---
abstract: 'The $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays are studied with the QCD factorization approach (where $P$ and $V$ denote pseudoscalar and vector mesons, respectively; $q$ $=$ $u$, $d$ and $s$). Considering the contributions of both current-current and penguin operators, the amplitudes of branching ratios are estimated at the leading approximation. We find that the contributions of the penguin operators are very small due to the serious suppression by the CKM elements. The most promising decay modes are $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{({\ast})}{\pi}$, $B_{s}{\rho}$, which might be easily detected at hadron colliders.'
author:
- Junfeng Sun
- Yueling Yang
- Wenjie Du
- Huilan Ma
title: 'Study of $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}P$, $BV$ Decays with QCD Factorization'
---

[^1]

Introduction {#sec1}
============

The $B_{c}$ meson is one of the unique "double heavy-flavored" binding system in the standard model (SM). The study of the $B_{c}$ meson has received a great interest, due to its special properties: (1) The $B_{c}$ meson carries open flavors. We can study the two heavy flavors of both $b$ and $c$ quarks simultaneously with the $B_{c}$ meson. (2) The $B_{c}$ meson can serve as a great laboratory for potential models, QCD sum rules, Heavy Quark Effective Theory (HQET), lattice QCD, etc. (3) The $B_{c}$ meson has rich decay channels, because of its sufficiently large mass and that the $b$ and $c$ quarks can decay individually. The $B_{c}$ meson decays may provide windows for testing the predictions of the SM and can shed light on new physics beyond SM.

The $B_{c}$ mesons are too massive to access at the $B$-factories near ${\Upsilon}(4S)$. They can be produced in significant numbers at hadron colliders. The $B_{c}$ meson has been firstly discovered by the CDF Collaboration @cdf98. Recently the CDF and D0 Collaborations announced some accurate measurements @cdf07 [@d008] with part of their available data. Much more $B_{c}$ mesons and detailed information about their decay properties are expected at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which is scheduled to run in this year. It is estimated that one could expect around $5$ ${\times}$ $10^{10}$ $B_{c}$ events per year at LHC @0412158 [@pan67p1559] due to the relatively large production cross section @prd71p074012 plus the huge luminosity ${\cal L}$ $=$ $10^{34}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm  s}^{-1}$ and high center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{s}$ $=$ $14$ TeV @lhc. There seems to exist a real possibility to study not only some $B_{c}$ rare decays, but also $CP$ violation and polarization asymmetries. The study of the $B_{c}$ meson will highlight the advantages of $B$ physics at hadron colliders.

The $B_{c}$ meson is stable for strong interaction because it lies below the threshold of the $B$-$D$ mesons. The electromagnetic interaction cannot transform the $B_{c}$ meson into other hadrons containing both $b$ and $c$ heavy quarks, because the $B_{c}$ meson itself is the ground state. The $B_{c}$ meson decays via weak interaction only, which can be divided into three classes: (1) the $b$ quark decay ($b$ ${\to}$ $c$, $u$) with $c$ quark as a spectator, (2) the $c$ quark decay ($c$ ${\to}$ $s$, $d$) with $b$ quark as a spectator, and (3) the weak annihilation channels. In the $B_{c}$ meson, both heavy quark can decay weakly, resulting in its much shorter lifetime than other $b$-flavored mesons, i.e. ${\tau}_{B_{c}}$ ${\lesssim}$ $\frac{1}{3}{\tau}_{B_{q}}$ (where $q$ $=$ $u$, $d$, and $s$) @pdg2006. Rates of the Class (1) and (2) are competitive in magnitude. The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) @ckm matrix elements ${\vert}V_{cb}{\vert}$ ${\ll}$ ${\vert}V_{cs}{\vert}$, that is in favor of the $c$-quark decay greatly, whereas the phase space factor $m_{b}^{5}$ ${\gg}$ $m_{c}^{5}$ compensates the CKM matrix elements a lot for the two flavors @ijmpa21p777. In fact, the dominant contributions to the $B_{c}$ lifetime comes from the $c$-quark decays \[Class (2)\] (${\approx}$ $70\%$), while the $b$-quark decay \[Class (1)\] and weak annihilation \[Class (3)\] are expected to add about $20\%$ and $10\%$, respectively @0412158.

The $B_{c}$ meson decays have been widely studied in the literature due to some of its outstanding features. (1) The pure leptonic $B_{c}$ decays belong to the Class (3), which are free from strong interaction in final states and can be used to measure the decay constant $f_{B_{c}}$ and the CKM elements ${\vert}V_{cb}{\vert}$, but they are not fully reconstructed due to the missing neutrino. (2) The semileptonic $B_{c}$ decays provide an excellent laboratory to measure the CKM elements ${\vert}V_{cb}{\vert}$, ${\vert}V_{ub}{\vert}$, ${\vert}V_{cs}{\vert}$, ${\vert}V_{cd}{\vert}$ and form factors for transitions of $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $b$- and $c$-flavored mesons. The first signal of $B_{c}$ is observed via this mode @cdf98. The most difficult theoretical work at present is how to evaluate the hadronic matrix elements properly and accurately. (3) The nonleptonic $B_{c}$ decays are the most complicated due to the participation of the strong interaction, which complicate the extraction of parameters in SM, but they also provide great opportunities to study perturbative and non-perturbative QCD, final state interactions, etc.

The earlier nonleptonic decays of $B_{c}$ meson has been studied in @0412158 [@pan67p1559; @07070919; @prd75p097304; @prd73p054024; @epjc45p711; @prd70p074022; @prd68p094020; @epjc32p29; @jpg28p595; @jpg28p2241; @prd65p114007; @pan64p1860; @pan64p2027; @prd61p034012; @prd62p057503; @prd62p014019; @cpl18p498; @epjc9p557; @epjc5p705; @prd56p4133; @plb387p187; @pan60p1729; @9605451; @9504319; @prd49p3399; @prd46p3836; @plb286p160; @prd39p1342]. While $c$-quark decays take the lion's share of the $B_{c}$ lifetime, the study on the Class (2) has not received enough attention. This can be explained by the fact that on the one hand the available data on the $B_{c}$ meson is very few, on the other hand it is assumed that the long distance effects and final state interferences might be quite huge and that the Class (2) decays were hard to detect experimentally. Accompanied by the LHC being about to run, the future copious data require more accurate theoretical predictions from now on. In this paper, we shall concentrate on the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ (here $P$ and $V$ denote pseudoscalar and vector mesons, respectively; $q$ $=$ $u$, $d$ and $s$) decays in Class (2) with QCD factorization approach. Now let us outline a few reasons and arguments below.

1.  From the experimental view

    -   The initial and final $b$-flavored mesons, i.e. the $B_{c}$ and $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$, all have a long lifetime due to their decays via the weak interaction. Considered the relativistic boost kinematically due to their large momentum obtained from huge center-of-mass energy, their information would be easily recorded by the multipurpose detectors sitting at the hadron colliders interaction regions (see @lhc for details).

    -   Although it is perceived that the hadron collider environment is "messy" with high backgrounds, the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays are measurable due to the "clean" final states. Since the $B_{c}$ meson carries charge, the final $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is tagged explicitly by the initial $B_{c}$ meson. The other light meson in the final state could also be identified effectively by the conservation low of both momentum and energy, because the dedicated detectors at LHC has excellent performance on trigger, time resolution, particle identification and so on (see @lhc for details).

2.  From the phenomenological view

    -   With very high statistics, we can carefully test the various theoretical models, precisely determine the CKM elements, and meticulously search for the signals of new physics. This requires more accurate theoretical predictions. In this paper, we shall study the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays with QCD factorization approach, including the contributions of both current-current and penguin operators.

    -   In the rest frame of the $B_{c}$ meson, the velocity ${\beta}_{B_{q}^{({\ast})}}$ of the $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is very small due to its large mass, not exceeding $0.18$. The ratio of velocity ${\beta}_{P,V}/{\beta}_{B_{q}^{({\ast})}}$ ${\gtrsim}$ $5.5$, which is very different from that in the two-body $D$ meson decays where the ratio of velocities of final states is close to one. This may indicate that the final state interferences for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays might not be so strong as that in $D$ mesons. If it holds true, it will benefit us in determining the CKM elements $V_{cs}$ and $V_{cd}$, the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ transition form factors, etc. In this paper, we shall neglect the effects of final state interferences for the moment.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec2\], the theoretical framework is discussed. To estimate the amplitude of the branching ratios, the master QCD factorization (QCDF) formula are applied to the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays at the leading approximation. Section \[sec3\] is devoted to the numerical results. Finally, we summarize in Sec. \[sec4\].

Theoretical framework {#sec2}
=====================

The effective Hamiltonian {#sec21}
-------------------------

Using the operator product expansion and renormalization group (RG) equation, the low energy effective Hamiltonian relevant to the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays can be written as $${\cal H}_{\rm eff} = \frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} \Big\{ \!\!
  \sum\limits_{q_{1}=d,s\atop q_{2}=d,s} \!\!\! V_{uq_{_{1}}}V_{cq_{_{2}}}^{\ast}
  \Big[ C_{1}({\mu})Q_{1}+ C_{2}({\mu})Q_{2} \Big] + \!\!\!
  \sum\limits_{q=d,s\atop i=3,\ldots,10} \!\!\!\!\! V_{uq}V_{cq}^{\ast}
  C_{i}({\mu})Q_{i} \Big\} + \hbox{H.c.},
 \label{eq:Hamiltonian}$$ where $V_{uq_{_{\!1}}}V_{cq_{_{2}}}^{\ast}$ is the CKM factor. The cases $q$ $=$ $d$ and $q$ $=$ $s$ can be treated separately and have the same Wilson coefficients $C_{i}({\mu})$. The expressions of the local operators are $$\begin{aligned}
 & & Q_{1}=(\bar{u}_{\alpha}q_{\!1\,{\alpha}})_{V-A}(\bar{q}_{2{\beta}}c_{\beta})_{V-A},
      \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
     Q_{2}=(\bar{u}_{\alpha}q_{1{\beta}})_{V-A}(\bar{q}_{2{\beta}}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}
 \label{eq:operator0102} \\
  & &Q_{3}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta} q^{\prime}_{\beta} )_{V-A},
     \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
     Q_{4}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha} c_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha} )_{V-A},
  \label{eq:operator0304} \\
  & &Q_{5}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta} q^{\prime}_{\beta} )_{V+A},
     \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
     Q_{6}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha} c_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha} )_{V+A},
  \label{eq:operator0506} \\
  & &Q_{7}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}
           \sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta} q^{\prime}_{\beta} )_{V+A},
     \ \ \ \ \ \
     Q_{8}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha} c_{\beta})_{V-A}
           \sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha} )_{V+A},
  \label{eq:operator0708} \\
  & &Q_{9}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}
           \sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta} q^{\prime}_{\beta} )_{V-A},
    \ \ \ \ \ \
    Q_{10}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha} c_{\beta})_{V-A}
           \sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}
           ({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha} )_{V-A},
  \label{eq:operator0910}
 \end{aligned}$$ where the summation over the repeated color indices (${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$) is understood. The Dirac current $(\bar{q}_{1}q_{2})_{V{\pm}A}$ $=$ $\bar{q}_{1}{\gamma}(1{\pm}{\gamma}_{5})q_{2}$. $q^{\prime}$ denotes all the active quarks at scale ${\mu}$ $=$ ${\cal O}(m_{c})$, i.e. $q^{\prime}$ $=$ $u$, $d$, $s$, $c$. $e_{q^{\prime}}$ denotes the electric change of the corresponding quark $q^{\prime}$ in the unit of ${\vert}e{\vert}$, which reflects the electroweak origin of $Q_{7}$, ${\cdots}$, $Q_{10}$. The current-current operators ($Q_{1}$, $Q_{2}$), QCD penguin operators ($Q_{3}$, ${\cdots}$, $Q_{6}$), and electroweak penguin operators ($Q_{7}$, ${\cdots}$, $Q_{10}$) form a complete basis set under QCD and QED renormalization @rmp68p1125.

The effective coupling constants — Wilson coefficients $C_{i}({\mu})$ — are calculated in perturbative theory at a high scale ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ $m_{W}$ and evolved down to a characteristic scale ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ $m_{c}$ using the RG equations. The Wilson coefficient functions are given by @rmp68p1125 $$\vec{C}({\mu})=U_{4}({\mu},{\mu}_{b})M({\mu}_{b})U_{5}({\mu}_{b},{\mu}_{W})
 \vec{C}({\mu}_{W})$$ Here $U_{f}({\mu}_{f},{\mu}_{i})$ is the RG evolution matrix for $f$ active flavors, which includes the RG-improved perturbative contribution from the initial scale ${\mu}_{i}$ down to the final scale ${\mu}_{f}$. The $M({\mu})$ is the $10{\times}10$ quark-threshold matching matrix. The corresponding formula and expressions can be found in Ref. @rmp68p1125. The Wilson coefficients $C_{i}({\mu})$ have been evaluated to the next-to-leading order (NLO). Their numerical values in the naive dimensional regularization (NDR) scheme are listed in Table \[tab01\].

Hadronic matrix elements within the QCDF framework {#sec22}
--------------------------------------------------

For the weak decays of hadrons, the short-distance effects are well-known and can be calculated in perturbation theory. However, the nonperturbative long-distance effects responsible for the hadronization from quarks to hadrons still remain obscure in several aspects. But to calculate the exclusive weak decays of the $B_{c}$ meson, one needs to evaluate the hadronic matrix elements, i.e., the weak current operator sandwiched between the initial state of the $B_{c}$ meson and the concerned final states, which is the most difficult theoretical amandarichardson@example.org. Phenomenologically, these hadronic matrix elements are usually parameterized into the product of the decay constants and the transition form factors based on the argument of color transparency and the naive factorization scheme (NF) @bsw. A few years ago, Beneke, Buchalla, Neubert, and Sachrajda suggested a QCDF formula to compute the hadronic matrix elements in the heavy quark limit, combining the hard scattering approach with power counting in $1/m_{Q}$ @9905312 (here $m_{Q}$ is the mass of heavy quark). At leading order in the power series of heavy quark mass expansion, the hadronic matrix elements can be factorized into "non-factorizable" corrections dominated by hard gluon exchange and universal non-perturbative part parameterized by the form factors and meson's light cone distribution amplitudes. This promising approach has been applied to exclusive two-body nonleptonic $B_{u}$, $B_{d}$, $B_{s}$ decays @0108141 [@prd68p054003; @npb657p333]. It is found that with appropriate parameters, most of the QCDF's predictions are in agreement with the present experimental data. In this paper, we would like to apply the QCDF approach to the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays.

In the heavy quark limit $m_{c}$ $\gg$ ${\Lambda}_{QCD}$, up to power corrections of order of the ${\Lambda}_{QCD}/m_{c}$, using the master QCDF formula, the hadronic matrix elements for the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}M$ decays ($M$ $=$ $P$ or $V$) can be written as @9905312 $${\langle}B^{({\ast})}_{q}M{\vert}O_{i}{\vert}B_{c}{\rangle}\ =\
  F^{B_{c}{\to}B^{({\ast})}_{q}} {\int}dz \ H(z) {\Phi}_{M}(z)
 \label{eq:qcdf}$$ where $F^{B_{c}{\to}B^{({\ast})}_{q}}$ is the transition form factor and ${\Phi}_{M}(z)$ is the distribution amplitudes for the meson of $M$, which are assumed to be nonperturbative and dominated by the soft contributions. The hard-scattering kernels $H(z)$ can be calculated in the perturbative theory. For details about the QCDF formula Eq.(\[eq:qcdf\]), please refer to Ref.@9905312.

To estimate the branching ratios approximately and to have a sense of the order of amplitudes, we shall adopt a rough approximation, i.e. at the leading order of ${\alpha}_{s}$. Within this approximation, the hard-scattering kernel functions become very simple, $H(z)$ $=$ $1$. That is to say the long-distance interactions between $M$ and $B_{c}$-$B^{({\ast})}_{q}$ system could be neglected. So the integral of ${\Phi}_{M}(z)$ reduces to the normalization condition for the distribution amplitudes. Furthermore, according to the arguments of QCDF @9905312, the hard interactions with the spectator are power suppressed in the heavy quark limit. Therefore it is not surprisingly to reproduce the result of NF.

In our paper, the annihilation amplitudes are neglected due to some reasons. (1) According to the power counting arguments of QCDF @9905312, compared with the leading order contributions to the hard scattering kernel, the contributions from annihilation topologies are power suppressed. (2) The annihilation amplitudes are suppressed by the CKM elements. For the decay modes concerned, the CKM factors in the non-annihilation amplitudes are $V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$, $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$, $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$ and $V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$, while the annihilation amplitudes are proportional to the CKM factors of $V_{cb}V_{ub}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{5}$.

The explicit expressions of decay amplitudes for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays are collected in appendix \[appendix\]. In our paper, we define $$\begin{aligned}
 a_{i}&{\equiv}&C_{i}+\frac{1}{N_{c}}C_{i+1}
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (i={\rm odd})
 \label{eq:ai01} \\
 a_{i}&{\equiv}&C_{i}+\frac{1}{N_{c}}C_{i-1}
 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (i={\rm even})
 \label{eq:ai02}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $i$ runs from $1$ to $10$, $C_{i}$ are the Wilson coefficients. $N_{c}$ $=$ $3$ is the color number.

Numerical results and discussions
=================================

Within the QCDF approach, the decay amplitudes depend on many input parameters including the CKM matrix elements, decay constants, form factors, etc. These parameters are discussed and specified below.

\[sec3\]

The CKM matrix elements {#sec31}
-----------------------

We will use the Wolfenstein parameterization. Phenomenologically, it is a popular approximation of the CKM matrix in which each elements is expanded as a power series in the small parameter ${\lambda}$. Up to ${\cal O}({\lambda}^{6})$, the CKM elements can be written as @rmp68p1125 $$\begin{aligned}
 V_{ud}&=&1-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{2}-\frac{1}{8}{\lambda}^{4}
        +{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vud} \\
 V_{us}&=&{\lambda}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vus} \\
 V_{ub}&=&A{\lambda}^{3}({\rho}-i{\eta})    \label{eq:vub} \\
 V_{cd}&=&-{\lambda}+A^{2}{\lambda}^{5}\Big[\frac{1}{2}-({\rho}+i{\eta})\Big]
          +{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vcd} \\
 V_{cs}&=&1-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{2}-\frac{1}{8}{\lambda}^{4}
           -\frac{1}{2}A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vcs} \\
 V_{cb}&=&A{\lambda}^{2}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vcb} \\
 V_{td}&=&A{\lambda}^{3}\Big[1-({\rho}+i{\eta})\Big(1-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{2}\Big)\Big]
          +{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vtd} \\
 V_{ts}&=&-A{\lambda}^{2}+A{\lambda}^{4}\Big[\frac{1}{2}-({\rho}+i{\eta})\Big]
          +{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vts} \\
 V_{tb}&=&1-\frac{1}{2}A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6}) \label{eq:vtb}
 \end{aligned}$$ The global fit for the four independent Wolfenstein parameters gives @pdg2006 $$A=0.818^{+0.007}_{-0.017},\ \ \ \
 {\lambda}=0.2272{\pm}0.0010,\ \ \ \
 \bar{\rho}=0.221^{+0.064}_{-0.028},\ \ \ \
 \bar{\eta}=0.340^{+0.017}_{-0.045}
 \label{eq:ckm02}$$ where the relationship between (${\rho}$, ${\eta}$) and ($\bar{\rho}$, $\bar{\eta}$) is @pdg2006 $${\rho}+i{\eta}=\frac{\sqrt{1-A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}}(\bar{\rho}+i\bar{\eta})}
     {\sqrt{1-{\lambda}^{4}}[1-A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}(\bar{\rho}+i\bar{\eta})]}
 \label{eq:ckm03}$$ If not stated otherwise, we shall use their central values for illustration.

Decay constants and form factors {#sec32}
--------------------------------

In principle, information about the decay constants and transition form factors of mesons can be obtained from experiments and/or theoretical estimations. Now we specify these parameters. The decay constants $f_{P}$ and $f_{V}$ corresponding to the pseudoscalar and vector mesons respectively, are defined by $${\langle}P(q){\vert}({\bar{q}}_{1}q_{2})_{V-A}{\vert}0{\rangle}
   = - i f_{P} q^{\mu}, \ \ \ \ \ \ \
  {\langle}V(q,{\epsilon}){\vert}({\bar{q}}_{1}q_{2})_{V-A}{\vert}0{\rangle}
   = f_{V} m_{V} {\epsilon}^{{\ast}{\mu}},
   \label{eq:meson01}$$ where ${\epsilon}^{{\ast}}$ is the polarization vector of the vector meson $V$. In this paper, we assume ideal mixing between ${\omega}$ and ${\phi}$ mesons, i.e. ${\omega}$ = $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/{\sqrt{2}}$ and ${\phi}$ = $s\bar{s}$. In fact, the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{({\ast})}{\phi}$ decays are not possible, because the $B_{c}$ meson lies below the threshold of the $B_{u}^{({\ast})}{\phi}$ system. As to the ${\eta}$ and ${\eta}^{\prime}$ mesons, we take the convention in Ref. @prd58p114006, adopting the Feldmann-Kroll-Stech mixing scheme. Neglecting the possible compositions of both ${\eta}_{c}$ $=$ $c\bar{c}$ and glueball $gg$, the ${\eta}$ and ${\eta}^{\prime}$ are expressed as linear combinations of orthogonal states ${\eta}_{q}$ and ${\eta}_{s}$ with the flavor structure $q\bar{q}$ $=$ $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/{\sqrt{2}}$ and $s\bar{s}$, respectively, i.e. $$\left( \begin{array}{c} {\eta} \\ {{\eta}^{\prime}} \end{array} \right) =
 \left( \begin{array}{lr} {\cos}{\phi} & -{\sin}{\phi} \\
       {\sin}{\phi} & {\cos}{\phi} \end{array} \right)
 \left( \begin{array}{c} {\eta}_{q} \\  {\eta}_{s} \end{array} \right)
 \label{eq:meson02}$$ where ${\phi}$ $=$ $(39.3{\pm}1.0)^{\circ}$ @prd58p114006 is the ${\eta}$-${\eta}^{\prime}$ mixing angle. So the decay constants related to the ${\eta}$ and ${\eta}^{\prime}$ mesons can be defined by $$\left(\begin{array}{cc} f^{q}_{\eta} & f^{s}_{\eta} \\
     f^{q}_{{\eta}^{\prime}} & f^{s}_{{\eta}^{\prime}} \end{array} \right)
  =  \left(\begin{array}{cc} {\cos}{\phi} & -{\sin}{\phi} \\
     {\sin}{\phi} & {\cos}{\phi} \end{array} \right)
     \left(\begin{array}{cc} f_{q} & 0 \\ 0 & f_{s} \end{array} \right)
 \label{eq:meson03}$$ $${\langle}0{\vert}\bar{q}{\gamma}_{\mu}{\gamma}_{5}q
           {\vert}{\eta}^{(\prime)}(p){\rangle}
          =if^{q}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}p_{\mu},
  \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 {\langle}0{\vert}\bar{s}{\gamma}_{\mu}{\gamma}_{5}s
           {\vert}{\eta}^{(\prime)}(p){\rangle}
          =if^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}p_{\mu}.
 \label{eq:meson04}$$ The matrix elements of the pseudoscalar densities are defined by @prd58p094009 $$\frac{{\langle}0{\vert}\bar{u}{\gamma}_{5}u
                 {\vert}{\eta}^{(\prime)}{\rangle}}
      {{\langle}0{\vert}\bar{s}{\gamma}_{5}s
                 {\vert}{\eta}^{(\prime)}{\rangle}}
  = \frac{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}},
    \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
       {\langle}0{\vert}\bar{s}{\gamma}_{5}s
                 {\vert}{\eta}^{(\prime)}{\rangle}
  = -i\frac{m_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}^{2}}{2m_{s}}
   (f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}-f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}),
 \label{eq:meson05}$$ The numerical values of the decay constants are collected in Table \[tab02\]. If not stated otherwise, we shall take their central values for illustration.

The transition form factors are defined as @bsw $${\langle}P(k){\vert}({\bar{q}}_{3}q_{4})_{V-A}{\vert}B(p){\rangle}=
   (p+k)^{\mu}F_{1}^{B{\to}P}(q^{2})+
   \frac{m_{B}^{2}-m_{P}^{2}}{q^{2}}q^{\mu}
   \Big[F_{0}^{B{\to}P}(q^{2})-F_{1}^{B{\to}P}(q^{2})\Big]
   \label{eq:meson06}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 {\langle}V(k,{\epsilon}){\vert}({\bar{q}}_{3}q_{4})_{V-A}{\vert}B(p){\rangle}&=&
 i \frac{{\epsilon}^{\ast}{\cdot}p}{q^{2}}q_{\mu}2m_{V}A_{0}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2}) +
 i{\epsilon}^{\ast}_{\mu}(m_{B}+m_{V}) A_{1}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2}) \nonumber \\ &-&
 i \frac{{\epsilon}^{\ast}{\cdot}p}{m_{B}+m_{V}}(p+k)_{\mu}A_{2}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2}) -
 i \frac{{\epsilon}^{\ast}{\cdot}p}{q^{2}}q_{\mu}2m_{V}A_{3}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2}) \nonumber \\ &+&
  {\epsilon}_{{\mu}{\nu}{\alpha}{\beta}}{\epsilon}^{{\ast}{\nu}}p^{\alpha}k^{\beta}
   \frac{2V^{B{\to}V}(q^{2})}{m_{B}+m_{V}}
 \label{eq:meson07}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $F_{0,1}$, $V$ and $A_{0,1,2,3}$ are the transition form factors, $q$ = $p$ $-$ $k$. In order to cancel the poles at $q^{2}$ $=$ $0$, we must impose the condition $$\begin{aligned}
 & &
  F_{0}^{B{\to}P}(0)=F_{1}^{B{\to}P}(0),
  \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
  A_{0}^{B{\to}V}(0)=A_{3}^{B{\to}V}(0),
 \label{eq:meson08} \\ & &
   2 m_{V} A_{3}^{B{\to}V}(0)
 = (m_{B} + m_{V}) A_{1}^{B{\to}V}(0)
 - (m_{B} - m_{V}) A_{2}^{B{\to}V}(0).
 \label{eq:meson09}
 \end{aligned}$$ In our paper, only the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}$ transition form factors appear in the amplitudes within the "spectator" model where the spectator is the $b$-quark for the concerned processes. Their numerical values are collected in Table \[tab03\]. From the numbers in Table \[tab03\], we can see clearly that, due to the properties of nonperturbative QCD, there are large uncertainties about the form factors with different theoretical treatments. Here, we notice the fact that the velocity of the final state $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is very small in the rest frame of the initial $B_{c}$ meson, as that mentioned in Sec. \[sec1\]. It is commonly assumed that the velocities of the $b$-quark in the rest frame of the $b$-flavored mesons should be close to zero. The $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is neither fast nor small. By intuition, the overlap between the initial and final states should be huge, close to unity, as that argued in @prd39p1342. So for illustration and simplification, we will take the same value for the transition form factors, i.e. $F_{1,0}(0)$ $=$ $A_{0}(0)$ $=$ $0.8$.

Quark masses {#sec33}
------------

In the decay amplitudes, there exist the "chirally enhanced" factors which are associated with the hadronic matrix elements of the scalar and pseudoscalar densities, for example, $R_{c1}$ in Eq.(\[eq:Bd0pip\]). These factors are formally of order the ${\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}/m_{c}$, power suppressed in the heavy quark limit, but numerically close to unity because the mass of the $c$ quark is not infinity in practice. The current quark masses in the denominator appear through the equations of motions and are renormalization scale dependent. Their values are @pdg2006 $$\begin{array}{lll}
    m_{u}(2\,{\rm GeV})=3{\pm}1~{\rm MeV}, &~~~~~
  & m_{d}(2\,{\rm GeV})=6.0{\pm}1.5~{\rm MeV}, \\
    m_{s}(2\,{\rm GeV})=103{\pm}20~{\rm MeV}, &
  & m_{c}(m_{c})=1.24{\pm}0.09~{\rm GeV}.
 \end{array}
 \label{eq:quark01}$$ Using the renormalization group equation of the running quark mass @rmp68p1125, $$m({\mu})=m({\mu}_{0})\Big[\frac{{\alpha}_{s}({\mu})}{{\alpha}_{s}({\mu}_{0})}
    \Big]^{\frac{{\gamma}_{m}^{(0)}}{2{\beta}_{0}}}
    \Big\{1+ \Big(\frac{{\gamma}_{m}^{(1)}}{2{\beta}_{0}}
   -\frac{{\gamma}_{m}^{(0)}{\beta}_{1}}{2{\beta}_{0}^{2}}\Big)
    \frac{{\alpha}_{s}({\mu})-{\alpha}_{s}({\mu}_{0})}{4{\pi}}
    \Big\}
 \label{eq:quark02}$$ their corresponding values at a characteristic scale ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ $m_{c}$ can be obtained.

Numerical results and discussions {#sec34}
---------------------------------

The numerical results are listed in Table \[tab04\], where ${\cal B}r^{T}$ corresponds to the contributions of the current-current operators only, ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}}$ corresponds to the contributions of both current-current and QCD penguin operators, ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}+P_{\rm e}}$ corresponds to the contributions of both current-current and penguin operators, i.e. $Q_{1}$, ${\cdots}$, $Q_{10}$.

Here, we would like to point out that these numbers are just the qualitative estimations on the order of amplitudes, because many of the subtleties and details, such as final state interactions, the renormalization scale dependence, the transition form factors, the strong phases, and so on, all deserve the dedicated researches but are not considered here.

From the numbers in Table \[tab04\], we can see

-   The contributions of both QCD and electroweak penguin operators are very small for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}P$, $BV$ decays, compared with those of the current-current operators. This is very different from that of the $B_{u,d,s}$ meson decays. The reason is that the contributions of penguin operators are seriously suppressed by the CKM elements. The CKM elements corresponding to different topologies for $c$-quark decay in the $B_{c}$ meson are listed below.

                                                                                                                                   penguin topologies                                         annihilation topologies
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
      $V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$,     $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $+{\lambda}$               $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ $+$ $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{5}$   $V_{cb}V_{ub}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{5}$
      $V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$,    $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $-{\lambda}$                                                                              

    So, for the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}P$, $BV$ decays, the effects of new physics contributed via the penguin topologies might be tiny and not detectable even with large statistics, due to the serious suppression by the CKM elements.

-   There are clear hierarchy of amplitudes of the branching ratios. According the CKM elements and the coefficients of $a_{1,2}$, these decay modes are divided into different cases listed below.

      cases         processes      coefficients                           the CKM elements                              order of branching ratios
      --------- ----------------- -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
      case 1a    $c$ ${\to}$ $s$     $a_{1}$                     $V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$                         ${\sim}$ $10^{-2}$
      case 1b    $c$ ${\to}$ $s$     $a_{1}$                 $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$                     ${\sim}$ $10^{-3}$
                 $c$ ${\to}$ $d$     $a_{1}$                 $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$                     ${\sim}$ $10^{-3}$
      case 1c    $c$ ${\to}$ $d$     $a_{1}$               $V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$                   ${\sim}$ $10^{-4}$
      case 2a    $c$ ${\to}$ $u$     $a_{2}$                     $V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$                         ${\sim}$ $10^{-5}$
      case 2b    $c$ ${\to}$ $u$     $a_{2}$      $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$, $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$   ${\sim}$ $10^{-6}$ — $10^{-7}$
      case 2c    $c$ ${\to}$ $u$     $a_{2}$               $V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$                   ${\sim}$ $10^{-8}$

    The decay modes determined by $a_{1}$ have comparatively large branching ratios, which should be detectable experimentally, especially the CKM favored decay modes, such as $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{({\ast})}{\pi}$, $B_{s}{\rho}$, might be the promising decay modes to be measured in hadron colliders. Due to the great branching ratios of the decay modes determined by $a_{1}$, the $B_{c}$ mesons can be used as a source of the $B_{s}$ mesons if the $B_{c}$ is produced copiously, as that stated in Ref.@ijmpa21p777. The decay modes determined by $a_{2}$ have comparatively small branching ratios, which are hard to detect experimentally, especially the CKM suppressed decay modes, such as $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{({\ast})}K^{0}$, $B_{u}K^{{\ast}0}$, their branching ratios are too tiny to be measured.

-   Although the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{({\ast})}{\eta}^{\prime}$ decays belong to the case 2b modes, their branching ratios are abnormally small, order of $10^{-8}$. This can be explained by the fact that on one hand the physical space phase available is too small, on the other hand there are large destructive interactions between $f^{u}_{{\eta}^{\prime}}a_{2}$ and $f^{s}_{{\eta}^{\prime}}a_{2}$ due to the serious cancellation between the CKM elements $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ and $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$.

-   The relations among the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decay mode become very simple since the effects of penguin topologies is too tiny to be considered. We can use these relations to determine and overconstrain some parameters, such as the CKM elements, the form factors, etc. In addition, in estimating and measuring these parameters, the ratios of the branching ratios can be used to cancel and/or reduce largely theoretical uncertainties and experimental errors. For example $$\begin{aligned}
     & &
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}{\approx}
           \frac{V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}}{V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}}
           \frac{f_{\pi}}{f_{K}} {\approx}
           \frac{V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}}{V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}}
           \frac{f_{\pi}}{f_{K}} {\approx}
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}
           \label{eq:ratio01} \\ & &
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{\approx}
           \frac{V_{cd}^{\ast}}{V_{cs}^{\ast}}
           \frac{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{d}}^{2})}
                {F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2})}{\approx}
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}
           \label{eq:ratio02} \\ & &
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\rho}^{+})}{\approx}
           \frac{f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}{f_{\rho}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}
           ~~~~~
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{{\ast}+})}{\approx}
           \frac{f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}{f_{K^{\ast}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}
           \label{eq:ratio03} \\ & &
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{\approx}
           \frac{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}
                {A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B^{\ast}_{d}}} {\approx}
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{d}K^{+})}
           \label{eq:ratio04} \\ & &
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\rho}^{+})}{\approx}
           \frac{f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}{f_{\rho}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}
           ~~~~~
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{{\ast}+})}{\approx}
           \frac{f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}{f_{K^{\ast}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}
           \label{eq:ratio05} \\ & &
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}{\approx}
           \frac{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}
                {A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B^{\ast}_{d}}} {\approx}
           \frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}
                {{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{s}K^{+})}
           \label{eq:ratio06}
           \end{aligned}$$

Summary and Conclusion {#sec4}
======================

In prospects of the huge statistics of the $B_{c}$ mesons at the hadron colliders, accurate and thorough studies of the $B_{c}$ physics will be accessible very soon. In this paper, we study the two-body nonleptonic $c$-quark decays in the $B_{c}$ mesons, i.e. $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays within the QCDF approach for the leading approximation, and estimate their branching ratios. We find that the contributions of the penguin operators are very small to the decay amplitudes due to the serious suppression by the CKM elements. The decay modes determined by $a_{1}$ have comparatively large branching ratios. The most promising decay modes are $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{({\ast})}{\pi}$, $B_{s}{\rho}$, which might be easily detected at the hadron colliders.

Amplitudes for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays {#appendix}
===================================================================

$c$ ${\to}$ $d$ processes
-------------------------

$$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}{\pi}^{+}) &=&
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} f_{\pi} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2} - m_{B_{d}}^{2}\right) \Big\{
  V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{1} \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big)
  \Big[ a_{4} - \frac{1}{2} a_{10} +
  R_{c1} \big( a_{6} - \frac{1}{2} a_{8} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Bd0pip}
 \end{aligned}$$

where $ R_{c1}\ =\ \displaystyle \frac{2m_{{\pi}^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}-m_{d})}
 $. $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}K^{+}) =
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} f_{K} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{d}}^{2}\right) V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{1}
 \label{eq:Bd0kp}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}{\rho}^{+}) &=&
  \sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{{\rho}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}
  m_{{\rho}^{+}} \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
  \Big\{  V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{1} \nonumber \\ & &+
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} - \frac{1}{2} a_{10} \Big] \Big\}
  \label{eq:Bd0rhop}
 \end{aligned}$$ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}K^{{\ast}+}) =
  \sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K^{\ast}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}} m_{K^{{\ast}+}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right) V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{1}
  \label{eq:Bd0vkp}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+}) &=&
  \sqrt{2}G_{F} f_{\pi} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}}
  m_{B_{d}^{{\ast}}} \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}} \right)
  \Big\{ V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{1} \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} - \frac{1}{2} a_{10} + Q_{c1} \big( a_{6} -
  \frac{1}{2} a_{8} \big) \Big] \Big\}
  \label{eq:vBd0pip}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_{c1}\ =\ \displaystyle \frac{-2m_{{\pi}^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}+m_{d})}
 $. $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}K^{+}) =
  \sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}}
  m_{B_{d}^{{\ast}}} \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}} \right)
  V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{1}
 \label{eq:vBd0kp}$$

$c$ ${\to}$ $s$ processes
-------------------------

$${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}{\pi}^{+})\ =\
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} f_{\pi} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}\right) V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{1}
 \label{eq:Bs0pip}$$

$$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}K^{+})  &=&
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} f_{K} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2} - m_{B_{s}}^{2} \right)
  \Big\{ V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{1} \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} - \frac{1}{2} a_{10} + R_{c2} \big( a_{6} -
  \frac{1}{2} a_{8} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Bs0kp}
 \end{aligned}$$

where $ R_{c2}\ =\ \displaystyle\frac{2m_{K^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{u})(m_{c}-m_{s})}
 $ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}{\rho}^{+})\ =\
  \sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{{\rho}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}} m_{{\rho}^{+}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}} \right) V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{1}
 \label{eq:Bs0rhop}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}K^{{\ast}+}) &=&
  \sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K^{{\ast}}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}} m_{K^{{\ast}+}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
  \Big\{  V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{1} \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big(  V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} - \frac{1}{2} a_{10} \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Bs0vkp}
 \end{aligned}$$ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+}) =
  \sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{\pi} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}} m_{B_{s}^{{\ast}}}
 \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right) V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{1}
 \label{eq:vBs0pip}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}K^{+}) &=&
  \sqrt{2}G_{F} f_{K} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}} m_{B_{s}^{{\ast}}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}} \right)
  \Big\{ V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{1} \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big(  V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} - \frac{1}{2} a_{10} + Q_{c2} \big( a_{6} -
  \frac{1}{2} a_{8} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:vBs0kp}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_{c2}\ =\ \displaystyle \frac{-2m_{K^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{u})(m_{c}+m_{s})}
 $

$c$ ${\to}$ $u$ processes
-------------------------

$$\begin{aligned}
 \lefteqn{ {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\pi}^{0}) =
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{2}f_{\pi} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right)
  \Big\{  -V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2} } \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} + a_{10} - \frac{3}{2} \big( a_{7} - a_{9} \big)
  + R_{c3} \big(  a_{6} + a_{8} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Buppi0}
 \end{aligned}$$

where $ R_{c3}\ =\ \displaystyle\frac{2m_{{\pi}^{0}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}-m_{u})}
 $ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{0}) =
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{K} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right) V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{2}
 \label{eq:Bupkbar0}$$ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}K^{0}) =
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{K} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right) V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2}
  \label{eq:Bupk0}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 \lefteqn{ {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\eta}^{(\prime)}) =
 -i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}} f_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}^{u} F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}
  \left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right)
  \Big\{  V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2} } \nonumber \\ & & +
  \frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}
  V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{2}
  + \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big)
    \Big[ \frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}} \big\{
    a_{3} - a_{5} + \frac{1}{2} \Big( a_{7} - a_{9} \Big) \big\}
  \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \Big( a_{3} - a_{5} \Big)
  + a_{4} + a_{10} - \frac{1}{2} \Big( a_{7} - a_{9} \Big)
  + \left(1 - \frac{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}\right)
    R_{c4}^{(\prime)} \Big( a_{6} + a_{8} \Big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Bupeta}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $ R_{c4}^{(\prime)}\ =\
 \displaystyle\frac{2m_{{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{s})(m_{c}-m_{u})}
 $ $$\begin{aligned}
 {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\rho}^{0}) &=&
  G_{F}f_{{\rho}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}} m_{{\rho}^{0}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
  \Big\{ - V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2} \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
   a_{4} + a_{10} + \frac{3}{2} \big( a_{7} + a_{9} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Buprho0}
 \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 \lefteqn{ {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\omega}) =
  G_{F} f_{\omega} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}} m_{\omega}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
  \Big\{ V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2} } \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  2 \big( a_{3} + a_{5} \big) + a_{4} + a_{10} + \frac{1}{2}
  \big( a_{7} + a_{9} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:Bupomega}
 \end{aligned}$$ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}0}) =
 {\sqrt{2}}G_{F} f_{{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}
 m_{{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}0}} \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
 V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{2}
 \label{eq:Bupvkbar0}$$ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}K^{{\ast}0}) =
 {\sqrt{2}}G_{F} f_{K^{{\ast}0}} F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}} m_{K^{{\ast}0}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right) V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2}
 \label{eq:Bupvk0}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 \lefteqn{ {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\pi}^{0}) =
 G_{F}f_{\pi} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}} m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
  \Big\{  -V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2} } \nonumber \\ & & +
  \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big) \Big[
  a_{4} + a_{10} - \frac{3}{2} \big( a_{7} - a_{9} \big)
  + Q_{c3} \big(  a_{6} + a_{8} \big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:vBuppi0}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_{c3}\ =\ \displaystyle\frac{-2m_{{\pi}^{0}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}+m_{u})}
 $ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\overline{K}}^{0}) =
 {\sqrt{2}}G_{F} f_{K} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}} m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right) V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{2}
  \label{eq:vBupkbar0}$$ $${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}K^{0}) =
 {\sqrt{2}}G_{F} f_{K} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}} m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}
  \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right) V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2}
 \label{eq:vBupk0}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
 \lefteqn{ {\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}) =
 {\sqrt{2}}G_{F}f_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}^{u} A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}
  m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}+}} \left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{_{B_{c}}}\right)
  \Big\{  V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} a_{2} } \nonumber \\ & & +
  \frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}
   V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} a_{2}
  + \Big( V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast} + V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast} \Big)
    \Big[ \frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}} \big\{
    a_{3} - a_{5} + \frac{1}{2} \Big( a_{7} - a_{9} \Big) \big\}
  \nonumber \\ & & + 2 \Big( a_{3} - a_{5} \Big)
  + a_{4} + a_{10} - \frac{1}{2} \Big( a_{7}  - a_{9} \Big)
  + \left(1 - \frac{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}\right)
  Q_{c4}^{({\prime})} \Big( a_{6} + a_{8} \Big) \Big] \Big\}
 \label{eq:vBupeta}
 \end{aligned}$$ where $ Q_{c4}^{({\prime})}\ =\ \displaystyle
 \frac{-2m_{{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{s})(m_{c}+m_{u})}
 $

Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============

This work is supported in part both by National Natural Science Foundation of China (under Grant No. 10647119, 10710146) and by Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province, China. We would like to thank Prof. Dongsheng Du, Dr. Deshan Yang, Prof. Caidian Lü and Prof. Zhizhong Xing for valuable discussions.

<span>99</span> F. Abe, <span>*et al.*</span> (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. <span>**D58**</span>, 112004, (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**81**</span>, 2432, (1998). T. Aaltonen <span>*et al.*</span> (CDF Collaboration), arXiv:0712.1506 \[hep-ex\]; A. Abulencia <span>*et al.*</span> (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**97**</span>, 012002 (2006); Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**96**</span>, 082002 (2006). V. M. Abazov <span>*et al.*</span> (D0 Collaboration), arXiv:0802.4258 \[hep-ex\]. N. Brambilla, <span>*et al.*</span> (Quarkonium Working Group), CERN-2005-005, hep-ph/0412158; M. P. Altarelli, F. Teubert, arXiv:0802.1901 \[hep-ph\]. I. P. Gouz, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, V. I. Romanovsky, O. P. Yushchenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. <span>**67**</span>, 1559 (2004). C. H. Chang, C. F. Qiao, J. X. Wang, X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. <span>**D71**</span>, 074012 (2005); Phys. Rev. <span>**D72**</span>, 114009 (2005); C. H. chang, J. X. Wang, X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. <span>**D77**</span>, 014022 (2008); V. A. Saleev, D. V. Vasin, Phys. Lett. <span>**B605**</span> 311, (2005); A. K. Likhoded, V. A. Saleev, D. V. Vasin, Phys. Atom. Nucl. <span>**69**</span> 94, (2006). http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Publications/LHC-DesignReport.html W. N. Yao <span>*et al.*</span>, J. Phys. <span>**G33**</span>, 1 (2006). N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**10**</span>, 531, (1963); M. Kobayashi, and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. <span>**49**</span>, 652, (1973). C. H. Chang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. <span>**A21**</span>, 777 (2006). X. Liu, X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. <span>**D77**</span>, 096010 (2008). A. K. Giri, B. Mawlong, R. Mohanta, Phys. Rev. <span>**D75**</span>, 097304 (2007); Erratum ibid. <span>**D76**</span>, 099902 (2007); A. K. Giri, R. Mohanta, M. P. Khanna, Phys. Rev. <span>**D65**</span>, 034016 (2002); V. V. Kiselev, J. Phys. <span>**G30**</span>, 1445 (2004). M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. <span>**D73**</span>, 054024 (2006). J. F. Cheng, D. S. Du, C. D. Lü, Eur. Phys. J. <span>**C45**</span>, 711 (2006). S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, P. Singer, Phys. Rev. <span>**D70**</span>, 074022 (2004). E. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. <span>**D68**</span>, 094020 (2003). E. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. <span>**C32**</span>, 29 (2003). V. V. Kiselev, O. N. Pakhomova, V. A. Saleev, J. Phys. <span>**G28**</span>,595 (2002). G. L. Castro, H. B. Mayorga, J. H. Munoz, J. Phys. <span>**G28**</span>, 2241 (2002) R. C. Verma, A. Sharma, Phys. Rev. <span>**D65**</span>, 114007 (2002); Phys. Rev. <span>**D64**</span>, 114018 (2001). V. V. Kiselev, hep-ph/0211021; V. V. Kiselev, A. E. Kovalsky, A. K. Likhoded, Phys. Atom. Nucl. <span>**64**</span>, 1860 (2001); Nucl. Phys. <span>**B585**</span>, 353 (2000). V. A. Saleev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. <span>**64**</span>, 2027 (2001); O. N. Pakhomova, V. A. Saleev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. <span>**63**</span>, 1999 (2000). P. Colangelo, F. D. Fazio, Phys. Rev. <span>**D61**</span>, 034012 (2000). R. Fleischer, D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. <span>**D62**</span>, 057503 (2000). A. A. El-Hady, J. H. Munoz, J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. <span>**D62**</span>, 014019 (2000). L. B. Guo, D. S. Du, Chin. Phys. Lett. <span>**18**</span>, 498 (2001). Y. S. Dai, D. S. Du, Eur. Phys. J. <span>**C9**</span>, 557 (1999). D. S. Du, Z. T. Wei, Eur. Phys. J. <span>**C5**</span>, 705 (1998). J. F. Liu, K. T. Chao, Phys. Rev. <span>**D56**</span>, 4133 (1997). D. S. Du, G. R. Lu, Y. D. Yang, Phys. Lett. <span>**B387**</span>, 187 (1996). A. V. Berezhnoi, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, A. I. Onishchenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. <span>**60**</span>, 1729 (1997); S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, A. V. Tkabladze, A. V. Berezhnoi, A. I. Onishchenko, hep-ph/9803433. V. V. Kiselev, hep-ph/9605451. S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, A. V. Tkabladze, Phys. Usp. <span>**38**</span>, 1 (1995). \[hep-ph/9504319\] C. H. Chang, Y. Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. <span>**D49**</span>, 3399 (1994). Q. P. Xu, A. N. Kamal, Phys. Rev. <span>**D46**</span>, 3836 (1992). M. Masetti, Phys. Lett. <span>**B286**</span>, 160 (1992). D. S. Du, Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. <span>**D39**</span>, 1342, (1989). For a review, see G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. <span>**68**</span>, 1125, (1996); or A. J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471. M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. <span>**C29**</span>, 637, (1985); M. Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. <span>**C34**</span>, 103, (1987). M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. <span>**83**</span>, 1914, (1999); Nucl. Phys. <span>**B591**</span>, 313, (2000). D. S. Du, H. J. Gong, J. F. Sun, D. S. Yang, and G. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. <span>**D65**</span>, 074001, (2002); Phys. Rev. <span>**D65**</span>, 094025, (2002); and Erratum, ibid. <span>**D66**</span>, 079904, (2002); J. F. Sun, G. H. Zhu, D. S. Du, Phys. Rev. <span>**D68**</span>, 054003, (2003). M. Beneke, M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. <span>**B675**</span>, 333, (2003). Th. Feldmann, P. Kroll, B. Stech, Phys. Rev. <span>**D58**</span>, 114006, (1998); A. Ali, G. Kramer, and C. D. Lü, Phys. Rev. <span>**D58**</span>, 094009, (1998). P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli, N. Paver, Z. Phys. <span>**C57**</span>, 43, (1993). D. Choudhury, A. Kundu, B. Mukhhopadhyaya, hep-ph/9810339. M. A Nobes, R M Woloshyn, J. Phys. <span>**G26**</span>, 1079 (2000). M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Kömer, P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. <span>**D63**</span>, 074010, (2001). D. Choudhury, A. Kundu, B. Mukhhopadhyaya, Mod. Phys. Lett. <span>**A16**</span>, 1439 (2001). T. M. Aliev, M. Savci, Eur. Phys. J. <span>**C47**</span>, 413 (2006). T. Huang, F. Zuo, Eur. Phys. J. <span>**C51**</span>, 833 (2007). P. Ball, R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. <span>**D71**</span>, 014029 (2005).

  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
          $C_{1}$            $ 1.0849$   $ 1.1497$   $ 1.1883$   $ 1.2215$
          $C_{2}$            $-0.1902$   $-0.3077$   $-0.3717$   $-0.4241$
          $C_{3}$            $ 0.0148$   $ 0.0238$   $ 0.0296$   $ 0.0349$
          $C_{4}$            $-0.0362$   $-0.0542$   $-0.0652$   $-0.0747$
          $C_{5}$            $ 0.0088$   $ 0.0105$   $ 0.0107$   $ 0.0102$
          $C_{6}$            $-0.0422$   $-0.0703$   $-0.0896$   $-0.1078$
   $C_{7}/{\alpha}_{em}$     $-0.0007$   $-0.0164$   $-0.0186$   $-0.0181$
   $C_{8}/{\alpha}_{em}$     $ 0.0565$   $ 0.0964$   $ 0.1235$   $ 0.1493$
   $C_{9}/{\alpha}_{em}$     $-1.3039$   $-1.3966$   $-1.4473$   $-1.4901$
   $C_{10}/{\alpha}_{em}$    $ 0.2700$   $ 0.4144$   $ 0.4964$   $ 0.5656$
  ------------------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

  : The NLO Wilson coefficients $C_{i}(\mu)$ in the NDR scheme. The input parameters are @pdg2006: ${\alpha}_{s}(m_{Z})$ $=$ $0.1176$, ${\alpha}_{em}(m_{W})$ $=$ $1/128$, $m_{W}$ $=$ $80.403$ GeV, ${\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}^{(f=5)}$ $=$ $220.9$ MeV, ${\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}^{(f=4)}$ $=$ $317.2$ MeV.<span data-label="tab01"></span>

     $f_{\pi}$         $f_{K}$                      $f_{q}$                                  $f_{s}$                          $f_{\rho}$                 $f_{\omega}$               $f_{K^{\ast}}$
  ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
   $131$ @pdg2006   $160$ @pdg2006   $(1.07{\pm}0.02)f_{\pi}$ @prd58p114006   $(1.34{\pm}0.06)f_{\pi}$ @prd58p114006   $205{\pm}9$ @prd71p014029   $195{\pm}3$ @prd71p014029   $217{\pm}5$ @prd71p014029

  : values of the decay constant (in the unit of MeV)<span data-label="tab02"></span>

       Ref.        $F^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u,d}}_{0}(0)$   $F^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}_{0}(0)$   $A^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u,d}^{\ast}}_{0}(0)$   $A^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{\ast}}_{0}(0)$
  --------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
    @prd39p1342          $0.320{\sim}0.910$              $0.340{\sim}0.925$                 $0.349{\sim}0.916$                     $0.432{\sim}0.931$
     @zpc57p43             $0.3{\pm}0.1$                  $0.30{\pm}0.05$                     $0.35{\pm}0.09$                        $0.39{\pm}0.05$
     @9504319                    —                             $0.61$                                —                                   $0.79$
     @9810339                    —                       $0.403{\sim}0.617$                          —                             $0.433{\sim}0.641$
    @jpg26p1079               $0.4504$                        $0.5917$                           $0.2691$                               $0.4451$
   @prd63p074010              $-0.58$                         $-0.61$                             $0.35$                                 $0.39$
   @mpla16p1439                  —                            $0.297$                                —                                   $0.263$
    @pan64p1860                $1.27$                          $1.3$                              $1.29$                                 $0.94$
    @pan64p1860                $1.38$                          $1.1$                              $1.26$                                 $1.04$
    @epjc32p29                 $0.39$                          $0.50$                             $0.20$                                 $0.35$
    @epjc47p413                  —                               —                            $0.23{\pm}0.03$                               —
    @epjc51p833                $0.90$                          $1.02$                             $0.27$                                 $0.36$

  : Values of transition form factors<span data-label="tab03"></span>

  --------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{\pi}^{+}$                   case 1a    $  5.3089{\times}10^{-2}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{\rho}^{+}$                  case 1a    $  6.2652{\times}10^{-2}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+}$             case 1a    $  4.5916{\times}10^{-2}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{K}^{+}$                     case 1b    $  3.6746{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.6759{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.6759{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.4{\times}10^{-4}$   $  3.4{\times}10^{-4}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{K}^{{\ast}+}$               case 1b    $  1.6450{\times}10^{-3}$   $  1.6451{\times}10^{-3}$   $  1.6451{\times}10^{-3}$   $  5.0{\times}10^{-5}$   $  5.0{\times}10^{-5}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{{\ast}0}{K}^{+}$               case 1b    $  2.9772{\times}10^{-3}$   $  2.9766{\times}10^{-3}$   $  2.9766{\times}10^{-3}$   $ -1.9{\times}10^{-4}$   $ -1.9{\times}10^{-4}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{\pi}^{+}$                   case 1b    $  3.7283{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.7272{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.7272{\times}10^{-3}$   $ -3.0{\times}10^{-4}$   $ -3.0{\times}10^{-4}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{\rho}^{+}$                  case 1b    $  5.2745{\times}10^{-3}$   $  5.2742{\times}10^{-3}$   $  5.2742{\times}10^{-3}$   $ -5.0{\times}10^{-5}$   $ -5.0{\times}10^{-5}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+}$             case 1b    $  3.2682{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.2688{\times}10^{-3}$   $  3.2688{\times}10^{-3}$   $  1.9{\times}10^{-4}$   $  1.9{\times}10^{-4}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{K}^{+}$                     case 1c    $  2.6616{\times}10^{-4}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{K}^{{\ast}+}$               case 1c    $  2.2583{\times}10^{-4}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{{\ast}0}{K}^{+}$               case 1c    $  2.2075{\times}10^{-4}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{0}$          case 2a    $  2.2067{\times}10^{-5}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}0}$    case 2a    $  1.8434{\times}10^{-5}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\overline{K}}^{0}$    case 2a    $  1.8261{\times}10^{-5}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\eta}$                      case 2b    $  1.5991{\times}10^{-6}$   $  1.6122{\times}10^{-6}$   $  1.6125{\times}10^{-6}$   $  8.2{\times}10^{-3}$   $  8.4{\times}10^{-3}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\eta}$                case 2b    $  1.3042{\times}10^{-6}$   $  1.2960{\times}10^{-6}$   $  1.2964{\times}10^{-6}$   $ -6.3{\times}10^{-3}$   $ -6.0{\times}10^{-3}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\pi}^{0}$                   case 2b    $  4.5968{\times}10^{-7}$   $  4.5161{\times}10^{-7}$   $  4.5134{\times}10^{-7}$   $ -1.8{\times}10^{-2}$   $ -1.8{\times}10^{-2}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\rho}^{0}$                  case 2b    $  6.5030{\times}10^{-7}$   $  6.4823{\times}10^{-7}$   $  6.4776{\times}10^{-7}$   $ -3.2{\times}10^{-3}$   $ -3.9{\times}10^{-3}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\omega}$                    case 2b    $  5.7921{\times}10^{-7}$   $  5.8199{\times}10^{-7}$   $  5.8212{\times}10^{-7}$   $  4.8{\times}10^{-3}$   $  5.0{\times}10^{-3}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\pi}^{0}$             case 2b    $  4.0262{\times}10^{-7}$   $  4.0722{\times}10^{-7}$   $  4.0685{\times}10^{-7}$   $  1.1{\times}10^{-2}$   $  1.0{\times}10^{-2}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\eta}^{\prime}$             case 2d    $  8.8676{\times}10^{-8}$   $  8.7700{\times}10^{-8}$   $  8.7738{\times}10^{-8}$   $ -1.1{\times}10^{-2}$   $ -1.1{\times}10^{-2}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\eta}^{\prime}$       case 2d    $  1.7401{\times}10^{-8}$   $  1.7728{\times}10^{-8}$   $  1.7731{\times}10^{-8}$   $  1.9{\times}10^{-2}$   $  1.9{\times}10^{-2}$
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{K}^{0}$                     case 2c    $  6.5428{\times}10^{-8}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{K}^{{\ast}0}$               case 2c    $  5.4658{\times}10^{-8}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  $B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{K}^{0}$               case 2c    $  5.4143{\times}10^{-8}$                           —                           —                        —                        —
  --------------------------------------------------------- --------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

  : The branching ratios for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$. ${\cal B}r^{T}$ corresponds to the contributions of the operators $Q_{1}$ and $Q_{2}$. ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}}$ corresponds to the contributions of operators $Q_{1}$ ${\sim}$ $Q_{6}$. ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}+P_{\rm e}}$ corresponds to the contributions of $Q_{1}$ ${\sim}$ $Q_{10}$.<span data-label="tab04"></span>

[^1]: Mailing address

{'source': 'arXiv_out/0806'}