series in (\ref{gamma}), as
the scale dependence vanishes order by order in perturbation theory.
These uncalculated terms are of course the same function
of $\mu_Q/m_Q$ for
$\Gamma (B \to X_c e \bar{\nu})$  and for
$\Gamma (D \to X  e \bar{\nu})$ apart from the small effect that one
has five active flavours in the former rate and four in the latter.
Suppose the $O(\alpha_s^2)$--corrections
enhance $\Gamma$ in
(\ref{gamma}):
Then both the error and the central value for $m_c$ and
$m_b$ in (\ref{mass}) obtained in step 1 and 2 will be lower,
but in step 3 this  lower value  for $m_b^5$ will  multiply
a larger radiative correction to $\Gamma $ in (\ref{gamma}),
thereby stabilizing the prediction for $ | V_{cb} |$.

Finally the largest uncertainty in $|V_{cb}|$ originates from
$\lambda_1$ as shown in fig.\ 2. We have varied $\lambda_1$
between -0.7 GeV${}^2$ \cite{bb} and  0 \cite{n} and find:
\begin{eqnarray}
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} \!\!\! \!
&=& \!\!\! \! 0.036 \pm 0.005   \nonumber .
\end{eqnarray}
This has to be compared with
\begin{eqnarray}
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} &= &
(0.046\pm 0.008)\quad \mbox{\protect{\cite{ls}},}\nonumber\\
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} & \approx &
0.042\quad\mbox{\protect{\cite{bu}}.}\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We remark that in \cite{ls} the renormalization scale has been
varied down to $\mu_c \approx 0.5$GeV, which is too low to trust into
perturbative QCD.
Recent exclusive measurements (CLEO) gave \cite{c}:
\begin{eqnarray}
|V_{cb}| &=& 0.0362 \pm 0.0053 . \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}









\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{bn} P.\ Ball and U.\ Nierste, TUM-T31-56/94/R, 
to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.

\bibitem{buv}
I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev, and A. Vainshtein, Phys.\ Lett.\ B{\bf 293}
(1992) 430; Erratum {\em ibid.} {\bf 297}  (1993) 477.

\bibitem{ls}
 M. Luke and M. Savage, Phys.\ Lett.\ B{\bf 321}, 88 (1994).

\bibitem{bu}
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, Z.\ Phys.\ C{\bf 62} (1994) 623.

\bibitem{ln}
Z. Ligeti and Y. Nir, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 49} (1994) 4331.

\bibitem{bbb}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, CERN--TH.7171/94, 1994,
;
M. Beneke and V.M.\ Braun,  MPI--PhT/94--9, 1994,
.

\bibitem{bbz}
M.\ Beneke, V.M.\ Braun and V.I.\ Zakharov, MPI-PhT/94-18, .

\bibitem{bb}
P.\ Ball and V.M.\ Braun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D{\bf 49}, 2472 (1994).

\bibitem{n}
M. Neubert, Phys.\ Lett.\ B{\bf 322}, 419 (1994).

\bibitem{c}
B.\ Barish {\em et al.}\/ (CLEO), CLNS-94-1285, .

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}




\begin{table*}[hbt]
% space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
% space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
% -----------------------------------------------------
% adapted from TeX book, p. 241
\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
% -----------------------------------------------------
\caption{Biologically treated effluents (mg/l)}
\label{tab:effluents}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}rrrr}
\hline
                 & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pilot plant}
                 & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Full scale plant} \\
\cline{2-3} \cline{4-5}
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Influent}
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Effluent}
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Influent}
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Effluent}         \\
\hline
Total cyanide    & $ 6.5$ & $0.35$ & $  2.0$ & $  0.30$ \\
Method-C cyanide & $ 4.1$ & $0.05$ &         & $  0.02$ \\
Thiocyanide      & $60.0$ & $1.0?$ & $ 50.0$ & $ <0.10$ \\
Ammonia          & $ 6.0$ & $0.50$ &         & $  0.10$ \\
Copper           & $ 1.0$ & $0.04$ & $  1.0$ & $  0.05$ \\
Suspended solids &        &        &         & $<10.0?$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{@{}p{120mm}}{Reprinted from: G.M. Ritcey,
                             Tailings Management,
                             Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989, p. 635.}
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}





\section{Introduction}

During recent years the study of HQET, the effective theory of QCD
expanded in inverse powers of the heavy quark mass, has considerably
enlarged our understanding of low--energy  QCD (cf.\ \cite{reviews}
for reviews). Being successfully applied to a number of exclusive
decay processes of heavy--light systems containing one heavy quark and
one or two light quarks, it likewise supplies us with a number of
relations between static properties of such systems like the particle
spectrum and leptonic decay constants. Nevertheless, the question of
the correct definition of the heavy quark mass $m_Q$, the expansion
parameter of HQET, has played only a minor
r\^{o}le in the tremendous number of publications dealing with that theory.
When Green functions in full QCD are matched to
those in HQET, one has to decide whether to identify $m_Q$ with the
{\em pole mass}\/ or with the renormalization scheme dependent {\em current
mass}\/ of the QCD Lagrangian. Most
publications on HQET follow the arguments of Grinstein \cite{grins}
and of Falk, Luke, and Neubert \cite{res} and favor the first variant
which corresponds to the use of an on--shell renormalization scheme,
cf.\ \cite{grins}. Yet it has been pointed out
recently that the pole mass is an ill--defined quantity
in QCD beyond
perturbation theory \cite{volo,privet} and exhibits an intrinsic
uncertainty of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$ due to renormalon effects
\cite{privet}. Thus any approach to include non--perturbative
effects, like HQET, clearly has to abandon the use of the pole mass.
Admittedly the question of which mass to use seems a rather academical
one from the viewpoint of phenomenology as long as the mass enters
explicitly only in inverse powers and implicitly in the strong
coupling constant in the matching coefficients.
Yet the field of applications of HQET has expanded again and now
likewise encloses semileptonic inclusive decays of heavy mesons
\cite{allg,dvf,rvf}. Two important
statements about inclusive decays could be obtained: first, in leading
order they are essentially free quark decays, and second, the leading
corrections to the free quark decay are of order $1/m_Q^2$.
These results stimulated new determinations of the quark masses $m_c$
and $m_b$ and the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ from the experimental
measurements of the semileptonic branching ratios $B(D\to Xe\nu)$
and $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$, cf.\
Refs.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}. Since in
contrast to previous applications of HQET, the
inclusive decay rate depends on the heavy quark mass in its fifth$\,$(!)
power, the intrinsic uncertainty of the pole mass pointed out in
\cite{volo,privet}, which effectively mimics an $1/m_Q$ term that is
not present in the heavy quark expansion, casts some doubts on the
accuracy and reliability of such analyses.

In the present paper we show how the problems stemming from the
ill--definition of the pole mass can be avoided by constructing HQET
from the very beginning in terms of the current mass in an arbitrary
renormalization scheme. In the leading order in the $1/m_Q$--expansion
we recover the parton model result, but now with its long--known
renormalization scheme and scale--dependence. Yet the scheme-- and
scale--dependences have their origin in the ultraviolet behavior of
the theory and can reliably be estimated -- in contrast to the badly
controllable uncertainties in the definition of the pole mass.
We then determine the quark masses and $|V_{cb}|$ in a manner that is very
similar to what was done in
Refs.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}, but work in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme and get a value of $|V_{cb}|$ that
is by about 10\% smaller than the results of
Refs.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}. This difference
results solely from the transition of the badly defined on--shell
scheme to the well--defined $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme. Further
attention is paid to the correct determination of the renormalization
scale dependence. While it is huge in the inclusive rates itself, it
mainly drops in $|V_{cb}|$.

Our paper is organized as follows: in Sec.~II we show how HQET can be
constructed from QCD using an arbitrary scheme. In Sec.~III we apply the
heavy quark expansion to inclusive decays, determine $m_c^{\overline{
\mbox{MS}}}$, $m_b^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$, and $|V_{cb}|$ and compare
with the previous phenomenological analyses done in
Ref.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}.
Finally, in Sec.~IV, we discuss the results and draw some conclusions.


\begin{references}

\bibitem{reviews}
M. Wise, in {\em Particle Physics -- the Factory Era\/}, Proceedings
of the 6th Lake Louise Winter Institute, Lake Louise, Canada, 1991,
edited by B. Campbell {\em et al.} (World Scientific, Singapore,
1991), p.\ 222; H. Georgi, in {\em Perspectives in the Standard
Model\/}, Proceedings of the 1991 Theoretical Advanced Study Institut,
Boulder, Colorado, 1991, edited by R.K.\ Ellis, C.T.\ Hill, and
J.O.\ Sykken (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p.\ 589; M.
Neubert, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC--PUB--6263, 1993 (unpublished).

\bibitem{grins}
 B. Grinstein, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B339}, 253 (1990).

\bibitem{res}
 A. Falk, M. Neubert, and M. Luke, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B388}, 363 (1993).

\bibitem{volo}
B.H.\ Smith and M.B.\ Voloshin, Minneapolis Report No.\ TPI--MINN--94/5--T
(1994),  (unpublished).

\bibitem{privet}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7171/94, 1994,
 (unpublished);
M. Beneke and V.M.\ Braun, M\"{u}nchen Report No.\ MPI--PhT/94--9, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{allg}
I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev, and A. Vainshtein, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 293},
430 (1992); Erratum {\em ibid.} {\bf 297}, 477 (1993);
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 496 (1993);
 A. Manohar and M. Wise, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 1310 (1994);
B. Blok {\em et al.}, Minneapolis Report No.\ TPI--MINN--93/33--T,
1993,  (unpublished);
T. Mannel, Darmstadt Report No.\ IKDA-93-26, 1993, 
(unpublished);
 A. Falk, M. Luke, and M. Savage, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC--PUB--6317, 1993,
 (unpublished);
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7020/93, 1993,
 (unpublished);
A. Falk {\em et al.}, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7124--93, 1993,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{dvf}
M. Neubert, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7087/93, 1993,
 (unpublished);
 A. Falk {\em et al.}, San Diego Report No.\ UCSD/PTH--93--38, 1993,
 (unpublished);
M. Neubert, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7113/93, 1993,
 (unpublished);
T. Mannel and M. Neubert, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7156/94, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{rvf}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Minnesota Report No.\ TPI--MINN--93/60--T, 1993,
 (unpublished);
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Minnesota Report No.\ TPI--MINN--94/2--T, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{phenotypen1}
 M. Luke and M. Savage, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 321}, 88 (1994).

\bibitem{phenotypen2}
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7063/93, 1993,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{phenotypen3}
Z. Ligeti and Y. Nir, Weizmann Report No.\
WIS--94/2/Jan--PH, 1994,  (unpublished).

\bibitem{mr}
T. Mannel, W. Roberts, and Z. Ryzak, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B368}, 204 (1992).

\bibitem{M2}
W. Kilian and T. Mannel, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 1534 (1994).

\bibitem{pol}
H.D.\ Politzer, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B172}, 349 (1980).

\bibitem{nonlep}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7132/94, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{BBlast} P. Ball and V.M.\ Braun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 2472 (1994).

\bibitem{vir}
M. Neubert, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 322}, 419 (1994).

\bibitem{PD} Particle Data Group, K. Hikasa {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\
D {\bf 45}, S1 (1992).

\bibitem{cab} N. Cabibbo and L. Maiani, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 79}, 109
(1978).

\bibitem{nir} Y. Nir, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 221}, 184 (1989).

\bibitem{cornell} V. L\"{u}th in her Summary Talk at the
{\em XVI International Symposium on Lepton--Photon Interactions},
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 10-15~August 1993.

\bibitem{cleo}
G. Crawford {\em et al.}, Conference Report CLEO--CONF--93--30, 1993
(unpublished).

\bibitem{jmprep}
M. Jamin, M. M\"{u}nz, {\em in preparation}.

\bibitem{nn}
M. Neubert, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 1076 (1992).

\bibitem{guru}
Z. Guralnik and A.V.\ Manohar, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 302}, 103 (1993).

\bibitem{gurbound}
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 321}, 412 (1994).

\bibitem{baffl}
W.F.\ Palmer and B. Stech, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 4174 (1993);
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 323}, 408 (1994).

\end{references}

\section{Semileptonic inclusive decays}

Let us now turn to an important application of the considerations of
the last section. Quite recently, the heavy quark expansion has been
extensively applied to the problem of inclusive heavy meson decays,
both semi-- \cite{allg,dvf,rvf} and nonleptonic ones \cite{nonlep}.
Two major results were obtained, namely first that inclusive decays
are determined by the free quark decay in leading order in the heavy
quark expansion, and second that non--perturbative corrections to the
free quark decay picture are suppressed by terms of order $1/m_Q^2$;
there are no terms of order $1/m_Q$. These results allow an immediate
application to the determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$.
This task was tackled in the papers
Ref.\ \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3} where the following
procedure was adopted: first the $c$ quark mass $m_c$ is determined
from the branching fraction $B(D\to Xe\nu)$ in dependence on the
unknown non--perturbative parameters. Then HQET is invoked in order to
fix the $b$ quark mass $m_b$ from the known value of $m_c$. Insertion
in the theoretical expression for $B(B\to X_c e\nu)$ finally yields
$|V_{cb}|$ \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2}, or, assuming $|V_{cb}|$ as
known from other sources, bounds on the non--perturbative parameters
and quark masses, respectively, cf.\
\cite{phenotypen3}. In the present analysis we will closely follow the
sketched method, but work in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme and
keep track of possible scheme--dependences.

The non--perturbative corrections to the free quark decay picture
can be expressed in terms of two matrix elements,
\begin{eqnarray}
2m_B\lambda_1 & = & \langle\,B\,|\,\bar{b}_v (iD-v\Delta m)^2
b_v\,|\,B\,\rangle (1+{\cal O}(1/m_b)), \nonumber\\
6m_B\lambda_2(\mu_b) & = & \langle\,B\,|\,\bar{b}_v \frac{g}{2}\,
\sigma_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}b_v\,|\,B\,\rangle(1+{\cal O}(1/m_b)),
\end{eqnarray}
where $b_v$ is defined as $b_v = e^{im_b v x}b(x)$, $b(x)$ being the
$b$ quark field in full QCD, and $v_\mu$ is the four--velocity of
the B meson. The corrections of order $1/m_b$ on the right--hand
side account for the fact that physical states in QCD and HQET differ
by terms of order $1/m_Q$. The above
quantities have an immediate physical interpretation by virtue of the
scheme--invariant relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:massen}
m_B = m_b + \bar\Lambda_b -\frac{\lambda_1+3\lambda_2(\mu_b)}{2m_b} + {\cal
O}\left(\frac{1}{m_b^2}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_1/(2m_b)$ plays the r\^{o}le of the kinetic energy of the
heavy quark's Fermi motion inside the meson and the term in
$\lambda_2$, which has non--zero anomalous dimension in HQET,
accounts for its spin--energy in the chromomagnetic
field. $\mu_b$ is the matching--scale of HQET onto QCD.
$\bar\Lambda_b$ can be interpreted as the binding energy of the
light degrees of freedom in the meson. From (\ref{eq:massen}) one
readily infers
\begin{equation}
\lambda_2(\mu_b) \approx \frac{1}{4}(m_{B^*}^2-m_B^2)\approx 0.12\,\mbox{GeV}^2
\end{equation}
which is true in any renormalization scheme.
Unfortunately, $\lambda_1$ is no observable, but has to be determined
within some model--calculation. Recently, the value $\lambda_1 =
-(0.6\pm 0.1)\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ was obtained from QCD sum rules \cite{BBlast}.
In view of the criticisms raised in \cite{vir}, we nevertheless
prefer to leave $\lambda_1$ as an open parameter to be varied within
the interval $[-0.7,0]\,$GeV$^2$ where the upper bound is taken from
\cite{dvf}, the lower one from the sum rule determination \cite{BBlast}.

The heavy quark expansion of the decay rate of the semileptonic decay
$B\to X e \nu$ with unobserved $X$ in the
final state\footnote{In the following we identify $B\to X e \nu$ with
$B\to X_c e \nu$ where the $b$ quark decays into a $c$ quark since
charmless decays $B\to X_u e \nu$ can safely be
neglected because of $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2\lesssim 1\% $ \cite{PD}.}
then reads \cite{allg,cab}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(B\to X_c \ell \nu) & = & \frac{G_F^2 (m^R_b)^5}{192\pi^3}\,
|V_{cb}|^2 \, \left[ \left\{ 1-\frac{2}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s^R}{\pi}\,
g^R\!\left(\frac{m_c^R}{m_b^R}\right) + \frac{\lambda_1}{2m_b^R}\right\}
f_1\!\left(\frac{m_c^R}{m_b^R}\right) \right.\nonumber\\
& & \phantom{\frac{G_F^2 m_b^5}{192\pi^3}\,
|V_{cb}|^2 \;\;\;} \left. {}- \frac{9\lambda_2}{2(m^R_b)^2}\,
f_2\!\left( \frac{m_c^R}{m_b^R} \right) + {\cal O}\left( \frac{1}{(m_b^R)^3},
(\alpha_s^R)^2, \frac{\alpha_s^R}{m_b^R} \right) \right].
\label{eq:Gamma}\end{eqnarray}
Here we have marked all quantities depending on the renormalization
prescription by the superscript ``R''. $f_1$ and $f_2$ are
phase--space factors given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f_1(x) & = & 1-8x^2+8x^6-x^8-24x^4 \ln x,\nonumber\\
f_2(x) & = & 1-\frac{8}{3}\,x^2-8x^4+8x^6+\frac{5}{3}\,x^8 + 8 x^4\ln
x.
\end{eqnarray}
$g^{\mbox{on--shell}}$ was first analytically calculated
in Ref.\ \cite{nir}:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_1(x)g^{\mbox{on--shell}}(x) & = & -(1-x^4)\!\left(
\frac{25}{4} - \frac{239}{3}\,x^2+\frac{25}{4}\,x^4\right) + 2 x^2
\left( 20 + 90 x^2 -\frac{4}{3}\,x^4 +
\frac{17}{3}\,x^6\right)\ln x\nonumber\\
& & {}+4 x^4 (36+x^4)\ln x + (1-x^4)\!\left(
\frac{17}{3}-\frac{64}{3}\, x^2 + \frac{17}{3}\,x^4\right)\!
\ln(1-x^2)\nonumber \\
& & {}-8(1+30x^4+x^8)\,\ln x \ln (1-x^2) - (1+16x^4+x^8)\{
6\mbox{Li}_{2}(x^2) -\pi^2\}\nonumber\\
& & {}-32x^3(1+x^2)\!\left\{ \pi^2 - 4\mbox{Li}_2 (x) + 4 \mbox{Li}_2 (-x) - 4
\ln x \ln\, \frac{1-x}{1+x}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
$g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ can be obtained from (\ref{eq:Gamma}) by
expressing all scheme--dependent quantities in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme. To first order in $\alpha_s$, we thus
only need the relation
\begin{equation}
m_b^{pol} = m_b(\mu)\left\{1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\left(
\frac{4}{3} + \ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2}\right) + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)
\right\}.
\end{equation}
Insertion in (\ref{eq:Gamma}) yields
\begin{equation}
g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(x) = g^{\mbox{on--shell}}(x) + 3 x \ln x
\,\frac{d\ln f_1(x)}{dx} - 10 + \frac{15}{2}\, \ln \frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}.
\end{equation}
Numerically, we find the values given in Tab.~\ref{tab:1}.
{}From the comparison of $g^R$ in both schemes, it becomes evident that
higher order corrections in $\alpha_s$ are of paramount importance if
one is willing to obtain reliable predictions. The effect of higher
order terms is conventionally estimated by allowing the
renormalization scale $\mu$ to vary within, say, $m_b/2\leq \mu\leq
2m_b$. Let us compare this with the possible improvement achievable
by a future calculation of the term in $\alpha_s^2$. It is of the
generic form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphaquadrat}
\frac{\alpha_s^2}{\pi^2}\left( c_1\ln^2\,\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + c_2 \ln
\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + c_3\right),
\end{equation}
where both $c_1$ and $c_2$ are completely determined by the terms of
lower order in $\alpha_s$ and only $c_3$ remains to be calculated.
Expanding the anomalous dimension of the running
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass as
\begin{equation}
\gamma^m = \gamma_0^m\,\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} + \gamma_1^m
\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2 + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)
\end{equation}
and the QCD $\beta$--function as
\begin{equation}
\beta = -g\left\{ \beta_0\,\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} +
\beta_1\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2 + {\cal
O}(\alpha_s^3)\right\},
\end{equation}
we find\footnote{The numerical values of the coefficients $\gamma_i^m$
and $\beta_i$ can be found in any good textbook on QCD.}
\begin{eqnarray}
c_1 & = & \frac{5}{128}\,\gamma_0^m (5\gamma_0^m-2\beta_0),\nonumber\\
c_2 & = & \left. {}-\frac{5}{32}\,\gamma_1^m +
\frac{1}{6}\left(\beta_0+\frac{5}{2}\,\gamma_0^m\right)
g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(x)\right|_{\mu = m_b}.\label{eq:xxx}
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammac} we illustrate the resulting
scale--dependence of the branching ratio $\tau_D\,\Gamma(D\to X e
\nu)$ for $1\,\mbox{GeV}\leq \mu \leq 2\,\mbox{GeV}$.
We show both the next--to--leading order (NLO) result (\ref{eq:Gamma}) and
the NNLO result with the $\alpha_s^2$ terms (\ref{eq:alphaquadrat})
included where the unknown
constant $c_3$ is varied in the interval $[-10,10]$. As can be read
off the figure, the scale--variation in the NLO result
reproduces approximately the inherent uncertainty from the unknown
constant $c_3$. Still, the remaining scale uncertainty is noticeable
and limits the accuracy achievable in the determination of $m_c(m_c)$
from $\Gamma(D\to Xe\nu)$. We illustrate that point in
Fig.~\ref{fig:mc} where $m_c(m_c)$ as determined from $\Gamma(D\to
Xe\nu)$ via Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) is plotted as a function of the
renormalization scale $\mu$ and for different values of the input
parameters $\lambda_1$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(a)), $B(D\to Xe\nu)$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(b)), $m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV})$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(c)),
and $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(d)). In Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(e) we also show
the possible effect of $1/m_Q^3$ corrections estimated by adding to
and subtracting from (\ref{eq:Gamma}) the $1/m_Q^2$ terms to the power
$3/2$. As input parameters we use\footnote{The experimental errors on
$\tau_{D^+}$, $|V_{cs}|$, and $|V_{cd}|$ are so small, that the
combined error of all experimental quantities is completely determined
by the error of the branching ratio, and thus can safely be
neglected.} $B(D\to Xe\nu) = 0.172\pm 0.019$, $\tau_{D^+} = 1.066\,
\mbox{ps}$, $|V_{cs}| = 0.9743$, $|V_{cd}| = 0.221$ \cite{PD},
$m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = (0.20\pm 0.05)\,\mbox{GeV}$, cf.\ e.g.\ \cite{PD},
and $\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)} = (300\pm 50)\,\mbox{MeV}$
\cite{PD}. In contrast to the analysis done in \cite{phenotypen1},
we have varied $\mu$ in the range $1\,\mbox{GeV}\leq \mu\leq
2\,\mbox{GeV}$ only, since we believe that the perturbative
expansion becomes highly unreliable at smaller scales. We cannot follow
the arguments of Luke and Savage that $\mu$ could be associated with a
``typical energy'' of the emitted lepton pair and be as small as
$m_c/3 \approx 0.5\,\mbox{GeV}$! In our approach, $\mu$ has to be
identified with the matching scale of HQET to QCD and cannot be attributed
any physical meaning. The only (loose) condition to be imposed on
$\mu$ is that it should be of order $m_c$. We would also like to mention
that we are rather suspicious about how the scale uncertainty is handled in
\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3} since in these papers
only the scale in $\alpha_s(\mu)$ is varied (and the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme used in doing that!), but the quark mass
kept fixed. This corresponds to a scheme where the running of the quark
mass is cut ($\gamma_i^m$ is put zero in (\ref{eq:xxx})), which
is a permissible scheme, but does not seem a very reasonable one. At
least it is {\em not} the correct way how the QCD scale--uncertainty
should be estimated in the on--shell scheme.

{}From Fig.~\ref{fig:mc} we find  that $m_c(m_c)$ is clearly
most sensitive to the choice of $\mu$.
In particular, we note that a variation of $\lambda_1$ within the
conservative range $[-0.7,0]\,$GeV$^2$ affects the value of $m_c(m_c)$
only as much as a variation of $B(D\to Xe\nu)$ within one standard
deviation and nearly as much as a variation of the value of the
strange quark mass by $50\,$MeV. These observations seem to cast some
doubts on the procedure employed in
\cite{phenotypen3} where the determination
of $m_c$ was used to derive bounds on $\lambda_1$ and
$\bar\Lambda$. Taking all together, the heavy quark expansion yields
\begin{equation}
m_c^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(m_c) = (1.35\pm 0.20)\,\mbox{GeV} \quad \mbox{for\
}1\,\mbox{GeV}\leq \mu \leq 2\,\mbox{GeV.}
\end{equation}
We next use the information gained from the decay of the D meson
to determine $m_b$. To that end, we use Eq.\ (\ref{eq:massen}) and the
relation
\begin{equation}
\bar\Lambda_c - \frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_c)}{\pi}\,m_c(m_c) =
\bar\Lambda_b - \frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{\pi}\,m_b(m_b)
\end{equation}
which is valid in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme and can be
obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{laq}). The results are
displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mb}, both for $m_b$ as function of
$\lambda_1$ with fixed scale $\mu=m_c$, Fig.~\ref{fig:mb}(a), and for
fixed $\lambda_1=0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ as function of the scale $\mu/m_c$,
Fig.~\ref{fig:mb}(b). Again
we demand $\mu\geq 1\,\mbox{GeV}$, which yields $\mu/m_c\gtrsim
0.8$. The dashed lines give the uncertainty of $m_b$ due to the
experimental error in $B(D\to Xe\nu)$. Once more we observe a strong
dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$, which is however milder
than for $m_c$ due to the higher scales involved. In contrast to the
$c$ quark mass there is also a sizable dependence of $m_b$
on $\lambda_1$ which is of the same order as the $\mu$--dependence and
originates in the relation (\ref{eq:massen}). We obtain
\begin{equation}
m_b(m_b) = (4.6\pm 0.1\pm 0.1\pm 0.1)\,\mbox{GeV},
\end{equation}
the first error being due to the dependence on $\lambda_1$, the
second one due to $\mu$--dependence, and the third one combines the
dependence on the $s$ quark mass, the branching ratio $B(D\to Xe\nu )$
and $\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)}$.

In determining $V_{cb}$, we in addition need the experimental
branching ratio for $B\to X_c e \nu$, $B(B\to X_c e \nu) = (10.7\pm
0.5)\% $, quoted in \cite{PD}, and the B lifetime $\tau_B$, where we
use the most recent value $\tau_B = 1.49\,\mbox{ps}$ quoted in
\cite{cornell}. In view of the changes the value of
$\tau_B$ has experienced in recent years, cf.\ \cite{PD}, we prefer
not to include its experimental uncertainty in the error analysis, but
to give our results for the above fixed value of $\tau_B$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammab} we show $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$ as function
of $\mu$ with $V_{cb} = 0.04$, $m_c(m_c)=1.35\,\mbox{GeV}$, $m_b(m_b) =
4.5\,\mbox{GeV}$, $\lambda_1=0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ and $\lambda_2(\mu_b) =
0.12\,\mbox{GeV}^2$. Analogously to Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammac}, the
solid line obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) includes
${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ terms with varying $\mu$, whereas the dashed lines
also include the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections
(\ref{eq:alphaquadrat}) with $c_3$ varied within $[-10,10]$. Compared
with Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammac}, there is still a
scale dependence visible, but it is weaker due to the higher scales
involved. Still, the possible effect of a future calculation of $c_3$
can reliably be mimiced by varying $\mu$ within $m_b/2\lesssim \mu
\lesssim 2 m_b$.

We are now in a position to determine $|V_{cb}|$. Inserting correlated
values of $m_c$ and $m_b$ into Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) and comparing
with the experimental branching ratio $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$ we obtain
the values shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}. An
analysis of the different sources of uncertainties shows that they are
dominated by the dependence on $\lambda_1$, which proves the
strongest one, and on $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}(a) we
thus plot $|V_{cb}|$ as function of $\lambda_1$ for fixed scales
$\mu_b/m_b \equiv \mu_c/m_c \equiv 1$ and in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}(b)
as function of the scale $\mu/m_Q$ for fixed $\lambda_1 =
0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$; we also show the values of $|V_{cb}|$ resulting
from a variation of $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$ within one standard deviation
(dashed lines). For the convenience of the reader, the numerical values
are given explicitly in Tab.~\ref{tab:Vcb}.
The strong dependence of $|V_{cb}|$ on $\lambda_1$ is
entirely due to the behavior of $m_b$ as function of $\lambda_1$ since
the explicit $\lambda_1/m_b^2$ terms present in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma})
give only tiny contributions. The rather marginal scale--dependence
of $|V_{cb}|$ visible
in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}(b) can be explained in the following way. In
Tab.~\ref{tab:scalinv} we give for different scales $\mu/m_Q$ the
values of the quark masses, their ratio that enters the phace--space
factor, the value of the latter one, the branching ratio divided by
phase--space and the branching ratio itself, calculated with
$|V_{cb}|=0.04$. Although the quark masses differ rather drastically,
the ratio $m_c(\mu_b)/m_b(\mu_b)$ is not very sensitive to $\mu_b$ and
also the phase--space factor $f_1$ varies by only about 10\% in the
range $0.8\leq \mu_b/m_b\leq 1.8$. The branching ratio divided by
phase--space as well as the branching ratio itself are even less
sensitive to the scale. We thus find that the change in $m_b(\mu_b)$ is
nearly completely compensated by a corresponding change in the terms
in $\alpha_s(\mu_b)$ which is far from being trivial. From the figures
we read off
\begin{equation}\label{eq:resVcb}
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} = 0.036\pm
0.002 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.002,
\end{equation}
where the first error includes the dependence on $\lambda_1$ in the
interval $[-0.7,0]\,\mbox{GeV}^2$, the second one the
scale--uncertainty, and the third one all other uncertainties in the
parameters, i.e.\ in the branching ratios, $m_s$, and
$\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)}$. In principle, there is also an
uncertainty due to the scheme--dependence of our analysis which is
however difficult to estimate. If the on--shell scheme was
trustworthy, we could take the difference of our results and those of
\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2} as rough estimate for that ``hidden''
theoretical error. For lack of any other calculation in a reasonable
scheme we are however forced to leave that point open to future
investigations. The above value of $|V_{cb}|$ has to be compared with
\begin{eqnarray}
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} &= &
(0.046\pm 0.008)\quad \mbox{\protect{\cite{phenotypen1}},}\nonumber\\
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} & \approx &
0.042\quad\mbox{\protect{\cite{phenotypen2}},}\nonumber\\
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} & = &
0.037\pm 0.007\quad \mbox{\protect{\cite{cleo}}.}
\end{eqnarray}
The value quoted in \cite{cleo} is the most recent one obtained
from the spectrum of the {\em exclusive} decay $B\to D^* e\nu$ fitted to
the Isgur--Wise function using different shapes. We observe that our
result nearly coincides with the one from exclusive decays, but is
smaller than the ones obtained in \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2} where
the on--shell scheme was used. Let us close this section with a
short comment on the prospects of a future reduction of the errors in
(\ref{eq:resVcb}). To begin with, experimentalists are challenged to
carry out more accurate measurements of the branching ratios,
especially of $B(B\to X_c e\nu)$. Combining with more sophisticated
determinations of $m_s$ \cite{jmprep} and
$\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)}$ will reduce the second error. As
for the third error due to scale--dependence there is no simple remedy
at hand and we hardly can imagine any reliable method to be invented
in the near future to fix the scale except for a calculation of the
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) which is a
truly formidable task. So the main efforts should be
concentrated on the determination of $\lambda_1$. Although in
\cite{dvf} there was proposed a method of relating $\lambda_1$ to
moments of the so--called ``shape--function'' determining the
end--point region of the lepton-- and photon--spectrum in the decays
$B\to Xe\nu$ and $B\to X_s\gamma$, respectively, at present that
approach suffers from missing both measurements and any formulas
going beyond ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^0)$. Yet the introduction of the
shape--function leads to the constraint $\lambda\leq 0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$
which is agreement with the results obtained in \cite{BBlast} and
\cite{gurbound}, but in contrast to the earlier determination
\cite{nn}, where a positive value
was obtained. The status of the careful analysis done in \cite{BBlast}
with QCD sum rules is unfortunately not beyond any doubt, cf.\
\cite{vir}, so a clarification of that point would be welcome. If the
result of \cite{BBlast} could be confirmed, (\ref{eq:resVcb}) would
read $|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2} = 0.034\pm 0.001 \pm 0.002$.


\documentstyle[aps,eqsecnum,preprint,prd,epsf]{revtex}

\tighten
%\nofiles
\addtolength{\jot}{10pt}

\begin{document}
\draft
\preprint{\parbox[t]{4.5cm}{TUM--T31--56/94/R\\}

\title{THE MASS DEFINITION IN HQET\\
AND A NEW DETERMINATION OF V$_{\mbox{cb}}$}
\author{Patricia Ball and Ulrich Nierste}
\address{Physik--Department/T30, TU M\"{u}nchen, D--85747 Garching, Germany}
\date{April 22, 1994}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
Positive powers of the mass parameter in a physical quantity
calculated with the help of heavy quark effective theory  originate
from a Wilson coefficient in the matching of QCD and HQET Green
function. We show that this mass parameter enters the calculation as
a well--defined running current mass.
We further argue that the recently found ill--definition of the pole
mass, which is the natural expansion parameter of HQET, does not
affect a phenomenological analysis which uses truncated perturbative
series.
We reanalyse inclusive semileptonic decays of heavy mesons
and obtain the $c$ quark mass
$m_c^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(m_c) = (1.35\pm 0.20)\,\mbox{GeV}$ where
the error is almost entirely due to scale--uncertainties. We also obtain
$m_b^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(m_b) = (4.6\pm 0.3)\,\mbox{GeV}$ and
$|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2} = 0.036\pm 0.005$
where the errors come from the uncertainty in the kinetic energy
of the heavy quark inside the meson, in the experimental branching
ratios, in QCD input parameters, and scale--uncertainties.
\end{abstract}
\pacs{11.10.Gh,12.38.Cy,12.39.Hg,13.20.He}
\clearpage

\section{Introduction}

During recent years the study of HQET, the effective theory of QCD
expanded in inverse powers of the heavy quark mass, has considerably
enlarged our understanding of low--energy  QCD (cf.\ \cite{reviews}
for reviews). Being successfully applied to a number of exclusive
decay processes of heavy--light systems containing one heavy quark and
one or two light quarks, it likewise supplies us with a number of
relations between static properties of such systems like the particle
spectrum and leptonic decay constants. Nevertheless, the question of
the correct definition of the heavy quark mass $m_Q$, the expansion
parameter of HQET, has played only a minor
r\^{o}le in the tremendous number of publications dealing with that theory.
When Green functions in full QCD are matched to
those in HQET, one has to decide whether to identify $m_Q$ with the
{\em pole mass}\/ or with the renormalization scheme--dependent {\em current
mass}\/ of the QCD Lagrangian.
Admittedly the question of which mass to use seems a rather academical
one from the viewpoint of phenomenology as long as the mass enters
explicitly only in inverse powers and implicitly in the strong
coupling constant in the matching coefficients.
Yet the field of applications of HQET has expanded again and now
likewise encloses semileptonic inclusive decays of heavy mesons
\cite{allg,dvf,rvf}. Two important
statements about inclusive decays could be obtained: first, in leading
order they are essentially free quark decays, and second, the leading
corrections to the free quark decay are of order $1/m_Q^2$.
These results stimulated new determinations of the quark masses $m_c$
and $m_b$ and the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ from the experimental
measurements of the semileptonic branching ratios $B(D\to Xe\nu)$
and $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$, cf.\
Refs.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}. Since in
contrast to previous applications of HQET, the
inclusive decay rate depends on the heavy quark mass in its fifth$\,$(!)
power, a careful analysis of the correct definition of the mass
parameter is mandatory. In fact any {\em positive} power of the heavy
mass originates from the matching of a QCD Green function to a HQET
Green function, so it is naturally a running current mass which enters
in this step. On the other hand the expansion parameter of the
HQET Green function equals the pole mass \cite{grins,M2}, whose
precise  definition has recently been investigated by Braun and Beneke
and by Bigi et al.\ \cite{privet}. It was found that due to
renormalon effects any attempt to define the pole mass beyond a
finite order in perturbation theory is plagued by an
intrinsic uncertainty of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$.

The present paper is organized  as follows:
In Sec.~II we  analyse the r\^{o}le of the mass parameter in the Wilson
coefficient obtained from the matching of QCD and  HQET Green functions.
As a result we recover in the  leading order of the $1/m_Q$--expansion
the long--known renormalization scheme-- and scale--dependence of the parton
model. We further argue that the ambiguity in the definition of the pole
mass, which is the expansion parameter of HQET, does not affect
a phenomenological analysis which uses  the expansions in
$1/m_Q$ and $\alpha_s$ only to a finite order.
In Sec.~III we investigate the inclusive decay rates of D-- and
B--mesons using the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme.
We  determine the quark masses and $|V_{cb}|$ in a manner that is very
similar to what was done in
Refs.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}
and get a value of $|V_{cb}|$ that
is by about 10\% smaller than the results of
Refs.~\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}.
This difference results solely from the transition of the
on--shell scheme to the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme. Special
attention is paid to the correct determination of the renormalization
scale--dependence. While it is huge in the inclusive rates itself, it
mainly drops out in $|V_{cb}|$.
Finally, in Sec.~IV, we discuss the results and draw some conclusions.

\section{The mass parameter in HQET}

HQET  allows a  systematic expansion of QCD observables in inverse
powers of a heavy quark mass. It   is  founded on the fact that
the long--distance strong interaction of
a heavy quark with mass
$m_Q$ is independent of its spin and flavour in the limit
$m_Q \rightarrow \infty $.
This heavy quark symmetry is violated by the finiteness
of the heavy quark mass and by short--distance QCD interactions.
The first correction is taken into account by including terms
proportional to  powers of $1/m_Q$, while the effect of hard
gluons can be incorporated in a perturbation series in
$\alpha _s (m_Q)$.
Usually these steps are treated independently:
At first the heavy antiparticle field is integrated out in the
path integral and the resulting expression is expanded in
$1/m_Q$ yielding a series of local terms in the Lagrangian
\cite{mr}.
Then Green functions in QCD and HQET are matched at a scale
$\mu \approx m_Q$
at which both perturbative QCD and HQET are valid.
In this step short--distance corrections are taken into account by
calculating loop corrections to the matching coefficients.
Here one has to worry about the definition of the mass $m_Q$.
The semileptonic inclusive decay rate discussed in Sec.~III
contains $m_Q$ in the fifth power and the proper definition
of $m_Q$ is of significant phenomenological importance.

A mass parameter in a physical observable calculated with the help of HQET
can  originate from two very different sources:
Consider  the matching of a QCD Green function
$G_{\mbox{QCD}}$ to its HQET counterpart
$G_{\mbox{HQET}}$ at some scale $\mu \approx m_Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{\mbox{QCD}} (m_Q,\mu) &=& C(m_Q,\mu) \left[  G^{(0)}_{\mbox{HQET}} ( \mu)
              + \frac{1}{m_Q}   G^{(1)}_{\mbox{HQET}} (\mu)
              + O \left( \frac{1}{m_Q^2}   \right) \right]
        \label{matchmu}.
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.\ (\ref{matchmu}) $m_Q$ can enter the Wilson coefficient $C$, which
comprises the short--distance interactions
originating from scales
larger than the matching scale $\mu$.
The inverse masses  multiplying $G^{(k)}_{\mbox{HQET}}$, however,
is the expansion
parameter of HQET multiplying  the different orders of
interaction operators in the HQET Lagrangian.

The mass
$m_Q$ in the Wilson coefficient $C$,
which we will discuss first,
is a short--distance quantiy and therefore
clearly equals the {\em running current mass} $m_Q (\mu)$ in the
renormalization scheme chosen for the calculation of
$G_{QCD}$.
This fact becomes very transparent in the example  of a QCD Green function
whose Feynman graphs contain external heavy quark lines and internal
lines corresponding to particles with masses
$m_1 \gg m_2 \gg \ldots m_Q$:
We first set  $\mu=\mu_1 \approx m_1$ and
calculate the diagrams in the full standard model
and in an effective field theory
 in which the heaviest internal particle is
integrated out to
  obtain some Wilson coefficient $C(m_1, \mu_1 )$.
Whenever we cross a particle threshold in the renormalization group
evolution of $C$ to lower energies
we have to repeat this factorization, which successively puts the masses
of all internal heavy particles into the Wilson coefficient $C$.
They  enter $C$ as running masses $m_i (\mu_i)$ evaluated at scales
$\mu _i \approx m_i$. When we approach $\mu \approx m_Q$
we match the Green function
in an effective QCD theory
to a HQET Green function as displayed
in (\ref{matchmu}), which adds $m_Q$ to the set of heavy masses
appearing as arguments of $C$. There is no point in treating this mass
differently from the others in $C$: The short--distance coefficient
should not contain any information on  the long--distance interaction,
i.e.\ whether the latter is encoded in a Green function
calculated in HQET or in
some other effective theory of QCD.

In a physical observable
calculated with the help of HQET  {\em positive} powers of $m_Q$
obviously stem from the Wilson coefficient.
In spite of this the inclusive decay rate discussed in Sec.~III
is usually entirely expressed in terms of the pole mass.
The leading term in the $1/m_Q$--expansion is known to coincide
with the parton model result, which has been obtained in
\cite{cab} from an older QED calculation.
In the latter an on--shell renormalization was used for the external fermion
so that the result was expressed in terms of the pole mass.
In QCD this scheme is not  very adequate, because quarks are confined
and their mass is not directly related to any observable.
Nevertheless, as long as one stays within the parton model,
which does not distinguish between the heavy meson and the
heavy quark,
the on--shell scheme is as good as any other scheme, to which one can
easily pass by expressing the pole mass in the result by the
corresponding current mass.
By using HQET, however, we want to estimate corrections to the
parton model result stemming from the binding of
the heavy quark in the meson, and the correct tool to use is Wilson's
operator product expansion (\ref{matchmu}).

In the case of the inclusive decay rate the
standard model   diagrams to be calculated for the
left hand side of (\ref{matchmu}) are
the heavy quark self--energy graphs
with the light quark and the lepton pair in the intermediate state.
Its imaginary part determines the desired rate in the parton model.
In general one would like
 to include renormalization group improvement between
the scales $\mu \approx m_W$ and $\mu \approx m_Q$ and would
match the standard model diagram  first at $\mu \approx m_W$
to a corresponding diagram in an effective theory in which the
W--boson is integrated out, which is then matched at
$\mu \approx m_Q$ to the self--energy graph in HQET.
In the case of the semileptonic decay rate,
 (\ref{eq:Gamma}), however, no such improvement is
necessary due to the vanishing anomalous dimensions
of the corresponding operators,
and the standard model diagrams are directly matched
at $\mu \approx m_Q$ to the HQET Green function
$\langle {\cal M}  | \overline{h} \Gamma h  | {\cal M}  \rangle$
and  to  matrix elements
of the HQET operators subleading in $1/m_Q$.
Here ${\cal M}$  denotes the  heavy meson,  $h$ is the heavy quark
field in the effective theory and $\Gamma$ is the appropriate
Dirac structure.
In this step one gets the running mass of the heavy quark raised to the fifth
power evaluated at the scale $\mu$.
We stress that one is not forced to choose $\mu = m_Q$ exactly
(see e.g.\ Neubert in \cite{reviews}).
The choice of $\mu$ determines
the separation of short and long--distance physics, the interaction
from scales larger than $\mu$ is contained in the Wilson coefficient,
which contains the running quark mass.
 In an calculation to all orders
the result does not change with the variation of $\mu$.
In practice one works with a truncated series and the dependence
of the theoretical prediction
on the scale $\mu $ estimates the
reliability of the calculation.
We will use this
tool extensively in the phenomenolocical analysis of Sec.~III.
The use of the pole mass in the Wilson coefficient
corresponds to the matching at an unnaturally low scale
$\mu \approx 0.5\, m_Q$. In the case of the c quark this scale is too
small for perturbative QCD to be trusted.

We will now discuss the nature of the mass parameter, whose inverse
powers  appears in the square brackets in (\ref{matchmu}) and stems
from  the HQET Lagrangian.

The starting point in the derivation of HQET is the decomposition of
the heavy quark's momentum $P_Q^\mu$ according to
\begin{eqnarray}
P_Q^\mu &=& m_Q v^\mu + k^\mu, \label{hm}
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_Q$ is the heavy quark mass, $v^\mu$ is the four--velocity of
the hadron and $k^\mu$  is the residual momentum.
The latter is usually constrained by the condition
{\samepage
\begin{eqnarray}
k^\mu = {\cal O}(\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}) & \simeq &
\mbox{const.,}   \label{old}      \\[-18pt]
& \scriptstyle m_Q \to \infty &  \nonumber
\end{eqnarray} }
so that finally physical observables $X$ are expanded in a
power series in
$\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}/m_Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
X & \sim & \sum_k a_k
    \left( \frac{\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}} }{m_Q} \right)^{k} . \label{hqe}
\end{eqnarray}

In Eq.\ (\ref{old}) we have emphasized that in HQET the constraint
$k^\mu={\cal O}(\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}})$ is understood as a scaling relation:
The residual momentum does not diverge when the limit
$m_Q \rightarrow \infty $ is performed.
Obviously (\ref{old}) cannot hold for every definition of the mass,
because a change in the
QCD renormalization prescription for $m_Q$
may
redefine $k^\mu$
in (\ref{hm}) by an amount
involving $\alpha _s (m_Q) m_Q v^\mu $, which scales like
$m_Q / \ln m_Q $ rather than staying constant.

Authors addressing  the definition of the mass
indeed only allow  on--shell--like  renormalization conditions for
$m_Q$ \cite{grins,M2,uab}.
Let us recall their key arguments:
The QCD quark self--energy
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma &=&
m_Q  \Sigma_1 +( p\hspace{-5.5pt}/\hspace{5.5pt}\!\! -m_Q) \Sigma_2
\end{eqnarray}
can be sandwiched between two projectors
$P_v^+=(1+v\hspace{-5.5pt}/\hspace{5.5pt}\!\!)/2$
and be expanded as
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{ P_v^+ \Sigma P_v^+ \; =  \; P_v^+
    \left[ m_Q \Sigma_1 + v \cdot k \, \Sigma_2  \right] P_v^+}  \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{\alpha _s C_F}{4 \pi}
    \left[
  m_Q \Sigma_{10} +v \cdot k \left( \Sigma_{11} + \Sigma_{20} \right)
   +  {\cal O} \left( \frac{ ( v \cdot k) ^2 }{m_Q} \right)
     \right] P_v^+
   + {\cal O} \left( m_Q \alpha_s^2    \right) . \label{self}
\end{eqnarray}
Here the one--loop contribution to
$\Sigma_i$ is expanded
with respect to $v \cdot k/ m_Q$ and
$\alpha _s C_F /( 4 \pi) \Sigma_{ij}$
is the $j$-th coefficient.
Now
$\Sigma$ has to match
the HQET self--energy $v\cdot k \, \tilde{\Sigma}$
up to ${\cal O}( v \cdot k / m_Q)$.
For this
an on--shell--like renormalization condition
\begin{eqnarray}
\Sigma_1|_{m_Q^2-P_Q^2 = \rho}&=& 0 \label{osl}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\rho \approx 0$ fixed as
$m_Q \rightarrow \infty$ was required in \cite{grins}.
Otherwise the term $m_Q \Sigma_{10}$ in (\ref{self}) would diverge
as $m_Q \rightarrow \infty $ and thereby could not be matched to any
HQET Green function, which scales at most as a constant due to (\ref{old}).
In the following we set $\rho =0$, so that
$m_Q$ in (\ref{hm}) equals the pole mass, when the constraint
(\ref{old}) is imposed on $k^\mu$.

{}From a phenomenologist's point of view the appearance of a quark
pole mass is unsatisfactory, because quarks do not exist
as free particles, so that the pole mass  is no observable.
Any QCD calculation  relates observables to running current masses,
which are contained in  Wilson coefficients.
The pole mass has to be  {\em calculated} in terms of  the current mass
extracted from  some experiment.
Eq.\ (\ref{hm}) implies that the pole mass is calculated to all
orders in perturbation theory:
By  truncating the perturbative series
defining $m_{\mbox{pole}}$ at order $n$ one picks up an error of the
order $\alpha_s^{n+1} (m_Q) m_Q = {\cal O}(m_Q/ \ln^{n+1} m_Q)$ in the residual
momentum, so that it would not
stay  constant in the limit $m_Q \rightarrow \infty$.
Moreover, the authors of \cite{privet} have proven that the pole mass
suffers from an extra infrared renormalon
situated at $u=1/2$ in the Borel plane, so that the result depends
on the summation prescription chosen for the divergent perturbative
series and
is ill--defined by a term of  order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$.

We therefore want to avoid the use of the pole mass in the first step
of the construction of HQET and use an arbitrary current mass instead.
The final result, however, will be the same as with the pole mass as
the starting point, but an alternative  derivation might be illustrative.

If $m_Q$ denotes the current mass in an arbitrary renormalization
scheme of QCD, (\ref{old}) can no more be imposed on $k^\mu$ and we
have instead
{\samepage \begin{eqnarray}
k^\mu & \simeq & {\cal O}(\alpha _s (m_Q) m_Q)
    \, = \, {\cal O} \left( \frac{m_Q}{\ln (m_Q/\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}})}
\right), \label{new}        \\[-20pt]
& \scriptstyle m_Q \to \infty & \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}}
because a change of the renormalization prescription for $m_Q$
redefines $k^\mu$ by a quantity involving
$\alpha _s (m_Q) m_Q = {\cal O}(m_Q / \ln m_Q)$.
Nevertheless
the heavy quark expansion of QCD Green functions remains  reasonable,
because one still has $k^\mu / m_Q \to 0$ for \mbox{$m_Q \to \infty$},
so that $v \cdot k/m_Q$ is a small parameter.
The heavy quark field $h_v (x) = P_v^+ Q(x) \exp (i m_Q v\cdot x) $
is now unambiguously defined, because it involves the current mass.

We can now investigate how the matching of QCD and HQET has to be
performed in our  approach:
Consider the (non--truncated) two--point function $G_{2}$ in QCD.
The tree--level part reads
\begin{eqnarray}
P_v^+ G_2^{(0)} P_v^+ &=& i P_v^+ \frac{p\hspace{-5.5pt}/\hspace{5.5pt}\!\!+
m_Q}{p^2 -m_Q^2} P_v^+ \nonumber\\
& = & \frac{i P_v^+ }{v \cdot k} + \frac{i P_v^+}{2 m_Q}
              \left[ 1- \frac{k^2}{(v \cdot k)^2 }   \right]
            +{\cal O} \left( \frac{1}{m_Q \ln m_Q }  \right). \label{ld}
\end{eqnarray}
In the ${\cal O}(\ldots )$--part
we have taken into account
that $k^\mu$ scales according to
(\ref{new}).
The ${\cal O} \left( \alpha _s  \right)$--part yields for $\mu=m_Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lefteqn{
P_v^+ G_2^{(1)} P_v^+ \; = \;  - i P_v^+
\frac{p\hspace{-5.5pt}/\hspace{5.5pt}\!\!+
m_Q}{p^2 -m_Q^2}
                     \Sigma  \frac{p\hspace{-5.5pt}/\hspace{5.5pt}\!\!+m_Q}{p^2
-
m_Q^2} P_v^+ } \nonumber\\
&=& -i P_v^+ \frac{\alpha _s (m_Q) C_F}{4 \pi}  \left[ \frac{m_Q}{(v \cdot
k)^2}
                               \left( \Sigma_{10} -
                              \delta_m \right) \right. \nonumber\\
&& \left.      + \frac{1}{v \cdot k}
       \left( \Sigma_{11} + \Sigma_{20} +\delta_2 +
              \left( 1- \frac{k^2}{(v\cdot k)^2} \right)
               \left( \Sigma_{10}-\delta_m   \right)  \right)
                \right]
           + {\cal O} \left( \frac{1}{m_Q \ln m_Q} \right) , \label {sld}
\end{eqnarray}
where $-\delta_m C_F \alpha _s /( 4 \pi)$ and
 $\delta_2 C_F \alpha _s /( 4 \pi)$ are the mass and wave function
counterterms in the QCD  Lagrangian.
Eqs.\ (\ref{ld}) and (\ref{sld}) illustrate that with (\ref{new}) the
$1/m_Q$--expansion now yields a series in which each term is still
suppressed  compared to the preceding one, but only by a factor
of order $1/\ln ( m_Q / \Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}})$ rather than of order
$\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}/m_Q$.

The new feature in the matching
of (\ref{ld}) and (\ref{sld}) to the corresponding expressions in
HQET is the appearance of the term $\Sigma_{10}-\delta_m$ in
(\ref{sld}) which equals zero in the on--shell scheme.
To accomodate for it  we need an additional term
\begin{eqnarray}
-\Delta m \bar{h}_v h_v \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
in the HQET Lagrangian with
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta m &=& \frac{\alpha _s C_F}{4 \pi} m_Q
             \left( \delta_m -\Sigma_{10} \right)
             + {\cal O} \left( m_Q \alpha _s^2 \right).  \label{et}
\end{eqnarray}
The HQET two--point Green function
with one insertion of $-\Delta m \bar{h}_v h_v $ then matches the
first term in (\ref{sld}).
When working to $n$-th order in $\alpha _s$,
(\ref{et}) must be adjusted to cancel the $m_Q \Sigma_1$--terms
to order $\alpha _s^n$.
Clearly  $\Delta m$ in the above one--loop example, Eq.\ (\ref{sld}) ,
is nothing but $m_{\mbox{pole}}^{(1)}-m_Q$. In the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme
\begin{equation}\label{eq:deltamMS}
\Delta m (\mu) = \frac{\alpha_s (\mu) }{\pi} m_Q
       \left( \frac{4}{3} + \ln \frac{\mu^2 }{m_Q^2} \right) .
\end{equation}
$\Delta m $ is a purely short--distance quantity and does not require
any definition of $m_{\mbox{pole}}$ beyond perturbation theory. Consequently
we treat the ``residual mass term'' $-\Delta m \bar{h}_v h_v$
as an interaction vertex and not as a part
of the kinetic Lagrangian.
The other term involving $\Sigma_{10}-\delta_m$
in (\ref{sld}) stems from the $1/m_Q$--part of the
propagators between which $m_Q  \Sigma_1$ is sandwiched. They clearly
match the HQET two--point function with one insertion of
$-\Delta m \bar{h}_v h_v$
and one insertion of the sum of the usual $1/m_Q$--subleading operators
$1/( 2 m_Q) \bar{h}_v (i D)^2  h_v$  and
$ - 1/( 2 m_Q) \bar{h}_v (i v \cdot D )^2  h_v$.
It is evident
how  the matching of $m_Q \Sigma_{10}-\delta_m$
to $-\Delta m $
works to higher orders in $v \cdot k/m_Q$.
The matching of the wave function counterterms is not different from
the conventional approach with $\Delta m=0$.
%\begin{eqnarray}
%\! \! \!  \frac{Z_h}{Z_2}-1 \! &  =  &
%    \frac{\alpha_s (\mu) C_F}{4 \pi } \left(
%    \delta_h -\delta_2 \right)  + {\cal O} \left( \alpha_s ^ 2 \right)
%     =
%     \frac{\alpha_s (\mu) C_F}{4 \pi } \left(
%     \frac{1}{ \tilde{\varepsilon} } +4 +
%           6 \ln \frac{\mu}{m_Q} \right)
%     + {\cal O} \left( \alpha_s ^ 2 \right)   \label{wave},
%\end{eqnarray}

The difference between the residual mass term introduced in
\cite{res} and $\Delta m$ in (\ref{et}) is that the former was
constrained to be of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$ while
$\Delta m $ is of order $\alpha_s m_Q$. The appearance of a
positive power of $m_Q$
in the HQET Lagrangian
has a dramatic consequence for the
$1/m_Q$-expansion of Green functions:
With the use of the pole mass inverse powers of $m_Q$ and
logarithms of $ m_Q$
are neatly separated, so that the $1/m_Q$--expansion coincides
term--by--term with
an operator product expansion in $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}/m_Q$
as in (\ref{hqe}).
By using a current mass as the expansion parameter and introducing
$\Delta m_Q$ in the HQET Lagrangian we have reshuffled
the two expansions in $1/m_Q$ and $\alpha_s (m_Q)$.
In order to arrive directly at an operator product expansion
(\ref{hqe}) one  necessarily has to separate the heavy quark mass
and self--interaction from the interaction with the
light degrees of freedom, which is of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$.
The authors of \cite{privet} have
shown that this separation is ambiguous beyond perturbation theory
and can introduce a residual mass term in the HQET Lagrangian
which is of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$  and is a remnant of
the long--distance self--interaction of the heavy quark. As for the
short--distance contributions to the self--energy  of the heavy quark,
this separation is, however, possible and mandatory to achieve
the abovementioned separation of powers and logarithms of
$m_Q$ directly.\footnote{We thank M.\ Beneke for clarifying this point.}

By using an arbitrary current mass as the expansion parameter we  have
put  the  quark self--energy in the chosen QCD scheme entirely
into the HQET Lagrangian.

Nevertheless one can easily recover the correct operator product
expansion:
To this end we
investigate how
 the hadronic parameters of HQET transform under a change  of
the renormalization scheme  used to define $m_Q$.


Consider two schemes differing by a finite
renormalization of the mass:
\begin{eqnarray}
m_Q ^\prime &=& z_m m_Q \;=\; m_Q+ \delta m_Q \nonumber\\
\Delta m_Q ^\prime &=& \Delta m_Q- \delta m_Q.    \label{schtrafo}
\end{eqnarray}
The choice $\Delta m_Q=\delta m_Q$ transforms to the pole mass.
The transformation (\ref{schtrafo}) modifies the HQET quark field as
\begin{eqnarray}
h_v ^\prime (x) &=&  h_v e^{i v x \delta m_Q} .  \label{schtrafo2}
\end{eqnarray}
The
parameter $\bar{\Lambda}$ measures the  mass
difference between meson and quark.
One easily finds:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Lambda} ^\prime &=& \frac{i v \partial
\langle 0| \overline{q^\prime} \Gamma h_v^\prime | M(v)  \rangle}{\langle 0|
           \overline{q}^\prime \Gamma h_v ^\prime | M(v)  \rangle}, \nonumber\\
%&=& \frac{i v \partial
%\langle 0| \overline{q} \Gamma h_v | M(v)  \rangle
%           - \delta m_Q \langle 0| \overline{q} \Gamma h_v | M(v)  \rangle
%      }{\langle 0|
%           \overline{q} \Gamma h_v  | M(v)  \rangle}, \nonumber\\
&=& \bar{\Lambda} - \delta m_Q , \label{example}
\end{eqnarray}
so that the meson mass
\begin{eqnarray}
M_Q&=& m_Q+\bar{\Lambda}+{\cal O} \left(
      \frac{\Lambda^2_{\mbox{QCD}}}{m_Q} \right) \label{mesmas}
\end{eqnarray}
is scheme--independent.
In an arbitrary scheme $\bar{\Lambda}$ contains the quark self--energy,
whose short--distance part depends on $m_Q$, so that we
have to   add a flavor label to
 $\bar\Lambda $ and write in the e.g.\
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme for $\mu=m_Q$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\Lambda}_Q^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}} &=&
     \bar{\Lambda}_{\mbox{pole}}
      + \frac{4}{3} \frac{\alpha_s (m_Q) }{ \pi} m_Q
         + {\cal O} \left(\alpha_s^2 m_Q \right)  , \label{laq}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\bar{\Lambda}_{\mbox{pole}}$ is the usual
$\bar{\Lambda}$--parameter which corresponds to the choice of
$m_Q=m_{\mbox{pole}}$
and obeys the heavy quark symmetry.
So far we have just trivially pushed self--energy contributions from
the mass into $\bar{\Lambda}_Q$. Reference to the pole mass is for
the first time made in (\ref{laq}), which expresses that only with
an on--shell renormalization for $m_Q$ the quantity
$\bar{\Lambda}$ is of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$.
{}From \cite{privet}  we know that the separation of
$m_{\mbox{pole}}$ and $\bar{\Lambda}_{\mbox{pole}}$
is ambiguous by long--distance terms of order $\Lambda_{\mbox{QCD}}$.
With our formalism we clearly do not resolve this ambiguity, but just
make clear that it does not affect a practical phenomenological
analysis, where one would like to use (\ref{mesmas})
to extract, say, $\bar{\Lambda}_{\mbox{pole}}$
from an analysis of the D--meson
system and to insert it into a prediction for the B--meson system.
In the first step one extracts the current charm quark mass from
some observable which is calculated with radiative corrections to
some order $\alpha_s^n$. Clearly in (\ref{laq})  one will only subtract
the quark self--energy to the same order, so that  the prediction
for the calculated observable will then have an error of the order
$\alpha_s ^{n+1} $.
One is never faced with the problem to define the pole mass beyond
perturbation theory.
Even if we did the calculation
to a very high order, so that we saw the
renormalon--induced divergence of the
perturbative series
for the self--energy in Eq.\ (\ref{laq}), we would naively expect that the
renormalon ambiguity cancels in the prediction, if we fixed the
summation prescription for the perturbation series in both the
D- and B- analysis in the same way.

We will next discuss the scheme--dependence of the parameters
$\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$, which
appear at order $1/m_Q$ and
parametrize the matrix elements with two heavy meson states of equal
velocity.
At this order the residual mass $\Delta m$ has to be taken into
account. We first want to define $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2$ in a
scheme--invariant way, i.e.\ such that they are independent
of $\Delta m$.
{}From \cite{res} we know that the latter can be obtained
by replacing the covariant derivative $D^\mu$ by $D^\mu+i v^\mu \Delta
m$.
Indeed, for a heavy meson ${\cal M}$ with mass $M_Q$  we find
\begin{eqnarray}
2 M_Q \lambda_1 & = & \langle\,{\cal M} \,|\,\bar{h}_v (iD-v \Delta m)^2
 h_v\, | \,{\cal M} \,\rangle (1+{\cal O}(1/m_Q)), \label{lambada} \\
6 M_Q \lambda_2 (\mu ) & = & \langle \,{\cal M} \,|\,\bar{h}_v \frac{g}{2}\,
\sigma_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu} h_v\,|\, {\cal M} \,\rangle(1+{\cal O}(1/m_Q))
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
to be invariant with respect to the transformations (\ref{schtrafo}) and
(\ref{schtrafo2}). Consider now some observable whose $1/m_Q$--part looks for
$m_Q=m_{\mbox{pole}}$ like
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\lambda_1}{m_{\mbox{pole}}}
      \left( a+ b \alpha_s + {\cal O}\left( \alpha^2_s \right)\right)
\label{1m}
\end{eqnarray}
with some constants $a$ and $b$ plus a similar term with $\lambda_2$.
In an arbitrary scheme one gets the current mass instead in the
denominator of (\ref{1m}), but the second  order in the
$1/m_Q$--expansion involves matrix elements with
one insertion of  $\Delta m$ and
two insertions of
the $1/m_Q$--operators.
Since
$\Delta m/m_Q= {\cal O}(\alpha_s )$, these contributions are of the same order
as the first order radiative corrections in (\ref{1m}).
Renormalization scheme--invariance of QCD requires that both terms
combine to a scheme--invariant quantity:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{1}{m_Q} - \frac{\Delta m }{m_Q^2 } &= &\frac{1}{m^{(1)}_{\mbox{pole}}}
 \left( 1+ {\cal O} ( \alpha^2_s ) \right).
\end{eqnarray}
If we want to include explicit radiative corrections to order $n$ in
(\ref{1m}), we must calculate $\Delta m$ to order $\alpha^n_s$ and
have to take into account matrix elements with multiple  insertions of
$\Delta m$ up to order $1/m_Q^{n+1}$, so that  the reordering of the
expansions in $1/m_Q$ and $\alpha_s$ takes place over $n$ orders
in the $1/m_Q$--expansion.
Hence the final result is the same as with the use of the pole mass
from the very beginning. Yet in our derivation
the pole mass appears explicitly only
in the last step of the derivation.
One has to calculate it only to the same (finite) order in
perturbation theory as the explicit radiative corrections to the
corresponding term in the observable (\ref{1m}) under consideration.

In the sketch given above the ambiguously defined pole mass to all orders
does not appear in the definition of the
HQET field $h_v$, instead the self--energy $-\Delta m$
of the quark is encoded order by order in $\alpha_s$ in the
HQET Lagrangian.
We have made plausible that the use of HQET in a phenomenological
analysis, which includes radiative corrections to some  {\em finite} order
to the various terms in the $1/m_Q$--expansion, does not require
the calculation of $m_{\mbox{pole}}$ beyond the same order in
its perturbative series.

Let us emphasize again that our formalism of HQET with the current
mass as the starting point leads exactly to the same result
as the conventional one, if one uses the pole mass calculated
perturbatively to the same order as the explicit radiative
corrections multiplying the $1/m_Q$--term  under consideration.
Our statements concerning the r\^{o}le of the mass appearing in the
Wilson coefficients as, e.g.,\ the $m_Q^5$--term in the inclusive decay
rate, lead, however, to numerical effects in phenomenological analyses
as demonstrated in Sec.~III.

\section{Semileptonic inclusive decays}

Let us now turn to an important application of the considerations of
the last section. Quite recently, the heavy quark expansion has been
extensively applied to the problem of inclusive heavy meson decays,
both semi-- \cite{allg,dvf,rvf} and nonleptonic ones \cite{nonlep}.
Two major results were obtained, namely first that inclusive decays
are determined by the free quark decay in leading order in the heavy
quark expansion, and second that non--perturbative corrections to the
free quark decay picture are suppressed by terms of order $1/m_Q^2$;
there are no terms of order $1/m_Q$. These results allow an immediate
application to the determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{cb}|$.
This task was tackled in the papers
Ref.\ \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3} where the following
procedure was adopted: first the $c$ quark mass $m_c$ is determined
from the branching fraction $B(D\to Xe\nu)$ in dependence on the
unknown non--perturbative parameters. Then HQET is invoked in order to
fix the $b$ quark mass $m_b$ from the known value of $m_c$. Insertion
in the theoretical expression for $B(B\to X_c e\nu)$ finally yields
$|V_{cb}|$ \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2}, or, assuming $|V_{cb}|$ as
known from other sources, bounds on the non--perturbative parameters
and quark masses, respectively, cf.\
\cite{phenotypen3}. In the present analysis we will closely follow the
sketched method, but work in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme and
keep track of possible scheme--dependences.

The non--perturbative corrections to the free quark decay picture
can be expressed in terms of two matrix elements,
\begin{eqnarray}
2m_B\lambda_1 & = & \langle\,B\,|\,\bar{b}_v (iD-v\Delta m)^2
b_v\,|\,B\,\rangle (1+{\cal O}(1/m_b)), \nonumber\\
6m_B\lambda_2(\mu_b) & = & \langle\,B\,|\,\bar{b}_v \frac{g}{2}\,
\sigma_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu}b_v\,|\,B\,\rangle(1+{\cal O}(1/m_b)),
\end{eqnarray}
where $b_v$ is defined as $b_v = e^{im_b v x}b(x)$, $b(x)$ being the
$b$ quark field in full QCD, and $v_\mu$ is the four--velocity of
the B meson. The corrections of order $1/m_b$ on the right--hand
side account for the fact that physical states in QCD and HQET differ
by terms of order $1/m_Q$. The above
quantities have an immediate physical interpretation by virtue of the
scheme--invariant relation
\begin{equation}\label{eq:massen}
m_B = m_b + \bar\Lambda_b -\frac{\lambda_1+3\lambda_2(\mu_b)}{2m_b} +
{\cal O}\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{m_b},\frac{1}{m_b^2}\right)
\end{equation}
where $\lambda_1/(2m_b)$ plays the r\^{o}le of the kinetic energy of the
heavy quark's Fermi motion inside the meson and the term in
$\lambda_2$, which has non--zero anomalous dimension in HQET,
accounts for its spin--energy in the chromomagnetic
field. $\mu_b$ is the matching scale of HQET onto QCD.
$\bar\Lambda_b$ can be interpreted as the binding energy of the
light degrees of freedom in the meson. From (\ref{eq:massen}) one
readily infers
\begin{equation}
\lambda_2(\mu_b) \approx \frac{1}{4}(m_{B^*}^2-m_B^2)\approx 0.12\,
\mbox{GeV}^2
\end{equation}
which is true in any renormalization scheme.
Unfortunately, $\lambda_1$ is no observable, but has to be determined
within some model--calculation. Recently, the value $\lambda_1 =
-(0.6\pm 0.1)\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ was obtained from QCD sum rules \cite{BBlast}.
In view of the criticisms raised in \cite{vir}, we nevertheless
prefer to leave $\lambda_1$ as an open parameter to be varied within
the interval $[-0.7,0]\,$GeV$^2$ where the upper bound is taken from
\cite{dvf}, the lower one from the sum rule determination \cite{BBlast}.

The heavy quark expansion of the decay rate of the semileptonic decay
$B\to X e \nu$ with unobserved $X$ in the
final state\footnote{In the following we identify $B\to X e \nu$ with
$B\to X_c e \nu$ where the $b$ quark decays into a $c$ quark since
charmless decays $B\to X_u e \nu$ can safely be
neglected because of $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|^2\lesssim 1\% $ \cite{PD}.}
then reads \cite{allg,cab}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(B\to X_c \ell \nu) & = & \frac{G_F^2 (m^R_b)^5}{192\pi^3}\,
|V_{cb}|^2 \, \left[ \left\{ 1-\frac{2}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s^R}{\pi}\,
g^R\!\left(\frac{m_c^R}{m_b^R}\right) + \frac{\lambda_1}{2(m_b^R)^2}\right\}
f_1\!\left(\frac{m_c^R}{m_b^R}\right) \right.\nonumber\\
& & \phantom{\frac{G_F^2 m_b^5}{192\pi^3}\,
|V_{cb}|^2 \;\;\;} \left. {}- \frac{9\lambda_2}{2(m^R_b)^2}\,
f_2\!\left( \frac{m_c^R}{m_b^R} \right) + {\cal O}\left( \frac{1}{(m_b^R)^3},
(\alpha_s^R)^2, \frac{\alpha_s^R}{m_b^R} \right) \right].
\label{eq:Gamma}\end{eqnarray}
Here we have marked all quantities depending on the renormalization
prescription by the superscript ``R''. $f_1$ and $f_2$ are
phase--space factors given by
\begin{eqnarray}
f_1(x) & = & 1-8x^2+8x^6-x^8-24x^4 \ln x,\nonumber\\
f_2(x) & = & 1-\frac{8}{3}\,x^2+8x^4-8x^6+\frac{5}{3}\,x^8 + 8 x^4\ln
x.
\end{eqnarray}
$g^{\mbox{on--shell}}$ was first analytically calculated
in Ref.\ \cite{nir}:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_1(x)g^{\mbox{on--shell}}(x) & = & -(1-x^4)\!\left(
\frac{25}{4} - \frac{239}{3}\,x^2+\frac{25}{4}\,x^4\right) + 2 x^2
\left( 20 + 90 x^2 -\frac{4}{3}\,x^4 +
\frac{17}{3}\,x^6\right)\ln x\nonumber\\
& & {}+4 x^4 (36+x^4)\ln x + (1-x^4)\!\left(
\frac{17}{3}-\frac{64}{3}\, x^2 + \frac{17}{3}\,x^4\right)\!
\ln(1-x^2)\nonumber \\
& & {}-8(1+30x^4+x^8)\,\ln x \ln (1-x^2) - (1+16x^4+x^8)\{
6\mbox{Li}_{2}(x^2) -\pi^2\}\nonumber\\
& & {}-32x^3(1+x^2)\!\left\{ \pi^2 - 4\mbox{Li}_2 (x) + 4 \mbox{Li}_2 (-x) - 4
\ln x \ln\, \frac{1-x}{1+x}\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
$g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ can be obtained from (\ref{eq:Gamma}) by
expressing all scheme--dependent quantities in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme. To first order in $\alpha_s$, we thus
only need the relation
\begin{equation}
m_b^{\mbox{pole}} = m_b(\mu)\left\{1+\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\left(
\frac{4}{3} + \ln\frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2}\right) + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)
\right\}.
\end{equation}
Insertion in (\ref{eq:Gamma}) yields
\begin{equation}
g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(x) = g^{\mbox{on--shell}}(x) + 3 x \ln x
\,\frac{d\ln f_1(x)}{dx} - 10 + \frac{15}{2}\, \ln \frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}.
\end{equation}
Numerically, we find the values given in Tab.~\ref{tab:1}.
{}From the comparison of $g^R$ in both schemes, it becomes evident that
higher order corrections in $\alpha_s$ are of paramount importance if
one is willing to obtain reliable predictions. The effect of higher
order terms is conventionally estimated by allowing the
renormalization scale $\mu$ to vary within, say, $m_b/2\leq \mu\leq
2m_b$. Let us compare this with the possible improvement achievable
by a future calculation of the term in $\alpha_s^2$. It is of the
generic form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:alphaquadrat}
\frac{\alpha_s^2}{\pi^2}\left( c_1\ln^2\,\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + c_2 \ln
\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + c_3\right),
\end{equation}
where both $c_1$ and $c_2$ are completely determined by the terms of
lower order in $\alpha_s$ and only $c_3$ remains to be calculated.
Expanding the anomalous dimension of the running
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ mass as
\begin{equation}
\gamma^m = \gamma_0^m\,\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} + \gamma_1^m
\,\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2 + {\cal O}(\alpha_s^3)
\end{equation}
and the QCD $\beta$--function as
\begin{equation}
\beta = -g\left\{ \beta_0\,\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} +
\beta_1\left(\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right)^2 + {\cal
O}(\alpha_s^3)\right\},
\end{equation}
we find\footnote{The numerical values of the coefficients $\gamma_i^m$
and $\beta_i$ can be found in any good textbook on QCD.}
\begin{eqnarray}
c_1 & = & \frac{5}{128}\,\gamma_0^m (5\gamma_0^m-2\beta_0),\nonumber\\
c_2 & = & \left. {}-\frac{5}{32}\,\gamma_1^m +
\frac{1}{6}\left(\beta_0+\frac{5}{2}\,\gamma_0^m\right)
g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(x)\right|_{\mu = m_b}.\label{eq:xxx}
\end{eqnarray}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammac} we illustrate the resulting
scale--dependence of the branching ratio $\tau_D\,\Gamma(D\to X e
\nu)$ for $1\,\mbox{GeV}\leq \mu \leq 2\,\mbox{GeV}$.
We show both the next--to--leading order (NLO) result (\ref{eq:Gamma}) and
the NNLO result with the $\alpha_s^2$ terms (\ref{eq:alphaquadrat})
included where the unknown
constant $c_3$ is varied in the interval $[-10,10]$. As can be read
off the figure, the scale--variation in the NLO result
reproduces approximately the inherent uncertainty from the unknown
constant $c_3$. Still, the remaining scale--uncertainty is noticeable
and limits the accuracy achievable in the determination of $m_c(m_c)$
from $\Gamma(D\to Xe\nu)$. We illustrate that point in
Fig.~\ref{fig:mc} where $m_c(m_c)$ as determined from $\Gamma(D\to
Xe\nu)$ via Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) is plotted as a function of the
renormalization scale $\mu$ and for different values of the input
parameters $\lambda_1$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(a)), $B(D\to Xe\nu)$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(b)), $m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV})$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(c)),
and $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$
(Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(d)). In Fig.~\ref{fig:mc}(e) we also show
the possible effect of $1/m_Q^3$ corrections estimated by adding to
and subtracting from (\ref{eq:Gamma}) the $1/m_Q^2$ terms to the power
$3/2$. As input parameters we use\footnote{The experimental errors on
$\tau_{D^+}$, $|V_{cs}|$, and $|V_{cd}|$ are so small, that the
combined error of all experimental quantities is completely determined
by the error of the branching ratio, and thus can safely be
neglected.} $B(D\to Xe\nu) = 0.172\pm 0.019$, $\tau_{D^+} = 1.066\,
\mbox{ps}$, $|V_{cs}| = 0.9743$, $|V_{cd}| = 0.221$ \cite{PD},
$m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = (0.20\pm 0.05)\,\mbox{GeV}$, cf.\ e.g.\ \cite{PD},
and $\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)} = (300\pm 50)\,\mbox{MeV}$
\cite{PD}. In contrast to the analysis done in \cite{phenotypen1},
we have varied $\mu$ in the range $1\,\mbox{GeV}\leq \mu\leq
2\,\mbox{GeV}$ only, since we believe that the perturbative
expansion becomes highly unreliable at smaller scales. We cannot follow
the arguments of Luke and Savage that $\mu$ could be associated with a
``typical energy'' of the emitted lepton pair and be as small as
$m_c/3 \approx 0.5\,\mbox{GeV}$! In our approach, $\mu$ has to be
identified with the matching scale of HQET to QCD and cannot be attributed
any physical meaning. The only (loose) condition to be imposed on
$\mu$ is that it should be of order $m_c$. We would also like to mention
that we are rather suspicious about how the scale--uncertainty is handled in
Refs.\ \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3} since in these papers
only the scale in $\alpha_s(\mu)$ is varied (and the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme used in doing that!), but the quark mass
kept fixed. This corresponds to a scheme where the running of the quark
mass is cut ($\gamma_i^m$ is put zero in (\ref{eq:xxx})), which
is a permissible scheme, but does not seem a very reasonable one. At
least it is {\em not} the correct way how the QCD scale--uncertainty
should be estimated in the on--shell scheme.

{}From Fig.~\ref{fig:mc} we find  that $m_c(m_c)$ is clearly
most sensitive to the choice of $\mu$.
In particular, we note that a variation of $\lambda_1$ within the
conservative range $[-0.7,0]\,$GeV$^2$ affects the value of $m_c(m_c)$
only as much as a variation of $B(D\to Xe\nu)$ within one standard
deviation and nearly as much as a variation of the value of the
strange quark mass by $50\,$MeV. These observations seem to cast some
doubts on the procedure employed in
\cite{phenotypen3} where the determination
of $m_c$ was used to derive bounds on $\lambda_1$ and
$\bar\Lambda$. Taking all together, the heavy quark expansion yields
\begin{equation}
m_c^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}(m_c) = (1.35\pm 0.20)\,\mbox{GeV} \quad \mbox{for\
}1\,\mbox{GeV}\leq \mu \leq 2\,\mbox{GeV.}
\end{equation}
We next use the information gained from the decay of the D meson
to determine $m_b$. To that end, we use Eq.\ (\ref{eq:massen}) and the
relation
\begin{equation}
\bar\Lambda_c - \frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_c)}{\pi}\,m_c(m_c) =
\bar\Lambda_b - \frac{4}{3}\,\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{\pi}\,m_b(m_b)
\end{equation}
which is valid in the $\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme and can be
obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{laq}). The results are
displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mb}, both for $m_b$ as function of
$\lambda_1$ with fixed scale $\mu=m_c$, Fig.~\ref{fig:mb}(a), and for
fixed $\lambda_1=0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ as function of the scale $\mu/m_c$,
Fig.~\ref{fig:mb}(b). Again
we demand $\mu\geq 1\,\mbox{GeV}$, which yields $\mu/m_c\gtrsim
0.8$. The dashed lines give the uncertainty of $m_b$ due to the
experimental error in $B(D\to Xe\nu)$. Once more we observe a strong
dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu$, which is however milder
than for $m_c$ due to the higher scales involved. In contrast to the
$c$ quark mass there is also a sizable dependence of $m_b$
on $\lambda_1$ which is of the same order as the $\mu$--dependence and
originates in the relation (\ref{eq:massen}). We obtain
\begin{equation}
m_b(m_b) = (4.6\pm 0.1\pm 0.1\pm 0.1)\,\mbox{GeV},
\end{equation}
the first error being due to the dependence on $\lambda_1$, the
second one due to $\mu$--dependence, and the third one combines the
dependence on the $s$ quark mass, the branching ratio $B(D\to Xe\nu )$
and $\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)}$.

In determining $V_{cb}$, we in addition need the experimental
branching ratio for $B\to X_c e \nu$, $B(B\to X_c e \nu) = (10.7\pm
0.5)\% $, quoted in \cite{PD}, and the B lifetime $\tau_B$, where we
use the most recent value $\tau_B = 1.49\,\mbox{ps}$ quoted in
\cite{cornell}. In view of the changes the value of
$\tau_B$ has experienced in recent years, cf.\ \cite{PD}, we prefer
not to include its experimental uncertainty in the error analysis, but
to give our results for the above fixed value of $\tau_B$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammab} we show $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$ as function
of $\mu$ with $V_{cb} = 0.04$, $m_c(m_c)=1.35\,\mbox{GeV}$, $m_b(m_b) =
4.5\,\mbox{GeV}$, $\lambda_1=0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$ and $\lambda_2(\mu_b) =
0.12\,\mbox{GeV}^2$. Analogously to Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammac}, the
solid line obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) includes
${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ terms with varying $\mu$, whereas the dashed lines
also include the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections
(\ref{eq:alphaquadrat}) with $c_3$ varied within $[-10,10]$. Compared
with Fig.~\ref{fig:scalesGammac}, there is still a
scale--dependence visible, but it is weaker due to the higher scales
involved. Still, the possible effect of a future calculation of $c_3$
can reliably be mimiced by varying $\mu$ within $m_b/2\lesssim \mu
\lesssim 2 m_b$.

We are now in a position to determine $|V_{cb}|$. Inserting correlated
values of $m_c$ and $m_b$ into Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) and comparing
with the experimental branching ratio $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$ we obtain
the values shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}. An
analysis of the different sources of uncertainties shows that they are
dominated by the dependence on $\lambda_1$, which proves the
strongest one, and on $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}(a) we
thus plot $|V_{cb}|$ as function of $\lambda_1$ for fixed scales
$\mu_b/m_b \equiv \mu_c/m_c \equiv 1$ and in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}(b)
as function of the scale $\mu/m_Q$ for fixed $\lambda_1 =
0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$; we also show the values of $|V_{cb}|$ resulting
from a variation of $B(B\to X_c e \nu)$ within one standard deviation
(dashed lines). For the convenience of the reader, the numerical values
are given explicitly in Tab.~\ref{tab:Vcb}.
The strong dependence of $|V_{cb}|$ on $\lambda_1$ is
entirely due to the behavior of $m_b$ as function of $\lambda_1$ since
the explicit $\lambda_1/m_b^2$ terms present in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma})
give only tiny contributions. The rather marginal scale--dependence
of $|V_{cb}|$ visible
in Fig.~\ref{fig:Vcb}(b) can be explained in the following way. In
Tab.~\ref{tab:scalinv} we give for different scales $\mu/m_Q$ the
values of the quark masses, their ratio that enters the phase--space
factor, the value of the latter one, the branching ratio divided by
phase--space and the branching ratio itself, calculated with
$|V_{cb}|=0.04$. Although the quark masses differ rather drastically,
the ratio $m_c(\mu_b)/m_b(\mu_b)$ is not very sensitive to $\mu_b$ and
also the phase--space factor $f_1$ varies by only about 10\% in the
range $0.8\leq \mu_b/m_b\leq 1.8$. The branching ratio divided by
phase--space as well as the branching ratio itself are even less
sensitive to the scale. We thus find that the change in $m_b(\mu_b)$ is
nearly completely compensated by a corresponding change in the terms
in $\alpha_s(\mu_b)$ which is far from being trivial. From the figures
we read off
\begin{equation}\label{eq:resVcb}
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} = 0.036\pm
0.002 \pm 0.001 \pm 0.002,
\end{equation}
where the first error includes the dependence on $\lambda_1$ in the
interval $[-0.7,0]\,\mbox{GeV}^2$, the second one the
scale--uncertainty, and the third one all other uncertainties in the
parameters, i.e.\ in the branching ratios, $m_s$, and
$\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)}$. In principle, there is also an
uncertainty due to the scheme--dependence of our analysis which is
however difficult to estimate. If the on--shell scheme was
trustworthy, we could take the difference of our results and those of
\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2} as rough estimate for that ``hidden''
theoretical error. For lack of any other calculation in a reasonable
scheme we are however forced to leave that point open to future
investigations. The above value of $|V_{cb}|$ has to be compared with
\begin{eqnarray}
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} &= &
(0.046\pm 0.008)\quad \mbox{\protect{\cite{phenotypen1}},}\nonumber\\
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} & \approx &
0.042\quad\mbox{\protect{\cite{phenotypen2}},}\nonumber\\
|V_{cb}|\left(\frac{\tau_B}{1.49\,\mbox{ps}}\right)^{1/2} & = &
0.037\pm 0.007\quad \mbox{\protect{\cite{cleo}}.}
\end{eqnarray}
The value quoted in \cite{cleo} is the most recent one obtained
from the spectrum of the {\em exclusive} decay $B\to D^* e\nu$ fitted to
the Isgur--Wise function using different shapes. We observe that our
result nearly coincides with the one from exclusive decays, but is
smaller than the ones obtained in \cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2} where
the on--shell scheme was used. Let us close this section with a
short comment on the prospects of a future reduction of the errors in
(\ref{eq:resVcb}). To begin with, experimentalists are challenged to
carry out more accurate measurements of the branching ratios,
especially of $B(B\to X_c e\nu)$. Combining with more sophisticated
determinations of $m_s$ \cite{jmprep} and
$\Lambda_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}^{(4)}$ will reduce the third error. As
for the second error due to scale--dependence there is no simple remedy
at hand and we hardly can imagine any reliable method to be invented
in the near future to fix the scale except for a calculation of the
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to Eq.\ (\ref{eq:Gamma}) which is a
truly formidable task. So the main efforts should be
concentrated on the determination of $\lambda_1$. Although in
\cite{dvf} there was proposed a method of relating $\lambda_1$ to
moments of the so--called ``shape--function'' determining the
end--point region of the lepton-- and photon--spectrum in the decays
$B\to X_u e\nu$ and $B\to X_s\gamma$, respectively, at present that
approach suffers from missing both measurements and any formulas
going beyond ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^0)$. Yet the introduction of the
shape--function leads to the constraint $\lambda\leq 0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$
which is agreement with the results obtained in \cite{BBlast} and
\cite{gurbound}, but in contrast to the earlier determination
\cite{nn}, where a positive value
was obtained. The status of the careful analysis done in \cite{BBlast}
with QCD sum rules is unfortunately not beyond any doubt, cf.\
\cite{vir}, so a clarification of that point would be welcome. If the
result of \cite{BBlast} could be confirmed, (\ref{eq:resVcb}) would
read $|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2} = 0.034\pm 0.001 \pm 0.002$.

\section{Summary and Conclusions}

In applications of the heavy quark expansion of QCD
to physical quantities involving positive powers of the
heavy quark mass the proper definition of the mass parameter
is of supreme phenomenological importance. We have made clear
that the heavy quark mass parameter stemming from the Wilson coefficient in
the matching of perturbative QCD and HQET Green functions, in a rigorous QCD
context enters the calculation as the running current mass
rather than the pole mass. It is evaluated at the  scale at which we perform
the matching. This scale must be of order of
the heavy quark mass, but can be varied to estimate the error
caused by the truncation of the perturbative series.
The choice of the on--shell scheme, which is widely used also for
the mass parameters in the Wilson coefficient, corresponds
to a special choice for $\mu$, which is
unnaturally low in the case of the $c$ quark.
It is well--known that the heavy quark expansion reproduces in
leading order the parton model. With the proper identification of
the mass parameter stemming from the Wilson coefficient we also
recover the familiar renormalization scheme--and scale--dependence of
the parton model.

The natural expansion parameter of the HQET Green functions, however,
is the pole mass, which was recently found to be ambiguous when
defined beyond finite orders in perturbation theory.
Since HQET attempts to include non--perturbative effects, a
phenomenologist using HQET has to worry whether this ambiguity may
be relevant for his physical predictions. We have argued that a
calculation which includes only radiative corrections to a
finite order to a given term in the $1/m_Q$--expansion, requires
only the calculation of the perturbative pole mass to the same order
in $\alpha_s$. This fact is plausible, but not totally obvious,
because the usual derivation of HQET requires the
all--orders pole mass in the first step to define the heavy quark
field $h_v$.

The proper identification of the  mass parameters  becomes
probably most pronounced in the case of semileptonic inclusive decays.
Their decay rate depends on the quark mass in its fifth power and is most
sensitive to any change in the definition of that parameter.
Here  it likewise becomes rather obvious that the on--shell scheme is,
even apart from the renormalon problem, a rather unnatural one, since
it is always the {\em current mass} that appears in actual
calculations, whereas the pole mass has to be put in afterwards by
hand, adding higher order terms in $\alpha_s$ in an uncontrollable
manner. We have carefully studied the effect of changing the scheme
and scale
and found that neither the $c$ nor the $b$ quark mass can
be determined reliably from inclusive decays. In extracting
$|V_{cb}|$, however, the scale--dependence mostly cancels and we found
a reduction of the value of $|V_{cb}|$ by
more than 10\% compared with results obtained in the on--shell scheme
\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2}. By a more consistent error analysis,
in particular of the scale--dependence, we also could reduce the
absolute error of $|V_{cb}|$. We also clarified the meaning of the
renormalization scale $\mu$ entering the parton model and its
non--perturbative corrections and identified it with the scale at
which HQET is matched to QCD, a point that was not paid proper
attention to in the previous analyses
\cite{phenotypen1,phenotypen2,phenotypen3}.

Finally, we suppose that our considerations could also give some hint
at the solution of the problem of the ``baffling semileptonic
branching ratio of $B$ mesons'' raised in \cite{baffl} and that it
could be worthwile to attack that problem starting from a different
choice of the renormalization scheme.

\acknowledgments

We thank A.J.\ Buras and E. Bagan for stimulating discussions.
U.N.\ appreciates clarifying conversations with M. Misiak,
W. Kilian and T. Ohl. P.B.\ would like to thank M. Shifman for sending her a
preliminary version of the first paper in Ref.\ \cite{privet} prior to
publication.
We further thank G. Buchalla for carefully reading the manuscript
and for critical remarks.
We are especially grateful to M. Beneke for his thorough analysis of
an earlier version of this paper and the comprehensive explanation
of the physical consequences of the renormalon problem in the
definition of the pole mass.

\begin{references}

\bibitem{reviews}
M. Wise, in {\em Particle Physics -- the Factory Era\/}, Proceedings
of the 6th Lake Louise Winter Institute, Lake Louise, Canada, 1991,
edited by B. Campbell {\em et al.} (World Scientific, Singapore,
1991), p.\ 222; H. Georgi, in {\em Perspectives in the Standard
Model\/}, Proceedings of the 1991 Theoretical Advanced Study Institut,
Boulder, Colorado, 1991, edited by R.K.\ Ellis, C.T.\ Hill, and
J.O.\ Sykken (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p.\ 589; M.
Neubert, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC--PUB--6263, 1993 (unpublished).

\bibitem{allg}
I. Bigi, N. Uraltsev, and A. Vainshtein, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 293},
430 (1992); Erratum {\em ibid.} {\bf 297}, 477 (1993);
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 71}, 496 (1993);
 A. Manohar and M. Wise, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 1310 (1994);
B. Blok {\em et al.}, Minneapolis Report No.\ TPI--MINN--93/33--T,
1993,  (unpublished);
T. Mannel, Darmstadt Report No.\ IKDA-93-26, 1993, 
(unpublished);
 A. Falk, M. Luke, and M. Savage, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC--PUB--6317, 1993,
 (unpublished);
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7020/93, 1993,
 (unpublished);
A. Falk {\em et al.}, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7124--93, 1993,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{dvf}
M. Neubert, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7087/93, 1993,
 (unpublished);
 A. Falk {\em et al.}, San Diego Report No.\ UCSD/PTH--93--38, 1993,
 (unpublished);
M. Neubert, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7113/93, 1993,
 (unpublished);
T. Mannel and M. Neubert, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7156/94, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{rvf}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Minnesota Report No.\ TPI--MINN--93/60--T, 1993,
 (unpublished);
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Minnesota Report No.\ TPI--MINN--94/2--T, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{phenotypen1}
 M. Luke and M. Savage, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 321}, 88 (1994).

\bibitem{phenotypen2}
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7063/93, 1993,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{phenotypen3}
Z. Ligeti and Y. Nir, Weizmann Report No.\
WIS--94/2/Jan--PH, 1994,  (unpublished).

\bibitem{grins}
 B. Grinstein, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B339}, 253 (1990).

\bibitem{M2}
W. Kilian and T. Mannel, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 1534 (1994).

\bibitem{privet}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7171/94, 1994,
 (unpublished);
M. Beneke and V.M.\ Braun, M\"{u}nchen Report No.\ MPI--PhT/94--9, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{mr}
T. Mannel, W. Roberts, and Z. Ryzak, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B368}, 204 (1992).

\bibitem{cab} N. Cabibbo and L. Maiani, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 79}, 109
(1978).

\bibitem{uab} E. Bagan and P. Gosdzinsky, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 320}, 123
(1994).

\bibitem{res}
 A. Falk, M. Neubert, and M. Luke, Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B388}, 363 (1993).

\bibitem{nonlep}
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, CERN Report No.\ CERN--TH.7132/94, 1994,
 (unpublished).

\bibitem{BBlast}
P. Ball and V.M.\ Braun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49}, 2472 (1994).

\bibitem{vir}
M. Neubert, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 322}, 419 (1994).

\bibitem{PD} Particle Data Group, K. Hikasa {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\
D {\bf 45}, S1 (1992).

\bibitem{nir} Y. Nir, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 221}, 184 (1989).

\bibitem{cornell} V. L\"{u}th in her Summary Talk at the
{\em XVI International Symposium on Lepton--Photon Interactions},
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 10-15~August 1993.

\bibitem{cleo}
G. Crawford {\em et al.}, Conference Report CLEO--CONF--93--30, 1993
(unpublished).

\bibitem{jmprep}
M. Jamin, M. M\"{u}nz, {\em in preparation}.

\bibitem{gurbound}
I. Bigi and N. Uraltsev, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 321}, 412 (1994).

\bibitem{nn}
M. Neubert, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 46}, 1076 (1992).

\bibitem{baffl}
W.F.\ Palmer and B. Stech, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 48}, 4174 (1993);
I. Bigi {\em et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 323}, 408 (1994).

\end{references}

\newpage
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{
\epsfysize=0.24\textheight
\epsfbox{fig1.ps}}
\vspace{0.1in}
\caption[]{The branching ratio $B(D\to Xe\nu)$ as function of the
renormalization scale $\mu$ for $m_c(m_c)=1.35\, \mbox{GeV}$,
$\lambda_1=0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$, $\lambda_2(m_c) = 0.1\,\mbox{GeV}^2$.
Solid line: $B=\tau_D\Gamma$ calculated according to Eq.\
(\protect{\ref{eq:Gamma}}), dashed lines:
$B$ according to Eq.\ (\protect{\ref{eq:Gamma}}) with inclusion of
${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2(\mu))$ corrections according to Eq.\
(\protect{\ref{eq:alphaquadrat}}). The different dashed lines
correspond to three different values of $c_3$: $10$, $0$, $-10$ (from
above).}\label{fig:scalesGammac}
\vspace{0.1in}
\centerline{
\epsfysize=0.45\textheight
\epsfbox{fig2.ps}}
\vspace{0.1in}
\caption[]{$m_c(m_c)$ as function of the renormalization scale $\mu$ for
different values of the input parameters. The solid lines are
calculated with $\lambda_1 = 0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$, $B(D\to Xe\nu)= 0.172$,
$m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) = 0.2\,\mbox{GeV}$,
$\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}} = 300\,\mbox{MeV}$.
The (long-, short-) dashed lines are obtained by replacing the
respective parameter by (a) $\lambda_1 = (-0.35,-0.7)\,\mbox{GeV}^2$,
(b) $B(D\to Xe\nu) = (0.191,0.153)$, (c) $m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) =
(0.15,0.25)\, \mbox{GeV}$, (d) $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{
\mbox{MS}}} = (250,350)\,\mbox{MeV}$. In (e) we have
included $1/m_c^3$ corrections as described in the text.}\label{fig:mc}
\end{figure}

\clearpage
\makebox[1cm]{}
\vskip-0.6in
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=0.85\textwidth
\epsfbox{fig4.ps}}
\vspace{0.1in}
\caption[]{(a): $m_b(m_b)$ as function of $\lambda_1$ for $\mu = m_c$.
The solid line is calculated with the same set of input parameters as
in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:mc}}. The dashed lines correspond to a
variation of $B(D\to Xe\nu)$ within the experimental error: $B=0.153$ (short
dashes), $B=0.192$ (long dashes). (b): $m_b(m_b)$ as function of
$\mu/m_c$ for $\lambda_1 = 0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$. The parameter sets used
for the curves are the same as in (a).
}\label{fig:mb}
\vspace{0.2in}
\centerline{
\epsfysize=0.24\textheight
\epsfbox{fig3.ps}}
\vspace{0.1in}
\caption[]{The branching ratio $B(B\to X_ce\nu)(0.04/V_{cb})^2$ as
function of the renormalization scale $\mu$ for $m_c(m_c)=1.35\,
\mbox{GeV}$, $m_b(m_b) = 4.5\,\mbox{GeV}$, $\lambda_1=0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$,
$\lambda_2(m_b) = 0.12\,\mbox{GeV}^2$.
Solid line: $B=\tau_B \Gamma$ calculated according to Eq.\
(\protect{\ref{eq:Gamma}}), dashed lines:
$B$ according to Eq.\ (\protect{\ref{eq:Gamma}}) and with
inclusion of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2(\mu))$ corrections according to
Eq.\ (\protect{\ref{eq:alphaquadrat}}). The different dashed
lines correspond to three different values of $c_3$: $10$, $0$, $-10$
(from above).}\label{fig:scalesGammab}
\vspace{0.2in}
\centerline{
\epsfxsize=0.85\textwidth
\epsfbox{fig5.ps}}
\vspace{0.1in}
\caption[]{(a): $|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2}$ as function
of $\lambda_1$ for $\mu/m_Q = 1$. The solid line is calculated with
$B(B\to X_ce\nu)= 0.107$, $B(D\to Xe\nu)= 0.172$, $m_s(1\,\mbox{GeV}) =
0.2\,\mbox{GeV}$ and $\Lambda^{(4)}_{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}
= 300\,\mbox{MeV}$. The dashed lines correspond to a variation of $B(B\to
X_ce\nu)$ within the experimental error: $B=0.102$ (short
dashes), $B=0.112$ (long dashes). (b):
$|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2}$ as function of the ratio
$\mu/m_Q$ for $\lambda_1 = 0\,\mbox{GeV}^2$. The parameter sets used
for the curves are the same as in (a).
}\label{fig:Vcb}
\end{figure}

\newpage
\begin{table}
\squeezetable
\begin{tabular}{lddddddddddd}
$x$ & 0.0 & 0.1 & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.6 & 0.7 & 0.8 & 0.9 & 1.0\\
\tableline
$g^{\mbox{on--shell}}$ & 3.62 & 3.25 & 2.84 & 2.51 & 2.23 & 2.01
& 1.83 & 1.70 & 1.59 & 1.53 & 1.50\\
$g^{\overline{\mbox{MS}}}$ & $-$6.38 & $-$7.79 & $-$9.94 & $-$12.1 &
$-$14.2 & $-$16.0 & $-$17.8 & $-$19.4 & $-$20.9 & $-$22.2 & $-$23.5\\
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Radiative corrections to the semi--leptonic free quark
decay, Eq.~(\protect{\ref{eq:Gamma}}), in the on--shell and in the
$\overline{\mbox{MS}}$ scheme.}\label{tab:1}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ldddddddd}
$\lambda_1\,[\mbox{GeV}^2]$ & $-$0.7 & $-$0.6 & $-$0.5 & $-$0.4 &
$-$0.3 & $-$0.2 & $-$0.1 & 0\phantom{.0000}\\ \tableline
$B=0.102$ & 0.0329 & 0.0334 & 0.0339 & 0.0344 & 0.0350 & 0.0356 &
0.0362 & 0.0367 \\
$B=0.107$ & 0.0337 & 0.0342 & 0.0347 & 0.0353 & 0.0358 & 0.0364 &
0.0370 & 0.0376 \\
$B=0.112$ & 0.0344 & 0.0350 & 0.0355 & 0.0361 & 0.0367 & 0.0373 &
0.0379 & 0.0385 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{$|V_{cb}|(\tau_B/1.49\,\mbox{ps})^{1/2}$ for several values
of $\lambda_1$ and the branching ratio $B(B\to X_ce\nu)$. The same input
parameters are used as in Fig.~\protect{\ref{fig:Vcb}(a)}.}\label{tab:Vcb}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{ldddddd}
$\mu/m_Q$ & $m_c(m_c)\,[\mbox{GeV}]$ & $m_b(m_b)\,[\mbox{GeV}]$ &
$m_c(\mu_b)/m_b(\mu_b)$ & $f_1$ & $\Gamma \tau_B/f_1$ &
$\Gamma \tau_B$ \\  \tableline
0.8 & 1.28 & 4.41 & 0.21 & 0.72 & 0.171 & 0.123 \\
1.3 & 1.43 & 4.57 & 0.23 & 0.67 & 0.182 & 0.122 \\
1.8 & 1.51 & 4.65 & 0.24 & 0.64 & 0.179 & 0.116 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption[]{Quark masses, their ratio, phase space $f_1$ and branching
ratio $\Gamma \tau_B$ for different values of the scale $\mu/m_Q$. In
the last two columns we have put $|V_{cb}|=0.04$.}\label{tab:scalinv}
\end{table}

\end{document}









































%%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%
\documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

% put your own definitions here:
%   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
%   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
%   ...
\newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
\newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
  A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

% add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
\hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed}

% declarations for front matter
\title{Elsevier instructions for the preparation of a
       2-column format camera-ready paper in \LaTeX}

\author{P. de Groot\address{Mathematics and Computer Science Division, 
        Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., \\ 
        P.O. Box 103, 1000 AC Amsterdam, The Netherlands}%
        \thanks{Footnotes should appear on the first page only to
                indicate your present address (if different from your
                normal address), research grant, sponsoring agency, etc.
                These are obtained with the {\tt\ttbs thanks} command.}
        and 
        X.-Y. Wang\address{Economics Department, University of Winchester, \\
        2 Finch Road, Winchester, Hampshire P3L T19, United Kingdom}}
       
\begin{document}

\begin{abstract}
These pages provide you with an example of the layout and style for
100\% reproduction which we wish you to adopt during the preparation of
your paper. This is the output from the \LaTeX{} document style you
requested.
\end{abstract}

% typeset front matter (including abstract)
\maketitle

\section{FORMAT}

Text should be produced within the dimensions shown on these pages:
each column 7.5 cm wide with 1 cm middle margin, total width of 16 cm
and a maximum length of 20.2 cm on first pages and 21 cm on second and
following pages. The \LaTeX{} document style uses the maximal stipulated
length apart from the following two exceptions (i) \LaTeX{} does not
begin a new section directly at the bottom of a page, but transfers the
heading to the top of the next page; (ii) \LaTeX{} never (well, hardly
ever) exceeds the length of the text area in order to complete a
section of text or a paragraph.

\subsection{Spacing}

We normally recommend the use of 1.0 (single) line spacing. However,
when typing complicated mathematical text \LaTeX{} automatically
increases the space between text lines in order to prevent sub- and
superscript fonts overlapping one another and making your printed
matter illegible.

\subsection{Fonts}

These instructions have been produced using a 10 point Computer Modern
Roman. Other recommended fonts are 10 point Times Roman, New Century
Schoolbook, Bookman Light and Palatino.

\section{PRINTOUT}

The most suitable printer is a laser printer. A dot matrix printer
should only be used if it possesses an 18 or 24 pin printhead
(``letter-quality'').

The printout submitted should be an original; a photocopy is not
acceptable. Please make use of good quality plain white A4 (or US
Letter) paper size. {\em The dimensions shown here should be strictly
adhered to: do not make changes to these dimensions, which are
determined by the document style}. The document style leaves at least
3~cm at the top of the page before the head, which contains the page
number.

Printers sometimes produce text which contains light and dark streaks,
or has considerable lighting variation either between left-hand and
right-hand margins or between text heads and bottoms. To achieve
optimal reproduction quality, the contrast of text lettering must be
uniform, sharp and dark over the whole page and throughout the article.

If corrections are made to the text, print completely new replacement
pages. The contrast on these pages should be consistent with the rest
of the paper as should text dimensions and font sizes.

\begin{table*}[hbt]
% space before first and after last column: 1.5pc
% space between columns: 3.0pc (twice the above)
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{1.5pc}
% -----------------------------------------------------
% adapted from TeX book, p. 241
\newlength{\digitwidth} \settowidth{\digitwidth}{\rm 0}
\catcode`?=\active \def?{\kern\digitwidth}
% -----------------------------------------------------
\caption{Biologically treated effluents (mg/l)}
\label{tab:effluents}
\begin{tabular*}{\textwidth}{@{}l@{\extracolsep{\fill}}rrrr}
\hline
                 & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Pilot plant} 
                 & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Full scale plant} \\
\cline{2-3} \cline{4-5}
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Influent} 
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Effluent} 
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Influent} 
                 & \multicolumn{1}{r}{Effluent}         \\
\hline
Total cyanide    & $ 6.5$ & $0.35$ & $  2.0$ & $  0.30$ \\
Method-C cyanide & $ 4.1$ & $0.05$ &         & $  0.02$ \\
Thiocyanide      & $60.0$ & $1.0?$ & $ 50.0$ & $ <0.10$ \\
Ammonia          & $ 6.0$ & $0.50$ &         & $  0.10$ \\
Copper           & $ 1.0$ & $0.04$ & $  1.0$ & $  0.05$ \\
Suspended solids &        &        &         & $<10.0?$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{5}{@{}p{120mm}}{Reprinted from: G.M. Ritcey,
                             Tailings Management,
                             Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1989, p. 635.}
\end{tabular*}
\end{table*}

\section{TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS}

Tables should be made with \LaTeX; illustrations should be originals or
sharp prints. They should be arranged throughout the text and
preferably be included {\em on the same page as they are first
discussed}. They should have a self-contained caption and be positioned
in flush-left alignment with the text margin within the column. If they
do not fit into one column they may be placed across both columns
(using \verb-\begin{table*}- or \verb-\begin{figure*}- so that they
appear at the top of a page).

\subsection{Tables}

Tables should be presented in the form shown in
Table~\ref{tab:effluents}.  Their layout should be consistent
throughout.

Horizontal lines should be placed above and below table headings, above
the subheadings and at the end of the table above any notes. Vertical
lines should be avoided.

If a table is too long to fit onto one page, the table number and
headings should be repeated above the continuation of the table. For
this you have to reset the table counter with
\verb|\addtocounter{table}{-1}|. Alternatively, the table can be turned
by $90^\circ$ (`landscape mode') and spread over two consecutive pages
(first an even-numbered, then an odd-numbered one) created by means of
\verb|\begin{table}[h]| without a caption. To do this, you prepare the
table as a separate \LaTeX{} document and attach the tables to the
empty pages with a few spots of suitable glue.

\subsection{Line drawings}

Line drawings should be drawn in India ink on tracing paper with the
aid of a stencil or should be glossy prints of the same; computer
prepared drawings are also acceptable. They should be attached to your
manuscript page, correctly aligned, using suitable glue and {\em not
transparent tape}. When placing a figure at the top of a page, the top
of the figure should be at the same level as the bottom of the first
text line.

All notations and lettering should be no less than 2\,mm high. The use
of heavy black, bold lettering should be avoided as this will look
unpleasantly dark when printed.

\subsection{Black and white photographs}

Photographs must always be sharp originals ({\em not screened
versions\/}) and rich in contrast. They will undergo the same reduction
as the text and should be pasted on your page in the same way as line
drawings.

\subsection{Colour photographs}

Sharp originals ({\em not transparencies or slides\/}) should be
submitted close to the size expected in publication. Charges for the
processing and printing of colour will be passed on to the author(s) of
the paper. As costs involved are per page, care should be taken in the
selection of size and shape so that two or more illustrations may be
fitted together on one page. Please contact the Technical Editor in the
Camera-Ready Publications Department at Elsevier for a price quotation
and layout instructions before producing your paper in its final form.

\begin{figure}[htb]
\vspace{9pt}
\framebox[55mm]{\rule[-21mm]{0mm}{43mm}}
\caption{Good sharp prints should be used and not (distorted) photocopies.}
\label{fig:largenenough}
\end{figure}
%
\begin{figure}[htb]
\framebox[55mm]{\rule[-21mm]{0mm}{43mm}}
\caption{Remember to keep details clear and large enough.}
\label{fig:toosmall}
\end{figure}

\section{EQUATIONS}

Equations should be flush-left with the text margin; \LaTeX{} ensures
that the equation is preceded and followed by one line of white space. 
\LaTeX{} provides the document-style option {\tt fleqn} to get the
flush-left effect.

\begin{equation}
H_{\alpha\beta}(\omega) = E_\alpha^{(0)}(\omega) \delta_{\alpha\beta} +
                          \langle \alpha | W_\pi | \beta \rangle 
\end{equation}

You need not put in equation numbers, since this is taken care of
automatically. The equation numbers are always consecutive and are
printed in parentheses flush with the right-hand margin of the text and
level with the last line of the equation. For multi-line equations, use
the {\tt eqnarray} environment. For complex mathematics, use the
\AmS-\LaTeX{} package.

\begin{thebibliography}{9}
\bibitem{Scho70} S. Scholes, Discuss. Faraday Soc. No. 50 (1970) 222.
\bibitem{Mazu84} O.V. Mazurin and E.A. Porai-Koshits (eds.),
                 Phase Separation in Glass, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984.
\bibitem{Dimi75} Y. Dimitriev and E. Kashchieva, 
                 J. Mater. Sci. 10 (1975) 1419.
\bibitem{Eato75} D.L. Eaton, Porous Glass Support Material,
                 US Patent No. 3 904 422 (1975).
\end{thebibliography}

References should be collected at the end of your paper. Do not begin
them on a new page unless this is absolutely necessary. They should be
prepared according to the sequential numeric system making sure that
all material mentioned is generally available to the reader. Use
\verb+\cite+ to refer to the entries in the bibliography so that your
accumulated list corresponds to the citations made in the text body. 

Above we have listed some references according to the
sequential numeric system \cite{Scho70,Mazu84,Dimi75,Eato75}.
\end{document}

