1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{psfig}
4:
5:
6: \newcommand{\lsim}{\lower.7ex\hbox{$
7: \;\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}\;$}}
8: \def\order#1{{\cal O}\left(#1\right)}
9: \def\ep{\epsilon}
10: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{
18: %
19: %preprint number:
20: %
21: \[ \vspace{-2cm} \]
22: \noindent\hfill\hbox{\rm } \vskip 1pt
23: \noindent\hfill\hbox{\rm Alberta Thy 17-01} \vskip 1pt
24: \noindent\hfill\hbox{\rm SLAC-PUB-9101} \vskip 1pt
25: \noindent\hfill\hbox{\rm hep-ph/0112264} \vskip 10pt
26: %
27: % now the title:
28: %
29: %\title{
30: Semileptonic $b\to u$ decays: lepton invariant mass spectrum
31: }
32:
33: \author{Andrzej Czarnecki}
34: \affiliation{
35: Department of Physics, University of Alberta\\
36: Edmonton, AB\ \ T6G 2J1, Canada\\
37: E-mail: czar@phys.ualberta.ca}
38:
39: \author{Kirill Melnikov}
40: \affiliation{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center\\
41: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309\\
42: E-mail: melnikov@slac.stanford.edu}
43:
44:
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: We compute ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ QCD corrections to the lepton
48: invariant mass spectrum in the decay $b \to u l \nu_l$, relevant for
49: the determination of the CKM matrix element $|V_{ub}|$. Our method
50: can also be used to evaluate moments of the lepton energy distribution
51: with an ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ accuracy.
52: The abelian part of our result gives the neutrino invariant mass
53: spectrum in the muon decay and, upon integration, the
54: $\order{\alpha^2}$ correction to the muon lifetime.
55: \end{abstract}
56:
57: \pacs{12.15.Hh,12.38.Bx,13.20.-v,13.35.-r}
58: \maketitle
59:
60: Determination of the CKM matrix elements from precision studies in
61: $B$-physics is one of the main goals of experiments BaBar and
62: Belle, under way at SLAC and KEK. These studies are expected to
63: provide important insights into flavor physics, in particular to shed
64: light on the origin of the CP-violation and, possibly, discover ``New
65: Physics.''
66:
67: The two CKM parameters directly accessible at $B$-factories,
68: $|V_{cb}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$, strongly differ in magnitude, with the
69: former being about ten times larger than the latter. An accurate
70: determination of $|V_{cb}|$ is much easier since the relevant decay
71: rates are relatively large and the backgrounds are small. For
72: $|V_{ub}|$, the theoretically favorable methods are not feasible
73: experimentally, whereas interpretation of clean experimental
74: signatures suffers from large theoretical uncertainties.
75:
76: Extraction of $|V_{ub}|$ from inclusive semileptonic decays of $B$
77: mesons requires a suppression of the much larger contribution of $b
78: \to c$ transitions. In order to do so one has to impose cuts on
79: various observables and several options have been discussed in the
80: literature. For example, one can select events with large energy of
81: the charged lepton, which can be produced only in $b\to u$ decays, or
82: require that the hadron invariant mass be smaller than the lightest
83: charmed meson $D$.
84:
85: Unfortunately, such cuts are so severe that the rate of the remaining
86: events cannot be predicted using the Heavy Quark Expansion. For
87: example, imposing the cut on the electron energy induces a sensitivity
88: of the decay rate to the $B$-meson light-cone wave function which is
89: not very well known. It can in principle be extracted from
90: measurements of the photon energy spectrum in $b \to s \gamma$.
91: However, the relevant theoretical analysis has only been performed in
92: the limit of an infinite $b$ quark mass and the potentially sizable
93: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$ corrections are not under control. It is
94: desirable, therefore, to have an alternative combination of cuts which
95: can remove the charm background, keep a significant fraction of $b \to
96: u$ events, and preserve the applicability of the standard Heavy Quark
97: Expansion.
98:
99: Recently, a method fulfilling these requirements has been proposed by
100: Bauer, Ligeti and Luke \cite{Bauer:2000xf,Bauer:2001rc}. Their idea
101: consists in extracting $|V_{ub}|$ from inclusive semileptonic decays
102: $b \to u l \nu_l$ by applying a cut on the invariant mass of the
103: leptons $q^2$. To eliminate the charm background, one requires $q^2 >
104: q_0^2 = (m_B - m_D)^2 \approx 11.6~{\rm GeV}^2$. It turns out that
105: this cut is mild enough to keep significant fraction of $b \to u$
106: transitions and also the energy release is sufficiently large so that
107: the standard methods of the Heavy Quark Expansion in $1/m_b$ can be
108: applied with confidence. Of course, there are several sources of the
109: theoretical uncertainties associated with this method, including in
110: roughly equal measure the value of the $b$ quark mass, the
111: non-perturbative power corrections (of third order in the ratio of
112: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and the characteristic momentum flow), and the
113: two-loop perturbative QCD corrections \cite{Neubert:2001ib}. The
114: calculation of this last effect is the main purpose of this Letter.
115:
116: The difficulty connected with such corrections is that they involve
117: the $q^2$ distribution, rather than the total decay rate. While
118: two-loop corrections to charged particle decays are in general
119: challenging (the first calculations for specific kinematic
120: configurations or the total decay rates have been completed only
121: recently, see e.g.~\cite{zerorecoil,Czarnecki:1997hc,%
122: vanRitbergen:1998yd,vanRitbergen:1999gs}), two-loop corrections to the
123: decay distributions have never been evaluated so far.
124:
125:
126:
127: \begin{figure}[htb]
128: \hspace*{-38mm}
129: \begin{minipage}{16.cm}
130: \begin{tabular}{cc}
131: \psfig{figure=MuDec1.ps,width=40mm}
132: &\hspace*{0mm}
133: \psfig{figure=MuDec2.ps,width=40mm}
134: \\[1mm]
135: (a) & (b)\\
136: \\[1mm]
137: \multicolumn{2}{c}{\psfig{figure=MuDec3.ps,width=40mm}}
138: \\
139: \multicolumn{2}{c}{(c)}
140: \end{tabular}
141: \end{minipage}
142: \caption{Examples of diagrams whose cuts contribute to the
143: semileptonic decay $b\to u \,l\, \nu_l$: (a) abelian; (b) light or
144: heavy quarks; (c) non-abelian.}
145: \label{fig:loops}
146: \end{figure}
147:
148:
149:
150: In the present calculation we take advantage of the fact that, for the
151: experimentally interesting case, the invariant mass of the leptons is
152: large. We introduce an expansion parameter $\delta = (m_b^2 -
153: q^2)/m_b^2$. In $b\to u$ studies using cuts proposed in
154: \cite{Bauer:2000xf,Bauer:2001rc} the maximal value of $\delta$ is
155: about 0.5 for $q^2 = q_0^2$. Obviously, increasing $q^2$ results in a
156: rapid decrease of $\delta$, so that $\delta$ can be considered as a
157: small parameter in the region of interest $q^2 > q_0^2$. Therefore,
158: by constructing an algorithm for expanding the relevant Feynman
159: diagrams around $\delta=0$ and computing several terms of such an
160: expansion, we can derive the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$ correction to the
161: dilepton invariant mass spectrum valid in the region of experimental
162: interest.
163:
164:
165: Examples of diagrams we have to consider in studying the semileptonic
166: $b\to u$ decay at $\order{\alpha_s^2}$ are shown in
167: Fig.~\ref{fig:loops}. The optical theorem connects the imaginary part
168: of such diagrams with contributions to the decay. We first integrate
169: over the lepton and neutrino phase space, thereby reducing the problem
170: to the decay $b \to W^*(q^2) u$, where $W^*$ is a virtual $W$ boson
171: with an invariant mass $q^2$. In the limit $\delta \to 0$, $q^2$
172: approaches $m_b^2$. Therefore, due to phase space constraints, $W^*$
173: becomes static. The expansion in $\delta$ is constructed by applying
174: the Heavy Quark/Boson Expansion to the Feynman diagrams. The only
175: unusual feature in our case is that the initial $b$-quark is on the
176: mass shell. In the HQET limit, this leads to propagators of the type
177: $1/(2pk)$, whereas the $W^*$ boson is off-shell so that its propagator
178: has the form $1/(2pk + \delta)$.
179:
180:
181: Since we are interested in the $\order{\alpha_s^2}$ corrections to the
182: decay distributions, we have to consider the three-loop diagrams of
183: the self-energy type, like those shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:loops} and
184: extract their imaginary parts. Initially, there are two scales in the
185: problem: using $m_b$ as a unit of energy, these scales can be
186: expressed as $\order{1}$ and $\order{\delta}$. We employ asymptotic
187: expansions to indentify contributions arising from these widely
188: separated scales. The region with all loop momenta of $\order{1}$
189: does not contribute to the imaginary part since it is analytic
190: (polynomial) in $\delta$. When some loop momenta are $\order{
191: \delta}$ and others are $\order{1}$, a three-loop diagram factorizes
192: into a product of one- and/or two-loop diagrams and is easy to
193: evaluate.
194:
195: The non-trivial part of the calculation is the HQET limit where all
196: loop momenta are of $\order{\delta}$. These diagrams are similar to
197: the three-loop HQET diagrams
198: \cite{Grozin:2000jv,Grozin:2001fw,Czarnecki:2001rh} but not identical
199: with them, since some of the lines in the present case are
200: on-shell. We have constructed an algorithm based on recurrence
201: relations and integration-by-parts identities \cite{che81} with which
202: one can reduce any relevant three-loop diagram to a linear combination
203: of a few master integrals. Four of these master integrals are new. We
204: compute them in the Euclidean ($p^2=-1$), $D=4-2\ep$ dimensional
205: space.
206:
207: Propagators occuring in the master integrals are denoted by
208: $D_1 = k_1^2,~D_2=k_2^2,~D_3 = k_3^2,~
209: D_4 = (k_1-k_2)^2,~D_5 =(k_2-k_3)^2,~D_6=2pk_1,~D_7 = 2pk_2,
210: ~D_8 = 2pk_3,
211: ~D_9=2pk_1+2pk_2,~
212: D_{10} = 2pk_1+2pk_3,~D_{11} = 2pk_1 + 2pk_2+2pk_3$. The four new
213: results are
214: \ba
215: \lefteqn{I_1 = \int \frac{{\rm d}^D k_1 \; {\rm d}^D k_2}{D_1^{\ep} D_2
216: D_4 D_6 (D_7 + 1)}
217: = C_\ep^2 \left [ -\frac{1}{24\ep^2} - \frac{5}{24\ep} \right.}
218: \nonumber \\
219: &&
220: -\frac {13}{24} - \frac{17 \pi^2}{48}
221: +\ep \left ( \frac{23}{24}-\frac{85\pi^2}{48}
222: -\frac{11}{6}\zeta_3 \right )
223: \nonumber \\
224: && \left.
225: +\ep^2 \left ( \frac{623}{24}-\frac{55}{6}\zeta_3-\frac{95}{16}\pi^2
226: -\frac {16523 \pi^4}{8640} \right ) +\order{\ep^3} \right ],
227: \nonumber
228: \ea
229: \vspace*{-5mm}
230: \ba
231: I_2 &=& \int \frac{{\rm d}^D k_1 \; {\rm d}^D k_2 \; {\rm d}^D
232: k_3}{D_1 D_2 D_3
233: D_9 D_{10} (D_{11}+1) }
234: \nonumber \\
235: &=& C_\ep^3 \left [
236: \frac {1}{\ep} \left ( - \frac {5}{18} + \frac {\pi^2}{36} \right )
237: - \frac {9}{2} + \frac {\pi^2}{6} + \frac {7}{3}\zeta_3
238: \right.
239: \nonumber \\
240: &&
241: \qquad
242: \left.
243: + \ep \Big ( - \frac {91}{2}
244: - \frac {\pi^2}{6} + \frac {11 \pi^4}{36} + 14\zeta_3 \Big )
245: +\order{\ep^2}
246: \right ],
247: \nonumber \\
248: I_3 &=& \int \frac{{\rm d}^D k_1 \; {\rm d}^D k_2 \; {\rm d}^D
249: k_3}{D_1 D_3 D_4 D_5
250: D_6 D_7 (D_8+1) }
251: \nonumber \\
252: &=& C_\ep^3 \left [
253: -\frac {\pi^2}{36 \ep^2}
254: + \frac {1}{\ep} \left ( \frac{2}{3}\zeta_3-\frac{2\pi^2}{9}\right )
255: \right. \nonumber \\
256: && \left.
257: \qquad
258: + \frac{16}{3}\zeta_3- \frac {13\pi^2}{9}-\frac{47\pi^4}{270}
259: +\order{\ep}
260: \right ],
261: \nonumber \\
262: I_4 &=& \int \frac{{\rm d}^D k_1 \; {\rm d}^D k_2 \; {\rm d}^D
263: k_3}{D_1 D_3 D_4 D_5
264: D_6 (D_7+1) D_8 }
265: \nonumber \\
266: &=& C_\ep^3 \left [
267: -\frac {\zeta_3}{\ep} -8\zeta_3-\frac {\pi^4}{60}
268: +\order{\ep}
269: \right ].
270: \ea
271: In the above formulas $\zeta_3$ is the Riemann zeta function,
272: $\zeta_3 = \sum \limits_{i=1}^{\infty} 1/i^3$, and
273: $C_\ep \equiv \pi^{2-\ep}\Gamma(1+\ep)$.
274:
275:
276: Using recurrence relations to reduce all loop integrals to a
277: combination of master integrals (these algebraic manipulations are
278: done with FORM \cite{form3}), we obtain the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2)$
279: correction to the dilepton invariant mass spectrum (we use the pole
280: mass $m_b$ and the $\overline{\rm MS}$ scheme for $\alpha_s$)
281: \be
282: \frac{1}{\Gamma_0} \frac {{\rm d}\Gamma}{{\rm d}|\delta|}
283: = 6\delta^2 - 4\delta^3
284: + \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{\pi}\, X_1
285: + \left (\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \right )^2 X_2,
286: \label{rate}
287: \ee
288: where $\Gamma_0 = G_F^2|V_{ub}|^2 m_b^5/192\pi^3$ and $X_{1,2}$ denote
289: the one- \cite{Jezabek:1993wk}
290: and two-loop corrections, respectively,
291: \ba
292: \lefteqn{\hspace*{-1.1mm}
293: X_1= C_F \left [
294: \delta^2 \left ( \frac{27}{2} - 9 L - 4\pi^2 \right )
295: +\delta^3 \left ( \frac{2}{3} - 2 L + \frac{8}{3}\pi^2 \right )
296: \right.}
297: \nonumber \\
298: && \left. +\delta^4 \left ( L - \frac {13}{3} \right)
299: - \frac {19}{30} \delta^5
300: -\delta^6 \left( \frac {31}{180} + \frac{L}{6} \right)
301: +\order{\delta^7}
302: \right ], \nonumber
303: \\
304: \lefteqn{\hspace*{-1.1mm}
305: X_2 = C_F \left ( C_F X_{\rm A} + C_A X_{\rm NA} + T_R N_L X_{\rm L}
306: + T_R N_H X_{\rm H} \right )}
307: \label{defx}
308: \ea
309: where $L=\ln\delta$ and $C_F=4/3$, $C_A=3$, and $T_R=1/2$ are the
310: usual SU(3) color factors and $N_L$ and $N_H$ denote the number of light
311: ($m_q=0$) and heavy ($m_q=m_b$) quark species. We use the
312: approximation $m_c = m_b$ since for $q^2 > q_0^2$ there is no phase
313: space available for charm quark production. If needed, corrections for
314: $m_c \neq m_b$ in virtual effects can easily be computed.
315:
316: For the coefficients $X_{\rm A},~X_{\rm NA},~X_{\rm L},~X_{\rm H}$ we
317: find
318: \ba
319: \lefteqn{ X_{\rm A} = \delta^2 \Bigg\{
320: \frac{27}{4} L^2 - \left ( \frac{147}{8} -4\pi^2 \right )L
321: +\frac{523}{16} - \frac{39}{2}\zeta_3}
322: \nonumber \\
323: &&\qquad + 7 \pi^2 \ln 2
324: - \frac{71 \pi^2}{6} + \frac{16 \pi^4}{15}
325: \nonumber \\
326: &&
327: + \delta \left[ \frac {15}{2} L^2 - \left (\frac{287}{12}
328: - \frac{10 \pi^2}{9} \right ) L
329: \right. \nonumber \\
330: && \left. \qquad
331: + \frac {1363}{72} - \frac{2}{3}\pi^2 \ln 2 - \frac{217}{108}\pi^2
332: - \frac{32 \pi^4}{45} \right]
333: \nonumber \\
334: && + \delta^2 \left[ \frac {17}{4} L^2
335: - \left (\frac{67}{6} + \frac{17 \pi^2}{18} \right ) L
336: + \frac{1537}{144}
337: \right.
338: \nonumber \\
339: && \left.
340: \qquad - \frac {5}{6}\pi^2\ln 2 + \frac {937 \pi^2}{432} \right ]
341: \nonumber \\
342: &&
343: + \delta^3 \left[ \frac{11}{3}L^2 - \left (
344: \frac{269}{45} + \frac{8 \pi^2}{45} \right ) L
345: + \frac{43609}{21600}
346: \right. \nonumber \\
347: && \left.
348: \qquad
349: - \frac{1}{2}\zeta_3 - \frac{\pi^2}{5}\ln 2
350: + \frac{7609 \pi^2}{10800} \right]
351: \nonumber \\
352: &&
353: + \delta^4 \left[ \frac{77}{30}L^2 - \frac{3071}{600}L
354: +\frac{579137}{162000} - \frac{17}{40}\zeta_3
355: \right. \nonumber \\
356: && \left.
357: \qquad
358: - \frac{\pi^2}{20}\ln 2
359: - \frac{451}{1080}\pi^2 \right] \Bigg\},
360: \nonumber \\
361: \lefteqn{ X_{\rm NA} = \delta^2 \Bigg\{
362: \frac{33}{4} L^2 - \left ( \frac{423}{8} - \frac{47\pi^2}{6} \right ) L
363: + \frac{1103}{16} }
364: \nonumber \\
365: &&
366: \qquad
367: - \frac {129}{4}\zeta_3
368: - \frac{7\pi^2}{2}\ln 2 - \frac{881 \pi^2}{72} + \frac{13 \pi^4}{30}
369: \nonumber \\
370: &&
371: + \delta \left[\frac {4}{3} L^2
372: + \left ( \frac {155}{36} - 4 \pi^2 \right ) L
373: \right. \nonumber \\
374: && \left.
375: \qquad
376: - \frac{623}{27} + 24\zeta_3
377: + \frac{\pi^2}{3} \ln 2 + \frac{247 \pi^2}{24} - \frac{13 \pi^4}{45}
378: \right]
379: \nonumber \\
380: &&
381: + \delta^2 \left[ -\frac{17}{12} L^2
382: + \left (\frac{1877}{144} - \frac{\pi^2}{12} \right ) L
383: - \frac{18319}{864}
384: \right. \nonumber \\
385: && \left.
386: \qquad
387: - \frac{1}{4}\zeta_3
388: + \frac{5 \pi^2}{12}\ln 2
389: - \frac{19 \pi^2}{288} \right]
390: \nonumber \\
391: &&
392: + \delta^3 \left[ -\frac{11}{24} L^2
393: + \left (\frac{139}{45} + \frac {\pi^2}{45} \right ) L
394: \right. \nonumber \\
395: && \left.
396: \qquad - \frac {52379}{21600}
397: -\frac {\zeta_3}{20} + \frac{\pi^2}{10}\ln 2
398: - \frac{5041 \pi^2}{21600} \right]
399: \nonumber \\
400: &&
401: + \delta^4 \left[ \frac{2}{15} L^2
402: + \left (\frac{36433}{21600}
403: + \frac{7 \pi^2}{180} \right ) L
404: - \frac{1025099}{648000}
405: \right. \nonumber \\
406: && \left.
407: \qquad
408: + \frac{1}{80}\zeta_3
409: + \frac{\pi^2}{40}\ln 2
410: + \frac{1243 \pi^2}{5400} \right]
411: \Bigg\},
412: \nonumber
413: \\
414: \lefteqn{X_{\rm L} = \delta^2 \Bigg\{
415: - 3 L^2 + \left ( \frac{39}{2} - \frac{8 \pi^2}{3} \right ) L
416: - \frac {117}{4}}
417: \nonumber \\
418: &&
419: \qquad + 12\zeta_3 + \frac{41 \pi^2}{9}
420: \nonumber \\
421: && + \delta \left[ - \frac{2}{3} L^2
422: -\left (\frac{31}{9} -\frac{16\pi^2}{9} \right )L
423: + \frac{797}{54} \right.
424: \nonumber \\ &&
425: \left.
426: \qquad - 8\zeta_3 - \frac{106\pi^2}{27} \right ]
427: \nonumber \\
428: && + \delta^2 \left[ \frac{1}{3} L^2 -\frac{37}{9}L
429: + \frac{1289}{216} + \frac{\pi^2}{9} \right]
430: \nonumber \\
431: &&
432: + \delta^3 \left[ - \frac{6}{5} L + \frac{1817}{1800} \right]
433: \nonumber \\
434: &&
435: + \delta^4 \left[ -\frac{1}{18}L^2 - \frac{98}{135} L
436: + \frac{8129}{16200} - \frac{\pi^2}{54} \right]
437: \Bigg\}.
438: \nonumber \\
439: X_{\rm H} &=&\delta^2\Bigg[ {133\over 8} - {5\over 3} \pi^2
440: + \delta \left( - {797\over 108 } + { 2\over 3} \pi^2 \right)
441: \nonumber \\
442: &&+ \delta \left( {2473\over 2700} - {1\over 18 } \pi^2 - {1\over 5}
443: L\right)
444: \nonumber \\
445: &&
446: + \delta^2 \left( {1747\over 2700} - {1\over 15 } \pi^2 - {2\over 15}
447: L\right)
448: \nonumber \\
449: &&
450: + \delta^3 \left( {816239\over 1587600} - {29\over 540 } \pi^2
451: - {187\over 1260} L
452: \right)
453: \nonumber \\
454: &&+ \delta^4 \left( {36059\over 88200} - {3\over 70 } \pi^2
455: - {103\over 630} L \right)\Bigg].
456: \ea
457:
458: For brevity we have presented the results accurate up to the terms
459: ${\cal O}(\delta^6)$. For the numerical analysis below we use terms
460: up to ${\cal O}(\delta^8)$.
461:
462: We tested these results in several ways. We used a general covariant
463: gauge and checked the cancellation of the gauge parameter. The result
464: for $X_{\rm L}$ agrees with the numerical calculation in
465: \cite{Luke:1995du}. A simple interpolating formula which we actually
466: used for the comparison can be found in the appendix of
467: Ref.~\cite{Bauer:2001rc}. The agreement is very good, practically for
468: all values of $\delta$.
469:
470: Further, we can extrapolate the results of the expansion by taking the
471: limit $\delta \to 1$ in which case our formulas should describe the
472: decay of a massive quark into a massless quark and a massless $W$
473: boson. In this limit, second order QCD corrections were computed for
474: the top quark decay \cite{Czarnecki:1998qc}. We find that for the
475: color structures $X_{\rm NA,L,H}$ the difference between the two
476: results is better than $10\%$. The agreement is much worse for the
477: abelian part $X_{\rm A}$, where the difference can be as large as
478: $50\%$. This demonstrates that the seven terms of the expansion are
479: insufficient for the abelian part to converge in the limit $\delta \to
480: 1$.
481:
482: However, because of the SU(3) color factors, the contribution of the
483: abelian part is suppressed and we can reliably derive the ${\cal
484: O}(\alpha_s^2)$ correction to top quark decay from our formulas.
485: Taking $N_L=5$ and $N_H=1$, we find $X_2/2 \approx -16.4$, whereas the
486: central values of the coefficients in \cite{Czarnecki:1998qc} give
487: $-16.7$. An even better agreement is obtained for $\delta=
488: \delta_W\equiv 1-M_W^2/m_t^2 \simeq 0.79$. At this point,
489: corresponding to physical values of the $W$ boson and top quark
490: masses, the width of $t\to bW$ was evaluated in
491: \cite{Chetyrkin:1999ju}. We have perfect agreement with the central
492: value of the second order correction, $X_2(\delta_W)/2 = -15.6$, given
493: in eq.~(28) of that paper.
494:
495: \begin{figure}[htb]
496: %\vspace*{8 mm}
497: \hspace*{2 mm}
498: \begin{minipage}{16.cm}
499: \begin{picture}(100,0)
500: \put (-185,-10) {$X_2$}
501: \put (50,-135) {$\delta$}
502: \end{picture}
503:
504: %\psfig{figure=plot.eps,width=78mm}
505: \psfig{figure=k.ps,width=78mm}
506: \end{minipage}
507: \caption{ $\order{\alpha_s^2}$ correction to the decay width $b\to
508: u l \nu_l$, $X_2(\delta)$ (defined in eq.~(\protect\ref{defx})),
509: as a function of $\delta = 1-q^2/m_b^2$ (for $N_L=3$, $N_H=2$).}
510: \label{fig:plot}
511: \end{figure}
512:
513: As the final check one can integrate Eq.~(\ref{rate}) over $\delta$,
514: obtaining the total decay rate $b \to u l \nu_l$, for which the second
515: order QCD corrections are known \cite{vanRitbergen:1999gs}. Taking
516: $N_L=4$ and $N_H=1$ and integrating over $\delta$ we obtain
517: $\int_{0}^{1} {\rm d} \delta\, X_2(\delta) = -21.24$, in excellent
518: agreement with $-21.296$, given in Ref. \cite{vanRitbergen:1999gs}.
519:
520: Integrating the abelian contribution $X_{\rm A}$ we can compute the
521: two-photon corrections to the muon lifetime. We find $\int_{0}^{1}
522: {\rm d} \delta\, X_{\rm A}(\delta) \simeq 3.1$, where the 13\%
523: discrepancy with the exact value in eq.~(9) of
524: \cite{vanRitbergen:1998yd} is due to poor convergence of our series
525: for large $\delta$. However, if we assume that the convergence is
526: good up to $\delta\approx 0.65$ and extrapolate for larger $\delta$
527: using $X_{\rm A}(1)=7.0(4)$ \cite{Czarnecki:1998qc}, we reproduce the
528: muon lifetime correction \cite{vanRitbergen:1998yd} within 3\%.
529:
530: For $\delta \lsim 1/2$, relevant for the extraction of $|V_{ub}|$, the
531: series converge very well and accurately approximate all color
532: components of the $\order{\alpha_s^2}$ correction.
533:
534: The full $\order{\alpha_s^2}$ correction to the quark decay width,
535: $X_2(\delta)$, is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:plot}. Even at the end
536: point $\delta=1$, our estimate for $X_2$ agrees with our result for
537: the top decay \cite{Czarnecki:1998qc} to better than $3\%$.
538:
539:
540:
541: To show the impact of the computed corrections on dilepton invariant mass
542: distribution, we separate the BLM \cite{BLM}
543: and non-BLM corrections since the
544: former have already been studied in the literature. We define the BLM
545: and non-BLM
546: corrections as
547: \be
548: X_2^{\rm BLM} = -3C_F \beta_0 X_L, \qquad X_2^{\rm nonBLM} = X_2 -
549: X_2^{\rm BLM},
550: \ee
551: where $\beta_0 = 11C_A/12 - T_R N_L/3$ denotes the beta-function
552: coefficient
553: in a theory with three massless quark flavors, appropriate
554: for the range of $q^2$ used for the $V_{ub}$ extraction.
555:
556:
557: \begin{figure}[htb]
558: \vspace*{8 mm}
559: \hspace*{2 mm}
560: \begin{minipage}{16.cm}
561: \begin{picture}(100,0)
562: \put (-185,2) {$X_2^{\rm nonBLM}$}
563: \put (50,-139) {$\delta$}
564: \end{picture}
565:
566: \psfig{figure=n2.ps,width=78mm}
567: \end{minipage}
568: \caption{The non-BLM corrections, $X_2^{\rm
569: nonBLM}/(6\delta^2-4\delta^3)$ (for $N_L=3$, $N_H=2$).}
570: \label{nonBLM}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573:
574: The value of the BLM corrections is known to be strongly correlated
575: with the scale of the coupling constant used in the one-loop result
576: and also with the quark mass used in the formula for the decay rate A
577: discussion of these issues can be found in the literature
578: \cite{Bauer:2001rc} and we will not consider them here. On the
579: contrary, the non-BLM corrections are new. Their dependence on
580: $\delta$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{nonBLM} where the ratio of the non-BLM
581: corrections and the tree level decay rate $6 \delta^2 - 4 \delta^3$ is
582: plotted. For realistic values of the strong coupling constant,
583: $\alpha_s = 0.2 - 0.3$, the non-BLM corrections are about $5\%$ in the
584: range of $\delta$ relevant for the $|V_{ub}|$ extraction from the
585: dilepton invariant mass spectrum.
586:
587: The technique described in this Letter might open a way to reliable
588: estimates of the $\order{\alpha_s^2}$ corrections to more complicated
589: observables. For example, a simple modification allows one to
590: calculate the moments of the charged lepton energy spectrum for a
591: fixed value of the dilepton invariant mass.
592:
593: Recently, combined cuts on both dilepton and hadron invariant masses
594: were advocated for the $|V_{ub}|$ determination \cite{Bauer:2001rc}.
595: It has been argued that in this approach one can keep the
596: theoretical uncertainties under control while retaining a larger data
597: sample of the $b \to u$ transitions. Since the calculation reported
598: here has been performed without any restriction on the hadronic
599: invariant mass, our results for the QCD corrections are not applicable
600: in this case. However, a sufficiently large number of moments should
601: contain enough information about the spectrum to determine the effect
602: of the cut.
603:
604:
605: {\em Acknowledgments:}
606: This research was supported in part by the Natural
607: Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the DOE
608: under grant number DE-AC03-76SF00515.
609:
610:
611: %\bibliography{$HOME/pro/tex/phd}
612: \begin{thebibliography}{17}
613: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
614: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
615: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
616: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
617: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
618: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
619: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
620: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
621: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
622: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
623: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
624: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
625:
626: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bauer et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Bauer, Ligeti, and
627: Luke}}]{Bauer:2000xf}
628: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{Bauer}},
629: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Ligeti}}, \bibnamefont{and}
630: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Luke}},
631: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B479}},
632: \bibinfo{pages}{395} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}),
633: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0002161}.
634:
635: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bauer et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{Bauer, Ligeti, and
636: Luke}}]{Bauer:2001rc}
637: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{Bauer}},
638: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Ligeti}}, \bibnamefont{and}
639: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Luke}},
640: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D64}},
641: \bibinfo{pages}{113004} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}),
642: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0107074}.
643:
644: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Neubert and Becher}(2001)}]{Neubert:2001ib}
645: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Neubert}} \bibnamefont{and}
646: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Becher}}
647: (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0105217}.
648:
649: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Czarnecki}(1996)}]{zerorecoil}
650: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Czarnecki}},
651: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{76}},
652: \bibinfo{pages}{4124} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
653:
654: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Czarnecki and Melnikov}(1997)}]{Czarnecki:1997hc}
655: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Czarnecki}} \bibnamefont{and}
656: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Melnikov}},
657: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}},
658: \bibinfo{pages}{3630} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}), \eprint{hep-ph/9703291}.
659:
660: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{van Ritbergen and Stuart}(1999)}]{vanRitbergen:1998yd}
661: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{van Ritbergen}}
662: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~G.}
663: \bibnamefont{Stuart}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
664: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}}, \bibinfo{pages}{488} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
665: \eprint{hep-ph/9808283}.
666:
667: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{van Ritbergen}(1999)}]{vanRitbergen:1999gs}
668: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{van Ritbergen}},
669: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B454}},
670: \bibinfo{pages}{353} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
671: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9903226}.
672:
673: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Grozin}(2000)}]{Grozin:2000jv}
674: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~G.} \bibnamefont{Grozin}},
675: \bibinfo{journal}{JHEP} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{03}}, \bibinfo{pages}{013}
676: (\bibinfo{year}{2000}), \eprint{hep-ph/0002266}.
677:
678: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Grozin}(2001)}]{Grozin:2001fw}
679: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~G.} \bibnamefont{Grozin}}
680: (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint{hep-ph/0107248}.
681:
682: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Czarnecki and Melnikov}(2001)}]{Czarnecki:2001rh}
683: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Czarnecki}} \bibnamefont{and}
684: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Melnikov}}
685: (\bibinfo{year}{2001}), \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/0110028}.
686:
687: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chetyrkin and Tkachev}(1981)}]{che81}
688: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~G.} \bibnamefont{Chetyrkin}}
689: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.~V.}
690: \bibnamefont{Tkachev}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.}
691: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B192}}, \bibinfo{pages}{159} (\bibinfo{year}{1981}).
692:
693: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vermaseren}()}]{form3}
694: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Vermaseren}},
695: \bibinfo{note}{math-ph/0010025}.
696:
697: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Je{\.z}abek and K{\"u}hn}(1993)}]{Jezabek:1993wk}
698: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Je{\.z}abek}} \bibnamefont{and}
699: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{K{\"u}hn}},
700: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D48}},
701: \bibinfo{pages}{1910} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}), \bibinfo{note}{e: ibid. {\bf
702: D49}, 4970 (1994)}, \eprint{hep-ph/9302295}.
703:
704: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Luke et~al.}(1995)\citenamefont{Luke, Savage, and
705: Wise}}]{Luke:1995du}
706: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~E.} \bibnamefont{Luke}},
707: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~J.} \bibnamefont{Savage}},
708: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~B.} \bibnamefont{Wise}},
709: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B343}},
710: \bibinfo{pages}{329} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}),
711: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9409287}.
712:
713: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Czarnecki and Melnikov}(1999)}]{Czarnecki:1998qc}
714: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Czarnecki}} \bibnamefont{and}
715: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Melnikov}},
716: \bibinfo{journal}{Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{B544}},
717: \bibinfo{pages}{520} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
718: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9806244}.
719:
720: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Chetyrkin et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Chetyrkin,
721: Harlander, Seidensticker, and Steinhauser}}]{Chetyrkin:1999ju}
722: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~G.} \bibnamefont{Chetyrkin}},
723: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Harlander}},
724: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Seidensticker}},
725: \bibnamefont{and}
726: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Steinhauser}},
727: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D60}},
728: \bibinfo{pages}{114015} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}),
729: \eprint[http://arXiv.org/abs]{hep-ph/9906273}.
730:
731: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Brodsky et~al.}(1983)\citenamefont{Brodsky, Lepage, and
732: Mackenzie}}]{BLM}
733: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~J.} \bibnamefont{Brodsky}},
734: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~P.} \bibnamefont{Lepage}},
735: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~B.}
736: \bibnamefont{Mackenzie}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev.}
737: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{D28}}, \bibinfo{pages}{228} (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).
738:
739: \end{thebibliography}
740:
741: \end{document}
742: