\section{Introduction}

The Barrett-Crane relativistic model \cite{Barrett:1998} is
an intriguing proposal for addressing the problem of
constructing a quantum theory of gravity.  The model is
related to the covariant, or spin-foam, formulation
\cite{Reisenberger:1997} of loop quantum gravity
\cite{loop}, and has recently received much attention.
Barrett and Crane have defined this model as a state sum
defined over a fixed triangulation $\Delta$ of 4d spacetime.
Here, we show that the $q\to 1$ limit of the Barrett-Crane
model can be derived from the Feynman expansion of a field
theory over four copies of the homogeneous space $S^3={\rm
SO}(4)/{\rm SO}(3)$.\footnote{Barrett and Crane define two
versions of their model.  We recover here their ``first
version''.} More precisely, the Barrett-Crane model is
defined as a sum over colorings $c$ (assignments of spins to
faces) of the triangulation $\Delta$
\begin{equation}
Z_{BC}[\Delta] = \sum_{c} A_{BC}(\Delta,c),
\label{c1}
\end{equation}
where $A_{BC}(\Delta,c)$ is the Barrett-Crane amplitude of
the colored triangulation $(\Delta,c)$.  In the Feynman
expansion
\begin{equation}
Z=\int {\cal D}\phi\, e^{-S[\phi]} = \sum_{\Gamma}
{\lambda^{v[\Gamma]}\over {\rm sym}[\Gamma]} \ \ Z[\Gamma]
\label{field}
\end{equation}
of the field theory we consider, the Feynman graphs $\Gamma$
turn out to have the structure of a 2-complex.  Here
$S[\phi]$ is the action, which depends on a coupling
constant $\lambda$, while $v[\Gamma]$ and ${\rm
sym}[\Gamma]$ are the number of vertices and the order of
symmetries of $\Gamma$.  Every triangulation $\Delta$
determines a 2-complex $\Gamma=\Gamma(\Delta)$: the
2-skeleton of its dual cellular complex.  We show in this
paper that the Barrett-Crane model over the triangulation
$\Delta$ is precisely the amplitude of the Feynman graph
$\Gamma(\Delta)$:
\begin{equation}
  Z_{BC}[\Delta] = Z[\Gamma(\Delta)].
\end{equation}
More remarkably, the single terms of the sum (\ref{c1})
match.  In fact, first of all, the space over which our
field theory is defined is compact and the Feynman integrals
are replaced by Feynman sums
\begin{equation}
Z[\Gamma]= \sum_{c} \ \ A(\Gamma,c).
\label{c}
\end{equation}
Next, we show that the discrete ``momenta'' $c$ in (\ref{c})
correspond precisely to the colorings $c$ of the
triangulation in (\ref{c1}).  That is, they are spins
attached to (the 2-cells of the 2-complex $\Gamma(\Delta)$
which are dual to) the faces of $\Delta$.  And, finally, we
show that the Barrett-Crane amplitude is precisely equal to
the Feynman amplitude of the corresponding ``colored''
2-complex $(\Gamma, c)$
\begin{equation}
 A_{BC}(\Delta,c) = A(\Gamma(\Delta),c).
\end{equation}

The Feynman expansion of field theory we consider generates
many more terms than a Barrett-Crane model over a fixed
triangulation.  The additional summation is precisely what
we need in order to address the main difficulty in
developing a physical theory of quantum gravity starting
from the Barrett-Crane model (or from spin foam models in
general \cite{Baez}).  In these models, indeed, the choice
of a fixed triangulation breaks the full covariance of the
theory and unphysically restricts the number of the degrees
of freedom.  Therefore some sort of ``sum over all
triangulations'' is needed on physical grounds.  The
difficulty is to choose a precise characterization of the
objects over which to sum, and to fix the relative weights.
This is precisely done by the full Feynman expansion of our
field theory.  Therefore, the field theory provides a
precise implementation of the loose idea of ``summing over
triangulations''.  In detail, one first notices that the
Barrett-Crane amplitude $A_{BC}(\Delta,c)$ does not depend
on the full (combinatorial) information contained in the
triangulation $\Delta$, but only on a subset of this.  In
fact, it depends only on the 2-complex $\Gamma(\Delta)$, its
dual 2-skeleton.  Thus, the Barrett-Crane state sum
(\ref{c1}) is actually a sum over all colorings of a fixed
2-complex.  The expansion (\ref{field}) extends the
Barrett-Crane state sum (\ref{c1}) to a sum over colored
2-complexes, and fixes the relative weight of these.  Thus,
what emerges in the Feynman expansion is not a sum over
actual {\em triangulations}, as one might have naively
expected, but rather a sum over certain different objects:
colored 2-complexes $s=(\Gamma,c)$
\begin{equation}
Z = \sum_{s} A(s).
\label{sf}
\end{equation}

Now, colored 2-complexes $s$ are precisely {\em spin foams}.
Spin foams were derived (under the name branched colored
surfaces) in describing the dynamics of loop quantum gravity
\cite{Reisenberger:1997}.  Indeed, the covariant formulation
of loop quantum gravity yields a partition function which is
precisely a sum over spin foams of the form (\ref{sf}).
Intuitively, a spin foam describes the time evolution of the
spin networks, the states of loop quantum gravity
\cite{spinnetwork}.  The idea that quantum spacetime could
be described in terms of objects of this kind has been
proposed earlier, in particular by Baez \cite{Baez:1994} and
Reisenberger \cite{Reisenberger} (see also Iwasaki
\cite{Iwasaki}).  In \cite{Baez}, Baez has defined and
analyzed the general notion of {\em spin foam model\/} (and
has introduced the term ``spin foam''); we refer to Baez'
papers \cite{Baez} and \cite{Baez2} for an introduction and
a discussion of these models.  See also
\cite{othersn,altridue}.

The idea of obtaining a ``sum over triangulations'' from a
Feynman expansion was successfully implemented some time
ago, in the context of the matrix models of 2d dimensional
quantum gravity, or ``zero dimensional string
theory''\cite{2d}.  In that context, one views a
triangulated spacetime as a term in a Feynman expansion of
the matrix model.  Here, we essentially show that the same
strategy works in 4d: the terms in the Barrett-Crane state
sum can be loosely interpreted as a ``quantized spacetime
geometry'', and we show here that these ``spacetime
geometries'' are generated as Feynman graphs, as in the 2d
quantum gravity models.  The convergence with the 2d matrix
models is not accidental, since matrix models are at the
root of one of the lines of development that lead to the
Barrett-Crane theory.  Indeed, an extension of the matrix
models to 3d was obtained by Boulatov in
\cite{Boulatov:1992}.  Boulatov showed that the Feynman
expansion of a certain field theory over three copies of
${\rm SU}(2)$ generates triangulations, colorings and
amplitudes of the Ponzano-Regge formulation of 3d quantum
gravity \cite{Ponzano:1968} (and, taking the $q$ deformation
of $SU(2)$, the amplitudes of the Turaev-Viro model
\cite{Turaev-Viro}).  Ooguri has extended the Boulatov
construction to 4d in \cite{Ooguri:1992b}.  The Ooguri
theory is a field theory over 4 copies of ${\rm SU}(2)$.
Its Feynman expansion determines a state sum for a
triangulated 4d spacetime, in which the sum is over the
irreducible representations of ${\rm SU}(2)$.  Replacing
${\rm SU}(2)$ with the quantum group ${\rm SU}(2)_q$ ($q$
root of 1), yields a finite and well defined sum, the
Ooguri-Crane-Yetter model \cite{Crane-Yetter}, which was
shown by Crane, Kauffman and Yetter \cite{Crane} to be
triangulation independent, and therefore to be an invariant
of the 4-manifold.  The Ooguri-Crane-Yetter invariant can be
shown to be the partition function of BF theory \cite{BF}.
As euclidean general relativity can be seen as an ${\rm
SO}(4)$ BF theory with an added constraint, see e.g.\
\cite{DF}, it was then natural to search for a model of
quantum euclidean general relativity as a modification of
the ${\rm SO}(4)$ Ooguri-Crane-Yetter state sum model.  The
constraint that reduces BF theory to general relativity has
an appealing geometrical interpretation.  Barrett and Crane
realized that this constraint can be implemented within an
${\rm SO}(4)$ Crane-Yetter state sum model by
(appropriately) restricting the sum to simple
representations only.\footnote{%
Irreducible representations of $SO(4)$ are labeled by two
half integers (two spins) $(j',j"): j'+j''={\rm integer}$.
A representation is simple if $j'=j":=j$.  Thus, simple
representations are labeled by just one spin $j$.  Here,
following group-theory literature conventions, we use the
``color'' $N=2j$, instead of the spin $j$, for labeling the
simple representation.} (See also \cite{Barbieri}.)\ Results
in \cite{altridue,FW} support the idea that the
Barrett-Crane model is indeed related to quantum general
relativity.

Recently, it was pointed out that harmonic analysis on the
homogeneous space $S^3= {\rm SO}(4)/{\rm SO}(3)$ yields
precisely the simple representations of ${\rm SO}(4)$
\cite{Freidel:1999b}.  It was then tempting to conjecture
that by suitably restricting the 4d Boulatov-Ooguri field
theory to this homogeneous space one could get (the $q\to 1$
limit of) the Barrett-Crane model.  Here we show that this
is indeed the case, with an additional bonus: while for the
Ponzano-Regge and for the Ooguri-Crane-Yetter models the
field theory generates a redundant sum over terms --all
equal to each other by triangulation independence--, in the
Barrett-Crane case the additional summation cures the
breaking of covariance introduced with the choice of a
triangulation, as we have discussed above.  This, in a
certain sense, closes a circle, bringing the recent
developments back to the original matrix model idea that
spacetime can be viewed as a Feynman graph of a quantum
theory.  The interpretation vividly emphasizes the
background independence of these formulations of quantum
gravity.

Finally, the formalism we develop, naturally suggest another
model, different from Barrett-Crane one.  Indeed, in the
field theory we consider, ${\rm SO}(4)$ invariance can be
imposed in two ways: by the left or the right action of
${\rm SO}(4)$ on ${\rm SO}(4)/{\rm SO}(3)$.  These turn out
to be inequivalent.  The second alternative (Case B, below)
yields the Barrett-Crane model (first version).  The first
alternative (Case A, below), is far more natural from the
group theoretical point of view.  It yields a different
model, somewhat closer to, but distinct from the second
version of the Barrett-Crane model.  We argue in the
conclusion that this other model has interesting properties.
In particular, it represents another solution to the problem
of quantizing the constraints that transform BF theory into
general relativity.

In section \ref{sec:def} we define our field theory, and
state our main results in detail.  In section \ref{sec:mode}
we find the mode expansion of the field.  Section
\ref{sec:feyn} studies the Feynman expansion for the two
theories.  In section \ref{sec:triang} we discuss the
relation between the graphs generated by the Feynman
expansion and the triangulations.  We also discuss some
further variants of the model, in which orientation is taken
into account.  In Section \ref{sec:disc} we conclude with
some general comments.  In the two Appendices, we recall
some elements of ${\rm SO}(N)$ representation theory.

\section{Definition of the models and main result}
\label{sec:def}

We consider the group $G={\rm SO}(4)$ and we fix an ${\rm
SO}(3)$ subgroup $H$ of $G$.  In particular, we may consider
${\rm SO}(4)$ in its fundamental representation and choose a
vector $v^0$ in the representation space; we then let $H$ be
the ${\rm SO}(3)$ subgroup which leaves $v^0$ invariant.
Right multiplication by an element of $H$ defines an
equivalence relation in $G$: $g\sim g'$ if there is $h\in H$
such that $gh=g'$.  The space of the equivalence classes,
${\rm SO}(4)/{\rm SO}(3)$, is diffeomorphic to the 3-sphere
$S^3$.  We denote the elements of $S^3$ as $x$.  Note that
the invariant normalized measures $dx$, $dh$ and $dg$ on
$S^3$, ${\rm SO}(3)$ and ${\rm SO}(4)$ respectively are
related as $dg=dx~dh$.

We consider a real field $\tilde\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)$ over the
cartesian product of four copies of $G={\rm SO}(4)$.  We
take $\tilde\phi$ square integrable with respect to each argument.
We require that $\tilde\phi$ is constant along the equivalence
classes.
\begin{equation} \label{hinv}
        \tilde\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) = \tilde\phi(g_1h_1,g_2h_2 ,g_3h_3 ,
        g_4h_4), \qquad\qquad (\forall \ h_1,h_2,h_3,h_4 \in H);
\end{equation}
so that $\tilde\phi$ is in fact a function over the homogeneous
space $(S^3)^4$, which we can write as
$\tilde\phi(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)$.  We will employ both notations.  We
require $\tilde\phi$ to be invariant under any permutation
$\sigma$ of its four arguments
\begin{equation} \label{perm}
\tilde\phi(g_{1},g_{2},g_{3},g_{4})\ =\
\tilde\phi(g_{\sigma(1)},g_{\sigma(2)},
g_{\sigma(3)},g_{\sigma(4)}).
\end{equation}
(In Section \ref{sec:triang}, we will consider alternative
symmetry requirements as well.)  Finally, we project $\tilde\phi$
on its $SO(4)$ invariant part.  This can be done in two ways.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Case A.} The natural action of ${\rm SO}(4)$ on
the right coset $S^3={\rm SO}(4)/{\rm SO}(3)$ is the left
action of the group.  Thus we define
\begin{equation} \label{linv}
        \phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) =
        \int dg\ \tilde{\phi}(g g_1,g g_2,g g_3,g g_4) .
\label{CaseA}
\end{equation}
\item {\bf Case B.} Alternatively, we define
\begin{equation} \label{ginv}
        \phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) =
        \int dg\ \tilde{\phi}(g_1g,g_2g,g_3g,g_4g) .
\label{CaseB}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The two different invariance properties, (\ref{CaseA}) and
(\ref{CaseB}) define two different theories.  In both cases,
the dynamics is defined by the action
\begin{eqnarray}
S[\phi] &=& \frac{1}{2} \int \prod_{i=1}^{4} dg_i ~
\phi^{2}(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) \ + \frac{\lambda}{5!} \int
\prod_{i=1}^{10} dx_i ~~\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)\
\label{action} \\
\nonumber
&& \phi(g_4,g_5,g_6,g_7)\ \phi(g_7,g_3,g_8,g_9)\
\phi(g_9,g_6,g_2,g_{10}) \ \phi(g_{10},g_8,g_5,g_1).
\end{eqnarray}
The potential (fifth order) term has the structure of a
4-simplex.  That is, if we represent each of the five fields
in the product as a node with 4 legs --one for each $g_i$--
and connect pair of legs corresponding to the same argument,
we obtain (the one-skeleton of) a 4-simplex, see Fig.
\ref{fig:action}.  This completes the definition of our
field theory.

\begin{figure}
\centerline{{\psfig{figure=action.eps,height=4cm}}}
\bigskip \caption{The structure of the kinetic and potential
terms in the action.}
\label{fig:action}
\end{figure}

\bigskip

In the following sections, we show that the Feynman
expansion (\ref{field}) of this field theory is a sum over
spin foams $s$ as in (\ref{sf}).  A spin foam $s=(\Gamma,
c)$ is here a colored combinatorial 2-dimensional cellular
complex, or colored 2-complex.  A 2-complex $\Gamma$ is
formed by three abstract sets $\cal V, E, F$, whose elements
are respectively denoted ``vertices'' $v$, ``edges'' $e$,
and ``faces'' $f$, and boundary relations that assign two
vertices to each edge, and a cycle of edges (a cyclic
sequence of edges in which any two consecutive edges are
distinct and share a vertex) to each face.  The number of
edges that a vertex bounds (``adjacent'' to the vertex) is
called the valence of the vertex, and the number of faces
that an edge bounds (adjacent to the edge) is called the
valence of the edge.  A coloring $c=(\{N_{f}\},\{i_{e}\})$
of the 2-complex $\Gamma$ is an assignment of an irreducible
representations $N_{f}$ of some group $G$ to each face $f$
and of an ``intertwiner'' $i_{e}$ to each edge $e$.  An
intertwiner $i_{e}$ is a vector in $K_{\vec N_{e}}$, the
invariant subspace of the tensor product of the Hilbert
spaces of the representations ${\vec N_{e}}=(N_{f_1}\ldots
N_{f_n})$ assigned to the faces $f_{1\ldots f_{n}}$ adjacent
to the edge $e$.  See the appendix for details on $K_{\vec
N_{e}}$, and \cite{Baez,Baez2} for details on these models
in general.

A generic spin foam model is defined by a sum over spin
foams:
\begin{eqnarray}
        Z \ &=&\ \sum_{\Gamma} \ \ w(\Gamma)\ \ Z[\Gamma] \\
        Z[\Gamma] &=& \sum_{\{N_f\}, \{i_e\}} \ \prod_f A_f(N_f)
        \ \prod_e A_e(\vec{N_e}, i_e) \ \prod_v
        A_v(\vec{N_v},\vec{\imath}_v).
\end{eqnarray}
The first sum is over the 2-complexes and the second over
the colorings.  $w(\Gamma)$ is a weight factor for each
2-complex.  We have indicated by $\vec{N_e}$ the set of the
colors of the faces adjacent to the edge $e$, and by
$\vec{N_v}$ and $\vec{\imath}_v$ the set of the colors of
the faces and the edges adjacent to the vertex $v$.  The
factors $A_f$, $A_e$ and $A_v$ are called the amplitudes of
the faces, edges and vertices.  Since every edge connects
exactly two vertices, one can always absorb the amplitude of
the edge $A_e(\vec{N_e},\vec{\imath}_e)$ into the definition
of the vertex amplitude $A_v(\vec{N_v},\vec{\imath}_v)$.
This is not possible for the amplitude of the face
$A_f(N_f)$, since faces can be shared by an arbitrary number
of vertices.

In this paper, we consider only 2-complexes $\Gamma$ with
4-valent edges and 5-valent vertices (for any other
$\Gamma$, we have $w(\Gamma)=0$).  Notice that the
2-skeleton of the cellular complex dual to a triangulation
$\Delta$ of a 4-manifold is a 2-complex of this kind.
Indeed, vertices are 5-valent because they are dual to
4-simplices, which are bounded by precisely five tetrahedra;
and edges are 4-valent because they are dual to the
tetrahedra, which are bounded by four triangles.

The Feynman expansion of our field theory yields a spin foam
model.  The 2-complex weight factor $w(\Gamma)$ vanishes
unless $\Gamma$ has 4-valent edges and 5-valent vertices
only; in this case, it is given by $w(\Gamma) =
\lambda^{n(\Gamma)} /sym(\Gamma)$.  Here $n(\Gamma)$ is the
number of vertices and $sym(\Gamma)$ the order of the
symmetries of the graph underlying the two-complex $\Gamma$,
defined as in standard Feynman graph theory, see for
instance \cite{Peskin}, page 93.  The amplitudes are as
follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Case A.} We color faces of by {\em simple\/}
representation $N_f$ of $SO(4)$, and edges by intertwiners
${i}_{e}$, forming an {\em orthonormal\/} basis in $K_{\vec
N_{e}}$.  The amplitude of the face is $A_{f} =1$.  The
amplitude of the edge is $A_e = 1$.  The vertex amplitude
$A_v(\vec{N_v},\vec{\imath_v})$ is the $15$-$j$ Wigner
symbol $A(\vec{N_v},\vec{\imath_v})$ constructed from the
ten simple representations $\vec{N_v}$ and five intertwiners
$i_v$.  The amplitude of a 2-complex is thus
\begin{equation}\label{case-a}
Z_A[\Gamma] = \sum_{\{N_f\}, \{i_e\}}\ \prod_v
A(\vec{N_v},\vec{\imath_v}).
\end{equation}
\item {\bf Case B.} In this case, as in case A, faces are
colored by simple representation $N_f$ of $SO(4)$.  Each
edge, however, is colored by a single, fixed, intertwiner
$i_{BC}$, the ({\em normalized}) Barrett-Crane intertwiner
\cite{Barrett:1998}.  The amplitude of the faces is
$A_{f}(N_f) ={\rm dim}_{N_{f}}$ --for simple
representations, ${\rm dim}_N=(N+1)^2$.  The amplitude of
the vertex $T_v(\vec{N_v},\vec{\imath_v})$ is the $15$-$j$
Wigner symbol constructed from the ten simple
representations $\vec{N_v}$ and the five Barrett-Crane
intertwiners $i_{BC}$.  Thus, the amplitude of a 2-complex
is
\begin{equation}\label{case-b}
Z_B[\Gamma] = \sum_{\{N_f\}}\ \ \prod_f {\rm dim}_{N_f}\ \
\prod_v A(\vec{N_v},i_{BC}).
\label{B}
\end{equation}
This is precisely the Barrett-Crane amplitude for a
triangulation $\Delta$ whose dual 2-skeleton is
$\Gamma$.\footnote{Reference \cite{Barrett:1998} is a bit
obscure concerning the amplitudes of the lower dimensional
simplices of the triangulation, for which it refers to
\cite{Crane-Yetter}, where a different normalization is
used.  A careful analysis of the requirements put on these
factors, and in particular of the requested invariance under
change of basis in $K_{\vec N_{e}}$ (see
\cite{Barrett:1998}, section IV), implies that the correct
factors (using our normalization) are precisely as in
(\ref{B}).}
\end{itemize}

\section{Mode expansion}
\label{sec:mode}

Consider a square integrable function $\phi(g)$ over
$SO(4)$, invariant under the right action of $SO(3)$.  Using
Peter-Weyl theorem, one can expand it in the matrix elements
$D^{(\Lambda)}_{\alpha\beta}(g)$ of the irreducible
representations $\Lambda$
\begin{equation}
\phi(g) = \sum_\Lambda \ \phi^{\Lambda}_{\alpha\beta} \
D^{(\Lambda)}_{\alpha\beta}(g)
\end{equation}
The indices $\alpha,\beta$ label basis vectors in the
corresponding representation space, and the sum over
repeated indices is understood.  In other words, we choose a
basis in the representation space such that the metric in
this basis is just the Kronecker delta, which is the
standard choice in representation theory literature.  The
requirement of invariance under the right ${\rm SO}(3)$
action can be written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(g) &=& \int\limits_{SO(3)} dh \ \phi(gh).
\end{eqnarray}
Expanding this into the modes, we have
\begin{equation}
\phi(g) = \sum_\Lambda \ \phi^{\Lambda}_{\alpha\beta}\
D^{(\Lambda)}_{\alpha\beta}(g) = \int\limits_{SO(3)} dh\
\phi(gh) = \sum_\Lambda \ \int\limits_{SO(3)} dh\
\phi^{\Lambda}_{\alpha\beta}\
D^{(\Lambda)}_{\alpha\gamma}(g)\
D^{(\Lambda)}_{\gamma\beta}(h).
\end{equation}
The integral in the last term projects the $\beta$ index
over a (normalized) $SO(3)$ invariant vector, which we
denote by $w_\beta$.  As this exists only in simple
representations (and is unique, see the appendix), the sum
over representations $\Lambda$ reduces to a sum over the
simple representations $N$ only, and thus
\begin{equation}
\phi(g) = \sum_N \ \phi^N_\alpha\ D^{(N)}_{\alpha\beta}(g)\
w_\beta .
\end{equation}
The quantities $H^{N}_\alpha(g)=D^{(N)}_{\alpha\beta}(g)
w_\beta$ are invariant under the (right) action of $SO(3)$,
and, thus, can be thought of as functions on the
three-sphere: $H^{N}_\alpha(g)=H^{N}_\alpha(x)$.  In fact,
they form an orthogonal basis for $S^3$ spherical harmonics.

Since $\phi$ is real, we have
\begin{equation}
\sum_N \ \overline{\phi^N_\alpha}\
\overline{D^{(N)}_{\alpha\beta}(g)} \ \overline{w_\beta} =
\sum_N \ \phi^N_\alpha\ D^{(N)}_{\alpha\beta}(g) \ w_\beta .
\end{equation}
In the appendix, we show that the invariant vectors
$w_\beta$ are real, and that the matrix elements can also be
chosen to be real.  Thus, the reality condition simply
requires $\phi^N_\alpha$ to be real.

Let us now consider the field $\tilde\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)$.  From
the observations above, it follows that the property
(\ref{hinv}) implies that the field can be expanded as
\begin{equation} \label{genPHI}
\tilde\phi(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4}\ \phi^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}\
D^{(N_1)}_{\alpha_1\beta_1}(g_1) \ldots
D^{(N_4)}_{\alpha_4\beta_4}(g_4)\ w_{\beta_1}\ldots
w_{\beta_4}.
\end{equation}
As before, the sum over repeated internal indices is
understood.  Finally, the symmetry of $\tilde\phi(g_{1}, \ldots ,
g_{4})$ under permutation of its four arguments implies that
\begin{equation} \label{permutation}
         \phi^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4} =
         \phi^{N_\sigma(1)\ldots
         N_\sigma(4)}_{\alpha_\sigma(1)\ldots\alpha_\sigma(4)},
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is any permutation of $\{1,2,3,4\}$.

Let us now find find the effect of the $SO(4)$ invariance
property on the modes, and find the expression for the
action in terms of the modes.  The analysis is different for
the two cases A and B.

\bigskip \noindent{\bf Case A.} Substituting the mode expantion
(\ref{genPHI}) into the definition
of $\phi$
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(g_1\ldots g_4) &=& \int\limits_{SO(4)} dg \ \ \phi(g
g_1,\ldots, g g_4),
\end{eqnarray}
and using formula (\ref{app:4-int}) for integral of the
product of four group elements, one obtains
\begin{equation}
\phi(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4} \sum_\Lambda
\left(\phi^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}\
C^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}\right)
\left({C}^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}
D^{(N_1)}_{\beta_1\gamma_1}(g_1) \ldots
D^{(N_4)}_{\beta_4\gamma_4}(g_4)\ w_{\gamma_1}\ldots
w_{\gamma_4}\ \right),
\end{equation}
where, notice, the sum over $\Lambda$ is over all --not
necessarily simple-- representations.  Here $C^{N_1\ldots
N_4\,\Lambda}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}$ are four-valent
intertwiners defined in the appendix.  It is clear from the
above formula that the modes $\phi^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}$ enter the mode decomposition
only contracted with the intertwiner $C$.  Defining
\begin{equation} \label{def:phiA}
\phi_{\cal A}^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda}:= \phi^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}\ C^{N_1\ldots
N_4\,\Lambda}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4} \frac{1}{\sqrt{{\rm
dim}_{N_1} \ldots {\rm dim}_{N_4}}},
\end{equation}
the mode expansion takes the form
\begin{equation}
\phi(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4} \sum_\Lambda
\phi_{\cal A}^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda} \sqrt{{\rm
dim}_{N_1}\ldots {\rm dim}_{N_4}} \left({C}^{N_1\ldots
N_4\,\Lambda}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}
D^{(N_1)}_{\beta_1\gamma_1}(g_1) \ldots
D^{(N_4)}_{\beta_4\gamma_4}(g_4)\ w_{\gamma_1}\ldots
w_{\gamma_4}\ \right).
\end{equation}
We now write the action in terms of the modes $\phi_{\cal
A}$.  Using the result (\ref{app:2-int}) for the integral of
the product of two matrix elements, the kinetic term becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} \int \prod_{i=1}^4 dg_i ~
~~\phi^2(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4}
\sum_\Lambda \phi_{\cal A}^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda}
\phi_{\cal A}^{ N_1\ldots N_4\, \Lambda}.
         \end{equation}
For the interaction term, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
&&{\lambda \over 5!} \int \prod_{i=1}^{10} dg_i
~~\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)\ \phi(g_4,g_5,g_6,g_7)\
\phi(g_7,g_3,g_8,g_9)\ \phi(g_9,g_6,g_2,g_{10}) \
\phi(g_{10},g_8,g_5,g_1) \\ \nonumber && = {\lambda \over
5!} \sum_{N_1\ldots N_{10}} \sum_{\Lambda_1\ldots\Lambda_5}
\phi_{\cal A}^{N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4\,\Lambda_1} \phi_{\cal
A}^{N_4 N_5 N_6 N_7\,\Lambda_2} \phi_{\cal A}^{N_7 N_3 N_8
N_9\,\Lambda_3} \phi_{\cal A}^{N_9 N_6 N_2
N_{10}\,\Lambda_4} \phi_{\cal A}^{N_{10} N_8 N_5
N_1\,\Lambda_5} ~~ {\cal
A}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10},\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_5}\ .
\end{eqnarray}
Here ${\cal
A}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10},\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_5}$ is a
($SO(4)$ analog of the) $(15-j)$-symbol, defined as
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10},\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_5} = \
{C}^{ N_1 N_2 N_3
N_4\,\Lambda_1}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4} \ {C}^{
N_4 N_5 N_6
N_7\,\Lambda_2}_{\alpha_4\alpha_5\alpha_6\alpha_7} \ {C}^{
N_7 N_3 N_8
N_9\,\Lambda_3}_{\alpha_7\alpha_3\alpha_8\alpha_9} \ {C}^{
N_9 N_6 N_2
N_{10}\,\Lambda_4}_{\alpha_9\alpha_6\alpha_2\alpha_{10}} \
{C}^{N_{10} N_8 N_5
N_1\,\Lambda_5}_{\alpha_{10}\alpha_8\alpha_5\alpha_1},
\label{A}
\end{equation}
where summation over repeated internal indices is
understood.  Notice that the indices are connected as in
Figure 1, or Figure 3.  In (\ref{A}), the intertwiners are
written in the basis (\ref{basis1}).  For a generic choice
of basis elements $i_{e}^{(a)}$ in the Hilbert spaces
$K_{\vec N_{e}}$
\begin{equation}
i_{e}{}^{ N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4}{}^{(a)} =
\sum_{\Lambda} \ M_{e}{}^{(a)}_{\Lambda}\ {C}^{ N_1 N_2 N_3
N_4\,\Lambda}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4},
\end{equation}
we can write the vertex amplitude as
\begin{equation}
A(\vec N_{v},\vec i_{v}) = \ {i}^{ N_1 N_2 N_3
N_4\,(a_1)}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4} \ {i}^{ N_4
N_5 N_6 N_7\,(a_2)}_{\alpha_4\alpha_5\alpha_6\alpha_7} \
{i}^{ N_7 N_3 N_8
N_9\,(a_3)}_{\alpha_7\alpha_3\alpha_8\alpha_9} \ {i}^{ N_9
N_6 N_2 N_{10}\,(a_4)}_{\alpha_9\alpha_6\alpha_2\alpha_{10}}
\ {i}^{N_{10} N_8 N_5
N_1\,(a_5)}_{\alpha_{10}\alpha_8\alpha_5\alpha_1}.
\label{AA}
\end{equation}

\bigskip \noindent{\bf Case B.} Substituting the mode expantion
(\ref{genPHI}) into the definition
of $\phi$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:canC1}
\phi(g_1\ldots g_4) &=& \int\limits_{SO(4)} dg \ \
\tilde\phi(g_1g\ldots g_4g).
\end{eqnarray}
one obtains:
\begin{equation}
\phi(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4} \sum_\Lambda
\left(\phi^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}\
D^{(N_1)}_{\alpha_1\beta_1}(g_1) \ldots
D^{(N_4)}_{\alpha_4\beta_4}(g_4)\ C^{N_1\ldots
N_4\,\Lambda}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}\right) \
\left({C}^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda}_{\gamma_1\ldots\gamma_4}
w_{\gamma_1}\ldots w_{\gamma_4}\right).
\end{equation}
The quantity in the second parenthesis is the scalar product
of two $SO(3)$ invariant vectors in the representation
$\Lambda$.  Since invariant vectors exist only in simple
representations, this quantity is non-vanishing only when
$\Lambda$ is a simple representations $N$.  In this case its
value is given by (\ref{ultima})
\begin{equation}\label{*}
{C}^{N_1\ldots N_4\,N}_{\gamma_1\ldots\gamma_4}
w_{\gamma_1}\ldots w_{\gamma_4} = {1\over \sqrt{{\rm
dim}_{N_1} \ldots {\rm dim}_{N_4} }}.
\end{equation}
This suggests to redefine the mode expansion in term of the
new fields
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4} = \phi^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4} \sqrt{{\rm dim}_{N_1} \ldots
{\rm dim}_{N_4} }
\end{equation}
Substituting this into the mode expansion, we get
\begin{equation}
\phi(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4}
\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4}\
D^{(N_1)}_{\alpha_1\beta_1}(g_1) \ldots
D^{(N_4)}_{\alpha_4\beta_4}(g_4)\ S^{N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}.
\end{equation}
Here $S^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}$ is the {\em
normalized\/} Barrett-Crane intertwiner\footnote{%
Barrett and Crane use a non-normalized expression in
\cite{Barrett:1998}.  Notice also that they call this
intertwiner ``vertex''.  Here we reserved the expression
``vertex'' for the five-valent vertices of the 2-complex
(the dual to the 4-simplices).  This choice is consistent
with standard Feynman diagrammatic and with
\cite{Reisenberger:1997}.}
\begin{equation} \label{bcv}
S^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4} := \frac{\sum_N \
C^{N_1\ldots N_4 \, N}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}}
{\sqrt{\sum_{N} \ C^{N_1\ldots N_4\
N}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4} {C}^{N_1\ldots N_4\
N}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}}}\ \ .
\end{equation}
The normalization, given by the denominator in the above
expression, is in the scalar product of $K_{\vec N_{e}}$.
Since the quantities $C^{N_1\ldots N_4\
N}_{\beta_1\ldots\beta_4}$ are normalized, the denominator
is the square root of the dimension of the subspace of
$K_{\vec N_{e}}$ spanned by the intertwiners having an
intermediate simple representation (See Appendix).

Let us now find the mode expansion of the action.  Using the
result for the integral of the product of two matrix
elements, the kinetic term becomes
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2} \int \prod_{i=1}^4 dg_i ~
~~\phi^2(g_1,\ldots,g_4) = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{N_1\ldots N_4}
\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4
}\ \phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}^{ N_1\ldots
N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots\alpha_4 }.
\end{equation}
The potential term gives
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\frac{\lambda}{5!} \int \prod_{i=1}^{10} dg_i
~~\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)\ \phi(g_4,g_5,g_6,g_7)\
\phi(g_7,g_3,g_8,g_9)\ \phi(g_9,g_6,g_2,g_{10}) \
\phi(g_{10},g_8,g_5,g_1) \\ \nonumber && =
\frac{\lambda}{5!} \sum_{N_1\ldots N_{10}}
\sum_{\Lambda_1\ldots\Lambda_5} \phi_{\mathcal{B}} {}^{ N_1
N_2 N_3 N_4 }_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4}
\phi_{\mathcal{B}} {}^{ N_4 N_5 N_6 N_7
}_{\alpha_4\alpha_5\alpha_6\alpha_7} \phi_{\mathcal{B}} {}^{
N_7 N_3 N_8 N_9 }_{\alpha_7\alpha_3\alpha_8\alpha_9}
\phi_{\mathcal{B}} {}^{ N_9 N_6 N_2
N_{10}}_{\alpha_9\alpha_6\alpha_2\alpha_{10}}
\phi_{\mathcal{B}} {}^{ N_{10} N_8 N_5
N_1}_{\alpha_{10}\alpha_8\alpha_5\alpha_1} ~~~~ {\cal
B}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10}} ~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here ${\cal B}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10}}$ is the Barrett-Crane
vertex-amplitude, which is a $(15-j)$-symbol with
Barrett-Crane intertwiners
\begin{equation} \label{B2}
{\cal B}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10}} := {S}^{N_1 N_2 N_3
N_4}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4}\ {S}^{N_4 N_5 N_6
N_7}_{\alpha_4\alpha_5\alpha_6\alpha_7}\ {S}^{N_7 N_3 N_8
N_9}_{\alpha_7\alpha_3\alpha_8\alpha_9}\ {S}^{N_9 N_6 N_2
N_{10}}_{\alpha_9\alpha_6\alpha_2\alpha_{10}}\ {S}^{N_{10}
N_8 N_5 N_1}_{\alpha_{10}\alpha_8\alpha_5\alpha_1}.
\label{BB}
\end{equation}

\section{Feynman graphs}
\label{sec:feyn}

\noindent{\bf Case A.} The partition function is given by
the integral over modes
\begin{equation}
Z = \int \big[ D\phi_{{\mathcal {A}}}^{N_1\ldots
N_4\,\Lambda}\big] \ \ e^{-S[\phi_{\mathcal {A}}]}.
\end{equation}
We expand $Z$ in powers of $\lambda$.  The Gaussian
integrals are easily computed, giving the propagator
\begin{equation}\label{prop-a}
P_{\mathcal{A}}^{N_{1}\ldots N_{4}\,\Lambda,N'_{1}\ldots
N'_{4}\,\Lambda'}\ =: \ <\phi_{\mathcal {A}}^{N_1\ldots
N_4\,\Lambda},\ \phi_{\mathcal {A}}^{N'_1\ldots
N'_4\,\Lambda'}>\ = \ \frac{1}{4!} \sum_{\sigma}\ \ \delta^{
N_1 N'_{\sigma(1)}} \ldots \delta^{ N_4 N'_{\sigma(4)}}\
M_{\sigma}^{N_{1}\ldots N_{4}\,}{}^{\Lambda}_{\Lambda'}
\end{equation}
$\sigma$ are the permutations of $\{1,2, 3,4\}$.  The matrix
$M_{\sigma}$, defined in the appendix, gives the change of
basis in $K_{\vec N_{e}}$ that corresponds to a permutation
of the four representations (see appendix).  There is a
single vertex, of order five, which is:
\begin{equation}\label{vert-a}
<\phi_{\mathcal {A}}^{N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4\,\Lambda_1}\ \ldots \
\phi_{\mathcal {A}}^{N_{10} N_8 N_5 N_1\,\Lambda_5}>\ = \
\lambda \ \ {\mathcal
{A}}_{N_1,\ldots,N_{10},\Lambda_1,\ldots,\Lambda_5}.
\end{equation}

\bigskip \noindent{\bf Case B.} The partition function in
this case is given by
\begin{equation}\label{def:Z}
Z = \int \big[ D\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}_{\alpha_1\ldots
\alpha_4}^{N_1\ldots N_4}\big]\ \
e^{-S[\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}]}.
\end{equation}
The propagator is
\begin{equation}\label{prop-b}
P_{\mathcal{B}}{}^{N_{1}\ldots N_{4},\ N'_{1}\ldots N'_{4}
}_{\alpha_{1}\ldots \alpha_{4},\ \ \alpha'_{1}\ldots
\alpha'_{4}}=: <
\phi_{\mathcal {B}}{}^{N_1\ldots N_4}_{\alpha_1\ldots \alpha_4},
\phi_{\mathcal {B}}{}^{N'_1\ldots N'_4}_{\alpha'_1\ldots \alpha'_4}
>\ = \ \frac{1}{4!} \sum_{\sigma} \delta^{
N_1 N'_{\sigma(1)}} \ldots \delta^{ N_4 N'_{\sigma(4)}}\ \
\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha'_{\sigma(1)}}\ldots
\delta^{\alpha_4\alpha'_{\sigma(4)}}
\end{equation}
The vertex is given by:
\begin{equation}
<\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}_{\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3\alpha_4}^{
N_1 N_2 N_3 N_4} \ldots
\phi_{\mathcal{B}}{}_{\alpha'_{10}\alpha'_8\alpha'_5\alpha'_1}^{
N_{10} N_8 N_5 N_1}>\ \ = \ \ \lambda \ \
\delta^{\alpha_1\alpha'_1}\ldots
\delta^{\alpha_{10}\alpha'_{10} } \ \ {\mathcal
{B}}_{N_1\ldots N_{10}} ~~,
\end{equation}

\bigskip

The set of Feynman rules one gets is similar in the two
cases.  First, we obtain the usual overal factor
${\lambda^{v[\Gamma]}/{\rm sym}[\Gamma]}$ (see for instance
\cite{Peskin}, page 93).  Next, we represent each of the
terms in the right hand side of the definitions
(\ref{prop-a},\ref{prop-b}) of the propagator by four
parallel strands, as in Fig.\ \ref{fig:prop}, carrying the
indices at their end.  Then, we can represent the propagator
itself by the symmetrization of the four strands.  In
addition, in case A, edges $e$ are labeled by a
representation $\Lambda_e$ (not necessarily simple).

\begin{figure}
\centerline{ \hbox{\psfig{figure=propagator.eps,height=1cm}}
} \bigskip \caption{The propagator can be represented by a
collection of four strands, each carrying a simple
representation.}
\label{fig:prop}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centerline{ \hbox{\psfig{figure=vertex.eps,height=4cm}}}
\bigskip \caption{The structure of the vertex of the fat
5-valent graphs generated by the Feynman expansion.}
\label{fig:vertex}
\end{figure}

The Feynman graphs we gets are all possible ``4-strand''
5-valent graphs, where a ``4-strand graph'' is a graph whose
edges are collections of four strands, and whose vertices
are the ones shown in Fig.  \ref{fig:vertex}.  Each strand
of the propagator can be connected to a single strand in
each of the five ``openings'' of the vertex.  Orientations
in the vertex and in the propagators should match (this can
always be achieved by changing a representation to its
conjugate).  Each strand of the 4-strand graph, goes through
several vertices and several propagators, and then closes to
itself, forming a cycle.  Note that a particular strand can
go through a particular edge of the 4-strand graph more than
once.  Cycles get labeled by the simple representations of
the indices.  For each graph, the abstract set formed by the
vertices, the edges, and the cycles forms a 2-complex, in
which the faces are the cycles.  The labeling of the cycles
by simple representations of $SO(4)$ determines a coloring
of the faces by spins.  Thus, we obtain a colored 2-simplex,
namely a spin foam.

In Case A, edges $e$ are labeled by an intertwiner with
index $\Lambda_e$ (in the basis (\ref{basis1})).  Vertices
$v$ contribute a factor $\lambda$ times ${\mathcal {A}}$,
(see (\ref{A})), which depends on ten simple representations
labeling the cycles that go through the vertex, and on five
intertwiners, basis elements in $K_{\vec N_{e}}$, labeling
the edges that meet at $v$.  Each edge contracts two
vertices, say $v$ and $v'$.  It contributes a matrix
$M_{\sigma}$.  This is the matrix of the change of basis
from the basis in $K_{\vec N_{e}}$ used at $v$ and the basis
used at $v'$.  If we fix a basis of intertwiners $i_{e}$ in
$K_{\vec N_{e}}$ for every $e$, once and for all for each
fixed 2-complex --that is, for each assigned permutation in
(\ref{prop-b})-- and use vertex amplitude $A(\vec N_{v},
\vec i_{v})$ given in (\ref{AA}), the matrix $M_{\sigma}$ is
absorbed into the vertex amplitude and the propagator is the
identity.  The weight of 2-complex $\Gamma$ is then given by
(\ref{case-a}).

In Case B, there are no labeling of edges, and we gets an
additional contribution from the summing of the $\alpha's$
indices of the Kroneker deltas $\delta^{\alpha\alpha'}$
around each cycle.  This gives a factor ${\rm dim}_{N_f}$
for every face $f$.  Thus, faces $f$ are labeled by simple
representations $N_f$ and contribute a factor ${\rm
dim}_{N_f}$.  Vertices contribute a factor $\lambda$ times
${\mathcal {B}}$, where ${\mathcal {B}}$ is the
Barrett-Crane weight (\ref{B}), which depends on the ten
simple representations of the faces adjacent to the vertex.
This yields the result (\ref{case-b}).

\section{Triangulations, orientation and symmetries of
$\phi$}
\label{sec:triang}

In this section we comment on the relation between
2-complexes and triangulations, and we discuss some possible
modification of our models, which leads to oriented
2-complexes.
\begin{itemize}
\item
Given a triangulation $\Delta$, the (abstract combinatorial
structure of its) dual 2-skeleton, $\Gamma(\Delta)$ is a
2-complex.  In general, not every 2-complex comes from a
triangulation triangulation of a 4-manifold in this way.  In
3d, one can nicely characterize the 2-complexes that are
derived from triangulations \cite{Petronio}.  Since this
characterization introduces an interesting technology, we
mention it here, adapted from \cite{Petronio}.

As we have seen, a 2-complex corresponds to a 4-strand
graph.  Consider a sequence of edges forming a closed loop
in the graph, starting with an edge $e$.  Label the strands
of $e$, say with integers (1,2,3 in 3d, and 1,2,3,4 in 4d).
The labeling can be carried over to the next edge in the
loop, say $e'$ by noticing that the strands of $e'$ are
naturally paired with the strands of $e$: a strand in $e$
and a strand in $e'$ are paired either if they are the same
strand that continues across the vertex, or if they both
continue across the vertex into an edge $e''$.  Thus, the
labeling can be carried over the loop.  In closing the loop,
we obtain a new labeling of the strands of $e$.  If the new
labeling is an even (respectively odd) permutation of the
original labeling, we say that the loop is even
(respectively odd).

In 3d we have the following result \cite{Petronio}.  If, and
only if, each cycle (a loop that bounds a face) of the
2-complex is even, we can ``thicken'' faces, edges and
vertices of the 2-complex, obtaining a 3 manifold with
boundaries, whose spine is the 2-complex .  If, in addition,
each component of the boundary of this manifold is a sphere,
we can then fill the sphere with a ball, and obtain a
triangulated manifold, whose dual 2-skeleton is the
2-complex.  We are not aware of related results in 4d.

\item
Next, let us now consider the notion of orientation.  The
notion of orientability of a manifold can be extended to
abstract, $\,n$-dimensional triangulations.  In $n$
dimensions, an $n\,$-simplex $S$ has $n+1$ points
($0$-simplices) in its boundary.  An orientation of $S$ is a
choice of an ordering of these $n+1$ points, up to even
permutations.  An $n\,$-simplex is bounded by n+1
($n\,$-1)-simplices.  Each of these is bounded by n-2
points, obtained by dropping one of the points of the
$n$-simplex.  Each ($n\,$-1)-simplex inherits an
(``outgoing'') orientation from the $n$-simplex.  This can
be obtained by dropping the missing point in an even
ordering of the points of the ($n\,$-1)-simplices in which
this missing point is first.  Two $n\,$-simplices that share
an ($n\,$-1)-simplex have consistent orientation if the
shared ($n\,$-1)-simplex inherits opposite orientations from
the two $n\,$-simplices it bounds.  A triangulation is
orientable if it admits a consistent orientations of all its
$n$-simplices.  Clearly, the triangulation of an orientable
manifold is orientable.

Now, the notion of orientability extends to 2-complexes with
4-valent edges and 5-valent vertices.  In fact, notice that
in the boundary of an $n\,$-simplex of a triangulation, the
($n\,$-1)-simplices are paired with the points (the point
that does not belong to the ($n\,$-1)-simplex).  Thus, the
ordering of the points corresponds to an ordering of the
($n\,$-1)-simplices.  Consequently, we can simply define the
orientation of a vertex of a 2-complex as an ordering of its
adjacent edges, up to even permutations.  In turn, the
orientation of a vertex induces an (outgoing) orientation of
its adjacent edges, namely an ordering of the faces,
obtained as above.  The orientation of two vertices
separated by an edge is consistent if the edge inherits
opposite orientations from the two vertices.  The 2-complex
is orientable if it admits a consistent orientation of all
its vertices.  Clearly, a 2-complex is orientable if all its
loops (not just the cycles) are even.  A 2-complex derived
from a triangulation of an orientable manifold, is
orientable.

It is not difficult to modify our field theory in such a way
that it generates only orientable 2-complexes.  To do that,
it is sufficient to replace the requirement that $\phi$ is
symmetric under any permutation of its arguments, eq.
(\ref{perm}) with
\begin{equation}
\label{permE}
\phi(g_{1},g_{2},g_{3},g_{4})\ =\
\phi(g_{\sigma_{E}(1)},g_{\sigma_{E}(2)},
g_{\sigma_{E}(3)},g_{\sigma_{E}(4)}),
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_{E}$ is an {\em even\/} permutation, and to
rewrite the action as
\begin{eqnarray}
S[\phi] &=& \frac{1}{2} \int \prod_{i=1}^{4} dg_i ~
\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)\ \phi(g_3,g_2,g_1,g_4) \ +
\frac{\lambda}{5!} \int \prod_{i=1}^{10} dg_i
~~\phi(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4)\
\\ \nonumber
&& \phi(g_4,g_5,g_6,g_7)\ \phi(g_7,g_3,g_8,g_9)\
\phi(g_9,g_6,g_2,g_{10}) \ \phi(g_{10},g_8,g_5,g_1).
\end{eqnarray}
(This action is the same as (\ref{action}) if $\phi$ is
symmetric under any permutation of its arguments.)\ If we do
so, the propagators (\ref{prop-a}) and (\ref{prop-b})
contain odd permutations only.  A moment of scrutiny of the
vertex shows that the pairing of the strands discussed above
(in defining the parity of the loops) determines always an
odd permutation.  If we consider a loop of edges in the
Feynman diagram, we cross an equal number of vertices and
edges.  Therefore the strands undergo an even number of odd
permutations.  Therefore in closing the loop we obtain an
even permutation.  Therefore all loops are even and the
2-complex is orientable.

\item
Other versions of the model can be defined by considering
more complicated symmetry properties of the function $\phi$.
In particular, there are 5 irreducible representation of the
permutation group of 4 elements $\Sigma_4$.  Two of these
are one-dimensional (the trivial and the signature), and the
other three have dimensions 2,3 and 5.  If we denote
$\chi_i(g), i =1,\cdots 5 $ the character of these
representations, we can define five different fields
\begin{equation}
        \phi_i(g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4) = {1\over 4!} \sum_{\sigma \in
        \Sigma_4} \chi_i(\sigma)
        \phi_i(g_{\sigma(1)},g_{\sigma(2)},g_{\sigma(3)},g_{\sigma(4)}).
\end{equation}
Using the orthonormality of the characters, the original
field is totally determined by the $\phi_i$
\begin{equation}
        \phi =\sum_i \chi_i(1) \phi_i.
\end{equation}
Taking the field $\phi$ to be one of the $\phi_i$ leads to
five different models having slightly different Feynman
rules.  The propagator associated with permutation gets
multiplied by the character of this permutation in the given
representation, and so on.  Finally, one can perhaps add the
actions of these five models, and use the coupling constants
to try to control the topologies appearing in the Feynman
expansion.
\end{itemize}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:disc}

We close with some general comments.
\begin{itemize}
\item The results of this paper generalize easily to higher
dimensions.  In dimension $D$, we replace the group ${\rm
SO}(4)$ with ${\rm SO}(D)$, the sphere $S^3$ with
$S^{D-1}={\rm SO}(D)/{\rm SO}(D-1)$.  The field $\phi$ is
defined over $D$ copies of the $SO(D)$.  The interaction
term is of order $D+1$ and has the structure of a
$D$-simplex.  The simple representations of ${\rm SO}(D)$
are discussed in details in \cite{Freidel:1999b}.  In any
dimension, Case B yields the higher-dimensional
generalizations of Barrett-Crane model discussed in
\cite{Freidel:1999b}.
\item
The sum over spin foam we have obtained is presumably
divergent.  There are two sources of divergences.

The first is the sum over the colorings.  This divergence
can be regulated by replacing the Clebsch-Gordan
coefficients of the group with the ones of the corresponding
quantum group, with $q^k=1$, as in the Barrett-Crane model.
This procedure cuts off the sum over representations, and
thus makes this sum finite.  In this regard, we think that
it would be interesting to explore the construction of the
field theory presented here, but over a non-commutative
3-sphere.

The second source of divergences is the sum over
2-complexes.  The number $N$ of diff-inequivalent
triangulations of a given four dimensional manifold grows
exponentially only with the number $n$ of simplices
\cite{Carfora}.  That is $N(n) < exp \{\alpha n\}$ for large
$n$.  This fact suggests that the sum might converge for
$\lambda$ smaller than a critical value, determined by
$\alpha$ \cite{Roberto}.  On the other hand, the Feynman
expansion generates triangulations of arbitrary manifolds,
and this might destroy the convergence.
\item
The Barrett-Crane model has been obtained by ``quantizing a
geometric 4-simplex'' \cite{Barrett:1998}.  That is, by
realizing certain geometrical quantities, as the
``bivectors'' that can be associated to the faces of the
tetrahedron, as operators.  Simple representations emerge in
this process: in the quantum theory, the condition on
bivectors that they describe planes in $R^4$ translates into
the the simplicity condition (\ref{simplicity}) on the
representation.  In turn, the condition that these planes
intersect along lines determines the Barrett-Crane
intertwiner (see also \cite{Mike}).  The model described
here as Case A can be seen as a different solution to this
intersection constraint.  In detail, consider a single
tetrahedron of a triangulation.  The tetrahedron belongs to
two different 4-simplices.  In the Barrett-Crane model, one
``quantizes each 4-simplex'' separately.  The corresponding
intersection constraint is imposed two times.  If,
alternatively, we view the tetrahedron as a single element
of the triangulation, we may expect a single constraint
corresponding to the requirement that the two faces
intersect on a line.  The vertex of the model A satisfies
the intersection constraint in this sense.  Indeed, it
satisfies the identity pictured in Fig.  \ref{fig:id}.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\hbox{\psfig{figure=identity.eps,height=3cm}}}
\bigskip \caption{The identity satisfied by the 4-valent
vertices of model A. The sum over all representations
$\Lambda_e$ is implicit.}
\label{fig:id}
\end{figure}
Thus, the model of case A provides another solution to the
intersection constraints.

\item
We close with a comment on the physical interpretation of
the theory we have described.  Consider the model of case A.
The field is $\phi^{N_1\ldots N_4\,\Lambda}$.  The indices
corresponds to the assignment of a (simple) representations
to each face of a tetrahedron, and of an (arbitrary)
intertwiner to the bulk of the tetrahedron.  This assignment
can be thought as the assignment of metric properties to the
tetrahedron: indeed, we know from loop quantum gravity
\cite{loop,VolLoop} and from other approaches
\cite{Barbieri}, that the $N_i$'s are naturally related to
the area of the faces, and their intertwiner to the volume.
[More precisely, the intrinsic geometry of a classical
tetrahedron in 4d is determined by six numbers (4x4
coordinates of the vertices, minus ten dimensions from the
Poincar\'{e} group), but two of these quantities do not
commute as quantum operators and therefore only five quantum
numbers fix the state.]  Therefore, we can view
$\phi^{N_1\ldots N_4 \,\Lambda}$ as a quantum amplitude for
a certain geometry of a tetrahedron or, more generally, of
an elementary ``chunk'' of space, with a certain volume, and
bounded by four elementary surfaces with a certain area.
Correspondingly, we can view the field $\phi(x_1\ldots x_4)$
as the ``Fourier transform'' of such amplitude.  From this
perspective, the quantum theory defined by the action
(\ref{action}) is the second quantization of the quantum
theory of the geometry of an elementary chunk of space.  As
a second quantized theory, it is a ``multiparticle theory'',
in which particles are created and destroyed.  Four
dimensional spacetime can thus be viewed as a Feynman
history of creations, destruction and interactions of these
elementary quanta of space.
\end{itemize}

\vskip1cm
\centerline{--------------------------------}
\vskip1cm

We thank Mauro Carfora, Louis Crane, Carlo Petronio and
Annalisa Marzuoli for discussions and correspondence.
R.D.P. is supported by a Dalla Riccia Fellowship.  K.K. was
supported in part by a Braddock fellowship from Penn State.
This work was partially supported by NSF Grants PHY-9900791,
PHY 95-15506, PHY94-07194, PHY95-14240 and by the Eberly
research founds of Penn State University.


\section{Introduction}
In the early development of heavy quark physics, much attention were
put on the semileptonic heavy meson decays $B \rightarrow D^{(*)} l
\bar\nu$ in order to extract information about the Kobayashi-Maskawa
matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ \cite{N91}.  As more and more data will
accumulate for semileptonic heavy baryon decays, they can also serve
as another independent determination of $|V_{cb}|$
\cite{CDF96,OPAL97,BL97}.

We have recently performed a thorough analysis of the bounds on the $B
\rightarrow D^{(*)}$ weak decay form factors using inclusive sum rules
for semileptonic decays to order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$ and first
order in $\alpha_s$ \cite{CL99}.  The ${\mathcal O}(\alpha_s^2
\beta_0)$ corrections at zero recoil were also included.  In the
present paper, we would like to extend the techniques in our previous
work to baryons that contain a heavy quark.

As in the case of heavy mesons, heavy-to-heavy baryonic form factors
are mainly taken from models.  They are extensively used in the
studies of backgrounds and efficiencies in experiments, and, for this
reason alone, constraining them is important.  For $\Lambda_b
\rightarrow \Lambda_c$ transitions, where the initial and final
baryons have the same light degrees of freedom, the Heavy Quark
Effective Theory (HQET) relates all six form factors to a single
Isgur-Wise function and predicts a specific value at zero recoil in
the infinite mass limit \cite{IW91}.  In the HQET, the form factors and
Isgur-Wise function are usually written as functions of $\omega = v
\cdot v^{\prime}$, with $v$ being the four-velocity of the $\Lambda_b$
baryon and $v^{\prime}$ that of the recoiling $\Lambda_c$ baryon.

The analysis for heavy baryons is almost parallel to that for heavy
mesons.  One difference is the HQET parameters and heavy hadron masses
appearing in each case.  Another difference is that heavy baryons have
an extra light quark.  However, we will see that the power of
inclusive sum rules still applies, regardless of the intricacy among
the light degrees of freedom.

The layout of this paper is as follows: In Section II, we list the sum
rule formulae for the model-independent bounds on form factors defined
in Section III.  Section III also gives the proper combinations of
structure functions used later for the bounds on each of the baryonic
form factors.  Section IV provides the bounds on individual form
factors explicitly, with the structure functions given in \cite{CL99},
and discusses the influence of the various parameters appearing in the
expansion of the bounds.  Some popular form factor models are compared
with our bounds in Section V.  Order $\alpha_S^2 \beta_0$ corrections
to the bounds at zero recoil are computed in Section VI.  In Section
VII, the bounds on the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda_c l \nu$ decay
spectrum and the slope are given.  Our conclusions are summarized in
Section VIII.

\section{Inclusive HQET sum rules}

The sum rules are obtained by relating the inclusive decay rate,
calculated using the operator product expansion (OPE) and perturbative
QCD in the partonic picture, to the sum of exclusive decays rates,
calculated in the hadronic picture.  Since these had been derived
previously\cite{BSUV95,BR97,BLRW97,CL99}, we just write down the
results below.  The same formalism can be applied to all types of
heavy baryons.  Nevertheless, we will concentrate exclusively on
$\Lambda$-type ground-state baryons and denote them by $\Lambda_Q$.

Let $\left|{\Lambda_Q}(v,s) \right>$ be the state of the heavy baryon
$\Lambda_Q$ with mass $M_{\Lambda_Q}$ and spin $s$ moving with
four-velocity $v$ and
$\left|{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}(v^{\prime},s^{\prime}) \right>$ that of
the $\Lambda_Q^{\prime}$ with energy $E_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}$ and
spin $s^{\prime}$ moving with four-velocity $v^{\prime}$.
$E_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}} = \sqrt{M_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}^2+q_3^2}$,
where $q_3$ is the $z$ component of the momentum transfer, $q$, to the
leptonic sector and $\vec{q}$ is pointing in the $z$ direction.
Consider the time ordered product of two weak transition currents
between $\Lambda_Q$ baryons in momentum space,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{structurefn}
T^{\mu\nu}& = & \frac{i}{2M_{\Lambda_Q}} \frac1{2j+1} \sum_{s}
   \int d^4x \, e^{-iq \cdot x}
   \left< \Lambda_Q(v,s) \right| T(J^{\mu\dagger}(x)J^{\nu}(0))
   \left| \Lambda_Q(v,s) \right>
   \nonumber \\
& = &-g^{\mu\nu}T_1 + v^{\mu}v^{\nu}T_2
   + i \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}q_{\alpha}v_{\beta}T_3
   + q^{\mu}q^{\nu}T_4 + (q^{\mu}v^{\nu}+v^{\mu}q^{\nu})T_5,
\end{eqnarray}
where $J^\mu$ is a $Q \rightarrow Q^{\prime}$ axial or vector current
and $j$ is the spin of $\left|{\Lambda_Q}(v,s) \right>$.. The bounds
are then
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{uplowb}
\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{C} d\epsilon \, \theta(\Delta-\epsilon) \,
   T(\epsilon) \left( 1-\frac{\epsilon}{E_1-E_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}} \right)
&\leq&
   \frac{M_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}}{2j+1} \sum_{s,s^{\prime}}
   \frac{\left| \left< {\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}(v^{\prime},s^{\prime})
   \right| a \cdot J \left|
   {\Lambda_Q}(v,s) \right> \right|^2}{4M_{\Lambda_Q} E_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}}
   \nonumber \\
&\leq& \; \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{C} d\epsilon \,
   \theta(\Delta-\epsilon) \, T(\epsilon),
\end{eqnarray}
where $T(\epsilon) \equiv a_{\mu}^* T^{\mu \nu} a_{\nu}$, the product
of $T^{\mu \nu}$ and four-vectors $a_{\mu}^* a_{\nu}$.  The
integration variable $\epsilon = M_{\Lambda_Q} -
E_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}} - v \cdot q$, $E_1$ is the energy of the
first excited state more massive than $\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}$, and
$\Delta$ is the scale up to which the perturbation sums over.

The upper bound is essentially model independent, while the lower
bound relies on the assumption that there is no multiparticle
production of hadrons in the final state.  This additional assumption
is in accord with the large $N_c$ limit and is supported as well by
current experimental results.  These bounds can be used for the decays
at arbitrary momentum transfer $q^2$.  Since
$1/(E_1-E_{\Lambda_{Q^{\prime}}}) \sim 1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the lower
bounds will be limited to first order in $1/m_Q$.  The upper bounds,
on the other hand, can be calculated to order $1/m_Q^2$ without
additional HQET parameters.

The above formulae are presented in terms of $\Lambda$-type baryons,
however, they can be readily applied to other types of baryons too.
Later on, we will restrict our analysis exclusively to the
$\Lambda$-type semileptonic decays with $Q \rightarrow b$ and
${Q^{\prime}} \rightarrow c$, {\it i.e.}, the $\Lambda_b \rightarrow
\Lambda_c l \bar\nu$ decays for which $j=1/2$.

\section{Hadronic side}

The hadronic matrix elements for semileptonic decays of a $\Lambda_b$
baryon into a $\Lambda_c$ baryon are conventionally parameterized in
terms of six form factors defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{param}
\left< \Lambda_c(v^\prime,s^\prime)\mid V^\mu \mid \Lambda_b(v,s)\right>
  & = &
  {\bar u}_{\Lambda_c}(v^\prime,s^\prime)
  \left[ F_1(\omega) \gamma^\mu + F_2(\omega) v^\mu
       + F_3(\omega) {v^\prime}^\mu \right]
  u_{\Lambda_b}(v,s), \nonumber \\
\\
\left< \Lambda_c(v^\prime,s^\prime)\mid A^\mu \mid \Lambda_b(v,s)\right>
  & = &
  {\bar u}_{\Lambda_c}(v^\prime,s^\prime)
  \left[ G_1(\omega) \gamma^\mu + G_2(\omega) v^\mu
       + G_3(\omega) {v^\prime}^\mu \right] \gamma_5
  u_{\Lambda_b}(v,s). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
One may relate the parameter $\omega$ to the momentum transfer $q^2$
by $\omega = (M_{\Lambda_b}^2+M_{\Lambda_c}^2-q^2)/(2M_{\Lambda_b}
M_{\Lambda_c})$.  With proper choices of the current $J^{\mu}$ and the
four-vector $a_{\mu}$, one can readily select the form factor of
interest and, from Eq.~(\ref{uplowb}), form the corresponding bounds.
To subleading order in $1/m_Q$ in HQET, these form factors satisfy the
relations: \cite{GGW90,FN93}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hqetformfactorrelation}
 F_1 &=& \zeta(\omega) \left[
         1 + \bar\Lambda \left( \frac1{2m_c}+\frac1{2m_b} \right) \right], \\
 G_1 &=& \zeta(\omega) \left[
         1 + \bar\Lambda \left( \frac1{2m_c}+\frac1{2m_b} \right)
         \frac{\omega-1}{\omega+1} \right], \nonumber \\
 F_2(\omega) &=& G_2(\omega) =
 -\frac{\bar\Lambda}{m_c}\frac1{\omega+1} \zeta(\omega), \nonumber \\
 F_3(\omega) &=& -G_3(\omega) =
 -\frac{\bar\Lambda}{m_b}\frac1{\omega+1} \zeta(\omega). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the above equations, we have absorbed the corrections from the
subleading kinematic energy into the Isgur-Wise function,
$\zeta(\omega)$.

To bound $F_1$ (or $G_1$), one may choose $J^{\mu}=V^{\mu}$ (or
$A^{\mu}$) and $a^{\mu}=(0,1,0,0)$.  Then the factor to be bounded is
$\frac{(\omega-1)}{2\omega} \left| F_1(\omega) \right|^2 \; \left(
\frac{\omega+1}{2\omega} \left| G_1(\omega) \right|^2 \right)$ and the
sum rule used to bound is $T_{1OPE}=T_{1Hadronic}$.  In this and the
following cases, the corresponding first excited state more massive
than $\Lambda_c$ that contributes to the sum rule is the
$\Lambda_c(2593)$ state.\footnote{$\Sigma_c(2455)$ is lighter, but
$\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Sigma_c(2455) l \nu$ is not an allowed
transition because of the isospin.}

It is impossible to bound $F_2$ and $F_3$ individually with any choice
of $a^\mu$.  The next best thing we can do is to bound a linear
combination of them.  To prevent the bounds from diverging at zero
recoil, we choose $J^{\mu}=V^{\mu}$ and $a^\mu =
(\sqrt{E_{\Lambda_c}/M_{\Lambda_c}-1},0,0,-\sqrt{E_{\Lambda_c}/M_{\Lambda_c}-1})$.
Then the factor to be bounded is $\frac{\omega^2-1}{2\omega} \left|
F_2-F_3 \right|^2$, and the sum rule requires the following
combination of structure functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{F23sum}
T(\epsilon) &=&
    2 T_1 + \left( \omega-1 \right) T_2
  + \left( M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}-\epsilon \right)^2
    \left( \omega-1 \right) T_4 \\
&&+ 2 \left( M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}-\epsilon \right)
      \left( \omega-1 \right) T_5. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

A similar situation occurs for $G_2$ and $G_3$.  Here the choice would
be $J^{\mu}=A^{\mu}$ and $a^\mu =
(1,0,0,-\sqrt{\frac{E_{\Lambda_c}-M_{\Lambda_c}}{E_{\Lambda_c}+M_{\Lambda_c}}})$.
The bounded factor is $\frac{\omega-1}{2\omega} \left| G_2+G_3
\right|^2$, and
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{G23sum}
T(\epsilon) &=&
    -\frac{2}{\omega+1} T_1 + T_2
  + \left( M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}-\epsilon \right)^2 T_4 \\
&&+ 2 \left( M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}-\epsilon \right) T_5 \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
is the combination for the sum rule.

From Eq.~(\ref{hqetformfactorrelation}), we know
$|F_2-F_3|^2=|G_2+G_3|^2 \sim 1/m_Q^2$ at this order in HQET.

\section{Partonic side and the bounds}

The analysis will be performed to first order in $\alpha_s(m_Q)$
($\sim 0.3$ at $2 {\rm\ GeV}$) and $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$ and,
furthermore, only terms linear in $\omega-1$ are kept for the
perturbative part.  The full $\omega$ dependence will be kept in the
nonperturbative physics.  Corrections of order $\Lambda_{\rm
QCD}^2/m_Q^2$, $\alpha_s^2$, $\alpha_s\,\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$, and
$\alpha_s\,(\omega -1)^2$ should be negligible in the kinematic region
that we are considering.

We will use essentially the same notation as in \cite{CL99}.  Since
$\Lambda_b$ and $\Lambda_c$ are spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ baryons where the
light degrees of freedom carry zero angular momentum, the
chromomagnetic energy $\lambda_2=0$.  Also, the heavy quark parameters
$\bar\Lambda$ and $\lambda_1$ for the baryons are different from those
for the mesons.  Their values, however, can be obtained from those of
mesons by the two relations \cite{MW94}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{hqetparas}
\bar\Lambda^B &=& \bar\Lambda^M + \frac{m_b}{m_b-m_c} \left(
              M_{\Lambda_b}-{\bar M_B} \right)
              - \frac{m_c}{m_b-m_c} \left( M_{\Lambda_c}-{\bar M_D}
              \right), \nonumber \\
\lambda_1^B &=& \lambda_1^M
            + \frac{2 m_b m_c}{m_b-m_c} \left[ \left(
            M_{\Lambda_b}-{\bar M_B} \right) -
            \left( M_{\Lambda_c}-{\bar M_D} \right) \right], \\
{\bar M_B} &=& \frac{M_B+3M_{B^*}}{4},
\qquad
{\bar M_D} = \frac{M_D+3M_{D^*}}{4}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In Eq.~(\ref{hqetparas}), $\bar\Lambda^B$ and $\lambda_1^B$ are the
parameters for baryons and $\bar\Lambda^M$ and $\lambda_1^M$ those for
mesons.    Later on, we will go back to the usual notation without
attaching superscripts explicitly.

To form the bounds, one just takes the proper moments of the structure
functions according to the combination required in the sum rules given
in Section III.  To this order, the $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q$ corrections will
depend on two HQET parameters; $\bar\Lambda$, $\lambda_1$.  As
mentioned above, we take their values from the mesonic ones, where a
certain linear relation has been determined \cite{GKLW96}.  We will
use three different parameter sets to show the dependence on
$\bar\Lambda$ and $\lambda_1$: (A) $\bar\Lambda = 0.74 {\rm\ GeV}$ and
$\lambda_1 = -0.43 {\rm\ GeV}^2$, (B) $\bar\Lambda = 0.64 {\rm\ GeV}$
and $\lambda_1 = -0.33 {\rm\ GeV}^2$, (C) $\bar\Lambda = 0.84 {\rm\
GeV}$ and $\lambda_1 = -0.53 {\rm\ GeV}^2$.

The sum rule for bounding $(\omega-1) \left| F_1(\omega)
\right|^2/(2\omega)$ uses $T_1$ with vector-vector currents.  The
upper bound is simply the zeroth moment of $T_1$, which is by
Eq.~(\ref{uplowb})
\begin{equation}
\label{F1upper}
\frac{(\omega-1)}{2\omega} \left| F_1(\omega) \right|^2 \leq
   I_1^{(0)VV} + A_1^{(0)VV}.
\end{equation}
The first moment of $T_1$ is needed for the lower bound,
which is
\begin{equation}
\label{F1lower}
\frac{(\omega-1)}{2\omega} \left| F_1(\omega) \right|^2 \geq
   I_1^{(0)VV} + A_1^{(0)VV}
- \frac{1}{E_{\Lambda_1}-E_{\Lambda_c}}
     \left( I_1^{(1)VV} + A_1^{(1)VV}\right)
\end{equation}
The upper and lower bounds are shown in Fig.~1.\footnote{For all the
figures in this section we take $m_b = 4.8 {\rm\ GeV}$, $m_c = 1.4
{\rm\ GeV}$, $\alpha_s = 0.3$ (corresponding to a scale of about $2
{\rm\ GeV}$).  The values of $\bar\Lambda$ and $\lambda_1$ are
discussed in the text.}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{f1bound.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it Upper and lower bounds on $(\omega-1) \left|
F_1(\omega) \right|^2/(2\omega)$.  The thick solid (dotted) curves
are the upper and lower bounds including perturbative corrections for
HQET parameter set (A) described in the text, and $\Delta = 1{\rm\ GeV}\
(2{\rm\ GeV})$.  The dashed curves are the bounds without perturbative
corrections, also for HQET parameter set (A).  The thin solid curves
show the dependence on $\bar\Lambda$ and $\lambda_1$, using parameter
sets (B) and (C), with $\Delta = 1{\rm\ GeV}$.  Here the outer two
thin solid curves are from parameter set (B), while the inner two
curves from set (C)}}
\end{figure}
For this section, the dotted curves are the bounds without
perturbative corrections using set (A) above, while the solid and
dashed curves represent the bounds including the perturbative
corrections with $\Delta=1 {\rm\ GeV}$ and $\Delta=2 {\rm\ GeV}$,
respectively.  We have shown the bounds in the kinematic range $1 \leq
\omega \lesssim 1.25$, where the higher order correction
$\alpha_s(\omega -1)^2$ should be negligible.  The thin solid curves
use the other HQET parameter sets (B) and (C).

In Fig.~1, the bounds without perturbative corrections approach zero
because of the overall factor $\omega-1$ appearing in the
nonperturbative corrections.  As we move the scale of $\Delta$ from $1
{\rm GeV}$ to $2 {\rm GeV}$, the upper bound is only shifted upward by
about $0.01$, while the lower bound is dragged down by more than
$0.04$.  This serves as an indication that in general perturbative
corrections have a larger influence on the lower bound.  The bounds
get wider at small momentum transfer with parameter set (B) while
narrower with set (C).  As a general tendency in this and subsequent
plots, varying among the three parameter sets (A), (B), and (C)
usually makes less change on the upper bound than the lower bound.
Here, the variations on the upper and lower bounds at $\omega=1$ are
about $5\%$ and $11\%$, respectively.

A similar set of bounds for $(\omega+1) \left| G_1(\omega)
\right|^2/2\omega$ can be obtained by simply changing $VV$
(vector-vector currents) to $AA$ (axial-axial currents) in the above
formulae.\footnote{This set of bounds has been mentioned in
\cite{BLRW97}, and we agree with their results.}  The bounds in this
case are shown in Fig.~2.  Perturbative corrections drag the bounds
lower.  From the bounds corresponding to $\Delta=2 {\rm GeV}$ we also
observe that the lower bound has been significantly decreased.  In
this case, the parameter set (B) lowers the bounding curves, but set
(C) pushes them up.  The variations of the upper and lower bounds at
$\omega=1$ by these parameter changes are about $1.5\%$ and $17\%$,
respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{g1bound.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it Upper and lower bounds on $(\omega+1) \left|
G_1(\omega) \right|^2/(2\omega)$.  The curves are labeled the same as
in Fig.~1.  Here the parameter set (B) gives the lower set of thin
solid curves while the set (C) gives the upper set of curves.}}
\end{figure}

The bounds on the other form factors involve higher moments of $T_4$
and $T_5$.  The upper bound for $(\omega^2-1) \left|
F_2(\omega)-F_3(\omega) \right|^2/2\omega$ is, from Eq.~(\ref{F23sum}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{F23upper}
F_{23}^{upper} &=&
 (\omega-1) \left\{ \frac2{\omega-1} I_1^{(0)VV}
 + I_2^{(0)VV}
 + I_4^{(2)VV}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) I_4^{(1)VV} \right. \\
&&\phantom{(\omega-1)[]}
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c})^2 I_4^{(0)VV}
 - 2 I_5^{(1)VV}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) I_5^{(0)VV}
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{(\omega-1)[]}
 + \frac2{\omega-1} A_1^{(0)VV}
 + A_2^{(0)VV}
 + A_4^{(2)VV}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) A_4^{(1)VV} \nonumber\\
&&\phantom{(\omega-1)[]}
 \left.
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c})^2 A_4^{(0)VV}
 - 2 A_5^{(1)VV}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) A_5^{(0)VV} \right\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The lower bound is $(\omega^2-1) \left|
F_2(\omega)-F_3(\omega) \right|^2/2\omega \geq F_{23}^{lower}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{F23lower}
F_{23}^{lower} &=& F_{23}^{upper} \\
&&
 - \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}
 \left\{
   \frac2{\omega-1} I_1^{(1)VV}
 + I_2^{(1)VV}
 + I_4^{(3)VV}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) I_4^{(2)VV}
 \right. \nonumber\\
&& \phantom{- \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}}
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c})^2 I_4^{(1)VV}
 - 2 I_5^{(2)VV}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) I_5^{(1)VV}
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{- \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}}
   \frac2{\omega-1} A_1^{(1)VV}
 + A_2^{(1)VV}
 + A_4^{(3)VV}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) A_4^{(2)VV} \nonumber\\
&&\phantom{- \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}}
 \left.
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c})^2 A_4^{(1)VV}
 - 2 A_5^{(2)VV}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}+M_{\Lambda_c}) A_5^{(1)VV}
 \right\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

They are plotted in Fig.~3.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{f23bound.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it Upper and lower bounds on $(\omega^2-1) \left|
F_2(\omega) - F_3(\omega) \right|^2/2\omega$.  The curves are
labeled the same as in Fig.~1.}}
\end{figure}
Notice that at tree level both bounds are identically zero.  This can
be easily understood from the relations in
Eq.~(\ref{hqetformfactorrelation}), $\left| F_2-F_3 \right|^2 \sim
\bar\Lambda^2/m_Q^2$.  Nevertheless, perturbative physics separates
the bounds by pushing the upper bound higher to around 0.01 over the
entire kinematic range while drawing the lower bound negative.  Since
the factors we are bounding are all positive definite, the lower bound
is still zero.  Changing $\Delta$ from $1{\rm\ GeV}$ to $2{\rm\ GeV}$
loosens the upper bound by more than a factor of two.  Parameter sets
(A), (B), and (C) have no influence on the upper bound because
$\bar\Lambda$ and $\lambda_1$ only enter the upper bound through the
tree-level corrections and they vanish to the order under
consideration.

The upper bound for $(\omega-1) \left|
G_2(\omega)+G_3(\omega) \right|^2/2\omega$ is, from Eq.~(\ref{G23sum}),
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{G23upper}
G_{23}^{upper} &=&
 - \frac2{\omega+1} I_1^{(0)AA}
 + I_2^{(0)AA}
 + I_4^{(2)AA}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) I_4^{(1)AA} \\
&&\qquad
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c})^2 I_4^{(0)AA}
 - 2 I_5^{(1)AA}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) I_5^{(0)AA}
\nonumber \\
&&\qquad
 + \frac2{\omega-1} A_1^{(0)AA}
 + A_2^{(0)AA}
 + A_4^{(2)AA}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) A_4^{(1)AA} \nonumber\\
&&\qquad
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c})^2 A_4^{(0)AA}
 - 2 A_5^{(1)AA}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) A_5^{(0)AA}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The lower bound is $(\omega-1) \left|
G_2(\omega)+G_3(\omega) \right|^2/2\omega \geq G_{23}^{lower}$, with
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{G23lower}
G_{23}^{lower} &=& G_{23}^{upper} \\
&&
 - \frac{1}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}} \left\{
 - \frac2{\omega+1} I_1^{(1)AA}
 + I_2^{(1)AA}
 + I_4^{(3)AA}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) I_4^{(2)AA}
 \right. \nonumber\\
&& \phantom{- \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}}
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c})^2 I_4^{(1)AA}
 - 2 I_5^{(2)AA}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) I_5^{(1)AA}
\nonumber \\
&&\phantom{- \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}}
 - \frac2{\omega+1} A_1^{(1)AA}
 + A_2^{(1)AA}
 + A_4^{(3)AA}
 - 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) A_4^{(2)AA} \nonumber\\
&&\phantom{- \frac{(\omega-1)}{M_{\Lambda_1} - M_{\Lambda_c}}}
 \left.
 + (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c})^2 A_4^{(1)AA}
 - 2 A_5^{(2)AA}
 + 2 (M_{\Lambda_b}-M_{\Lambda_c}) A_5^{(1)AA}
 \right\}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

The bounds on this form factor are shown in Fig.~4.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{g23bound.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it Upper and lower bounds on $(\omega-1) \left|
G_2(\omega) + G_3(\omega) \right|^2/2\omega$.  The curves are
labeled the same as in Fig.~1.}}
\end{figure}
Again, for the same reason as in the previous case, both the upper
and lower bounds at tree level are identically zero, and the upper
bound does not split for different parameter sets.  The perturbative
corrections also push both bounds in the current case away from zero;
and using $\Delta=2{\rm\ GeV}$ in the calculation widens the upper
bound by more than a factor of 2.

At ${\mathcal O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_Q)$, the upper bounds will not
depend upon $\lambda_1$.  However, since $1/(M_{D1}-M_D) \sim
1/\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ its value will affect the lower bounds.  It is
possible to obtain the upper bounds to order ${\mathcal
O}(\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/m_Q^2)$, since at this order there are no new
parameters in the OPE.  These corrections only slightly modify the
upper bounds in Figs.~1 and 2 but greatly loosen the ones in Figs.~3
and 4 to around 0.1 over the entire kinematic range.

\section{Comparison with models}

We choose from the literature the following commonly used form factor
models for comparison with our bounds:
\begin{verse}
(1) Soliton Model \cite{JMW92}, \\
(2) MIT Bag Model \cite{SZ93}, \\
(3) BS Model \cite{IKLR99}, \\
(4) Relativistic 3-Quark Model \cite{IKLR98}, \\
(5) COQM Model \cite{MGKIIO99}. \\
\end{verse}

The soliton model \cite{JMW92} considers baryons with a single heavy
quark $c$ (or $b$) in the large $N_c$ limit as bound states of $D$ and
$D^*$ mesons (or $B$ and $B^*$ mesons) with baryons containing only
light $u$ and $d$ quarks, which can be viewed as solitons in this
limit.  The MIT Bag Model used in \cite{SZ93} is actually a modified
one that takes into account the familiar picture from the
nonrelativistic quark model that treats the light component of a
baryon as a diquark.  The Relativistic 3-Quark Model \cite{IKLR98}
modifies the interaction Lagrangian between heavy hadrons and quarks
by incorporating the spin structure imposed by the spectator quark
model.  Finally, the COQM model \cite{MGKIIO99} uses the covariant
quark model.  All these models give Isgur-Wise functions without a
dependence on the heavy quark masses.  Thus, we use
Eqs.~(\ref{hqetformfactorrelation}) to relate the form factors to this
Isgur-Wise function.

Figs.~5-8 show the different form factors from the models and the
bounding curves.  In plotting these figures, we used $m_b = 4.8 {\rm\
GeV}$, $m_c = 1.4 {\rm\ GeV}$, $\alpha_s = 0.3$ (corresponding to a
scale of about $2 {\rm\ GeV}$), $\Delta = 1 {\rm\ GeV}$ and current
PDG data on heavy meson masses.  As mentioned above, $\lambda_1$ and
$\bar\Lambda$ are not easy to obtain experimentally.  Here we pick the
parameter set (A) discussed above, $\bar\Lambda = 0.74 {\rm\ GeV}$,
$\lambda_1 = -0.43 {\rm\ GeV}^2$.  The uncertainty on $\lambda_1$ and
$\bar\Lambda$ will correspondingly slightly modify our bounds, as
discussed before.

Fig.~5 shows the model values of $(\omega-1) \left|F_1(\omega)
\right|^2/(2\omega)$ along with the corresponding bounds for
comparison.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{f1model.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it The model values of $(\omega-1) \left|F_1(\omega)
\right|^2/(2\omega)$ along with the corresponding bounds for
comparison.  The thick solid lines are the upper and lower bounds.
The thin solid curve is the Soliton Model.  The long dashed curve is
the MIT Model, and the short dashed curve is the BS Model.  The
dot-dashed curve is the Relativistic 3-Quark Model.  The dotted curve
is the COQM Model.}}
\end{figure}
The Soliton Model, Relativistic 3-Quark Model and the BS Model agree
with our bounds over the entire kinematic regime.  The MIT Bag Model
only slightly violates the lower bound, whereas the COQM model falls
far below the lower bound at large recoil.  If a larger $\Delta$ value
is employed, all the model curves would fit into the bounds as one can
check from Fig.~1.

The curves for
$(\omega+1)\left| G_1 \right|^2/2\omega$ are shown in Fig.~6.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{g1model.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it The model values of $(\omega+1)\left| G_1 \right|^2/2\omega$
along with the corresponding bounds for comparison.  The curves are
labeled the same as in Fig.~5.}}
\end{figure}
All models start from one at zero recoil.  This is because they do not
incorporate the perturbative renormalization effect.  The COQM Model
quickly becomes too small in the large recoil regime.  This, along
with Fig.~5, tells us that the contribution from $\Lambda_b
\rightarrow \Lambda_c$ at small momentum transfer is underestimated in
the COQM Model.  The other models are consistent with our bounds at
large recoil and, presumably, will nicely fit into our bounds near
zero recoil if renormalization corrections are included.

Fig.~7 and Fig.~8 show that all the model predictions are well within
our bounds for $(\omega^2-1)\left| F_2-F_3 \right|^2/(2\omega)$ and
$(\omega-1)\left| G_2+G_3 \right|^2/2\omega$, respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{f23model.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it The model values of $(\omega^2-1)\left| F_2-F_3
\right|^2/(2\omega)$ along with the corresponding bounds for
comparison.  The curves are labeled the same as in Fig.~5.}}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{g23model.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it The model values of $(\omega-1)\left| G_2+G_3
\right|^2/2\omega$ along with the corresponding bounds for comparison.
The curves are labeled the same as in Fig.~5.}}
\end{figure}

The scale we chose for these plots was $\Delta = 1 {\rm\ GeV}$, since
this gives tighter bounds.  Had we chosen $2 {\rm\ GeV}$ as our
working scale, the bounds would be less stringent and thus would
accommodate the models which originally fell slightly outside our
bounds.

\section{Order $\alpha_s^2 \beta_0$ corrections at zero recoil}

As in the case of heavy mesons, one can perform analogous numerical
calculation to get the $\alpha_s^2 \beta_0$ contribution to structure
functions and the bounds at zero recoil \cite{SV94,KLWG96}.  The results for
the zeroth and first moments of the structure functions are presented
in Table~1 of \cite{CL99}, for $\Delta = 1,2 {\rm\ GeV}$.

The $O(\alpha_s^2 \beta_0)$ corrections to the upper and lower bounds
on the form factors at zero recoil are shown in Table~1 for $\Delta =
1{\rm\ GeV}$.  In this case, the $O(\alpha_s^2 \beta_0)$ corrections
are seen to be rather small, which gives us confidence that the
perturbative expansion for the bounds is under control.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{tabular}{c|cccc}
& Tree Level & $O(\alpha_s)$ & $O(\alpha_s^2\beta_0)$ \\ \hline
Upper $\frac{\omega-1}{2\omega} |F_1|^2$ & 0 & 0.0063 & 0.0042 \\
Lower $\frac{\omega-1}{2\omega} |F_1|^2$ & 0 & -0.0060 & -0.0028 \\
\hline
Upper $\frac{\omega^2-1}{2\omega} \left| F_2 - F_3
\right|^2$ & 0 & 0.0127 & 0.0083 \\
Lower $\frac{\omega^2-1}{2\omega} \left| F_2 - F_3
\right|^2$ & 0 & -0.0119 & -0.0056 \\
\hline
Upper $\frac{\omega+1}{2\omega} |G_1|^2$ & 1 & -0.0713 & 0.0159 \\
Lower $\frac{\omega+1}{2\omega} |G_1|^2$ & 1 & -0.0885 & 0.0031 \\
\hline
Upper $\frac{\omega-1}{2\omega} \left| G_2 + G_3 \right|^2$
 & 0 & 0.0111 & 0.0071 \\
Lower $\frac{\omega-1}{2\omega} \left| G_2 + G_3 \right|^2$
 & 0 & -0.0102 & -0.0026 \\
\end{tabular} \vspace{6pt}
\caption{Bound on form factors at zero recoil, evaluated with
$\Delta = 1{\rm\ GeV}$.}
\end{table}

\section{Bounds on Semileptonic Decay Spectrum and Its Slope}

The differential decay rate of $\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda_c l \nu$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{decayrate}
\frac{{\rm d} \Gamma (\Lambda_b \rightarrow \Lambda_c l \nu)}
     {{\rm d} \omega} =
\frac{G_F^2}{24 \pi^3} |V_{cb}|^2 m_{\Lambda_b}^5 z^3
     \sqrt{\omega^2-1} \, F(z,\omega)^2, \\
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ratefactor}
F(z,\omega)^2 &=&
  (\omega-1) \left| (z+1) F_1 + (\omega+1) (z F_2+F_3) \right|^2 \\
&&+ (\omega+1) \left| (z+1) G_1 + (\omega-1) (z G_2+G_3) \right|^2
  \nonumber \\
&&+ 2 (z^2-2\omega z+1) \left[ (\omega-1) |F_1|^2
                           + (\omega+1) |G_1|^2 \right]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
In the linear approximation in $\omega-1$, $F(z,\omega)^2$ can be
expanded to be
\begin{equation}
\label{slopedef}
F(z,\omega)^2 = F(z,1)^2
\left[ 1 - \rho_{\Lambda_b}^2 (\omega-1) + ... \right],
\end{equation}
where $\rho_{\Lambda_b}^2$ is the slope of the spectrum at zero
recoil.  The combination of structure functions used to bound
$F(z,\omega)^2$ is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{ratebound}
T(\epsilon) &=& 2\omega \left[
  3 (z^2 - 2\omega \, z + 1) (T_1^{VV}+T_1^{AA})
+ 2 (\omega \, z - 1) \, \epsilon \, (T_1^{VV}+T_1^{AA}) \right. \\
&& \qquad \left.
+ \, \epsilon^2 (T_1^{VV}+T_1^{AA})
+ z^2 (w^2 - 1) (T_2^{VV}+T_2^{AA}) \right]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The bounds are drawn in Fig.~9.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\epsfysize=11truecm  \epsfbox{rate.eps} }
\tighten{
\caption[]{\it Upper and lower bounds on $F(z,\omega)^2$.  The solid
(dotted) curves are the upper and lower bounds including perturbative
corrections for HQET parameter set (A) described in the text, and
$\Delta = 1{\rm\ GeV}\ (2{\rm\ GeV})$.}}
\end{figure}
Here we use the decay rate spectrum over the full kinematic range to
extract the bounds for the slope.  As seen from the bounded region in
the plot, the allowed range of the slope is $0.87 < \rho_{\Lambda_b}^2
< 4.82$.  This agrees with the lattice calculation \cite{UKQCD97} of
$\rho_{\Lambda_b}^2 = 2.4 \pm 4$.

\section{Discussion}

Many of the general features of our bounds had been mentioned in our
previous work \cite{CL99}.  In the specific application of these
bounds to heavy baryons, we find that they provide more stringent
conditions on the leading form factors, $F_1$ and $G_1$.  Looser
bounds hold for ``subleading'' form factors that are suppressed by
$1/M_Q$ in magnitude, namely, $|F_2-F_3|$ and $|G_2+G_3|$.  Our bounds
typically have much better predictive power near maximal momentum
transfer.  However, they are not stringent enough in the above
mentioned ``subleading'' form factors.  This is because both the form
factors are too small and the whole factor is suppressed by $\omega -
1$.  However, perturbative corrections do not give vanishing
contributions to the bounds at zero recoil.  The bounds also become
less stringent as $\Delta$ increases.  Therefore, we should use the
smallest value of $\Delta$ for which the perturbative expansion still
works.

We also observed that the $O(\alpha_s^2 \beta_0)$ corrections to the
bounds at zero recoil are small for $\Delta = 1{\rm\ GeV}$.  This in
turn suggests that a perturbative expansion in this problem works well
at this scale, provided that the $O(\alpha_s^2 \beta_0)$ corrections
dominate in the complete $O(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections.  (Typically
$O(\alpha_s^2 \beta_0)$ accounts for about $90\%$ of the complete
$O(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections.)

We show the bounds for the differential decay rate of $\Lambda_b
\rightarrow \Lambda_c l \nu$ and give bounds on its slope, $0.87 <
\rho_{\Lambda_b}^2 < 4.82$.  None of the models quoted here take into
account the renormalization corrections, and therefore they fail
specific bounds, such as the one in Fig.~7, as $\omega \rightarrow 1$.
In particular, this will affect the extraction of the
Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix element $|V_{cb}|$ from the zero recoil limit
of the semileptonic decay spectrum.  Also, this will give an incorrect
estimate on the experimental backgrounds and efficiencies.  Therefore,
the models should be properly modified accordingly to have more
sensible form factors.

\acknowledgments

I would like to thank Adam Leibovich in particular for discussions and
help on various technical issues.  It is also a pleasure to thank Fred
Gilman and Ira Rothstein for valuable suggestions.  This work was
supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant
No. DE-FG02-91ER40682.

{\tighten