1:
2: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt,twoside,fleqn]{article}
5:
6: \usepackage{a4wide,cite}
7: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
8: \usepackage{epsfig,rotating}
9: \usepackage{axodraw}
10:
11: \setlength{\topmargin}{-.7cm}
12: \setlength{\textheight}{24cm}
13: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.5cm}
14: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-.3cm}
15: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{-.3cm}
16: \setlength{\headsep}{5mm}
17: \setlength{\parskip}{5pt}
18: \setlength{\mathindent}{.5cm}
19:
20: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
21: \allowdisplaybreaks[4]
22:
23: \newcommand{\MS}{\ensuremath{\overline{\text{MS}}}}
24:
25: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26:
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \begin{titlepage}
30:
31: \vspace*{1cm}
32:
33: \centerline{\Large\bf\boldmath Fermionic corrections to the interference}
34: \vspace{3.3mm}
35: \centerline{\Large\bf\boldmath of the electro- and chromomagnetic dipole}
36: \vspace{2mm}
37: \centerline{\Large\bf\boldmath operators in $\bar B\to X_s\gamma$ at $O(\alpha_s^2)$}
38: \vskip 2.5cm
39:
40: \begin{center}
41: {\bf Thorsten Ewerth}\\[2mm]
42: {\sl Dip.\ Fisica Teorica, Univ.\ di Torino \& INFN Torino, I-10125 Torino, Italy}
43: \end{center}
44: \medskip
45:
46: \vskip 2cm
47:
48: \begin{abstract}
49: \noindent We calculate the virtual and bremsstrahlung fermionic corrections due to the interference of the
50: electro- and chromomagnetic dipole operators in the inclusive $\bar B\to X_s\gamma$ decay at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ and
51: present analytical results for both the total decay rate and the photon energy spectrum.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: \end{titlepage}
55:
56: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
57:
58: \section{Introduction}
59:
60: The present experimental world average of the branching ratio of $\bar{B}\to X_s\gamma$, which includes
61: measurements by CLEO, BaBar and Belle \cite{Chen:2001fja,Aubert:2007my,Abe:2008sx}, is performed by the
62: Heavy Flavor Averaging Group \cite{Barberio:2007cr} and, for photon energies $E_\gamma > 1.6\,{\rm GeV}$, is
63: given by
64: \begin{equation}\label{hfag}
65: \text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma)=\left(3.52\pm 0.23\pm 0.09\right)\times 10^{-4}\,,
66: \end{equation}
67: where the errors are combined statistical and systematic and due to the extrapolation to the common lower-cut
68: in the photon energy, respectively. Moreover, the total uncertainty, being already below 7\%, is expected to
69: reduce down to 5\% at the end of the B-factory era.
70:
71: In order to keep pace with the improving experimental accuracy the theoretical prediction of the
72: $\bar{B}\to X_s\gamma$ branching ratio has to be known at the next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) level.
73: A first estimate of the $\bar{B}\to X_s\gamma$ branching ratio at this level of accuracy has been presented in
74: \cite{Misiak:2006zs}. For $E_\gamma > 1.6\,$GeV it reads
75: \begin{equation}\label{estimate}
76: \text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma) = (3.15\pm 0.23)\times 10^{-4}\,.
77: \end{equation}
78: This estimate includes the three-loop dipole operator matching conditions \cite{Misiak:2004ew}, the three-loop
79: mixing of the four-quark operators \cite{Gorbahn:2004my}, the three-loop mixing of the dipole operators
80: \cite{Gorbahn:2005sa}, and the four-loop mixing of the four-quark operators into the dipole operators
81: \cite{Czakon:2006ss}. Also the two-loop matrix elements of the electromagnetic dipole operator together
82: with the corresponding bremsstrahlung terms (at $m_c=0$)
83: \cite{Blokland:2005uk,Melnikov:2005bx,Asatrian:2006ph,Asatrian:2006sm}, as well as the three-loop matrix elements
84: of the four-quark operators within the so-called large-$\beta_0$ approximation \cite{Bieri:2003ue} have been taken
85: into account. Finally, in order to obtain estimates of these matrix elements (together with other still unknown
86: ones) at the physical value of the charm quark mass $m_c$ an interpolation in the latter has been performed
87: in \cite{Misiak:2006ab}.
88:
89: We should mention here that there are several perturbative and non-perturbative effects that have not been
90: considered when deriving the estimate given in (\ref{estimate}). Some of them are already available in the
91: literature: the four-loop mixing of $O_1,\dots,O_6$ into $O_8$ \cite{Czakon:2006ss}; the bremsstrahlung
92: contributions of the $(O_2,O_2)$, $(O_2,O_7)$ and $(O_7,O_8)$-interference at $O(\alpha_s^2\beta_0)$
93: \cite{Ligeti:1999ea}; the exact charm quark mass dependence of the $(O_7,O_7)$-interference at $O(\alpha_s^2)$
94: \cite{Asatrian:2006rq}; the three-loop virtual corrections due to charm and bottom quark loop insertions into gluon
95: propagators in the $(O_1,O_7)$ and $(O_2,O_7)$-interference \cite{Boughezal:2007ny}; the updated knowledge of the
96: semileptonic normalization factor \cite{Gambino:2008fj,Melnikov:2008qs,Pak:2008qt}; photon energy cut-off related
97: effects \cite{Neubert:2004dd,Becher:2005pd,Becher:2006qw,Andersen:2006hr}; and estimates for the
98: $O(\alpha_s\Lambda_\text{QCD}/m_b)$ corrections \cite{Lee:2006wn}. Other effects are unknown at the moment, like the
99: complete virtual and bremsstrahlung contributions to the $(O_7,O_8)$ and $(O_8,O_8)$-interference at
100: $O(\alpha_s^2)$ (only the contribution of the $(O_7,O_8)$-interference at $O(\alpha_s^2 \beta_0)$ is known
101: \cite{Bieri:2003ue,Ligeti:1999ea}), and of course the exact $m_c$-dependence of various matrix elements beyond
102: the large-$\beta_0$ approximation, in order to improve (or even remove) the uncertainty due to the interpolation
103: in $m_c$ \cite{Misiak:2006ab}. The individual contributions listed above are all expected to remain within the
104: uncertainty given in (\ref{estimate}), nevertheless they should be taken into account in future updates.
105:
106: In the present paper we repeat the calculation of the $(O_7,O_8)$-interference contribution performed in
107: \cite{Bieri:2003ue,Ligeti:1999ea} and extend it to include not only the effects of massless quark loops but
108: also those due to massive ones. More precisely, we calculate those $O(\alpha_s^2)$ contributions which can be
109: obtained from the Feynman diagrams contributing to the $(O_7,O_8)$-interference at $O(\alpha_s)$ when dressing
110: the gluon propagators with massless up, down and strange quark loops as well as with massive charm and bottom
111: quark loops. We work out the effects of these contributions to the photon energy spectrum
112: $d\Gamma(b\to X^{\rm partonic}_s\gamma)/dE_\gamma$ and to the total decay width
113: $\Gamma(b\to X^{\rm partonic}_s\gamma)|_{E_\gamma>E_0}$, where $E_0$ denotes the cut in the photon energy.
114:
115: The organization of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we present our final results for the total decay
116: width and the photon energy spectrum and describe briefly the calculation of the relevant Feynman diagrams.
117: The numerical impact of the fermionic corrections on $\text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma)$ is estimated in section
118: 3. Finally, we summarize in section 4.
119:
120: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121:
122: \section{Fermionic corrections}\label{sec_2}
123:
124: Within the low-energy effective theory the partonic $b\to X_s\gamma$ decay rate can be written as
125: \begin{equation}\label{decay_rate}
126: \Gamma(b\to X_s^{\rm parton}\gamma)_{E_\gamma>E_0} = \frac{G_F^2\alpha_{\rm em}
127: \overline{m}_b^2(\mu)m_b^3}{32\pi^4}\,|V_{tb}^{}V_{ts}^*|^2\,\sum_{i,j}C_i^{\rm eff}(\mu)\,
128: C_j^{\rm eff}(\mu)\,G_{ij}(E_0,\mu)\,,
129: \end{equation}
130: where $m_b$ and $\overline{m}_b(\mu)$ denote the pole and the running $\MS$ mass of the $b$ quark, respectively,
131: $C_i^{\rm eff}(\mu)$ the effective Wilson coefficients at the low-energy scale, and $E_0$ the energy cut in the
132: photon spectrum.\footnote{In this paper we assume that the products $C_i^{\rm eff}(\mu)\,C_j^{\rm eff}(\mu)$ are
133: real. That is our formulas are not applicable to physics scenarios beyond the standard model which produce
134: complex short distance couplings.}
135:
136: As already anticipated in the introduction, we will focus on the function $G_{78}(E_0,\mu)$ corresponding to the
137: interference of the electro- and chromomagnetic dipole operators
138: \begin{align}
139: O_7 &= \frac{e}{16\pi^2}\,\overline{m}_b(\mu)\left(\bar s\sigma^{\mu\nu}P_Rb\right)F_{\mu\nu}
140: \end{align}
141: and
142: \begin{align}
143: O_8 &= \frac{g}{16\pi^2}\,\overline{m}_b(\mu)\left(\bar s\sigma^{\mu\nu}P_RT^ab\right)G_{\mu\nu}^a\,,
144: \end{align}
145: respectively. In NNLO approximation this function can be decomposed as follows,
146: \begin{align}\label{g77_exp}
147: G_{78}(E_0,\mu) &= \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi}\,C_F Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu) +
148: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^2 C_F Y^{(2)}(z_0,\mu) + O(\alpha_s^3)\,,
149: \end{align}
150: where
151: \begin{align}\label{colorf}
152: Y^{(2)}(z_0,\mu) &= C_F Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny CF}})}(z_0,\mu) +
153: C_A Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny CA}})}(z_0,\mu)\nonumber\\[2mm]
154: &\qquad+ T_R N_L Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}(z_0,\mu) + T_R N_H Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}(z_0,\mu) +
155: T_R N_V Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}(z_0,\mu)\,.
156: \end{align}
157: Here, $z_0=2E_0/m_b$, $N_L$, $N_H$ and $N_V$ denote the number of light ($m_q=0$), heavy ($m_q=m_b$),
158: and purely virtual ($m_q=m_c$) quark flavors, respectively, $\alpha_s(\mu)$ is the running coupling constant
159: in the $\MS$ scheme, and $C_F$, $C_A$ and $T_R$ are the color factors with numerical values given by 4/3, 3 and
160: 1/2, respectively. In this paper we present results for the functions $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,\mu)$ with
161: $i=\mbox{\small NL}$, $\mbox{\small NH}$, $\mbox{\small NV}$. The calculation of the functions
162: $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,\mu)$ with $i=\mbox{\small CF}$, $\mbox{\small CA}$ is the subject of another publication
163: \cite{workinprogress}.
164:
165: \begin{figure}[t]
166: \vspace*{2cm}
167: \begin{center}
168: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
169: \begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
170: \SetScale{.8}
171: % diagram
172: \SetWidth{1.8}
173: \Line(-100,0)(-60,0)
174: \Line(100,0)(60,0)
175: \CArc(15,45)(15,0,360)
176: \SetWidth{.5}
177: \Line(-60,0)(60,0)
178: \PhotonArc(-18,0)(42,-180,0){2}{12.5}
179: \GlueArc(15,0)(45,0,71){3}{7}
180: \GlueArc(15,0)(45,109,180){3}{7}
181: % quark labels
182: \Text(40,50)[tr]{\small $b,c$}
183: \Text(-78,-11)[br]{\small $b$}
184: \Text(78,-11)[bl]{\small $b$}
185: \Text(30,-7)[bl]{\small $s$}
186: % operators
187: \Text(-50,0)[c]{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
188: \Text(-51,-14)[br]{\small $O_7$}
189: \Text(50,0)[c]{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
190: \Text(45,-15)[bl]{\small $O_8$}
191: % cuts
192: \SetWidth{1.8}
193: \SetColor{Blue}
194: \DashLine(-70,20)(15,-45){3}
195: \SetColor{Orange}
196: \DashLine(-15,55)(-15,-55){3}
197: \DashLine(-48,-48)(65,40){3}
198: \end{picture}
199: %
200: & \hspace{6.8cm} &
201: %
202: \begin{picture}(0,0)(0,0)
203: \SetScale{.8}
204: % diagram
205: \SetWidth{1.8}
206: \Line(-100,0)(-60,0)
207: \Line(100,0)(60,0)
208: \SetWidth{.5}
209: \CArc(15,45)(15,0,360)
210: \Line(-60,0)(60,0)
211: \PhotonArc(-18,0)(42,-180,0){2}{12.5}
212: \GlueArc(15,0)(45,0,71){3}{7}
213: \GlueArc(15,0)(45,109,180){3}{7}
214: % quark labels
215: \Text(51,51)[tr]{\small $s,d,u$}
216: \Text(-78,-11)[br]{\small $b$}
217: \Text(78,-11)[bl]{\small $b$}
218: \Text(30,-7)[bl]{\small $s$}
219: % operators
220: \Text(-50,0)[c]{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
221: \Text(-51,-14)[br]{\small $O_7$}
222: \Text(50,0)[c]{\rule{2mm}{2mm}}
223: \Text(45,-15)[bl]{\small $O_8$}
224: % cuts
225: \SetWidth{1.8}
226: \SetColor{Blue}
227: \DashLine(-70,20)(15,-45){3}
228: \SetColor{Orange}
229: \DashLine(-15,55)(-15,-55){3}
230: \DashLine(-48,-48)(65,40){3}
231: \SetColor{Green}
232: \DashLine(-30,-55)(27,70){3}
233: \end{picture}\\[12mm]
234: \end{tabular}
235: \end{center}
236: \caption{\sl Two sample $b$ quark selfenergy diagrams which are proportional to the number of light, heavy
237: and purely virtual quark flavors and whose 2-, 3- and 4-particle cuts contribute to the $b\to s\gamma$ (blue
238: dashed lines), $b\to s\gamma g$ (orange dashed lines), and $b\to s\gamma q\bar q$ (green dashed line)
239: transitions at $O(\alpha_s^2)$. See text for more details.}\label{sample_diags}
240: \end{figure}
241:
242: The functions $Y^{(2,i)}$ with $i=\mbox{\small NL}$, $\mbox{\small NH}$, $\mbox{\small NV}$ appearing in
243: (\ref{colorf}) receive contributions from the $b\to s\gamma$, $b\to s\gamma g$, and $b\to s\gamma q\bar q$
244: ($q\in\{u,d,s\}$, $m_q=0$) transitions. The latter are contained in the $b$ quark selfenergies which arise
245: from those at $O(\alpha_s)$ when dressing the gluon propagators with massless and massive quark
246: loops.\footnote{There are also $b$ quark selfenergies where the photon runs from $O_7$ to the quark loop
247: and which cannot be obtained from those at $O(\alpha_s)$. However, it is easy to show that these diagrams
248: cancel amongst themselves without performing loop and phase-space integrations (see Furry's theorem).} Two sample
249: $b$ quark self-energies containing cuts with two, three and four particles in the intermediate state are displayed
250: in figure \ref{sample_diags}. As far as the diagrams containing massive quarks in the fermion loop are concerned,
251: like, e.g., the one given on the left-hand side of figure \ref{sample_diags}, we do not have to calculate cuts
252: with four particles in the intermediate state since such cuts would run through the bottom or charm quark loop
253: and (i) $b$ quarks are of course kinematically not allowed to appear in the final state and (ii) events involving
254: charmed hadrons in the final state are not included on the experimental side. On the other hand, for the diagrams
255: containing massless quarks in the fermion loop like, e.g., the one given on the right-hand side of figure
256: \ref{sample_diags}, the contributions from $q\bar q$ production ($q\in\{u,d,s\}$), that is four-particle cuts
257: running through massless quark loops, have to be taken into account.
258:
259: We work in $d=4-2\epsilon$ space-time dimensions to regularize ultraviolet, infrared and collinear
260: singularities, and adopt the renormalization prescription from \cite{Asatrian:2006ph,Asatrian:2006rq}.
261: Most of the renormalization constants necessary to render our results ultraviolet finite can be found there.
262: The only exceptions are those which describe the selfmixing of $O_8$ at one-loop and the mixing of $O_8$ into
263: $O_7$ up to two-loops; they can be extracted from \cite{Misiak:1994zw}. For some technical details concerning the
264: evaluation of the two-loop integrals involving both the bottom and charm quark mass $m_b$ and $m_c$,
265: respectively, we refer the reader to the end of this section.
266:
267: In order to obtain a compact presentation of our findings we split the functions $Y^{(2,i)}$ with
268: $i=\mbox{\small NL}$, $\mbox{\small NH}$, $\mbox{\small NV}$ into two parts, namely
269: \begin{align}\label{Ysplit}
270: Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,\mu) &= Y^{(2,i)}(0,\mu) - \delta Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,\mu),
271: \end{align}
272: where the first terms give always the contribution to the full inclusive decay rate, and the second ones
273: correct for the fact that in the experiments a lower cut in the photon energy is applied. Performing the same
274: splitting for the function $Y^{(1)}$ appearing in (\ref{g77_exp}), our findings for the two individual
275: contributions at $O(\alpha_s)$ read
276: \begin{align}
277: Y^{(1)}(0,\mu) &= \frac{4}{9}\left(29-2\pi^2\right)+\frac{16}{3}\,L_\mu\,,\\[3mm]
278: \delta Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu) &= \frac{2}{9}\,z_0\left(z_0^2+24\right)-\frac{8}{3}(z_0-1)\ln(1-z_0) -
279: \frac{8}{3}\,\text{Li}_2(z_0)\,,\label{Ynlo}
280: \end{align}
281: while those at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ are given by
282: \begin{align}
283: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}(0,\mu) &= -\frac{16}{81}\left(328-13\pi^2\right) -
284: \frac{64}{27}\left(18-\pi^2\right)L_\mu-\frac{64}{9}\,L_\mu^2+\frac{64}{3}\,\zeta_3\,,\label{Y0nl}\\[3mm]
285: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}(0,\mu) &= \frac{8}{81}\left(244-27\sqrt{3}\,\pi-61\pi^2\right) -
286: \frac{64}{27}\left(18-\pi^2\right)L_\mu\nonumber\\[2mm]
287: &\qquad -\frac{64}{9}\,L_\mu^2-\frac{64}{27}\,\zeta_3 +
288: 32\sqrt{3}\,\text{Cl}_2\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)\,,\label{Y0nh}\\[3mm]
289: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}(0,\mu) &=
290: -\frac{16}{81}\left[157-279\rho-\pi^2\left(5+9\rho^2-42\rho^{3/2}\right)\right] -
291: \frac{64}{27}\left(18-\pi^2\right)L_\mu\nonumber\\[2mm]
292: &\qquad -\frac{64}{9}\,L_\mu^2+\frac{16}{27}\left(22-\pi^2+10\rho\right)\ln\rho +
293: \frac{16}{27}\left(8+9\rho^2\right)\ln^2\!\rho\nonumber\\[2mm]
294: &\qquad -\frac{16}{27}\,\ln^3\!\rho-\frac{8}{9}\left(1-6\rho^2\right)\Phi_1(\rho) -
295: \frac{8}{27}(19-46\rho)\,\Phi_2(\rho)\nonumber\\[2mm]
296: &\qquad -\frac{32}{27}(13+14\rho)\,\Phi_3(\rho)-\frac{64}{9}\,\Phi_4(\rho) -
297: \frac{32}{9}\,\ln\rho\,\text{Li}_2(1-\rho)\nonumber\\[2mm]
298: &\qquad +\frac{32}{27}\left(5+9\rho^2+14\rho^{3/2}\right)\text{Li}_2(1-\rho) -
299: \frac{1792}{27}\rho^{3/2}\,\text{Li}_2\left(1-\sqrt{\rho}\right)\nonumber\\[2mm]
300: &\qquad +\frac{64}{9}\,\text{Li}_3(1-\rho)+\frac{64}{9}\,
301: \text{Li}_3\left(1-\frac{1}{\rho}\right)\,,\label{Y0nv}\\[5mm]
302: \delta Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}(z_0,\mu) &= -\frac{4}{27}\,z_0\left(7 z_0^2-17 z_0+238\right) -
303: \frac{8}{3}\,\delta Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu)L_\mu\nonumber\\[2mm]
304: &\qquad +\frac{8}{27}\left(z_0^3-6 z_0^2+80 z_0-75+6\pi ^2\right)\ln(1-z_0)\nonumber\\[2mm]
305: &\qquad -\frac{16}{3}(z_0-1)\ln^2(1-z_0)-\frac{16}{3}\,\ln z_0\ln^2(1-z_0)\nonumber\\[2mm]
306: &\qquad -\frac{32}{27}(3 z_0-8)\,\text{Li}_2(z_0)-\frac{32}{3}\,\ln(1-z_0)\,\text{Li}_2(z_0)\nonumber\\[2mm]
307: &\qquad +\frac{32}{9}\,\text{Li}_3(z_0)-\frac{32}{3}\,\text{Li}_3(1-z_0) +
308: \frac{32}{3}\,\zeta_3\,,\label{Yz0nl}\\[3mm]
309: \delta Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}(z_0,\mu) &= -\frac{8}{3}\,\delta Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu)L_\mu\,,\label{Yz0nh}\\[3mm]
310: \delta Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}(z_0,\mu) &= -\frac{4}{3}\,\delta Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu)(2L_\mu-\ln\rho)\,.\label{Yz0nv}
311: \end{align}
312: In writing these equations we introduced the short-hand notations
313: \begin{equation}
314: \rho=\frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad L_\mu=\ln\!\left(\frac{\mu}{m_b}\right)\,.
315: \end{equation}
316: The definitions of the auxiliary functions $\Phi_n(\rho)$ as well as those of the polylogarithms
317: $\mbox{Li}_n(z)$ and the Clausen function $\mbox{Cl}_2(z)$ can be found in appendix \ref{app_b}. The
318: numerical value of the Clausen function at $z=\pi/3$ is approximately given by $1.014942$, and
319: $\zeta_3\approx 1.202057$ is equal to Riemann's theta functions $\zeta(n)$ at $n=3$. Equations (\ref{Y0nv})
320: and (\ref{Yz0nv}) hold for $\rho>0$.
321:
322: Turning now to our findings for the photon energy spectrum, we rewrite the function $G_{78}(E_0,\mu)$ as an
323: integral over the (rescaled) photon energy,
324: \begin{equation}
325: G_{78}(E_0,\mu) = \int_{z_0}^1\!dz\,\frac{dG_{78}(z,\mu)}{dz}\,,\qquad z=\frac{2E_\gamma}{m_b}\,.
326: \end{equation}
327: In NNLO approximation the integrand can be written as follows,
328: \begin{align}
329: \frac{dG_{78}(z,\mu)}{dz} &= \frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi}\,C_F\widetilde Y^{(1)}(z,\mu) +
330: \left(\frac{\alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi}\right)^2C_F\widetilde Y^{(2)}(z,\mu) + O(\alpha_s^3)\,,
331: \end{align}
332: where, in analogy to (\ref{colorf}),
333: \begin{align}\label{colorf_spec}
334: \widetilde Y^{(2)}(z,\mu) = T_RN_L\widetilde Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}(z,\mu) +
335: T_RN_H\widetilde Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}(z,\mu) +
336: T_RN_V\widetilde Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}(z,\mu) + \dots\,,
337: \end{align}
338: with the ellipses denoting terms which are proportional to the colorfactors $C_F$ and $C_A$. The
339: next-to-leading order (NLO) function $\widetilde Y^{(1)}(z,\mu)$ is given by
340: \begin{align}\label{Ynlo_spec}
341: \widetilde Y^{(1)}(z,\mu) = Y^{(1)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)\,\delta(1-z) +
342: \frac{d}{dz}\,\delta Y^{(1)}(z,\mu)\,,
343: \end{align}
344: where $\delta Y^{(1)}(z,\mu)$ can be obtained from (\ref{Ynlo}) by replacing $z_0$ by $z$, and
345: $Y^{(1)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)$ can be found in appendix \ref{app_a}. The latter function summarizes the
346: contribution of all 2-particle cuts entering the functions $Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu)$. The terms proportional to $N_L$,
347: $N_H$ and $N_V$ appearing in (\ref{colorf_spec}) can be written in complete analogy to (\ref{Ynlo_spec}),
348: \begin{align}\label{Yi_spec}
349: \widetilde Y^{(2,i)}(z,\mu) = Y^{(2,i)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)\,\delta(1-z) +
350: \frac{d}{dz}\,\delta Y^{(2,i)}(z,\mu)\,,
351: \end{align}
352: with $\delta Y^{(2,i)}(z,\mu)$ given in (\ref{Yz0nl})--(\ref{Yz0nv}) and $Y^{(2,i)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)$
353: in appendix \ref{app_a}. Since the contributions of the 2-particle cuts are by themselves free of infrared and
354: collinear singularities it was not necessary to introduce plus-distributions in (\ref{Yi_spec})
355: and (\ref{Ynlo_spec}).
356:
357: We remark that the terms proportional to $N_L$, that is the functions $Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}(0,\mu)$ and
358: $\delta Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}(z_0,\mu)$, are already known in the literature \cite{Bieri:2003ue,Ligeti:1999ea}
359: and we completely agree with the results given there. The functions $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,\mu)$ with
360: $i=\mbox{\small NH}$, $\mbox{\small NV}$ are however new.\footnote{I would like to thank Christoph Greub for
361: checking equation (\ref{Y2cutsnh}), which contains the contribution of the 2-particle cuts being proportional to
362: $N_H$, numerically.}
363:
364: In the remainder of this section we will summarize the technical details of the calculation. However, we refrain
365: from repeating the algebraic reduction procedure of the 2-, 3- and 4-particle cuts of the three-loop $b$ quark
366: selfenergies to a set of so-called master integrals as well as from discussing appropriate parametrizations of
367: the phase-space integrals here since this has already been done in great detail in
368: \cite{Asatrian:2006ph,Asatrian:2006sm}. Instead, we will briefly describe how we solved the non-trivial two-loop
369: integrals involving the two mass scales $m_b$ and $m_c$. First, we introduced Feynman parameters in the standard
370: way and performed the loop-integrations. Subsequently, we applied the Mellin-Barnes technique
371: \cite{Smirnov:1999gc,Tausk:1999vh} based on the relation
372: \begin{equation}
373: \frac{1}{(x+y)^\lambda} = \frac{1}{\Gamma(\lambda)}\int\limits_C\!\frac{ds}{2\pi i}
374: \frac{x^s}{y^{\lambda+s}}\,\Gamma(-s)\Gamma(\lambda+s)\,,
375: \end{equation}
376: where the integration contour $C$ runs from $-i\infty$ to $+i\infty$ such that it separates the poles generated
377: by the two $\Gamma$ functions. In this way all powers of a sum of several terms could be replaced by one- or
378: two-fold Mellin-Barnes integrals which made the integration over the Feynman parameters trivial. Finally, we
379: closed the integration contours $C$ sidewards by a half-circle with infinite radius and summed up the
380: enclosed residues. In our case all infinite sums involving the mass ratio $m_c/m_b$ could be reduced to the
381: inverse binomial sums given in \cite{Davydychev:2003mv}, and we obtained solutions for all two-loop integrals
382: which are valid for arbitrary values of $m_c/m_b$. We checked our analytical results for the master integrals
383: for several values of $m_c/m_b$ by numerically integrating over the Feynman parameter representations.
384:
385: Two other checks of our calculation are provided by taking the limits $m_c\to0$ and $m_c\to m_b$ of the
386: contributions of the 2-particle cuts proportional to $N_V$,
387: \begin{align}
388: \lim_{\rho\to 0}Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) &=
389: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)\,,\nonumber\\[2mm]
390: \lim_{\rho\to 1}Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) &=
391: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)\,,
392: \end{align}
393: which reproduce our results proportional to $N_L$ and $N_H$. Also the limit $\rho\to 1$ of the complete expression
394: $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,\mu)$ for $i=\mbox{NV}$ reduces to that for $i=\mbox{NH}$. We note, however, that it is not possible
395: to take the limit $\rho\to 0$ of the complete expression for $i=\mbox{NV}$ since we excluded the contributions with
396: massive $c\bar c$-pairs in the final state, and hence some $\ln\rho$ terms being present in
397: $Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}(z_0,\mu)$ parametrize infrared and collinear singularities. The last check concerns the
398: asymptotic behavior for $m_c\gg m_b$. In this limit our result for the complete expression with $i=\mbox{NV}$
399: reduces to
400: \begin{align}
401: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}(z_0,\mu) = \frac{364}{81} -
402: \left[\frac{224}{27}+\frac{8}{3}\,Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu)\right]\ln\!\left(\frac{\mu}{m_c}\right) +
403: \frac{64}{9}\,\ln^2\!\left(\frac{\mu}{m_c}\right)+O\left(\frac{1}{\rho}\right)\,,
404: \end{align}
405: which is in agreement with the asymptotic form found in \cite{Misiak:2004ew} (see equation (5.10) of that
406: reference).
407:
408: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
409:
410: \section{Numerical impact}
411:
412: \begin{figure}[t]
413: \begin{center}
414: \begin{tabular}{@{\hspace{5mm}}c@{\hspace{10mm}}c}
415: \epsfig{figure=figures/figure-1.eps,height=4.5cm} &
416: \epsfig{figure=figures/figure-2.eps,height=4.5cm}\\[-2mm]
417: \hspace*{.5cm}{\small $\rho$} & \hspace*{.6cm}{\small $\rho$}\\
418: \hspace*{-7.5cm}\begin{rotate}{90}\hspace*{23mm}{\small $Y^{(2,i)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,m_b)$}\end{rotate} &
419: \hspace*{-7.5cm}\begin{rotate}{90}\hspace*{23mm}{\small $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,m_b)$}\end{rotate}\\
420: \end{tabular}\\[-5mm]
421: \caption{\sl $Y^{(2,i)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,m_b)$ (left) and $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,m_b)$ (right) as a function of
422: $\rho=m_c^2/m_b^2$ for $i=\mbox{NL}$ (red solid line), $i=\mbox{NH}$ (blue dashed line) and $i=\mbox{NV}$
423: (black dotted curve). The vertical lines indicates the physical value $\rho\approx(0.262)^2.$}\label{plot}
424: \end{center}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427: In the left frame of figure \ref{plot} we show the dependence of the functions $Y^{(2,i)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,m_b)$
428: on the mass ratio $\rho=m_c^2/m_b^2$ for $i=\mbox{NL}$, $\mbox{NH}$, $\mbox{NV}$. As can be seen, the function
429: for $i=\mbox{NH}$ (blue dashed line) differs from that for $i=\mbox{NL}$ (red solid line) by a factor of about
430: $-0.5$. On the other hand, at the physical value $\rho\approx(0.262)^2$, the function for $i=\mbox{NV}$
431: (black dotted curve) has a smaller value of about 15\% compared to that for $i=\mbox{NL}$.
432:
433: The right frame of figure \ref{plot} displays the functions $Y^{(2,i)}(z_0,m_b)$ for $i=\mbox{NL}$, $\mbox{NH}$,
434: $\mbox{NV}$ as functions of the mass ratio $\rho$. They differ from the ones shown in the left frame by adding
435: the contributions from the 3- and 4-particle cuts, with the latter depending on the (rescaled) photon energy
436: cutoff $z_0$. The numerical value we chose in this illustration is given by $z_0=0.68$ and corresponds to
437: $E_0=1.6\,$GeV. As seen, the main effect of the bremsstrahlung corrections is to shift the function for
438: $i=\mbox{NL}$ (red solid line) and $i=\mbox{NV}$ (black dotted curve) down by a factor of about 1.7 and 1.3,
439: respectively. Also the aforementioned logarithmic singularity for $i=\mbox{NV}$ can be observed for $\rho\to 0$.
440: There is no shift for $i=\mbox{NH}$ (blue dashed line) since we set $\mu$ equal to $m_b$ in our illustration
441: (see (\ref{Yz0nh})).
442:
443: We remark that other values for the renormalization scale $\mu$ than $m_b$ lead merely to a
444: shift of the three curves plotted in the left frame of figure \ref{plot} by the same amount up or down. The
445: reason for this is that the three quantities given in (\ref{Y2cutsnl})--(\ref{Y2cutsnv}) have exactly the same
446: $\mu$-dependence. The same comment is also true for the three curves shown in the right frame of figure \ref{plot},
447: as can be seen from (\ref{Y0nl})--(\ref{Yz0nv}). However, it is clear that a variation of $\mu$ will change the
448: relative importance with which each individual contribution enters the function $G_{78}(E_0,\mu)$.
449: For example, the choice $\mu=1.2\,m_b$ leads to $Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}(z_0,\mu)\approx 0$, and hence the
450: fermionic corrections will be dominated by the two functions with $i=\mbox{NL}$ and $i=\mbox{NV}$. On the other
451: hand, for smaller values of $\mu$ than $m_b$ the situation can be reversed.
452:
453: Next, we compare the fermionic corrections at NNLO with the NLO result. Using the numerical values
454: $\alpha_s(m_b)=0.22$, $N_L=3$, $N_H=1$ and $N_V=1$ (for the other input parameters we use the same values as
455: before), we find
456: \begin{equation}
457: G_{78}(E_0,m_b) = 0.086 - 0.009 + \ldots = 0.077 + \ldots\,,
458: \end{equation}
459: where the two numbers after the first equality sign correspond to the $O(\alpha_s)$ and the fermionic
460: $O(\alpha_s^2)$ contributions given in (\ref{g77_exp}), and the ellipses denote the still unknown
461: $O(\alpha_s^2)$ terms proportional to $C_F$ and $C_A$ as well as higher order corrections. Thus, at $\mu=m_b$,
462: the effect of the NNLO fermionic corrections is to lower the NLO value of $G_{78}(E_0,m_b)$ by around 10\%.
463: For $\mu=2.5$ and $7.5\,$GeV, the $O(\alpha_s)$ term in $G_{78}(E_0,\mu)$ changes to 0.009 and 0.124,
464: respectively, and the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ correction shifts these values by around 3\% and -11\%, respectively.
465:
466: Finally, we estimate the effect of the fermionic corrections at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ on the branching ratio of
467: $\bar B\to X_s\gamma$. As seen in figure \ref{plot}, the contributions with massive charm quark loops
468: ($i=\mbox{NV}$) at the physical value $\rho\approx(0.262)^2$ are of comparable size as those with massless
469: quarks in the loops ($i=\mbox{NL}$). Hence, the charm quark mass effects can with good accuracy be described
470: by a single massless quark entering the large-$\beta_0$ approximation. On the other hand, approximating the
471: contributions due to massive bottom quark loops ($i=\mbox{NH}$) by massless ones is not very accurate (see
472: figure \ref{plot}). Here, however, one should bear in mind that in the physical application we have three
473: massless and only two massive quarks. That is the leading correction to $\text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma)$ will
474: be given by the sum of the contributions with $i=N_L$ and $i=N_V$, where the former is weighted by a factor
475: of three, and the correction due to the contribution with $i=N_H$ will only appear at the subleading level.
476: In fact, the exact result of the fermionic corrections at $\mu=m_b$ can be accurately approximated by setting
477: $N_L=3.6$ and $N_H=N_V=0$ in (\ref{colorf}). Thus, the effect of the massive bottom quark loops at $\mu=m_b$ can
478: be accounted for in the large-$\beta_0$ approximation by reducing the number of massless quark flavors by -0.4.
479: Given that the large-$\beta_0$ corrections of the $(O_7,O_8)$-interference affect the branching ratio of
480: $\bar B\to X_s\gamma$ by around 0.7\% for $\mu=m_b$, we conclude that this will not be altered drastically when
481: implementing the exact results for the fermionic corrections with massive quarks.\footnote{Here we should
482: mention that the effect of the large-$\beta_0$ corrections in the $(O_7,O_8)$-interference on the branching
483: ratio of $\bar B\to X_s\gamma$ stays below 1\% when varying $\mu$ between 1.25\,GeV and 5\,GeV.} We remark here
484: that for other values of the renormalization scale $\mu$ than $m_b$ it happens that the exact result can only
485: be approximated by the massless contribution when using a negative number of massless quark flavors. For
486: example, for $\mu=m_b/2$, the exact result can be approximated by setting $N_L=-1.32$ and $N_H=N_V=0$ in
487: (\ref{colorf}). Determining the effect of the new fermionic corrections on $\text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma)$ in
488: this case would require to repeat the interpolation procedure performed in \cite{Misiak:2004ew}. Since we expect
489: that it will also be 1\% at most (when combining large-$\beta_0$ and massive quark loop corrections), that is
490: below the total uncertainty given in (\ref{estimate}), we postpone this to a forthcoming analysis which will
491: also include other contributions not considered so far.
492:
493: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
494:
495: \section{Summary}
496:
497: In this paper we calculated the NNLO fermionic corrections to the total decay rate and the photon energy spectrum
498: induced by the interference of the electro- and chromomagnetic dipole operators. We confirmed the results for the
499: $O(\alpha_s^2\beta_0)$ terms given in \cite{Bieri:2003ue,Ligeti:1999ea} and also presented analytical results for
500: the contributions with massive bottom and charm quark loops. We expect that the combination of both the massless
501: and the massive quark loop contributions affects $\text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma)$ by 1\% at most.
502:
503: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
504:
505: \section*{\normalsize Acknowledgements}
506: \vspace*{-2mm}
507: I would like to thank Paolo Gambino, Christoph Greub and Mikolaj Misiak for comments on the final version of
508: this paper. I am also grateful to Mikolaj Misiak for detailed information about the numerical
509: effect of the $O(\alpha_s^2\beta_0)$ corrections in the $(O_7,O_8)$-interference on
510: $\text{Br}(\bar B\to X_s\gamma)$. This work was initiated when I was a postdoc at the Institute for Theoretical
511: Physics at the University of Bern and at that time it was supported in part by the EU Contract
512: No.~MRTN-CT-2006-035482, FLAVIAnet and by the Swiss National Foundation. Then, from October 2007 on, it was
513: supported in part by MIUR under contract 2004021808-009 and by a European Community's Marie-Curie Research
514: Training Network under contract MRTN-CT-2006-035505 `Tools and Precision Calculations for Physics Discoveries
515: at Colliders'.
516:
517: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
518:
519: \appendix
520:
521: \section{Two-particle cuts}\label{app_a}
522:
523: In this appendix we specify the contributions of the 2-particle cuts entering the functions $Y^{(1)}$ and
524: $Y^{(2,i)}$ with $i=\mbox{\small NL}$, $\mbox{\small NH}$, $\mbox{\small NV}$. To this end we write
525: \begin{equation}
526: Y^{(1)}(z_0,\mu) = Y^{(1)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) + Y^{(1)}_{3\text{-cuts}}(z_0,\mu)
527: \end{equation}
528: and
529: \begin{equation}
530: Y^{(2)}(z_0,\mu) = Y^{(2)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) +
531: Y^{(2)}_{3\text{-cuts}}(z_0,\mu) + Y^{(2)}_{4\text{-cuts}}(z_0,\mu)\,,
532: \end{equation}
533: with $Y^{(1)}_{n\text{-cuts}}$ and $Y^{(2)}_{n\text{-cuts}}$ summing all contributions of the $n$-particle cuts.
534: The contribution of the 2-particle cuts at $O(\alpha_s)$ reads
535: \begin{equation}
536: Y^{(1)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) = \frac{2}{9}\left(33-2\pi^2\right) + \frac{16}{3}\,L_\mu\,,\label{Y2cuts}
537: \end{equation}
538: and those at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ are given by
539: \begin{align}
540: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NL}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) &= -\frac{16}{81}\left(157-8\pi^2\right) -
541: \frac{16}{27}\left(47-2\pi^2\right)L_\mu-\frac{64}{9}\,L_\mu^2 +
542: \frac{64}{9}\,\zeta_3\,,\label{Y2cutsnl}\\[3mm]
543: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NH}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) &= \frac{8}{81}\left(244-27\sqrt{3}\,\pi-61\pi^2\right) -
544: \frac{16}{27}\left(47-2\pi ^2\right)L_\mu\nonumber\\[2mm]
545: &\qquad -\frac{64}{9}\,L_\mu^2-\frac{64}{27}\,\zeta_3 +
546: 32\sqrt{3}\,\text{Cl}_2\left(\frac{\pi}{3}\right)\,,\label{Y2cutsnh}\\[3mm]
547: Y^{(2,\mbox{{\tiny NV}})}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu) &=
548: -\frac{16}{81}\left[157-279\rho-\pi^2\left(5+9\rho^2-42\rho^{3/2}\right)\right] -
549: \frac{16}{27}\left(47-2\pi^2\right)L_\mu\nonumber\\[2mm]
550: &\qquad -\frac{64}{9}\,L_\mu^2+\frac{8}{27}\left(19+20\rho\right)\ln\rho +
551: \frac{16}{27}\left(8+9\rho^2\right)\ln^2\!\rho\nonumber\\[2mm]
552: &\qquad -\frac{16}{27}\,\ln^3\!\rho-\frac{8}{9}\left(1-6\rho^2\right)\Phi_1(\rho) -
553: \frac{8}{27}(19-46\rho)\,\Phi_2(\rho)\nonumber\\[2mm]
554: &\qquad -\frac{32}{27}(13+14\rho)\,\Phi_3(\rho)-\frac{64}{9}\,\Phi_4(\rho) -
555: \frac{32}{9}\,\ln\rho\,\text{Li}_2(1-\rho)\nonumber\\[2mm]
556: &\qquad +\frac{32}{27}\left(5+9\rho^2+14\rho^{3/2}\right)\text{Li}_2(1-\rho) -
557: \frac{1792}{27}\rho^{3/2}\,\text{Li}_2\left(1-\sqrt{\rho}\right)\nonumber\\[2mm]
558: &\qquad +\frac{64}{9}\,\text{Li}_3(1-\rho)+\frac{64}{9}\,
559: \text{Li}_3\left(1-\frac{1}{\rho}\right)\,.\label{Y2cutsnv}
560: \end{align}
561: In writing our results at $O(\alpha_s^2)$ we tacitly performed a splitting of $Y^{(2)}_{2\text{-cuts}}(0,\mu)$
562: into terms being proportional to certain combinations of colorfactors, in complete analogy to what we did in
563: (\ref{colorf}). We remark that all contributions given above are by themselves free of infrared and collinear
564: singularities, as well as independent of the gauge parameter entering the gluon propagator.
565:
566: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567:
568: \section{Auxiliary functions}\label{app_b}
569:
570: Here we collect the four auxiliary functions $\Phi_n(\rho)$ introduced in section \ref{sec_2}. They are defined as
571: follows,
572: \begin{align}
573: \displaystyle\Phi_1(\rho) &= \theta(1-4\rho)\left[\ln^2y-\pi^2\right] -
574: \theta(4\rho-1)\,\text{arccos}^2\left(1-\frac{1}{2\rho}\right)\,,\\[3mm]
575: \displaystyle\Phi_2(\rho) &= \sqrt{|1-4\rho|}\left\{\theta(1-4\rho)\,\ln y -
576: \theta(4\rho-1)\,\text{arccos}\left(1-\frac{1}{2\rho}\right)\right\}\,,\\[3mm]
577: \displaystyle\Phi_3(\rho) &= \sqrt{|1-4\rho|}\,\bigg\{\theta(1-4\rho)\left[\text{Li}_2\left(-y\right) +
578: \frac{1}{4}\ln^2y+\frac{\pi^2}{12}\right]\nonumber\\[2mm]
579: &\hspace{3cm}
580: -\theta(4\rho-1)\,\text{Cl}_2\!\left(2\,\text{arcsin}
581: \left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\rho}}\right)\right)\bigg\}\,,\\[3mm]
582: \displaystyle\Phi_4(\rho) &= \theta(1-4\rho)\left[\text{Li}_3\left(-y\right) +
583: \frac{1}{12}\ln^3y+\frac{\pi^2}{12}\ln y\right]\nonumber\\[2mm]
584: &\qquad +\theta(4\rho-1)\,\text{Cl}_3\!\left(2\,\text{arcsin}\left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\rho}}\right)\right)\,,
585: \end{align}
586: where $\theta(z)$ is Heavyside's step function,
587: \begin{equation}
588: y=\frac{1-\sqrt{\rule[0mm]{0mm}{3.1mm}1-4 \rho }}{1+\sqrt{\rule[0mm]{0mm}{3.1mm}1-4 \rho }}\,,
589: \end{equation}
590: and $\rho>0$. The definitions of the two Clausen functions appearing in the above given equations
591: read \cite{Lewin}
592: \begin{equation}
593: \text{Cl}_2(z) = \text{Im}\!\left[\text{Li}_2\left(e^{i z}\right)\right]\,,
594: \qquad\text{Cl}_3(z) = \text{Re}\!\left[\text{Li}_3\left(e^{-i z}\right)\right]\,,
595: \end{equation}
596: and those of the polylogarithms are given by
597: \begin{equation}
598: \mbox{Li}_2(z) = -\int_0^z\!{\rm d}x\,\frac{\ln(1-x)}{x}\,,
599: \qquad\mbox{Li}_3(z) = \int_0^z\!{\rm d}x\,\frac{\mbox{Li}_2(x)}{x}\,.
600: \end{equation}
601:
602: % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
603:
604: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
605:
606: \bibitem{Chen:2001fja}
607: S.~Chen {\it et al.} [CLEO Collab.],
608: % Branching fraction and photon energy spectrum for b --> s gamma
609: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 251807 [arXiv:hep-ex/0108032].
610: %%CITATION = PRLTA,87,251807;%%
611:
612: \bibitem{Aubert:2007my}
613: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collab.],
614: % Measurement of the B --> X_s gamma Branching Fraction and Photon Energy
615: % Spectrum using the Recoil Method
616: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77} (2008) 051103 [arXiv:0711.4889].
617: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D77,051103;%%
618:
619: \bibitem{Abe:2008sx}
620: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collab.],
621: % Improved Measurement of Inclusive Radiative B-meson decays
622: arXiv:0804.1580.
623: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0804.1580;%%
624:
625: \bibitem{Barberio:2007cr}
626: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group],
627: % Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2006
628: arXiv:0704.3575; online update available at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/.
629: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0704.3575;%%
630:
631: \bibitem{Misiak:2006zs}
632: M.~Misiak {\it et al.},
633: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett. {\bf 98} (2007) 022002 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609232].
634:
635: \bibitem{Misiak:2004ew}
636: M.~Misiak and M.~Steinhauser,
637: % Three-loop matching of the dipole operators for b -> s gamma and b -> s g
638: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 683} (2004) 277 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401041].
639:
640: \bibitem{Gorbahn:2004my}
641: M.~Gorbahn and U.~Haisch,
642: % Effective Hamiltonian for non-leptonic |Delta(F)| = 1 decays at NNLO in QCD
643: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 713} (2005) 291 [arXiv:hep-ph/0411071].
644:
645: \bibitem{Gorbahn:2005sa}
646: M.~Gorbahn, U.~Haisch and M.~Misiak,
647: % Three-loop mixing of dipole operators
648: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95} (2005) 102004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0504194].
649:
650: \bibitem{Czakon:2006ss}
651: M.~Czakon, U.~Haisch and M.~Misiak,
652: % Four-loop anomalous dimensions for radiative flavour-changing decays
653: JHEP {\bf 0703} (2007) 008 [arXiv:hep-ph/0612329].
654:
655: \bibitem{Blokland:2005uk}
656: I.~Blokland, A.~Czarnecki, M.~Misiak, M.~Slusarczyk and F.~Tkachov,
657: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 033014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506055].
658:
659: \bibitem{Melnikov:2005bx}
660: K.~Melnikov and A.~Mitov, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620} (2005) 69 [arXiv:hep-ph/0505097].
661:
662: \bibitem{Asatrian:2006ph}
663: H.~M.~Asatrian, A.~Hovhannisyan, V.~Poghosyan, T.~Ewerth, C.~Greub and T.~Hurth,
664: % NNLL QCD contribution of the electromagnetic dipole operator to Gamma(anti-B --> X/s gamma)
665: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 749} (2006) 325 [arXiv:hep-ph/0605009].
666: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B749,325;%%
667:
668: \bibitem{Asatrian:2006sm}
669: H.~M.~Asatrian, T.~Ewerth, A.~Ferroglia, P.~Gambino and C.~Greub,
670: % Magnetic dipole operator contributions to the photon energy spectrum in anti-B --> X/s gamma
671: % at O(alpha(s)**2)
672: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 762} (2007) 212 [arXiv:hep-ph/0607316].
673: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B762,212;%%
674:
675: \bibitem{Bieri:2003ue}
676: K.~Bieri, C.~Greub and M.~Steinhauser,
677: % Fermionic NNLL corrections to b --> s gamma
678: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 114019 [arXiv:hep-ph/0302051].
679: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D67,114019;%%
680:
681: \bibitem{Misiak:2006ab}
682: M.~Misiak and M.~Steinhauser,
683: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 764} (2007) 62 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609241].
684:
685: \bibitem{Ligeti:1999ea}
686: Z.~Ligeti, M.~E.~Luke, A.~V.~Manohar and M.~B.~Wise,
687: % The anti-B --> X/s gamma photon spectrum
688: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 034019 [arXiv:hep-ph/9903305].
689: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D60,034019;%%
690:
691: \bibitem{Asatrian:2006rq}
692: H.~M.~Asatrian, T.~Ewerth, H.~Gabrielyan and C.~Greub,
693: % Charm quark mass dependence of the electromagnetic dipole operator contribution to
694: % anti-B --> X/s gamma at O(alpha(s)**2)
695: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 647} (2007) 173 [arXiv:hep-ph/0611123].
696: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B647,173;%%
697:
698: \bibitem{Boughezal:2007ny}
699: R.~Boughezal, M.~Czakon and T.~Schutzmeier,
700: % NNLO fermionic corrections to the charm quark mass dependent matrix elements in B -> X_s gamma
701: JHEP {\bf 0709} (2007) 072 [arXiv:0707.3090].
702: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0709,072;%%
703:
704: \bibitem{Gambino:2008fj}
705: P.~Gambino and P.~Giordano,
706: % Normalizing inclusive rare B decays
707: arXiv:0805.0271.
708: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0805.0271;%%
709:
710: \bibitem{Melnikov:2008qs}
711: K.~Melnikov,
712: % O(\alpha_s^2) corrections to semileptonic decay b \to c l \bar \nu_l
713: arXiv:0803.0951.
714: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0951;%%
715:
716: \bibitem{Pak:2008qt}
717: A.~Pak and A.~Czarnecki,
718: % Mass effects in muon and semileptonic b -> c decays
719: arXiv:0803.0960.
720: %%CITATION = ARXIV:0803.0960;%%
721:
722: \bibitem{Neubert:2004dd}
723: M.~Neubert, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 40} (2005) 165 [arXiv:hep-ph/0408179].
724:
725: \bibitem{Becher:2005pd}
726: T.~Becher and M.~Neubert, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 739 [arXiv:hep-ph/0512208].
727:
728: \bibitem{Becher:2006qw}
729: T.~Becher and M.~Neubert, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 637} (2006) 251 [arXiv:hep-ph/0603140].
730:
731: %\bibitem{Becher:2006pu}
732: % T.~Becher and M.~Neubert,
733: % % Analysis of Br(B --> X/s gamma) at NNLO with a cut on photon energy
734: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98} (2007) 022003 [arXiv:hep-ph/0610067];
735: % %%CITATION = PRLTA,98,022003;%%
736: % see also M.\ Misiak, talk given at the 2nd Workshop on Flavour Dynamics, Albufeira, Portugal,
737: % November 3-10, 2007, http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/lsfritzsch/albufeira/.
738:
739: \bibitem{Andersen:2006hr}
740: J.~R.~Andersen and E.~Gardi,
741: % Radiative B decay spectrum: DGE at NNLO
742: JHEP {\bf 0701} (2007) 029 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609250].
743: %%CITATION = JHEPA,0701,029;%%
744:
745: \bibitem{Lee:2006wn}
746: S.~J.~Lee, M.~Neubert and G.~Paz,
747: % Enhanced non-local power corrections to the B --> X/s+ gamma decay rate
748: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 75} (2007) 114005 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609224].
749: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D75,114005;%%
750:
751: \bibitem{workinprogress}
752: H.~M.~Asatrian, T.~Ewerth, A.~Ferroglia, C.~Greub, and G.~Ossola, work in progress.
753:
754: \bibitem{Misiak:1994zw}
755: M.~Misiak and M.~M{\"u}nz,
756: % Two loop mixing of dimension five flavor changing operators
757: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 344} (1995) 308 [arXiv:hep-ph/9409454].
758: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B344,308;%%
759:
760: \bibitem{Smirnov:1999gc}
761: V.~A.~Smirnov,
762: % Analytical result for dimensionally regularized massless on-shell double box
763: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 460} (1999) 397 [arXiv:hep-ph/9905323].
764: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B460,397;%%
765:
766: \bibitem{Tausk:1999vh}
767: J.~B.~Tausk,
768: % Non-planar massless two-loop Feynman diagrams with four on-shell legs
769: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 469} (1999) 225 [arXiv:hep-ph/9909506].
770: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B469,225;%%
771:
772: \bibitem{Davydychev:2003mv}
773: A.~I.~Davydychev and M.~Y.~Kalmykov,
774: % Massive Feynman diagrams and inverse binomial sums
775: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 699} (2004) 3 [arXiv:hep-th/0303162].
776: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B699,3;%%
777:
778: \bibitem{Lewin}
779: L.~Lewin, {\sl Polylogarithms and associated functions}, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981.
780:
781: \end{thebibliography}
782:
783: \end{document}
784: