1: \chapter{Hadronic two-body decays I: Imaginary part}
2: \label{ch:ImPart}
3:
4: In the second part of this thesis we consider several perturbative
5: calculations in the framework of QCD Factorization. We first compute
6: the imaginary part of the NNLO vertex corrections in charmless
7: hadronic two-body decays as e.g.~$B\to\pi\pi$ (the real part will be
8: considered in Chapter~\ref{ch:RePart}). The results presented in
9: this chapter will be published in \cite{GBImPart}.
10:
11: \newabs
12: The outline of this chapter is as follows: We first introduce a new
13: operator basis of the effective Hamiltonian which is particularly
14: suited for multi-loop calculations. We then present some details of
15: the 2-loop calculation following our strategy from
16: Section~\ref{sec:strategy}. As the factorization formula reveals a
17: rather complicated divergence structure at NNLO, we elaborate the
18: subsequent UV and IR subtractions in some detail. The imaginary part
19: of the topological tree amplitudes is finally obtained in an
20: analytic form. We conclude with a brief analysis of the numerical
21: impact of the NNLO vertex corrections.
22:
23: \section{Change of operator basis}
24: \label{eq:BtoPiPi:OpBasis}
25:
26: In view of the calculation of topological tree amplitudes, we
27: restrict our attention to the current-current operators $Q_{1,2}$ of
28: the effective weak Hamiltonian (\ref{eq:Heff}). Due to the fact that
29: we work within Dimensional Regularization (DR), we also have to
30: consider \emph{evanescent
31: operators}~\cite{BurasWeisz,Evan:DuganGrin,Evan:HerrNier}. These
32: non-physical operators vanish in $d=4$ dimensions but contribute at
33: intermediate steps of the calculation in $d\neq4$ dimensions. We
34: have emphasized in Section~\ref{sec:BtoPiPi:PC} that the imaginary
35: part considered here has effectively NLO complexity. We will indeed
36: see that the calculation of the imaginary part only requires 1-loop
37: evanescent operators (2-loop evanescent operators will contribute to
38: the real part which we consider in Chapter~\ref{ch:RePart}). For our
39: purposes the complete operator basis is thus given by
40: \begin{align}
41: \tilde Q_1 &= \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu L\, b\right] \;
42: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu \,L\, u\right],\no\\
43: \tilde Q_2 &= \left[\bar u_i \gamma^\mu L\, b_j\right] \;
44: \left[\bar d_j \gamma_\mu \,L\, u_i\right],\no\\
45: \tilde E_1 &= \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho L\,
46: b\right] \;
47: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho \,L\, u\right]
48: -(16-4\eps) \,\tilde Q_1,\no\\
49: \tilde E_2 &= \left[\bar u_i \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho L\,
50: b_j\right] \;
51: \left[\bar d_j \gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho \,L\, u_i\right]
52: -(16-4\eps) \,\tilde Q_2,
53: \label{eq:Basis:QCDF}
54: \end{align}
55: with $L\equiv1-\gamma_5$. We refer to this basis as the (standard)
56: QCDF basis for convenience and denote the corresponding Wilson
57: coefficients and operators with a tilde.
58:
59: \newabs
60: It has been argued by Chetyrkin, Misiak and M\"unz (CMM) that one
61: should use a different operator basis in order to perform multi-loop
62: calculations~\cite{CMM}. Although the deeper reason is related to
63: the penguin operators which we do not consider here, we prefer to
64: introduce the CMM basis in view of future extensions of our work.
65: The CMM basis allows to consistently use DR with a naive
66: anticommuting $\gamma_5$ to all orders in perturbation theory. In
67: the CMM basis the current-current operators and corresponding 1-loop
68: evanescent operators read (denoted with a hat)
69: \begin{align}
70: \hat Q_1 &= \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu L\, T^A b\right] \;
71: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu \,L\, T^A u\right],\no\\
72: \hat Q_2 &= \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu L\, b\right] \;
73: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu \,L\, u\right],\no\\
74: \hat E_1 &= \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho L\, T^A
75: b\right] \;
76: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho \,L\, T^A u\right]
77: -16 \,\hat Q_1,\no\\
78: \hat E_2 &= \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho L\,
79: b\right] \;
80: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho \,L\, u\right]
81: -16 \,\hat Q_2.
82: \label{eq:Basis:CMM}
83: \end{align}
84: Comparing (\ref{eq:Basis:QCDF}) and (\ref{eq:Basis:CMM}) we observe
85: two differences: First, the two bases use different colour
86: structures which is a rather trivial point. More importantly, they
87: contain slightly different definitions of evanescent operators which
88: we will examine now in detail.
89:
90: \begin{figure}[b!]
91: \centerline{\parbox{13cm}{\centerline{
92: \includegraphics[height=2.5cm]{Fierz.ps}}\vspace{-2mm}
93: \caption{\label{fig:Fierz} \small \textit{Generic 1-loop diagram
94: with different contractions of fields in a four-quark operator
95: $Q_i$. The two insertions are related by a Fierz reordering, see
96: text ($\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \delta$ are spinor indices).}}}}
97: \end{figure}
98:
99: \newabs
100: The issue is related to Fierz symmetry. We will see below that the
101: definition of evanescent operators in the CMM basis explicitly
102: breaks Fierz symmetry which relates the two diagrams in
103: Figure~\ref{fig:Fierz}. This can be seen by considering the UV part
104: of the left diagram which involves the following combination of
105: Dirac matrices
106: \begin{align}
107: \left(\gamma^\mu L \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \right)_{\alpha \beta}\!
108: \; \left(\gamma_\rho \gamma_\nu \gamma_\mu L\right)_{\gamma \delta}
109: &= -\left(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho L \right)_{\alpha
110: \beta}\!
111: \; \left(\gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu \gamma_\rho L\right)_{\gamma
112: \delta}
113: + (6d-4) \left(\gamma^\mu L \right)_{\alpha \beta}\!
114: \; \left(\gamma_\mu L\right)_{\gamma \delta}
115: \label{eq:FierzL}
116: \end{align}
117: which we reshuffled into a more convenient form using an
118: anticommuting $\gamma_5$. On the other hand the right diagram gives
119: \begin{align}
120: \left(\gamma^\rho\gamma^\nu\gamma^\mu L \gamma_\nu \gamma_\rho
121: \right)_{\gamma \beta}\!
122: \; \left(\gamma_\mu L\right)_{\alpha \delta}
123: &=
124: (d-2)^2 \left(\gamma^\mu L \right)_{\gamma \beta}\!
125: \; \left(\gamma_\mu L\right)_{\alpha \delta}\overset{\text{\tiny Fierz}}{=}
126: (d-2)^2 \left(\gamma^\mu L \right)_{\alpha \beta}\!
127: \; \left(\gamma_\mu L\right)_{\gamma \delta},
128: \label{eq:FierzR}
129: \end{align}
130: where we have performed a Fierz reordering in the second step. If we
131: now \emph{impose} Fierz symmetry, the expressions (\ref{eq:FierzL})
132: and (\ref{eq:FierzR}) have to be equal and we arrive at
133: \begin{align}
134: \left(\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho L \right)_{\alpha \beta}\!
135: \; \left(\gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu \gamma_\rho L\right)_{\gamma
136: \delta} &=
137: (16-4\eps-4\eps^2) \left(\gamma^\mu L \right)_{\alpha \beta}\!
138: \; \left(\gamma_\mu L\right)_{\gamma \delta}
139: \label{eq:Fierz}
140: \end{align}
141: If we look at the remnant 1-loop diagrams we find that
142: (\ref{eq:Fierz}) is in fact the only constraint from Fierz symmetry.
143: In NLO the terms of $\calO(\eps^2)$ do not contribute as the
144: loop-integrals have at most $1/\eps$ (UV) divergences. They can
145: therefore simply be neglected here (we stress that this will be
146: different in our analysis in Chapter~\ref{ch:RePart}). We conclude
147: that the QCDF basis from (\ref{eq:Basis:QCDF}) is Fierz symmetric
148: whereas the CMM basis from (\ref{eq:Basis:CMM}) is \emph{not}. In
149: other words, the freedom in the definition of evanescent operators
150: has been used in the QCDF basis to properly adjust the $\eps$-terms
151: into a Fierz symmetric form.
152:
153: \newabs
154: Why do we care about Fierz symmetry? In the considered calculation
155: the contraction depicted in the left diagram from
156: Figure~\ref{fig:Fierz} is related to the colour-allowed tree
157: amplitude ($\alpha_1$), whereas the one from the right diagram leads
158: to the colour-suppressed tree amplitude ($\alpha_2$). On the
159: technical level these two possible insertions of a four-quark
160: operator correspond to two completely different calculations. It
161: would be very tedious if we had to perform both calculations
162: explicitly, in particular in the considered 2-loop case. We have
163: pointed out in Section~\ref{sec:BtoPiPi:PC} that $\alpha_1$ and
164: $\alpha_2$ can naturally be related by Fierz symmetry. For this, it
165: is of crucial importance that we \emph{preserve} Fierz symmetry when
166: we work in the effective theory which factorizes the amplitudes into
167: Wilson coefficients and matrix elements within DR. As we have argued
168: above, this is indeed the case in the QCDF basis which allows us to
169: \emph{derive} $\alpha_2$ from $\alpha_1$ by simply interchanging
170: $\tilde C_1\leftrightarrow \tilde C_2$.
171:
172: \newabs
173: We conclude that the CMM basis is the appropriate choice for a
174: 2-loop calculation whereas the QCDF basis provides a short-cut for
175: the derivation of the colour-suppressed amplitude. We therefore
176: propose the following strategy for the calculation of the NNLO
177: vertex corrections: We perform the explicit 2-loop calculation in
178: the CMM basis using the first type of insertion in the left diagram
179: from Figure~\ref{fig:Fierz}. In this way we obtain $\alpha_1(\hat
180: C_i)$. We then transform this expression into the QCDF basis which
181: yields $\alpha_1(\tilde C_i)$ and finally apply Fierz symmetry
182: arguments to derive $\alpha_2(\tilde C_i)$ from $\alpha_1(\tilde
183: C_i)$ under the exchange $\tilde C_1\leftrightarrow \tilde C_2$.
184:
185:
186: \section{2-loop calculation}
187: \label{sec:BtoPiPi:2loop}
188:
189: In this section we present a brief overview of the technical aspects
190: of the considered 2-loop calculation. Herein, we follow the
191: systematics of our strategy from Section~\ref{sec:strategy}.
192:
193: \subsubsection{Step 1: Set-up for loop calculation}
194:
195: We will see explicitly in Section~\ref{sec:BtoPiPi:FFinNNLO} that we
196: may restrict our attention to (naively) non-factorizable diagrams,
197: similar to what we have seen in the NLO analysis from
198: Section~\ref{sec:BtoPiPi:PC}. These diagrams contain at least one
199: gluon which connects the two currents in the left diagram of
200: Figure~\ref{fig:Fierz}. The full set of 2-loop diagrams to be
201: considered here is depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:NNLODiags},
202: but only about half of these diagrams give rise to an imaginary
203: part. It is an easy task to identify this subset of diagrams as the
204: generation of an imaginary part is always related to final state
205: interactions.
206:
207: \begin{figure}[]
208: \centerline{\parbox{15cm}{\includegraphics[width=15cm]{NNLO_all.eps}
209: \vspace{4mm}
210: \caption{\label{fig:BtoPiPi:NNLODiags} \small
211: \textit{Full set of non-factorizable 2-loop diagrams. In each
212: diagram the fermion line to the left of the four-quark vertex
213: denotes the massive $b$ quark, all other quarks are massless. The
214: bubble in the last four diagrams represents the 1-loop gluon
215: self-energy. Only diagrams with final state interactions, i.e. with
216: at least one gluon connecting the line to the right of the vertex
217: with one of the upper lines, give rise to an imaginary part.}}}}
218: \end{figure}
219:
220: \newabs
221: The colour factors of the 2-loop diagrams from
222: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:NNLODiags} can be found in
223: Table~\ref{tab:BtoPiPi:Colour}. The diagrams can be written in terms
224: of the following denominators of propagators
225: \begin{align}
226: \calP_1&=\left(p-q-k\right)^2, &&\calP_{13}=\left(p+k\right)^2-m^2,\no\\
227: \calP_2&=\left(p-q-l\right)^2, &&\calP_{14}=\left(p+l\right)^2-m^2,\no\\
228: \calP_3&=\left(u q +k\right)^2, &&\calP_{15}=\left(p+k+l\right)^2-m^2,\no\\
229: \calP_4&=\left(u q +l\right)^2, &&\calP_{16}=\left(u q +k+l\right)^2,\no\\
230: \calP_5&=\left(\ubar q +k\right)^2, &&\calP_{17}=\left(\ubar q +k+l\right)^2,\no\\
231: \calP_6&=\left(\ubar q +l\right)^2, &&\calP_{18}=\left(p+k-l\right)^2-m^2,\no\\
232: \calP_7&=k^2, &&\calP_{19}=\left(p-q+k-l\right)^2,\no\\
233: \calP_8&=l^2, &&\calP_{20}=\left(p-q+k\right)^2,\no\\
234: \calP_9&=\left(k-l\right)^2, &&\calP_{21}=\left(u q -l\right)^2,\no\\
235: \calP_{10}&=\left(u q +k-l\right)^2,&&\calP_{22}=\left(k-l\right)^2-z_f^2 m^2,\no\\
236: \calP_{11}&=\left(\bar u q +k-l\right)^2, &&\calP_{23}=l^2-z_f^2 m^2,\no\\
237: \calP_{12}&=\left(p-q-k-l\right)^2, \label{eq:BtoPiPi:Props}
238: \end{align}
239: where $p$ denotes the momentum of the $b$-quark (with mass $m\equiv
240: m_b$), $p-q$ the one of the quark to the right of the weak vertex
241: and the quark/antiquark of the emitted meson have $u q/\ubar q$,
242: respectively. The on-shell kinematics is reflected by $q^2=0$ and
243: $p^2 = 2 p \cdot q = m^2$. The variable $z_f=m_f/m_b$ is related to
244: the diagrams with a closed fermion loop. For massless quarks in the
245: loop we simply have $z_q=0$, for an internal b-quark $z_b=1$ and for
246: the case of a charm quark we write $z\equiv z_c=m_c/m_b$.
247:
248: \begin{table}[t!]\vspace*{0mm}
249: \centerline{
250: \parbox{15cm}{\setlength{\doublerulesep}{0.1mm}
251: \centerline{\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|} \hline
252: \hspace*{2.5cm}&\hspace*{2.5cm}&\hspace*{2.5cm} \\[-0.7em]
253: Operator & $\hat Q_1$ & $\hat Q_2$ \\[0.3em]
254: \hline\hline&& \\[-0.7em]
255: line 1-3 (L) & $C_F^2-\frac{C_FN_c}{2}$ & $\frac{C_F}{2}$ \\[0.3em]
256: \hline&& \\[-0.7em]
257: line 1-3 (S) & $C_F^2-\frac{C_FN_c}{4}$ & $\frac{C_F}{2}$ \\[0.3em]
258: \hline&& \\[-0.7em]
259: line 6-7 & $\frac{C_F^2}{2}$ & $0$ \\[0.3em]
260: \hline&& \\[-0.7em]
261: line 5,8 & $\frac{C_F^2}{2}-\frac{C_FN_c}{4}$ & $0$ \\[0.3em]
262: \hline&& \\[-0.7em]
263: line 4,9 & $\frac{C_FN_c}{4}$ & $0$ \\[0.3em]
264: \hline&& \\[-0.7em]
265: line 10 (A) & $\frac{C_F}{4}$ & $0$ \\[0.3em]
266: \hline&& \\[-0.7em]
267: line 10 (NA) & $-\frac{C_FN_c}{2}$ & $0$ \\[0.3em]
268: \hline
269: \end{tabular}} \vspace{6mm} \caption{\label{tab:BtoPiPi:Colour}\small
270: \textit{Colour factors of the diagrams in
271: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:NNLODiags}. With ''L'' and ''S'' we refer to
272: the large and small figures, with ''A'' and ''NA'' to abelian and
273: non-abelian diagrams. The normalization is chosen such that the tree
274: diagram from Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiTree} gives $N_c$ for $\hat
275: Q_2$.}}}}\vspace{1mm}
276: \end{table}
277:
278: \begin{figure}[h!]\vspace{8mm}
279: \centerline{\parbox{15cm}{\centerline{
280: \includegraphics[width=15cm]{FigMIIm.ps}}\vspace{3mm}
281: \caption{\label{fig:BtoPiPi:MIs} \small \textit{Scalar Master
282: Integrals that appear in our calculation. We use dashed lines for
283: massless propagators and double (wavy) lines for the ones with mass
284: $m$ ($z_f m$). Dashed/solid/double external lines correspond to
285: virtualities $0/u m^2/m^2$, respectively. Dotted propagators are
286: taken to be squared.}}}}
287: \end{figure}
288:
289: \subsubsection{Step 2: Reduction to Master Integrals}
290:
291: The reduction algorithm represents an indispensable tool for the
292: considered calculation. It enables us to express all diagrams from
293: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:NNLODiags} as linear combinations of MIs
294: which are multiplied by some Dirac structures. As the coefficients
295: in these linear combinations are real, we may extract the imaginary
296: part of a diagram at the level of the MIs which is a much simpler
297: task than for the full diagrams. The calculation of the imaginary
298: part involves 14 MIs which are depicted in
299: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:MIs}.
300:
301:
302:
303: \subsubsection{Step 3: Manipulation of Dirac structures}
304:
305: We do not perform the bound state projections at this level of the
306: calculation as this would yield unwanted traces with $\gamma_5$. We
307: instead treat the two currents independently and make use of the
308: equations of motion for the on-shell quarks in order to simplify the
309: Dirac structures. In this way we end up with three irreducible
310: structures which are given by
311: \begin{align}
312: \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu L\, b\right] &\;
313: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu \,L\, u\right],\no\\
314: \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho L\, b\right] &\;
315: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho \,L\, u\right],\no\\
316: \left[\bar u \gamma^\mu\gamma^\nu\gamma^\rho\gamma^\sigma\gamma^\tau
317: L\, b\right] &\;
318: \left[\bar d \gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\gamma_\rho\gamma_\sigma\gamma_\tau \,L\, u\right].
319: \label{eq:BtoPiPi:Dirac}
320: \end{align}
321: The second structure gives rise to 1-loop evanescent operators
322: according to (\ref{eq:Basis:CMM}). As the last structure only enters
323: in the finite piece of the considered calculation, it can simply be
324: evaluated in $d=4$ dimensions without the need to introduce 2-loop
325: evanescent operators.
326:
327:
328: \subsubsection{Step 4: Calculation of Master Integrals}
329:
330: Some MIs in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:MIs} can be solved easily with
331: the help of Feynman parameters. This direct approach could be
332: improved with the help of the {\sc Mathematica} package {\sc
333: HypExp}~\cite{HypExp} which allows to expand a special class of
334: hyper-geometric functions to arbitrary order in $\eps$. However, as
335: discussed in detail in Section~\ref{sec:CalcMI}, wide parts of the
336: 2-loop calculation were performed with the help of the method of
337: differential equations in combination with the formalism of Harmonic
338: Polylogarithms (HPLs). We further applied Mellin-Barnes techniques
339: for the calculation of the boundary conditions to the differential
340: equations. Apart from the two MIs with an internal charm quark (wavy
341: line), we were able to express all MIs with the help of a minimal
342: set of five HPLs given in (\ref{eq:HPLminiIm}).
343:
344: The situation is more complicated for the MIs with an internal charm
345: quark which introduces a new scale to the problem. However, a closer
346: look reveals that these MIs depend on two physical scales only,
347: namely $u m_b^2$ and $m_c^2 \equiv z^2 m_b^2$. The MIs can then be
348: solved within the formalism of HPLs in terms of the ratio $\xi
349: \equiv z^2/u$ if we allow for more complicated arguments of the HPLs
350: as $\eta \equiv\frac12 \left( 1- \sqrt{1+4\xi} \right)$. As an
351: independent check of our results we evaluated the MIs numerically
352: using the method of sector decomposition. The results of the MIs can
353: be found in Appendix~\ref{app:MIsIm}.
354:
355: \newpage
356: \section{Renormalization and IR subtractions}
357: \label{sec:BtoPiPi:UVIR}
358:
359: So far we have computed the (unrenormalized) matrix elements
360: \begin{align}
361: \langle \hat{Q}_{1,2} \rangle \equiv \langle M_1 M_2 | \hat{Q}_{1,2}
362: | \bar{B} \rangle
363: \end{align}
364: to NNLO in perturbation theory (without spectator scattering). These
365: matrix elements are UV and IR divergent. In this section we discuss
366: adequate subtractions which will lead to a finite result for the
367: NNLO vertex corrections.
368:
369:
370: \subsection{Renormalization}
371:
372: \begin{figure}[b!]
373: \centerline{\parbox{13cm}{
374: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=2.5cm]{CT1a.eps}\hspace{15mm}\includegraphics[width=2.5cm]{CT3a.eps}\hspace{15mm}\includegraphics[width=2.5cm]{CT5a.eps}}
375: \caption{\label{fig:BtoPiPi:CTs} \small \textit{Sample of
376: counterterm diagrams.}}}}
377: \end{figure}
378:
379: The renormalization procedure involves standard QCD counterterms,
380: which amount to the calculation of various 1-loop diagrams as the
381: ones depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:CTs}, as well as
382: counterterms from the effective Hamiltonian. We write the
383: renormalized matrix elements as
384: \begin{align}
385: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren} &= Z_\psi \, \hat{Z}_{i j} \,
386: \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{bare}, \label{eq:defQren}
387: \end{align}
388: where $Z_\psi = Z_b^{1/2} Z_q^{3/2}$ contains the wave-function
389: renormalization factors of the massive b-quark $Z_b$ and the
390: massless quarks $Z_q$, whereas $\hat{Z}$ is the operator
391: renormalization matrix in the effective theory. We introduce the
392: following notation for the perturbative expansions of these
393: quantities
394: \begin{align}
395: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren/bare} =
396: \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{\as}{4\pi} \right)^k \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren/bare}^{(k)}, \hspace{2.2cm} \no \\
397: Z_\psi = 1 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left( \frac{\as}{4\pi} \right)^k
398: Z_\psi^{(k)}, \hspace{1.5cm} \hat{Z}_{i j} = \delta_{ij} +
399: \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left( \frac{\as}{4\pi} \right)^k
400: \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(k)}
401: \end{align}
402: and rewrite (\ref{eq:defQren}) in perturbation theory up to NNLO
403: which yields
404: \begin{align}
405: \label{eq:expQren} \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren}^{(0)} &=
406: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(0)}, \no \\
407: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren}^{(1)} &=
408: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(1)}
409: + \left[ \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \delta_{ij} \right] \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(0)}, \\
410: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren}^{(2)} &=
411: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(2)}
412: + \left[ \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \delta_{ij} \right] \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(1)}
413: + \left[ \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(2)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} + Z_\psi^{(2)} \delta_{ij} \right] \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(0)}. \no
414: \end{align}
415: The full calculation thus requires the operator renormalization
416: matrices $\hat{Z}^{(1,2)}$. For the calculation of the imaginary
417: part, the terms proportional to the tree level matrix elements do
418: not contribute and $\hat{Z}^{(2)}$ drops out in (\ref{eq:expQren})
419: as expected for an effective NLO calculation.
420:
421: \newabs
422: Mass and wave function renormalization are found to be higher order
423: effects. For the renormalization of the coupling constant we use
424: \begin{align}
425: Z_g = 1 - \frac{\as}{4\pi \eps} \left( \frac{11}{6} N_c - \frac13
426: n_f \right) + \calO(\as^2).
427: \end{align}
428: The 1-loop renormalization matrix $\hat{Z}^{(1)}$ can be found
429: e.g.~in \cite{GGH} and reads
430: \renewcommand{\arraycolsep}{2mm}
431: \begin{align}
432: \hat{Z}^{(1)} &= \left(
433: \begin{array}{c c c c}
434: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{7mm} -2 & \frac43 & \frac{5}{12} & \frac{2}{9} \\
435: \rule[-2mm]{0mm}{7mm} 6 & 0 & 1 & 0
436: \end{array}
437: \right) \, \frac{1}{\eps}, \label{eq:Z1}
438: \end{align}
439: where the two lines correspond to the basis of physical operators
440: $\{ \hat{Q}_1, \hat{Q}_2\}$ and the four columns to the extended
441: basis $\{ \hat{Q}_1, \hat{Q}_2, \hat{E}_1, \hat{E}_2 \}$ including
442: the mixing of the non-physical evanescent operators into the
443: physical ones.
444:
445:
446: \subsection{Factorization in NNLO}
447: \label{sec:BtoPiPi:FFinNNLO}
448:
449: In this section it will be convenient to introduce the following
450: short-hand notation for the factorization formula (\ref{eq:QCDF})
451: \begin{align}
452: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren} &= F \cdot T_i \otimes \Phi +
453: \ldots \label{eq:FF}
454: \end{align}
455: where $F$ denotes the $B\to M_1$ form factor, $T_i$ the
456: hard-scattering kernels and $\Phi$ the product of the decay constant
457: $f_{M_2}$ and the distribution amplitude $\phi_{M_2}$. The
458: convolution in (\ref{eq:QCDF}) has been represented by the symbol
459: $\otimes$ and the ellipses contain the terms from spectator
460: scattering which we disregard in the following.
461:
462: \newabs
463: Formally, we may introduce the perturbative expansions
464: \begin{align}
465: F = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{\as}{4\pi} \right)^k F^{(k)},
466: \hspace{1cm} T_i = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left( \frac{\as}{4\pi}
467: \right)^k T_i^{(k)}, \hspace{1cm} \Phi = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(
468: \frac{\as}{4\pi} \right)^k \Phi^{(k)}.
469: \end{align}
470: Up to NNLO the expansion of (\ref{eq:FF}) yields
471: \begin{align}
472: \label{eq:expFF} \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren}^{(0)} &=
473: F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)}, \no \\
474: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren}^{(1)} &=
475: F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)}, \no \\
476: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{ren}^{(2)} &=
477: F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(2)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)} \no \\
478: & \quad + F^{(2)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(2)}.
479: \end{align}
480: In LO the comparison of (\ref{eq:expQren}) and (\ref{eq:expFF})
481: gives the trivial relation
482: \begin{align}
483: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle^{(0)} \equiv
484: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(0)} =
485: F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)}
486: \end{align}
487: which states that $T_i^{(0)}$ can be computed from the tree level
488: diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiTree}. In order to address higher
489: order terms we split the bare matrix elements into contributions
490: from (naively) factorizable (f) and non-factorizable (nf) diagrams
491: \begin{align}
492: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{bare}^{(k)} &\equiv
493: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{f}^{(k)} +
494: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(k)}.
495: \end{align}
496: In NLO the corresponding diagrams have been shown in
497: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiNLOf} and Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiNLOnf},
498: respectively. To this order (\ref{eq:expQren}) and (\ref{eq:expFF})
499: lead to
500: \begin{align}
501: &\langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{f}^{(1)} + \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(1)}
502: + \left[ \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \delta_{ij} \right] \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle^{(0)} \no \\
503: & \qquad = F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)},
504: \end{align}
505: which splits into
506: \begin{align}
507: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(1)}
508: + \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle^{(0)}
509: &= F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)}
510: \label{eq:NLOFact}
511: \end{align}
512: for the calculation of the NLO kernels $T_i^{(1)}$ and
513: \begin{align}
514: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{f}^{(1)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle^{(0)}
515: &= F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)},
516: \end{align}
517: which shows that the factorizable diagrams and the wave-function
518: renormalization are absorbed by the form factor and wave function
519: corrections $F^{(1)}$ and $\Phi^{(1)}$.
520:
521: \newabs
522: This suggests in NNLO the following structure
523: \begin{align}
524: & \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{f}^{(2)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{f}^{(1)} + Z_\psi^{(2)} \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle^{(0)} \no \\
525: & \qquad = F^{(2)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(0)} \otimes \Phi^{(2)}.
526: \end{align}
527: These terms are thus irrelevant for the calculation of the NNLO
528: kernels $T_i^{(2)}$ which justifies that we could restrict our
529: attention to the non-factorizable 2-loop diagrams from
530: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:NNLODiags}. In NNLO the remaining terms from
531: (\ref{eq:expQren}) and (\ref{eq:expFF}) contain non-trivial IR
532: subtractions
533: \begin{align}
534: & \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(2)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(1)}
535: + \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} \left[ \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(1)} + \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{f}^{(1)} \right]
536: + \left[ \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(2)} + Z_\psi^{(1)} \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} \right] \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle^{(0)} \no \\
537: & \qquad = F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(2)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)}.
538: \label{eq:preMaster}
539: \end{align}
540: This equation can be simplified further when we make the wave
541: function renormalization factors in the form factor and the
542: distribution amplitude explicit
543: \begin{align}
544: F = Z_b^{1/2} Z_q^{1/2} F_\text{amp}, \hspace{2cm}
545: \Phi = Z_q \, \Phi_\text{amp}.
546: \label{eq:amputated}
547: \end{align}
548: Notice that the resulting amputated form factor $F_\text{amp}$ and
549: wave function $\Phi_\text{amp}$ contain UV divergences by
550: construction. We recall that $Z_\psi = Z_b^{1/2} Z_q^{3/2}$ and find
551: \begin{align}
552: & F^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(1)} \no \\
553: & \qquad =F_\text{amp}^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} +
554: F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi_\text{amp}^{(1)}
555: + Z_\psi^{(1)} \; F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)}.
556: \label{eq:aux1}
557: \end{align}
558: Combining (\ref{eq:preMaster}) with (\ref{eq:aux1}) and
559: (\ref{eq:NLOFact}), we arrive at the Master Formula for the
560: calculation of the hard-scattering kernels $T_i^{(2)}$ in NNLO
561: \begin{align}
562: & \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(2)}
563: + \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} \left[ \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(1)} + \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle_\text{f}^{(1)} \right]
564: + \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(2)} \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle^{(0)} \no \\
565: & \qquad = F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(2)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)}
566: + F_\text{amp}^{(1)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)}
567: + F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi_\text{amp}^{(1)}.
568: \label{eq:Master}
569: \end{align}
570: The 2-loop matrix elements on the left-hand side of
571: (\ref{eq:Master}) have been considered in
572: Section~\ref{sec:BtoPiPi:2loop} and the 1-loop renormalization
573: matrix has been given in (\ref{eq:Z1}). The 1-loop matrix elements
574: of the non-factorizable diagrams involve the calculation of the
575: diagrams in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiNLOnf}a. The tree level matrix
576: elements as well as the 1-loop matrix elements of the factorizable
577: diagrams from Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiNLOf} can be disregarded here
578: as they do not give rise to an imaginary part. Hence, the only
579: missing pieces for the calculation of the imaginary part of the NNLO
580: kernels $T_i^{(2)}$ are the IR subtractions on the right-hand side
581: of (\ref{eq:Master}) which we consider in the following section.
582:
583:
584: \subsection{IR subtractions}
585:
586: Let us first address the NLO kernels $T_i^{(1)}$ which can be
587: determined from equation (\ref{eq:NLOFact}). The renormalization in
588: the evanescent sector implies that the left hand side of
589: (\ref{eq:NLOFact}) is free of contributions from evanescent
590: operators up to the \emph{finite order} $\eps^0$. However, as the
591: NLO kernels enter (\ref{eq:Master}) in combination with the form
592: factor correction $F^{(1)}$ which contains double (soft and
593: collinear) IR divergences, the NLO kernels are required here up to
594: $\calO(\eps^2)$. Concerning the subleading terms of $\calO(\eps)$,
595: the evanescent operators do not drop out on the left hand side of
596: (\ref{eq:NLOFact}) and we therefore have to extend the factorization
597: formula on the right hand side to include these evanescent
598: structures as well. Schematically,
599: \begin{align}
600: \langle \hat{Q}_{i} \rangle_\text{nf}^{(1)}
601: + \hat{Z}_{ij}^{(1)} \langle \hat{Q}_{j} \rangle^{(0)}
602: &= F^{(0)} \cdot T_i^{(1)} \otimes \Phi^{(0)} +
603: F_E^{(0)} \cdot T_{i,E}^{(1)} \otimes \Phi_E^{(0)}
604: \end{align}
605: with a kernel $T_{i,E}^{(1)}=\calO(1)$ and an evanescent matrix
606: element $F_E^{(0)} \Phi_E^{(0)}=\calO(\eps)$. Similarly, the right
607: hand side of (\ref{eq:Master}) has to be modified to include these
608: evanescent structures.
609:
610: From the calculation of the 1-loop diagrams in
611: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPiNLOnf}a, we find that the NLO kernels vanish
612: in the colour-singlet case, $T_2^{(1)}=T_{2,E}^{(1)}=0$, whereas the
613: imaginary part of the colour-octet kernels is given by
614: \begin{align}
615: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;T_1^{(1)}(u) &= \frac{C_F}{2N_c}
616: \bigg\{ (-3-2\ln u+2\ln \ubar) \Big( 1+\eps L +\frac12 \eps^2 L^2\Big) \no \\
617: & \hspace{1.6cm} - ( 11 - 3 \ln \ubar - \ln^2 u+ \ln^2 \ubar ) \Big( \eps +\eps^2 L \Big) \no \\
618: & \hspace{1.6cm} + \bigg[ \frac{3\pi^2}{4} - 26 + \Big( 2 +
619: \frac{\pi^2}{2} \Big) \ln u
620: + \Big( 9 - \frac{\pi^2}{2} \Big) \ln \ubar \no \\
621: & \hspace{2.2cm} - \frac32 \ln^2 \ubar - \frac13 \left( \ln^3 u -
622: \ln^3 \ubar \right) \bigg] \eps^2 + \calO(\eps^3) \bigg\}, \nonumber
623: \end{align}
624: \begin{align}
625: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;T_{1,E}^{(1)}(u) &= - \frac{C_F}{4N_c}
626: \bigg\{ 1+\eps L + \Big( \frac83 - \frac12 \ln u -\frac 12 \ln \ubar
627: \Big) \eps + \calO(\eps^2) \bigg\}, \label{eq:T1}
628: \end{align}
629: where $L \equiv \ln \mu^2/m_b^2$ and we recall that
630: $\ubar\equiv1-u$.
631:
632: \subsubsection*{Form factor subtractions}
633:
634: We now address the form factor corrections which require the
635: calculation of the diagram in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:FFcorr} (for
636: on-shell quarks) and its counterterm. According to the definition of
637: $F_\text{amp}$ in (\ref{eq:amputated}), we do not have to consider
638: the wave function renormalization of the quark fields here.
639:
640: \begin{figure}[b!]
641: \centerline{\parbox{13cm}{
642: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{FF.ps}}
643: \caption{\label{fig:BtoPiPi:FFcorr} \small \textit{1-loop
644: contribution to the form factor correction $F^{(1)}_\text{amp}$.}}}}
645: \end{figure}
646:
647: We again have to compute the corrections for physical and evanescent
648: operators. Concerning the physical operators with Dirac structure
649: $[\gamma^\mu L]\;[\gamma_\mu L]$ the counterterm is found to vanish
650: and we get
651: \begin{align}
652: F_\text{amp}^{(1)} \,\Phi^{(0)}= - C_F \left(
653: \frac{e^{\gamma_E}\mu^2}{m_b^2} \right)^\eps \Gamma(\eps) \;
654: \frac{1-\eps+2\eps^2}{\eps(1-2\eps)} \,\; F^{(0)} \,\Phi^{(0)}
655: \label{eq:BtoPiPi:FFphys}
656: \end{align}
657: reflecting the $1/\eps^2$--singularities mentioned at the beginning
658: of this section. On the other hand, the evanescent operators with
659: $[\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho L]\;[\gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu
660: \gamma_\rho L] - 16 [\gamma^\mu L]\;[\gamma_\mu L]$ yield a
661: contribution proportional to the evanescent \emph{and} the physical
662: operators. We find a non-vanishing contribution from the counterterm
663: diagram in this case and obtain
664: \begin{align}
665: F_\text{amp,E}^{(1)} \,\Phi_E^{(0)}&= C_F \left[ \left(
666: \frac{e^{\gamma_E}\mu^2}{m_b^2} \right)^\eps \Gamma(\eps) \;
667: \frac{24 \eps (1+\eps)}{(1-\eps)^2} - 24 \right] \; F^{(0)}
668: \,\Phi^{(0)} \nonumber\\
669: & \hspace{4mm} - C_F \left( \frac{e^{\gamma_E}\mu^2}{m_b^2}
670: \right)^\eps \Gamma(\eps) \;
671: \frac{1-3\eps+\eps^2+3\eps^3+2\eps^4}{\eps(1-2\eps)(1-\eps)^2} \,\;
672: F_E^{(0)} \,\Phi_E^{(0)}. \label{eq:BtoPiPi:FFevan}
673: \end{align}
674: The first subtraction term in (\ref{eq:Master}) then follows from
675: combining the form factor corrections in (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:FFphys})
676: and (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:FFevan}) with the NLO kernels in (\ref{eq:T1}).
677: We emphasize that the corrections related to the evanescent
678: operators do \emph{not} induce a contribution to the physical NNLO
679: kernel $T_1^{(2)}$ in this case since
680: \begin{align}
681: \frac{1}{\pi} \; F_\text{amp,E}^{(1)} \; \Im \;T_{1,E}^{(1)} \;
682: \Phi_E^{(0)} \quad \to \quad \bigg[\calO(\eps) \bigg] \; F^{(0)}
683: \,\Phi^{(0)}.
684: \end{align}
685:
686: \subsubsection*{Wave function subtractions}
687:
688: \begin{figure}[t!]
689: \centerline{\parbox{13cm}{
690: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=11cm]{Pion_DA.ps}}
691: \caption{\label{fig:WFcorr} \small \textit{1-loop contributions to
692: the wave function correction $\Phi^{(1)}_\text{amp}$. The dashed
693: line indicates the Wilson-line connecting the quark and antiquark
694: fields.}}}}
695: \end{figure}
696:
697: Concerning the wave function corrections we are left with the
698: calculation of the diagrams in Figure~\ref{fig:WFcorr} for collinear
699: and on-shell partons with momenta $u q$ and $\ubar q$. However, as
700: in our set-up $q^2=0$ all these diagrams vanish due to scaleless
701: integrals in DR. We conclude that the wave function corrections are
702: determined entirely by the counter\-terms. We compute these
703: counterterms by calculating the diagrams from
704: Figure~\ref{fig:WFcorr} with an off-shell regularization
705: prescription in order to isolate the UV-divergences. The
706: counter\-term for the physical operators is found to be
707: \begin{align}
708: F^{(0)} \, \Phi_\text{amp}^{(1)} (u) = - \frac{2 C_F}{\eps} \int_0^1
709: dw \; V(u,w) \; F^{(0)} \, \Phi^{(0)} (w) \label{eq:Phiphys}
710: \end{align}
711: with the familiar Efremov-Radyushkin-Brodsky-Lepage (ERBL)
712: kernel~\cite{ER,BL}
713: \begin{align}
714: V(u,w) = \left[ \theta(w-u) \frac{u}{w} \left(1 + \frac{1}{w-u}
715: \right) + \theta(u-w) \frac{\bar u}{\bar w} \left(1 + \frac{1}{\bar
716: w-\bar u} \right) \right]_+
717: \end{align}
718: where the plus-distribution is defined as $\left[ f(u,w) \right]_+ =
719: f(u,w) - \delta(u-w) \int_0^1 dv \; f(v,w)$. For the evanescent
720: operators we obtain
721: \begin{align}
722: F_E^{(0)} \, \Phi_\text{amp,E}^{(1)} (u) = - \frac{2 C_F}{\eps}
723: \int_0^1 dw \, \bigg[ 24 \eps \,V_E(u,w) \; F^{(0)} \, \Phi^{(0)}
724: (w) + V(u,w) \; F_E^{(0)} \, \Phi_E^{(0)} (w) \bigg]
725: \label{eq:Phievan}
726: \end{align}
727: where $V_E(u,w)$ denotes the spin-dependent part of the ERBL kernel
728: given by
729: \begin{align}
730: V_E(u,w) = \theta(w-u) \frac{u}{w} + \theta(u-w) \frac{\bar u}{\bar
731: w}
732: \end{align}
733: Notice that the evanescent operators \emph{do} induce a finite
734: contribution to the physical kernel $T_1^{(2)}$ in this case as the
735: convolution with the corresponding NLO kernel implies
736: \begin{align}
737: \frac{1}{\pi} \; F_E^{(0)} \; \Im \;T_{1,E}^{(1)} \;
738: \Phi_\text{amp,E}^{(1)} \quad \to \quad \bigg[ \frac{6C_F^2}{N_c} +
739: \calO(\eps) \bigg] \; F^{(0)} \,\Phi^{(0)}.
740: \end{align}
741: We finally quote the result for the convolution with the physical
742: NLO kernel
743: \begin{align}
744: &\frac{1}{\pi} \, F^{(0)} \, \Im \,T_1^{(1)} \,
745: \Phi_\text{amp}^{(1)} = \frac{C_F^2}{N_c} \bigg\{ \bigg[
746: \frac{\pi^2}{3} + \frac{\ln
747: u}{\ubar} - \frac{\ln \ubar}{u} + \ln^2 u - 2 \ln u \ln \ubar - \ln^2
748: \ubar -4 \Lib (u) \bigg] \no \\
749: &\hspace{3.8cm} \bigg( \frac{1}{\eps} + L \bigg) + \frac{\pi^2}{2} -
750: \frac{15}{4} - 2 \zeta_3 + \frac{5u-4}{2} \bigg( \frac{\ln u}{\ubar}
751: + \frac{\ln
752: \ubar}{u} \bigg)- \frac{\pi^2}{3} \ln \ubar \no \\
753: & \hspace{3.8cm} - 3 \Lib(u) - \frac{1}{2 \ubar} \ln^2 u +
754: \frac{1-3u}{2u}\ln^2 \ubar -
755: \frac23 \ln^3 u + \ln^2 u \ln \ubar \no \\
756: & \hspace{3.8cm} + \frac23 \ln^3 \ubar+ 2 \ln \ubar \, \Lib (u) + 2
757: \Lic(u) + 2 \Sab (u) +\calO(\eps) \bigg\} \; F^{(0)} \, \Phi^{(0)}
758: \end{align}
759:
760: \section{Tree amplitudes in NNLO}
761:
762: The NNLO kernels $T_i^{(2)}$ can now be determined from the Master
763: Formula (\ref{eq:Master}). We indeed observe that all UV and IR
764: singularities cancel in the NNLO kernels which provides a very
765: important and highly non-trivial cross-check of the
766: calculation\footnote{As we do not distinguish between UV and IR
767: singularities in our calculation, we cannot verify their
768: cancellation independently. However, the aforementioned
769: renormalization and IR subtraction procedure can be organized in a
770: way that allows to control the cancellation of the leading poles in
771: several intermediate steps of the calculation.}. In analogy to
772: Section~\ref{sec:BtoPiPi:PC}, we quote our results in terms of the
773: tree amplitudes $\alpha_{1,2}$.
774:
775: \subsection{$\alpha_1$ in CMM basis}
776: \label{sec:BtoPiPi:a1CMM}
777:
778: The procedure outlined so far leads to the colour-allowed tree
779: amplitude in the CMM operator basis from (\ref{eq:Basis:CMM}). We
780: write
781: \begin{align}
782: \alpha_1(M_1 M_2) &= \hat{C}_2 +\frac{\as}{4\pi} \, \frac{C_F}{2
783: N_c} \bigg[ \hat{C}_1 \hat{V}^{(1)} + \frac{\as}{4\pi} \left(
784: \hat{C}_{1} \, \hat{V}_1^{(2)} + \hat{C}_{2} \,
785: \hat{V}_2^{(2)}\right) + \calO(\as^2) \bigg] + \ldots
786: \label{eq:alpha1Mod}
787: \end{align}
788: where the ellipses denote the terms from spectator scattering which
789: are irrelevant for our purposes. In the CMM basis, the imaginary
790: part of the vertex corrections $\hat{V}^{(1,2)}$ can be written in
791: the form
792: \begin{align}
793: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;\hat{V}^{(1)} &\equiv
794: \int_0^1 du \; g_1(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u), \no\\
795: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;\hat{V}_1^{(2)} &\equiv
796: \int_0^1 du \; \bigg\{ \Big[ \Big( \frac{29}{3} N_c - \frac23 n_f \Big) g_1(u) + C_F \,h_1(u) \Big] \ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} \no \\
797: & \hspace{3mm} + C_F \, h_2(u) + N_c \, h_3(u) + (n_f-2) \, h_4(u;0) + h_4(u;z) + h_4(u;1) \bigg\} \phi_{M_2}(u), \no \\
798: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;\hat{V}_2^{(2)} &\equiv
799: \int_0^1 du \; \bigg\{ -6\, g_1(u)\, \ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} + h_0(u) \bigg\}
800: \phi_{M_2}(u).
801: \label{eq:V12mod}
802: \end{align}
803: We stress that these quantities do \emph{not} correspond to the
804: $V^{(1,2)}$ from (\ref{eq:alpha12NNLO}) which will be given in the
805: following section after the transformation to the QCDF basis. In
806: writing (\ref{eq:V12mod}), we have made the dependence on the
807: renormalization scale explicit and we have disentangled
808: contributions that belong to different colour structures. The
809: function $h_4(u;z_f)$ stems from diagrams with a closed fermion loop
810: and depends on the mass of the internal quark through $z_f=m_f/m_b$.
811: We write $z\equiv z_c = m_c/m_b$ for simplicity.
812:
813: \newabs
814: In NLO we find
815: \begin{align}
816: g_1(u) &=
817: -3 -2 \ln u + 2 \ln \ubar.
818: \label{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:g}
819: \end{align}
820: The NNLO kernels were so far unknown. They are found in this work to
821: be
822: \begin{align}
823: h_0(u) &= \bigg[ \frac{155}{4} + 4 \zeta_3 + 4 \Lic(u) - 4\Sab(u) -12 \ln u\, \Lib(u) +\frac43 \ln^3 u -6\ln^2 u\ln \ubar \no \\
824: &\hspace{8mm} + \frac{2-u^2}{\ubar}\Lib(u) -\frac{5-3u+3u^2-2u^3}{2\ubar}\ln^2 u +\frac{3-2u^4}{2u\ubar}\ln u \ln\ubar \no \\
825: &\hspace{8mm} - \Big( \frac{4-11u+2u^2}{\ubar}+\frac{4\pi^2}{3}\Big) \ln u - \frac{(5+6u^2-12u^4)\pi^2}{24u \ubar} + (u\leftrightarrow\ubar)\bigg] \no \\
826: &\hspace{5mm} + \bigg[ \frac{3-u+7u^2}{2\ubar}\ln^2 u - \frac{11-10u^2}{4u\ubar} \Lib(u)+ \frac{1-14u^2}{4\ubar}\ln u \ln \ubar \no \\
827: &\hspace{12mm} + \frac{46-51u}{\ubar}\ln u - \frac{(41-42u^2)\pi^2}{24\ubar} - (u\leftrightarrow\ubar) \bigg],\no
828: \\
829: h_1(u) &=
830: 36 + \bigg[ 2 \ln^2 u - 4 \Lib(u) + \frac{2(13-12u)}{1-u} \ln u -(u\leftrightarrow\ubar) \bigg],\no\\
831: h_2(u) &= \bigg[ 79 + 32 \zeta_3 -16 \Lic(u) - 32 \Sab(u) + \frac83 \ln^3 u +\frac{2(4-u^2)}{\ubar} \Lib(u) \no \\
832: &\hspace{8mm} - \frac{13-9u+6u^2-4u^3}{2\ubar}\ln^2 u + \frac{17-6u^2-8u^4}{4u\ubar}\ln u \ln \ubar \no \\
833: &\hspace{8mm} - 2\Big(\frac{5-11u+2u^2}{\ubar}+\frac{4\pi^2}{3} \Big) \ln u- \frac{(1+14u^2-8u^4)\pi^2}{8u\ubar} + (u\leftrightarrow\ubar)\bigg] \no \\
834: &\hspace{5mm} + \bigg[ 4 \Lic(u) + 4\Sab(u) -\frac23 \ln^3 u +2 \ln^2 u \ln \ubar -\frac{9-14u^2}{u\ubar} \Lib(u) \no \\
835: &\hspace{12mm}+ \frac{13-11u+14u^2}{2\ubar} \ln^2 u+\frac{5-7u^2}{\ubar}\ln u \ln \ubar \no \\
836: &\hspace{12mm}+ 4 \Big( \frac{24-23u}{\ubar} + \frac{\pi^2}{3} \Big) \ln u - \frac{(26-21u^2)\pi^2}{6\ubar} - (u\leftrightarrow\ubar)
837: \bigg],\no \\
838: h_3(u) &= \bigg[ - \frac{1379}{24} - 12 \zeta_3 + 6 \Lic(u) +12 \Sab(u) -\ln^3 u - \frac{4-u^2}{\ubar} \Lib(u) \no \\
839: &\hspace{8mm} + \frac{9-2u+6u^2-4u^3}{4\ubar}\ln^2 u- \frac{7+4u^2-4u^4}{4u\ubar}\ln u \ln \ubar \no \\
840: &\hspace{8mm} + \Big( \frac{41-66u + 8u^2}{4\ubar}+ \pi^2 \Big) \ln u + \frac{(1+6u^2-4u^4)\pi^2}{8u\ubar} + (u\leftrightarrow\ubar)\bigg]\no\\
841: &\hspace{5mm} + \bigg[ -2 \Lic(u) + 4 \Sab(u) + 4 \ln u \, \Lib(u) + \frac13 \ln^3 u + \frac{15-26u^2}{4u\ubar} \Lib(u) \no \\
842: &\hspace{12mm}+ \frac{11-14u-42u^2}{12\ubar} \ln^2 u - \frac{11-14u^2}{4\ubar} \ln u \ln \ubar \no
843: \label{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:h}
844: \end{align}
845:
846: \newpage
847: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
848: \begin{align}
849: &\hspace{12mm}- \Big( \frac{2165-2156u}{36\ubar} - \frac{\pi^2}{3} \Big) \ln u + \frac{(53-42u^2)\pi^2}{24\ubar} - (u\leftrightarrow\ubar) \bigg],\no\\
850: h_4(u;z) &= \bigg[ \frac{17}{6} + \frac{7\xi}{\ubar} -2 \xi^2 \ln^2 \frac{x_1}{x_2} + 2 \Big( (1+4\xi) x_1 + (1+6\xi) x_2 \Big) \ln x_1 -4 \xi \, x_1 \ln x_2 \no \\
851: &\hspace{6mm} + \Big(\frac{\xi}{\ubar} - 2(1+4\xi)x_2 \Big) \ln z^2 + \Big((1+2\xi)x_1+(1+6\xi)x_2 \Big) \ln u + (u\leftrightarrow\ubar)\bigg] \no \\
852: &\hspace{0mm} + \bigg[ \frac{94z^2}{9\ubar} - \frac{2(1-3\xi^2)}{3} \ln^2 \frac{x_1}{x_2} - \frac{2[ (6+29\xi+20\xi^2)x_1+(29+38\xi)\xi\, x_2]}{9\xi} \ln x_1 \no \\
853: &\hspace{6mm} - \frac{4(1-3\xi^2)}{3\xi} x_1 \ln x_2+\frac{2u \ubar (6+29\xi+20\xi^2)x_2+(1-2u) (6 \ubar- u \xi^2)}{9u \ubar\xi} \ln z^2\no \\
854: &\hspace{6mm} -\frac43 \ln u \ln z^2 - \frac{ (12+29\xi+2\xi^2)x_1+(29+38\xi)\xi\, x_2}{9\xi} \ln u - (u\leftrightarrow\ubar) \bigg].
855: \end{align}
856: The last kernel $h_4(u;z)$ has been given in terms of
857: \begin{align}
858: x_{1} \equiv \frac12 \left( \sqrt{1+4\xi} - 1 \right), \qquad x_{2}
859: \equiv \frac12 \left( \sqrt{1+4\xi} + 1 \right), \qquad \xi \equiv
860: \frac{z^2}{u}.
861: \end{align}
862: In the massless limit $h_4(u;z)$ simply becomes
863: \begin{align}
864: h_4(u;0) &=
865: \frac{17}{3} - \frac23 \ln^2 u + \frac23 \ln^2 \ubar +\frac{20}{9} \ln u - \frac{38}{9} \ln \ubar.
866: \end{align}
867:
868: \subsection{$\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in QCDF basis}
869:
870: We now perform the transformation of the colour-allowed tree
871: amplitude $\alpha_1$ into the QCDF operator basis from
872: (\ref{eq:Basis:QCDF}). As discussed in
873: Section~\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:OpBasis}, manifest Fierz symmetry in the
874: QCDF basis allows us to derive the colour-suppressed amplitude
875: $\alpha_2$ directly from $\alpha_1$ under the exchange $\tilde
876: C_1\leftrightarrow \tilde C_2$.
877:
878: \newabs
879: The colour-allowed tree amplitude has been given in the CMM basis in
880: (\ref{eq:alpha1Mod}) and in the QCDF basis in
881: (\ref{eq:alpha12NNLO}). If we focus on the imaginary part and
882: disregard contributions from spectator scattering, these relations
883: become
884: \begin{align}
885: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \; \alpha_1 \big {|}_V &=
886: \frac{\as C_F}{4\pi \, N_c}\;\; \frac{1}{\pi} \;\Im\bigg[ \frac12
887: \hat{C}_{1} \, \hat{V}^{(1)} + \frac{\as}{4\pi} \bigg( \frac12
888: \hat{C}_{1} \, \hat{V}_1^{(2)} + \frac12 \hat{C}_{2} \,
889: \hat{V}_2^{(2)} \bigg) + \calO(\as^2) \bigg] \no \\
890: &=
891: \frac{\as C_F}{4\pi
892: \, N_c}\;\; \frac{1}{\pi} \;\Im\bigg[
893: \tilde{C}_{2} \, V^{(1)} +
894: \frac{\as}{4\pi} \bigg( \tilde{C}_{1} \, V_1^{(2)} + \tilde{C}_{2}
895: \, V_2^{(2)} \bigg) + \calO(\as^2) \bigg]. \label{eq:alpha1Im}
896: \end{align}
897: In order to compute $V^{(1,2)}$, we need the relation between the
898: Wilson coefficients in the CMM basis $\hat{C}_{1,2}$ and the ones in
899: the QCDF basis $\tilde{C}_{1,2}$ to NLL approximation.
900:
901: \newabs
902: The Wilson coefficients can be found e.g.~in~\cite{CMM}, where
903: the transformation between both bases has been studied in detail.
904: From this, we derive
905: \begin{align}
906: \hat{C}_1 &= 2 \tilde{C}_2 + \frac{\as}{4\pi} \left( 4 \tilde{C}_1 + \frac{14}{3} \tilde{C}_2 \right) + \calO(\as^2),\no \\
907: \hat{C}_2&= \tilde{C}_1 + \frac13 \tilde{C}_2 + \calO(\as).
908: \label{eq:WilsonTransform}
909: \end{align}
910: Combining (\ref{eq:alpha1Im}), (\ref{eq:WilsonTransform}) and
911: (\ref{eq:V12mod}) we obtain
912: \begin{align}
913: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;V^{(1)} &=
914: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;\hat{V}^{(1)} \no\\
915: &= \int_0^1 du \; g_1(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u), \no\\
916: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;V_1^{(2)} &=
917: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \bigg[ \frac12 \,\hat{V}^{(2)}_2 +2 \,\hat{V}^{(1)} \bigg] \no\\
918: &= \int_0^1 du \; \bigg\{ -3\, g_1(u) \ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} +2 \,g_1(u) +\frac12 \, h_0(u) \bigg\} \phi_{M_2}(u), \no \\
919: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;V_2^{(2)} &=
920: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \bigg[ \hat{V}^{(2)}_1 + \frac16 \,\hat{V}^{(2)}_2 + \frac73 \,\hat{V}^{(1)} \bigg] \no\\
921: &= \int_0^1 du \; \bigg\{ \Big[ \Big( 28- \frac23 n_f \Big) g_1(u) + \frac43 h_1(u) \Big] \ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} + \frac73 \,g_1(u) + \frac16 \, h_0(u)\no \\
922: & \hspace{3mm} + \frac43 \, h_2(u) + 3 \, h_3(u) + (n_f-2) \, h_4(u;0) + h_4(u;z) + h_4(u;1) \bigg\} \phi_{M_2}(u).
923: \label{eq:V12trad}
924: \end{align}
925: Notice that these expressions determine the vertex corrections for
926: the colour-allowed amplitude $\alpha_1$ \emph{and} the
927: colour-suppressed amplitude $\alpha_2$ according to
928: (\ref{eq:alpha12NNLO}). The equations in (\ref{eq:V12trad})
929: represent the central result of our analysis. The expression for
930: $V^{(1)}$ is in agreement with (\ref{eq:V1trad}), whereas the
931: expressions for $V^{(2)}_{1,2}$ are new. The kernels $g_1$ and
932: $h_{0-4}$ can be found in (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:g}) and
933: (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:h}). The terms proportional to $n_f$ have
934: already been considered in the analysis of the large $\beta_0$-limit
935: in \cite{beta0:NeuPec,beta0:BurWil}. Our results are in agreement
936: with these findings.
937:
938: \subsection{Convolution with distribution amplitude}
939:
940: The NNLO vertex corrections have been given in (\ref{eq:V12trad}) as
941: convolutions of hard-scattering kernels with the light-cone
942: distribution amplitude of the meson $M_2$. We may explicitly perform
943: the convolution integrals by expanding the distribution amplitude
944: into the eigenfunctions of the 1-loop evolution kernel
945: \begin{align}
946: \phi_{M_2}(u) &=
947: 6 u \ubar \left[ 1 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty \, a_n^{M_2} \; C_n^{(3/2)}(2u-1) \right],
948: \label{eq:Gegenbauer}
949: \end{align}
950: where $a_n^{M_2}$ and $C_n^{(3/2)}$ are the Gegenbauer moments and
951: polynomials, respectively. It is convenient to truncate this
952: expansion at $n=2$. The convolution integrals with the kernels $g_1$
953: and $h_{0-3}$ from (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:g}) and
954: (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:h}) then give
955: \begin{align}
956: \int_0^1 du \; g_1(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u) &=
957: -3 -3 \, a_1^{M_2}, \hspace{7cm}\no \\
958: \int_0^1 du \; h_0(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u) &=
959: \frac{1333}{12} + \frac{47\pi^2}{45} -16 \zeta_3 +\left( \frac{15}{4} + \frac{23\pi^2}{5} \right) a_1^{M_2} \no\\
960: & \hspace{6mm} - \left( \frac{173}{30} + \frac{18\pi^2}{35}\right) a_2^{M_2} ,\no \\
961: \int_0^1 du \; h_1(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u) &=
962: 36 + 28 \, a_1^{M_2},\no \\
963: \int_0^1 du \; h_2(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u) &=
964: \frac{1369}{6} + \frac{139\pi^2}{45} -32 \zeta_3 - \left( \frac{17}{6} - \frac{51\pi^2}{5} \right) a_1^{M_2} \no \\
965: & \hspace{6mm} - \left(\frac{103}{15} + \frac{71\pi^2}{35} \right) a_2^{M_2},\no \\
966: \int_0^1 du \; h_3(u) \; \phi_{M_2}(u) &=
967: - \frac{481}{3} + \frac{7\pi^2}{30} +12 \zeta_3 - \left( \frac{643}{12} +\frac{11\pi^2}{10} \right) a_1^{M_2} \no \\
968: & \hspace{6mm} - \left( \frac{1531}{80} - \frac{169\pi^2}{70} \right) a_2^{M_2}.
969: \label{eq:convol1}
970: \end{align}
971: The convolution with $h_4(u;z)$ from (\ref{eq:BtoPiPi:kernels:h})
972: can also be performed analytically
973: \begin{align}
974: H_4(z) &\equiv \int_0^1 du \; h_4(u;z) \; \phi_{M_2}(u) \no\\
975: &= \frac{22}{3} +148 z^2-96 z^4 F(z) -36 z^4 \ln^2 \frac{y_1}{y_2} \no \\
976: & \hspace{1.2cm} -2\Big[1-(2y_1+1)(1+22z^2)\Big] \ln \frac{y_1}{y_2} -4\ln y_2 \no \\
977: & \quad +\bigg( 7 + 164 z^2 + 180z^4 + 144 z^6 - 288z^4 F(z) +12z^4 (3 + 16 z^2 + 12 z^4) \ln^2 \frac{y_1}{y_2} \no \\
978: & \hspace{1.2cm} -2\Big[1 - (2y_1 + 1)(1 + 22z^2 + 84z^4 + 72z^6)\Big] \ln \frac{y_1}{y_2} -4 \ln y_2\bigg) a_1^{M_2}\no \\
979: & \quad +\bigg( \frac35 + 244 z^2 + \frac{148}{3} z^4 - 640 z^6 - 960 z^8 +24 z^4(1 - 30 z^4 - 40z^6) \ln^2 \frac{y_1}{y_2} \no \\
980: & \hspace{1.2cm} - 576 z^4 F(z) +8z^2(2y_1 + 1)(6 + 11z^2 - 70z^4
981: - 120 z^6) \ln \frac{y_1}{y_2} \bigg) a_2^{M_2},
982: \label{eq:convol2}
983: \end{align}
984: where we defined
985: \begin{align}
986: y_{1} \equiv \frac12 \left( \sqrt{1+4z^2} - 1 \right), \qquad
987: y_{2} \equiv \frac12 \left( \sqrt{1+4z^2} + 1 \right), \hspace{2cm}\no \\
988: F(z) \equiv \Lic(-y_1)-\Sab(-y_1)-\ln y_1 \Lib(-y_1)+\frac12 \ln y_1
989: \ln^2 y_2 -\frac{1}{12} \ln^3 z^2 + \zeta_3.
990: \end{align}
991: In the massless limit the function $H_4(z)$ simply becomes
992: \begin{align}
993: H_4(0) &=\frac{22}{3}+7 a_1^{M_2} +\frac35 a_2^{M_2}.
994: \end{align}
995: The finiteness of all convolution integrals in (\ref{eq:convol1})
996: and (\ref{eq:convol2}) completes the explicit factorization proof of
997: the imaginary part of the NNLO vertex corrections.
998:
999: \newabs
1000: We summarize our results for the vertex corrections in the
1001: considered representation of the light-cone distribution amplitude
1002: of the emitted meson $M_2$
1003: \begin{align}
1004: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;V^{(1)}
1005: &=-3-3 a_1^{M_2},\no \\
1006: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;V_1^{(2)}
1007: &=9\left(1+ a_1^{M_2}\right) \, \ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} + \frac{1189}{24} + \frac{47\pi^2}{90} -8 \zeta_3 -\left( \frac{33}{8} - \frac{23\pi^2}{10} \right) a_1^{M_2} \no \\
1008: &\quad - \left( \frac{173}{60} + \frac{9\pi^2}{35}\right) a_2^{M_2} ,\no \\
1009: \frac{1}{\pi} \; \Im \;V_2^{(2)}
1010: &=-\left(26+ \frac{110}{3} a_1^{M_2}\right) \, \ln \frac{\mu^2}{m_b^2} -\frac{10315}{72} +\frac{674\pi^2}{135} -\frac{28}{3} \zeta_3 \no \\
1011: &\quad -\left( \frac{10793}{72} - \frac{166\pi^2}{15} \right) a_1^{M_2} -\left( \frac{3155}{48} -\frac{187\pi^2}{42} \right) a_2^{M_2} + H_4(z) +
1012: H_4(1),
1013: \label{eq:V12:Anas}
1014: \end{align}
1015: with $H_4(z)$ given in (\ref{eq:convol2}). In order to illustrate
1016: the relative importance of the individual contributions, we set
1017: $\mu=m_b$ and $z=m_c/m_b=0.3$ which yields
1018: \begin{align}
1019: \Im \;V^{(1)}
1020: &= -9.425 - 9.43 a_1^{M_2},\no \\
1021: \Im \;V_1^{(2)}
1022: &= 141.621 + 58.36 \; a_1^{M_2} - 17.03 \; a_2^{M_2} ,\no \\
1023: \Im \;V_2^{(2)}
1024: &= -317.940 - 115.62 \; a_1^{M_2} - 68.31 \; a_2^{M_2}.
1025: \label{eq:V12:Nums}
1026: \end{align}
1027: We find large coefficients for the NNLO vertex corrections and
1028: expect only a minor impact of the higher Gegenbauer moments (in
1029: particular in the symmetric case with $a_1^{M_2}=0$). Notice that
1030: all contributions add constructively in $\alpha_{1,2}$ due to the
1031: relative signs of the accompanying Wilson coefficients. In the case
1032: of $\alpha_1$ the contribution from $V_1^{(2)}$ is found to exceed
1033: the formally leading contribution $V^{(1)}$ due to the fact that
1034: the latter is multiplied by the small Wilson coefficient
1035: $\tilde{C}_2$. For $\alpha_2$ the impact of the NNLO vertex
1036: corrections is also substantial, roughly saying they amount to a
1037: $50\%$ correction. A more detailed numerical analysis including the
1038: contributions from spectator scattering will be given in the
1039: following section.
1040:
1041: \section{Numerical analysis}
1042:
1043: We conclude this chapter with a brief numerical analysis (an
1044: extended version will be given in~\cite{GBImPart}). We first
1045: consider the vertex corrections solely without the spectator
1046: scattering contributions which have been computed recently
1047: in~\cite{BenekeJager,Kivel}. These will be added in the second part
1048: of our analysis which will lead us to the full NNLO result for the
1049: imaginary part of the topological tree amplitudes in QCD
1050: Factorization.
1051:
1052: \subsection{Vertex corrections}
1053:
1054: \begin{figure}[b!]
1055: \centerline{\parbox{13cm}{
1056: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{zeta1.eps}\hspace{10mm}
1057: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{zeta2.eps}}
1058: \caption{\label{fig:BtoPiPi:beta0} \small \textit{Imaginary part of
1059: $\zeta_1(u)$ and $\zeta_2(u)$ as introduced in (\ref{eq:defzeta}).
1060: The graphs show the 1-loop vertex corrections (blue), the large
1061: $\beta_0$-approximation (gray) and our new results including the
1062: 2-loop vertex corrections (red) for $\mu=m_b$ (with asymptotic
1063: distribution amplitude).}}}}
1064: \end{figure}
1065:
1066: We come back to the question if the large $\beta_0$-limit considered
1067: in~\cite{beta0:NeuPec,beta0:BurWil} represents a good approximation
1068: for the imaginary part of the NNLO vertex corrections. For
1069: illustration, we introduce two functions $\zeta_{i}(u)$ defined by
1070: \begin{align}
1071: \alpha_1 \big {|}_V &\equiv \int_0^1 du \;\; \zeta_i(u).
1072: \label{eq:defzeta}
1073: \end{align}
1074: The $\zeta_{i}(u)$ correspond to a combination of Wilson
1075: coefficients and hard-scattering kernels multiplied by the
1076: distribution amplitude of the emitted meson $M_2$. The imaginary
1077: part of the functions $\zeta_{i}(u)$ are shown in
1078: Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:beta0} with the asymptotic form of the
1079: distribution amplitude, for simplicity.
1080:
1081: As we have stated at the end of the last section, we find that the
1082: NNLO corrections add constructively to the NLO results. They provide
1083: the dominant contribution to the imaginary part of $\alpha_1$ and a
1084: substantial contribution to the one of $\alpha_2$. We further see
1085: that the large $\beta_0$-limit is a good approximation in the case
1086: of $\alpha_2$ but not for $\alpha_1$. This can be traced back to the
1087: fact that the imaginary part of $V_2^{(2)}$ is reproduced well in
1088: this approximation whereas the one of $V_1^{(2)}$, which provides
1089: the most important contribution to $\alpha_1$, is missed completely.
1090:
1091: \begin{figure}[t!]
1092: \centerline{\parbox{13cm}{
1093: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=6cm]{Scale1.eps}\hspace{10mm}
1094: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{Scale2.eps}}
1095: \caption{\label{fig:BtoPiPi:scale} \small \textit{Renormalization
1096: scale dependence of the imaginary part of $\alpha_{1}$ and
1097: $\alpha_{2}$ (without spectator scattering). Blue: NLO result. Red:
1098: NNLO result.}}}}
1099: \end{figure}
1100:
1101: \newabs
1102: Concerning the scale dependence we recall that the imaginary part
1103: has only NLO complexity at the considered order in perturbation
1104: theory. We therefore use the 2-loop expression for the running
1105: coupling constant ($n_f=5$,
1106: $\Lambda_\text{\tiny\MSbar}^{(5)}=0.225$~\gev) and consider the
1107: Wilson coefficients in NLL approximation which we take
1108: from~\cite{WeakDecays}. Contrary to the second Gegenbauer moment,
1109: the first moment would also be required in NLL approximation as it
1110: enters the expression for $V^{(1)}$ in (\ref{eq:V12:Anas}). However,
1111: in the following analysis we focus on the $B\to\pi\pi$ decays where
1112: the first moment is absent and we only implement the LL evolution of
1113: the second moment which is given by
1114: \begin{align}
1115: a_2^{M_2}(\mu) = \left( \frac{\as(\mu)}{\as(\mu_0)}
1116: \right)^{-\gamma_2/2\beta_0}a_2^{M_2}(\mu_0), \quad
1117: \quad\gamma_2=-\frac{100}{9}.
1118: \end{align}
1119: The scale dependence of the imaginary part of $\alpha_{1,2}$ is
1120: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:BtoPiPi:scale}. We observe only a minor
1121: reduction of the scale dependence if we vary the scale between
1122: $m_b/2\sim2.4$~\gev~and $2m_b\sim9.6$~\gev, in particular for
1123: $\alpha_1$ where the NNLO correction dominates over the NLO result.
1124:
1125: \subsection{Full NNLO result}
1126:
1127: We finally combine our results with the spectator scattering
1128: contributions from~\cite{BenekeJager}. One remark is in order
1129: concerning the scale dependence of the spectator term. The
1130: respective kernel $T^{II}$ receives hard and hard-collinear
1131: contributions which are encoded in a hard coefficient function and a
1132: jet function, respectively (notice that the hard coefficient
1133: function represents the only source for an imaginary part). In the
1134: following discussion we simply evaluate all quantities related to
1135: the hard coefficient function at the hard scale $\mu_h$ and all
1136: other quantities at the hard-collinear scale $\mu_{hc}$ (this
1137: corresponds to equation (58) of~\cite{BenekeJager} with
1138: $U_\|(\mu_h,\mu_{hc})=1$). A more sophisticated treatment of the
1139: scale issues in the spectator term is relegated to~\cite{GBImPart}.
1140:
1141: \begin{table}[t!]
1142: \centerline{
1143: \parbox{13cm}{\setlength{\doublerulesep}{0.1mm}
1144: \centerline{\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|} \hline
1145: \hspace*{2.5cm}&\hspace*{3cm}&\hspace*{2.5cm}&\hspace*{3cm} \\[-0.7em]
1146: Parameter & Value & Parameter & Value\\[0.3em]
1147: \hline\hline\hline&&& \\[-0.7em]
1148: $\Lambda_\text{\tiny\MSbar}^{(5)}$ & $0.225$ & $f_B$& $0.2\pm 0.03$\\[0.3em]
1149: $m_b$ & $4.8$ & $F_+^{B\to\pi}(0)$&$0.26 \pm 0.04$\\[0.3em]
1150: $m_c$ & $1.3\pm 0.2$ & $\lambda_B$&$0.35 \pm 0.15$\\[0.3em]
1151: $f_\pi$ & $0.131$ & $a_2^\pi(1\gev)$& $0.2\pm 0.2$\\[0.3em]
1152: \hline
1153: \end{tabular}}
1154: \vspace{4mm} \caption{\label{tab:nums}\small \textit{Theoretical
1155: input parameters (in units of \gev~or dimensionless).}}}}
1156: \end{table}
1157:
1158: \newabs
1159: Our input parameters for the $B\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes are summarized
1160: in Table~\ref{tab:nums}. They correspond to the values from previous
1161: analysis in QCD Factorization \cite{BenekeJager,BenekeNeubert2003}
1162: with updated values for the form factor and the Gegenbauer moment
1163: based on recent LCSR analyses~\cite{BallZwicky:FF,BallZwicky:DA}. In
1164: order to estimate unknown perturbative corrections we vary the hard
1165: scale in the range $\mu_h=4.8^{+4.8}_{-2.4}~\gev$ and the
1166: hard-collinear scale independently between
1167: $\mu_{hc}=1.5^{+0.7}_{-0.5}~\gev$.
1168:
1169: \newpage
1170: The complete NNLO result for the imaginary part of the topological
1171: tree amplitude is found to be
1172: \begin{align}
1173: \Im\; \alpha_1(\pi\pi)& =\,~~ 0.012 \big{|}_{V^{(1)}}
1174: + 0.031 \big{|}_{V^{(2)}}
1175: - 0.019 \big{|}_{H^{(2)}} \no \\
1176: & =\,~~ 0.025 \pm 0.021,\no\\
1177: \Im\; \alpha_2(\pi\pi)& = - 0.077 \big{|}_{V^{(1)}}
1178: - 0.052 \big{|}_{V^{(2)}}
1179: + 0.031 \big{|}_{H^{(2)}} \no \\
1180: & = - 0.098 \pm 0.035,
1181: \label{eq:alpha12:result}
1182: \end{align}
1183: where we disentangled the contributions from $V^{(1)}$, $V^{(2)}$
1184: and $H^{(2)}$ according to (\ref{eq:alpha12NNLO}). In the case of
1185: $\alpha_1$ the NNLO corrections exceed the NLO result which can be
1186: explained by the fact that the latter is multiplied by the small
1187: Wilson coefficient $\tilde{C}_2$. In both cases the individual NNLO
1188: corrections are found to be sizeable, but we observe a large
1189: cancellation in their sum. The NNLO vertex corrections considered in
1190: this work turn out to dominate over the spectator terms resulting in
1191: a moderate additive contribution to the NLO (BBNS) result.
1192:
1193: \newabs
1194: The uncertainties quoted in (\ref{eq:alpha12:result}) stem from the
1195: variation of the parameters shown in Table~\ref{tab:uns}. As the
1196: dominant sources we identify the hadronic parameters $\lambda_B$ and
1197: $a_2^\pi$. Moreover, the sensitivity to the renormalization scale
1198: remains sizeable at NNLO as we have mentioned at the end of the last
1199: section. We finally emphasize that we have not yet assigned an error
1200: estimate to unknown power corrections which will be included
1201: in~\cite{GBImPart}.
1202:
1203: \begin{table}[b!]
1204: \centerline{
1205: \parbox{13cm}{\setlength{\doublerulesep}{0.1mm}
1206: \centerline{\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline
1207: \hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm}&\hspace*{1.2cm} \\[-0.7em]
1208: &$\mu_h$ & $\mu_{hc}$ & $m_c$ & $f_B$ & $F_+^{B\pi}$& $\lambda_B$ & $a_2^\pi$\\[0.3em]
1209: \hline\hline\hline&&&&&&& \\[-0.7em]
1210: $\alpha_1$ & $0.011$ & $0.006$& $0.000$& $0.003$& $0.003$& $0.014$& $0.008$\\[0.3em]
1211: $\alpha_2$ & $0.019$ & $0.009$& $0.000$& $0.005$& $0.006$& $0.023$& $0.013$\\[0.3em]
1212: \hline
1213: \end{tabular}}
1214: \vspace{4mm} \caption{\label{tab:uns}\small \textit{Uncertainties in
1215: our predictions of the imaginary part of $\alpha_1(\pi\pi)$ and
1216: $\alpha_2(\pi\pi)$ from the scale variation and the input parameters
1217: in Table~\ref{tab:nums}.}}}}
1218: \end{table}
1219: