1: \documentclass[12pt,twoside]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{epsf}
4: \usepackage{times}
5: \usepackage{a4wide}
6:
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% make nicer headings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \usepackage{fancyheadings,graphics}
9: \pagestyle{fancyplain}
10: \renewcommand{\sectionmark}[1]{
11: % \markright{\thesection\ #1}} % section title
12: \markboth{\thesection\ ~~#1}{\thesubsection\ #1}} % section title
13: %\lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\rightmark}}
14: \lhead[\fancyplain{}{\thepage}]{\fancyplain{}{\leftmark}}
15: \rhead[\fancyplain{}{
16: The $B^+$--$B_d^0$ Lifetime Difference Beyond Leading Logarithms
17: }]{\fancyplain{}{\thepage}}
18: \cfoot{}
19: \advance \headheight by 3.0truept % for 12pt mandatory...
20:
21: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end nicer headings %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
22: %%%%%%% make figures/tables with an extra line like in Nucl. Phys.:
23: \newlength{\nseparation}
24: \setlength{\nseparation}{4pt}
25: \newenvironment{nfigure}[1]
26: {\begin{figure}[#1]\hrule\vspace{\nseparation}\par}
27: {\vspace{\nseparation}\par \hrule \end{figure}}
28: \newenvironment{ntable}[1]
29: {\begin{table}[#1]\hrule\vspace{\nseparation}\par}
30: {\vspace{\nseparation}\par \hrule \end{table}}
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end nicer figures/tables %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32:
33:
34: \usepackage{cite} % collapse adjacent citations
35:
36: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}
37: \newcommand{\lt}{\left}
38: \newcommand{\rt}{\right}
39: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
40: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\}
41: \newcommand{\li}{\mathrm{Li}_2}
42: \newcommand{\su}{_}
43: \newcommand{\Su}{^}
44:
45:
46: \newcommand{\ov}[1]{\overline{#1}}
47: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{(\ref{#1})}
48: \newcommand{\imag}{\mathrm{Im}\,}
49:
50: \newcommand{\gev}{\,\mbox{GeV}}
51: \newcommand{\mev}{\,\mbox{MeV}}
52: \newcommand{\WA}{u}
53: \newcommand{\PI}{d}
54:
55: % normal size
56: \def\babar{\mbox{\sl B\hspace{-0.4em} {\scriptsize\sl
57: A}\hspace{-0.4em} B\hspace {-0.4em} {\scriptsize\sl
58: A\hspace{-0.1em}R}}}
59:
60:
61:
62: \begin{document}
63: \thispagestyle{empty}
64: \boldmath
65:
66: \vspace*{-2cm}
67:
68: \begin{flushright}
69: PITHA 02/05\\
70: CERN-TH/2002-019\\
71: BUTP-02/2\\
72: FERMILAB-Pub-02/016-T\\
73: hep-ph/0202106\\
74: February 2002
75: \end{flushright}
76:
77:
78: \vspace*{1cm}
79:
80: \centerline{\LARGE\bf The B$^+$--B$_{\rm d}^0$ Lifetime Difference}
81: \vspace*{0.3cm}
82: \centerline{\LARGE\bf Beyond Leading Logarithms}
83: \unboldmath
84:
85: \vspace*{1cm}
86: \centerline{\sc
87: Martin Beneke$^1$,\, Gerhard Buchalla$^2$,\, Christoph~Greub$^3$,}
88: \centerline{\sc Alexander~Lenz$^4$\, and\, Ulrich Nierste$^{2,5}$}
89:
90: \vspace*{0.5cm}
91: \centerline{
92: \parbox{0.85\textwidth}{
93: \sl $^1$ Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik E, RWTH Aachen,
94: Sommerfeldstra\ss e 28,\\
95: \phantom{$^1$} D-52074 Aachen, Germany.\\[2mm]
96: $^2$Theory Division, CERN, CH-1211 Geneva 23,
97: Switzerland.\\[2mm]
98: $^3$Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Bern,
99: Sidlerstrasse 5, \\
100: \phantom{$^1$} CH-3012 Berne, Switzerland.\\[2mm]
101: $^4$Fakult\"at f\"ur Physik, Universit\"at Regensburg,
102: D-93040 Regensburg, Germany.\\[2mm]
103: $^5$Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia,
104: IL 60510-500, USA. }}
105:
106: \vspace*{1cm}
107: \centerline{\bf Abstract}
108: \vspace*{0.3cm}
109: \noindent
110: We compute perturbative QCD corrections to the lifetime splitting
111: between the charged and neutral $B$ meson in the framework of
112: the heavy quark expansion. These next-to-leading logarithmic
113: corrections are necessary for a meaningful use of hadronic matrix
114: elements of local operators from lattice gauge theory. We find the
115: uncertainties associated with the choices of renormalization scale and
116: scheme significantly reduced compared to the leading-order result.
117: We include the full dependence on the charm-quark mass $m_c$ without any
118: approximations.
119: Using hadronic matrix elements estimated in the
120: literature with lattice QCD we obtain
121: $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)=1.053\pm 0.016\pm 0.017$, where the effects of
122: unquenching and $1/m_b$ corrections are not yet included.
123: The lifetime difference of heavy baryons $\Xi^0_b$ and $\Xi^-_b$
124: is also briefly discussed.
125:
126:
127:
128: \vspace*{0.3cm}
129: \noindent
130: PACS numbers: 12.38.Bx, 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd
131:
132:
133: \vfill
134:
135: %\begin{flushleft}
136: %CERN-TH/2002-019
137: %\end{flushleft}
138:
139: \newpage
140: \pagenumbering{arabic}
141: \setcounter{page}{2}
142:
143:
144:
145:
146:
147:
148: \section{Preliminaries}
149: The \emph{Heavy Quark Expansion}\ (HQE) technique provides a
150: well-defined QCD-based framework for the calculation of total decay
151: rates of $b$-flavoured hadrons \cite{hqe}. The HQE yields an expansion
152: of the decay rate $\Gamma(H_b)$ in terms of $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$, where
153: $H_b$ represents any hadron containing a single $b$-quark and any of
154: the light $u$,$d$,$s$ (anti-)quarks as valence quarks. $m_b$ is the
155: $b$-quark mass and $\Lambda_{QCD}$ is the fundamental scale of QCD,
156: which determines the size of hadronic effects. In the leading order of
157: $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ the decay rate of $H_b$ equals the
158: decay rate of a free $b$-quark, which is unaffected by the light
159: degrees of freedom of $H_b$. Consequently, the lifetimes of all
160: $b$-flavoured hadrons are the same at this order. The first
161: corrections to the free quark decay appear at order
162: $(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)^2$ and are caused by the Fermi motion of the
163: $b$-quark in $H_b$ and the chromomagnetic interaction of the final state
164: quarks with the hadronic cloud surrounding the heavy $b$-quark. These
165: mechanisms have a negligible effect on the lifetime difference between
166: the $B^+$ and $B_d^0$ mesons, because the strong interaction
167: excellently respects isospin symmetry. At order
168: $(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)^3$, however, one encounters weak interaction
169: effects between the $b$-quark and the light valence quark. These
170: effects, known as \emph{weak annihilation}\ (WA) and
171: \emph{Pauli interference}\ (PI) \cite{hqe}, are depicted in
172: Fig.~\ref{fig:lo}.
173: \begin{nfigure}{t!}
174: \centerline{
175: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth
176: \epsffile{deltab1-lo.eps}
177: }
178: \caption{\textit{Weak annihilation}\ (WA)
179: and \textit{Pauli interference}\ (PI) diagrams in the leading order
180: of QCD. They contribute to $\Gamma (B_d^0)$ and $\Gamma (B^+)$,
181: respectively. The crosses represent $|\Delta B|\!=\!1$ operators,
182: which are generated by the exchange of $W$ bosons. CKM-suppressed
183: contributions are not shown.}\label{fig:lo}
184: \end{nfigure}
185: They are phase-space enhanced with respect to the leading free-quark
186: decay and induce corrections to $\Gamma(H_b)$ of order $16 \pi^2
187: (\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)^3 ={\cal O} (5\!\!-\!\!10\% )$. The measurement
188: of lifetime differences among different $b$-flavoured hadrons
189: therefore tests the HQE formalism at the third order in the expansion
190: parameter.
191:
192: The calculation of $\Gamma(H_b)$ consists of three steps: the first
193: step is an operator product expansion (OPE) integrating out
194: the heavy $W$ boson, which mediates the weak $b$ decay.
195: This results in an effective $|\Delta B|=1$ Hamiltonian describing the
196: flavour-changing weak interaction of the Standard Model up to
197: corrections of order $m_b^2/M_W^2$,
198: where $\Delta B$ denotes the change in bottom-quark number:
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: H &=& \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \, V_{cb}^*
201: \sum_{ {\scriptstyle d^\prime=d,s} \atop
202: {\scriptstyle u^\prime=u,c}
203: }
204: V_{u^\prime d^\prime} \,
205: \lt[ C_1 (\mu_1) \, Q_1^{u^\prime d^\prime} (\mu_1)
206: \; + \; C_2 (\mu_1) \, Q_2^{u^\prime d^\prime} (\mu_1)
207: \rt] \; + \; \mbox{h.c.}
208: % \sum_{k=1}^2
209: % C_k (\mu_1) \,
210: % V_{u^\prime d^\prime} \, Q_k^{u^\prime d^\prime} (\mu_1)
211: % \; + \; \mbox{h.c.}
212: \label{heff} .
213: \end{eqnarray}
214: Here $G_F$ is the Fermi constant and the $V_{ij}$'s are elements of the
215: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. The Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu_1)$
216: contain the short-distance physics associated with scales above the
217: renormalization scale $\mu_1$. The weak interaction is encoded in the
218: four-quark operators
219: \begin{eqnarray}
220: Q_1^{u^\prime d^\prime} = \ov{b}_i \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) c_j \,
221: \ov{u}^\prime_j \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) d_i^\prime ,
222: \quad &&
223: Q_2^{u^\prime d^\prime} = \ov{b}_i \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) c_i \,
224: \ov{u}^\prime_j \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) d_j^\prime,
225: \label{q1q2}
226: \end{eqnarray}
227: with summation over the colour indices $i$ and $j$. We have omitted
228: penguin operators and doubly Cabibbo-suppressed terms in \eq{heff},
229: which have a negligible effect on the $B^+$--$B_d^0$ lifetime
230: difference. Next the total decay rate $\Gamma (H_b)$ is
231: related to $H$ by the optical theorem:
232: \begin{eqnarray}
233: \Gamma (H_b) &=&
234: \frac{1}{2 M_{H_b}} \langle H_b | {\cal T} | H_b \rangle .
235: \label{opt}
236: \end{eqnarray}
237: Here we have adopted the conventional relativistic normalization
238: $\langle H_b | H_b \rangle =2EV$ and introduced the transition operator:
239: \begin{eqnarray}
240: {\cal T} &=& \imag i \! \int \!\! d^4 x \,
241: T [H(x) \, H(0)]
242: . \label{deft}
243: \end{eqnarray}
244: The second step is the HQE, which exploits the hierarchy $m_b \gg
245: \Lambda_{QCD}$ to expand the RHS of \eq{opt} in terms of
246: $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$. To this end an OPE is applied to ${\cal T}$ which
247: effectively integrates out the hard loop momenta (corresponding to the
248: momenta of the final state quarks).
249: We decompose the result as
250: \begin{eqnarray}
251: {\cal T} &=& \lt[ {\cal T}_0 \; + \; {\cal T}_2 \; + \; {\cal T}_3 \rt]
252: \lt[ 1 \; + \;
253: {\cal O} ( 1/m_b^4 )
254: \rt] \nn
255: {\cal T}_3 &=& {\cal T}^{\WA} + {\cal T}^{\PI} + {\cal T}_{sing}
256: \label{t3}
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: Here ${\cal T}_n$ denotes the portion of ${\cal T}$ which is
259: suppressed by a factor of $1/m_b^n$ with respect to ${\cal T}_0$
260: describing the free quark decay. The contributions
261: to ${\cal T}_3$ from weak spectator interactions read
262: \begin{eqnarray}
263: {\cal T}^{\WA} &=& \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{6 \pi}
264: \lt[\;\,\, |V_{ud}|^2
265: \lt(F^{\WA} Q^d \; + \; F_S^{\WA} Q_S^d \; + \;
266: G^{\WA} T^d \; + \; G_S^{\WA} T_S^d \, \rt) \rt. \nn
267: && \phantom{\frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{6 \pi} }
268: \lt. +\, |V_{cd}|^2
269: % \lt( \,\;\;\; F^c Q^d + \;\;\; F^c_S Q_S^d + \;\;\; G^c T^d + \,\;\;
270: % G^c_S T_S^d \rt)
271: \lt( \, F^c Q^d \,\, + \,\, F^c_S Q_S^d \; + \,\, G^c T^d \; + \;\,
272: G^c_S T_S^d \, \rt)
273: \rt] \, + \, (d \to s) \nn
274: {\cal T}^{\PI} &=& \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{6 \pi}
275: \lt[ \, F^{\PI} Q^u \; + \; F_S^{\PI} Q_S^u \; + \;
276: G^{\PI} T^u \; + \;
277: G_S^{\PI} T_S^u \, \rt] . \label{ope}
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: The superscript $q$ of the coefficients $F^q$, $F^q_S$, $G^q$, $G^q_S$
280: refers to the $cq$ intermediate state (see Fig. \ref{fig:lo}).
281: We include singly Cabibbo-suppressed contributions.
282: In writing ${\cal T}^{\PI}$ we have used $|V_{ud}|^2+|V_{us}|^2\approx 1$
283: and $m_d\approx m_s\approx 0$, so that $F^d=F^s$, etc..
284: Here we encounter the local dimension-6, $\Delta B=0$ operators
285: \begin{eqnarray}
286: Q^q \; = \; \ov{b} \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) q \,
287: \ov{q} \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) b,~~~~~~~~&& \quad
288: Q_S^q \; = \; \ov{b} (1-\gamma_5) q \, \ov{q} (1+\gamma_5) b, \no\\[1mm]
289: T^q \; = \; \ov{b} \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) T^a q \,
290: \ov{q} \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) T^a b, && \quad
291: T_S^q \; = \; \ov{b} (1-\gamma_5) T^a q \, \ov{q} (1+\gamma_5) T^a b,
292: \label{ops}
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: where $T^a$ is the generator of colour SU(3). We define the $\Delta
295: B=0$ operators at the renormalization scale $\mu_0$, which is of order
296: $m_b$. The Wilson coefficients $F^{\WA}\ldots G_S^{\PI}$ are computed
297: in perturbation theory. When applied to mesons, ${\cal T}^{\WA}$ and
298: ${\cal T}^{\PI}$ correspond to the WA and PI mechanisms of
299: Fig.~\ref{fig:lo}, respectively. In the case of baryons their role is
300: interchanged: ${\cal T}^{\WA}$ encodes the PI effect and ${\cal
301: T}^{\PI}$ describes the weak scattering of the $b$-quark with the
302: valence quark (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bar}). The coefficients in \eq{ope}
303: depend on $\mu_0$. Since the hard loops involve the charm quark, they
304: also depend on the ratio $z=m_c^2/m_b^2$. The truncation of the
305: perturbation series makes $F^{\WA}\ldots G_S^{\PI}$ also dependent on
306: $\mu_1={\cal O}(m_b)$. This dependence diminishes in increasing
307: orders of $\alpha_s$. To the considered order,
308: the dependence on $\mu_0$ cancels between the coefficients and
309: the matrix elements of operators in \eq{ope}, so that observables
310: are independent of $\mu_0$. The remainder ${\cal T}_{sing}$
311: in \eq{t3} involves additional dimension-6 operators, which
312: describe power-suppressed contributions to the free quark decay from
313: strong interactions with the spectator quark.
314: The operators in ${\cal T}_{sing}$ are isospin singlets and do
315: not contribute to the $B^+$--$B_d^0$ lifetime difference.
316: The formalism of \eq{t3}--\eq{ops}
317: applies to weakly decaying hadrons containing a single bottom quark
318: and no charm quarks. Decays of hadrons like the $B_c$ meson with more
319: than one heavy quark have a different power counting than in \eq{t3}
320: \cite{bb}.
321: % Using the isospin relation $\langle B_d^0 | Q^{d,u} | B_d^0 \rangle =
322: % \langle B^+ | Q^{u,d} | B^+ \rangle $ we find from \eq{opt} and
323: % \eq{ope}:
324: % \begin{eqnarray}
325: % \Gamma (B_d^0) - \Gamma (B^+) & = &
326: % \frac{\tau(B^+)-\tau(B_d^0)}{ \tau(B^+)\, \tau(B_d^0)} \no\\[1mm]
327: % &=& \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi M_B} \, \lt[ \,
328: % \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 F^{\WA} + |V_{cd}|^2 F^c - F^{\PI} \rt)
329: % \langle B^+ | Q^u - Q^d | B^+ \rangle \rt. \nn
330: % && \phantom{ \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi M_B} }\!\!
331: % + \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 F_S^{\WA} + |V_{cd}|^2 F_S^c - F_S^{\PI} \rt)
332: % \langle B^+ | Q_S^u - Q_S^d | B^+ \rangle \nn
333: % && \phantom{ \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi M_B} }\!\!
334: % + \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 G^{\WA} + |V_{cd}|^2 G^c - G^{\PI} \rt)
335: % \langle B^+ | T^u - T^d | B^+ \rangle \nn
336: % && \phantom{ \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi M_B} }\!\!
337: % \lt.
338: % + \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 G_S^{\WA} + |V_{cd}|^2 G_S^c - G_S^{\PI} \rt)
339: % \langle B^+ | T_S^u - T_S^d | B^+ \rangle \rt] .\;
340: % \label{diffg}
341: % \end{eqnarray}
342: % In the third step one computes the hadronic matrix elements of the
343: % operators in \eq{ops}. The combinations appearing in our case are
344: % conventionally parametrized as \cite{ns}
345: % \begin{eqnarray}
346: % \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
347: % \langle B^+ | (Q^u - Q^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
348: % f_B^2 M_B^2 B_1 (\mu_0),\;\;
349: % \langle B^+ | (Q_S^u - Q_S^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
350: % f_B^2 M_B^2 B_2 (\mu_0), \nn
351: % \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\langle B^+ | (T^u - T^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
352: % f_B^2 M_B^2 \epsilon_1 (\mu_0),\quad
353: % \langle B^+ | (T_S^u - T_S^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
354: % f_B^2 M_B^2 \epsilon_2 (\mu_0).
355: % \label{b}
356: % \end{eqnarray}
357: % Here $f_B$ is the $B$ meson decay constant. In the \emph{vacuum
358: % saturation approximation}\ (VSA) one has $B_1(\mu_0)=1$,
359: % $B_2(\mu_0)=1+{\cal O}(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)$ and
360: % $\epsilon_{1,2}(\mu_0)=0$. Corrections to the VSA results are of
361: % order $1/N_c$, where $N_c=3$ is the number of colours.
362: In the third step one computes the hadronic matrix elements of the
363: operators in \eq{ops}. They enter our calculation in isospin-breaking
364: combinations and are conventionally parametrized as \cite{ns}
365: \begin{eqnarray}
366: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&
367: \langle B^+ | (Q^u - Q^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
368: f_B^2 M_B^2 B_1 (\mu_0),\;\;
369: \langle B^+ | (Q_S^u - Q_S^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
370: f_B^2 M_B^2 B_2 (\mu_0), \nn
371: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!&&\langle B^+ | (T^u - T^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
372: f_B^2 M_B^2 \epsilon_1 (\mu_0),\quad
373: \langle B^+ | (T_S^u - T_S^d) (\mu_0) | B^+ \rangle \, = \,
374: f_B^2 M_B^2 \epsilon_2 (\mu_0).
375: \label{b}
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: Here $f_B$ is the $B$ meson decay constant. In the \emph{vacuum
378: saturation approximation}\ (VSA) one has $B_1(\mu_0)=1$,
379: $B_2(\mu_0)=1+{\cal O}(\alpha_s(m_b),\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)$ and
380: $\epsilon_{1,2}(\mu_0)=0$. Corrections to the VSA results are of
381: order $1/N_c$, where $N_c=3$ is the number of colours.
382:
383: Using the isospin relation $\langle B_d^0 | Q^{d,u} | B_d^0 \rangle =
384: \langle B^+ | Q^{u,d} | B^+ \rangle $ we now find from \eq{opt} and
385: \eq{ope}:
386: \begin{eqnarray}
387: % \Gamma (B_d^0) - \Gamma (B^+) & = &
388: % \frac{\tau(B^+)-\tau(B_d^0)}{ \tau(B^+)\, \tau(B_d^0)} \no\\[1mm]
389: % &=& \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi } \, f_B^2 M_B \,
390: % \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 \vec{F}{}^{\WA \,T} + |V_{cd}|^2 \vec{F}{}^{c \, T}
391: % - \vec{F}{}^{\PI \, T} \rt) \cdot \vec{B}
392: % . \label{diffg}
393: \Gamma (B_d^0) - \Gamma (B^+) & = &
394: \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi } \, f_B^2 M_B \,
395: \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 \vec{F}{}^{\WA} + |V_{cd}|^2 \vec{F}{}^{c}
396: - \vec{F}{}^{\PI} \rt) \cdot \vec{B}
397: . \label{diffg}
398: \end{eqnarray}
399: Here we have introduced the shorthand notation
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: \vec{F}{}^q (z, \mu_0 ) \; = \;
402: \lt(
403: \begin{array}{c}
404: F^q (z, \mu_0) \\
405: F_S^q (z, \mu_0) \\
406: G^q (z, \mu_0) \\
407: G_S^q (z, \mu_0)
408: \end{array}
409: \rt) , && \quad
410: \vec{B} (\mu_0 ) \; = \;
411: \lt(
412: \begin{array}{c}
413: B_1 (\mu_0) \\
414: B_2 (\mu_0) \\
415: \epsilon_1 (\mu_0)\\
416: \epsilon_2 (\mu_0)
417: \end{array}
418: \rt) \qquad \mbox{for } q=\PI,\WA,c . \label{short}
419: \end{eqnarray}
420:
421: The strong interaction affects all three steps of the calculation. The
422: minimal way to include QCD effects is the leading logarithmic
423: approximation, which includes corrections of order $\alpha_s^n \ln^n
424: (\mu_1/M_W)$, $n=0,1,\ldots$ in the coefficients
425: $C_{1,2}(\mu_1)$ in \eq{heff}. The corresponding leading order (LO)
426: calculation of the width difference in \eq{diffg} involves the
427: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:lo} \cite{hqe,ns}. Yet LO results are too
428: crude for a precise calculation of lifetime differences. The heavy-quark
429: masses in \eq{diffg} cannot be defined in a proper way and one faces a
430: large dependence on the renormalization scale $\mu_1$.
431: Furthermore, results for $B_{1,2}$ and $\epsilon_{1,2}$ from lattice
432: gauge theory cannot be matched to the continuum theory in a meaningful
433: way at LO. Finally, as pointed out in \cite{ns}, at LO the
434: coefficients $F$, $F_S$ in \eq{diffg} are anomalously small. They
435: multiply the large matrix elements parametrized by $B_{1,2}$, while
436: the larger coefficients $G$, $G_S$ come with the small hadronic
437: parameters $\epsilon_{1,2}$, rendering the LO prediction highly
438: unstable. To cure these problems one must include the
439: next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD corrections of order $\alpha_s^{n+1}
440: \ln^n (\mu_1/M_W)$. NLO corrections to the effective $|\Delta B|=1$
441: Hamiltonian in \eq{heff} have been computed in \cite{acmp,bw}. The
442: second step beyond the LO requires the calculation of QCD corrections
443: to the coefficients $F^{\WA}\ldots G_S^{\PI}$ in \eq{ope}. Such a
444: calculation has been first performed for the $B_s^0$--$B_d^0$ lifetime
445: difference in \cite{kn}, where ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ corrections were
446: calculated in the SU(3)$_{\rm F}$ limit neglecting certain terms of order
447: $z$. In this limit only a few penguin effects play a role. A complete
448: NLO computation has been carried out for the lifetime difference
449: between the two mass eigenstates of the $B_s^0$ meson in \cite{bbgln}.
450: In particular the correct treatment of infrared effects, which appear
451: at intermediate steps of the calculation, has been worked out in
452: \cite{bbgln}. The computation presented in this paper is conceptually
453: similar to the one in \cite{bbgln}, except that the considered
454: transition is $\Delta B=0$ rather than $\Delta B=2$ and the quark
455: masses in the final state are different.
456: While this work was in preparation, QCD corrections to ${\cal
457: T}^{\WA}$ and ${\cal T}^{ \PI}$ have also been calculated
458: in \cite{rome}. There are two important differences between our
459: analysis and \cite{rome}:
460: \begin{itemize}
461: \item[(i)] in \cite{rome} the NLO corrections have been computed for
462: the limiting case $z=0$, i.e.\ neglecting the charm-quark mass in
463: the final state. The corrections to this limit are of order $z\ln z$
464: or roughly 20\%. In Sect.~\ref{sect:nlo} we include the
465: dependence on the charm-quark mass exactly.
466: \item[(ii)] in \cite{rome} the $\Delta B=0$ operators have been
467: defined in the heavy quark effective theory (HQET) rather than in
468: full QCD, as we did in \eq{ops}. HQET operators were chosen to
469: eliminate the mixing of the dimension-6 operators in \eq{ops} into
470: lower-dimensional operators under renormalization. We emphasize that
471: this mixing does not impede the use of QCD operators in the HQE:
472: it results purely from ultraviolet effects and can be accounted
473: for by a finite renormalization of the affected operators. For
474: a more detailed discussion with an explicit example we refer the
475: reader to \cite{bbgln} and to Sect.~\ref{subs:xi}.
476: \end{itemize}
477: Finally one must compute the non-perturbative QCD effects residing in
478: $f_B^2 B_1,\ldots f_B^2\epsilon_2$. Results from lattice
479: gauge theory for the matrix elements in \eq{b} have been recently
480: obtained in \cite{b}. Earlier results using HQET fields can be found
481: in \cite{ds}. In the matching of the results to continuum QCD the
482: dependence of $B_1,\ldots \epsilon_2$ on $\mu_0$ and on the chosen
483: renormalization scheme must cancel the corresponding dependence
484: of the Wilson coefficients, which requires NLO accuracy.
485:
486: \boldmath
487: \section{${\cal T}^{\WA}$ and ${\cal T}^{\PI}$ at
488: next-to-leading order}\label{sect:nlo}
489: \unboldmath
490: We decompose the Wilson coefficients in \eq{ope} as
491: \begin{eqnarray}
492: F^{\WA} (z,\mu_0) &=& \phantom{\; + \;}
493: C_1^2 (\mu_1) \, F^{\WA}_{11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) \; + \;
494: C_1 (\mu_1) \, C_2 (\mu_1)\,F^{\WA}_{12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) \nn
495: && \; + \;
496: C_2^2 (\mu_1)\,F^{\WA}_{22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) \no \\[1mm]
497: F^{\WA}_{ij} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) &=& F^{\WA,(0)}_{ij} (z) \; + \:
498: \frac{\alpha_s (\mu_1)}{4\pi} \, F^{\WA,(1)}_{ij}
499: (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) + {\cal O}\lt( \alpha_s^2 \rt) \label{ffij}
500: \end{eqnarray}
501: with $x_{\mu}=\mu/m_b$ and an analogous notation for the remaining Wilson
502: coefficients in \eq{ope}. The LO coefficients are obtained from the
503: diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:lo}. The non-vanishing coefficients read \cite{ns}
504: \begin{eqnarray}
505: && \frac{1}{3} F_{11}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
506: \frac{1}{2} F_{12}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
507: 3 F_{22}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
508: \frac{1}{2} G_{22}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
509: - \left( 1 - z \right)^2\,\left( 1 + \frac{z}{2}\right) , \nonumber\\
510: && \frac{1}{3} F_{S,11}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
511: \frac{1}{2} F_{S,12}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
512: 3 F_{S,22}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
513: \frac{1}{2} G_{S,22}^{\WA,(0)}(z) =
514: \left( 1 - z \right)^2\, \left( 1 + 2 z \right) , \nonumber\\
515: &&\frac{1}{3} F_{11}^{c,(0)}(z) =
516: \frac{1}{2} F_{12}^{c,(0)}(z) =
517: 3 F_{22}^{c,(0)}(z) =
518: \frac{1}{2} G_{22}^{c,(0)}(z) =
519: -\sqrt{1- 4z} \, \left( 1 - z \right) , \\
520: && \frac{1}{3} F_{S,11}^{c,(0)}(z) =
521: \frac{1}{2} F_{S,12}^{c,(0)}(z) =
522: 3 F_{S,22}^{c,(0)}(z) =
523: \frac{1}{2} G_{S,22}^{c,(0)}(z)=
524: \sqrt{1- 4z} \, \left( 1 + 2 z \right) , \nonumber\\[0.1cm]
525: && 6 F_{11}^{\PI,(0)} (z) = F_{12}^{\PI,(0)} (z) = 6 F_{22}^{\PI,(0)} (z) =
526: G_{11}^{\PI,(0)} (z) = G_{22}^{\PI,(0)} (z)
527: = 6 \left( 1 - z \right)^2,\nonumber
528: \end{eqnarray}
529: while
530: \begin{eqnarray}
531: && G_{11}^{\WA,(0)} = G_{12}^{\WA,(0)} =
532: G_{S,11}^{\WA,(0)} = G_{S,12}^{\WA,(0)} = G_{11}^{c,(0)} = G_{12}^{c,(0)} =
533: G_{S,11}^{c,(0)} = G_{S,12}^{c,(0)} = G_{12}^{\PI,(0)} = 0, \nonumber\\
534: && F_{S,ij}^{\PI,(0)} =
535: G_{S,ij}^{\PI,(0)} = 0.
536: \end{eqnarray}
537:
538: %\begin{eqnarray}
539: %F_{ij}^{\WA,(0)} (z) & = &
540: % -C_{ij}^{F,\WA} \, \left( 1 - z \right)^2\,
541: % \left( 1 + \frac{z}{2}\right) ,\qquad
542: %F_{S,ij}^{\WA,(0)} (z) \; = \;
543: % C_{ij}^{F,\WA} \, \left( 1 - z \right)^2\,
544: % \left( 1 + 2 z \right) , \nn
545: %G_{ij}^{\WA,(0)} (z) & = &
546: % -C_{ij}^{G,\WA} \, \left( 1 - z \right)^2\,
547: % \left( 1 + \frac{z}{2}\right) ,\qquad
548: %G_{S,ij}^{\WA,(0)} (z) \, = \;
549: % C_{ij}^{G,\WA} \, \left( 1 - z \right)^2\,
550: % \left( 1 + 2 z \right) , \no\\[2mm]
551: %F_{ij}^{c,(0)} (z) & = &
552: % -C_{ij}^{F,\WA} \, \sqrt{1- 4z} \,
553: % \left( 1 - z \right) ,\qquad \quad \!\!
554: %F_{S,ij}^{c,(0)} (z) \; = \;
555: % C_{ij}^{F,\WA} \, \sqrt{1- 4z} \,
556: % \left( 1 + 2 z \right) , \\[2mm]
557: %G_{ij}^{c,(0)} (z) & = &
558: % -C_{ij}^{G,\WA} \, \sqrt{1- 4z} \,
559: % \left( 1 - z \right) ,\qquad \quad \!\!
560: %G_{S,ij}^{c,(0)} (z) \, = \;
561: % C_{ij}^{G,\WA} \, \sqrt{1- 4z} \,
562: % \left( 1 + 2 z \right) , \no \\[2mm]
563: %F_{ij}^{\PI,(0)} (z) & = &
564: % C_{ij}^{F,\PI} \, \left( 1 - z \right)^2,
565: % \qquad \!\!
566: %G_{ij}^{\PI,(0)} (z) \, = \,
567: % C_{ij}^{G,\PI} \, \left( 1 - z \right)^2,
568: % \qquad \!\!
569: %F_{S,ij}^{\PI,(0)} \, = \, G_{S,ij}^{\PI,(0)} \; =\; 0 .
570: %\no
571: %\end{eqnarray}
572: %with the colour factors:
573: %\begin{eqnarray}
574: %C_{11}^{F,\WA} \!\! &=& 3, \qquad\quad
575: %C_{12}^{F,\WA} = \, C_{22}^{G, \WA} = \, 2, \qquad\quad
576: %C_{22}^{F,\WA} = \, \frac{1}{3}, \qquad\quad
577: %C_{11}^{F,\PI} = \, C_{22}^{F,\PI} = \, 1 , \nn
578: %C_{12}^{F,\PI} \!\! &=& \! C_{11}^{G,\PI} = \,
579: % C_{22}^{G,\PI} = \, 6,
580: %\qquad\qquad\qquad\quad
581: %C_{11}^{G,\WA} = \, C_{12}^{G,\WA} = \,
582: %C_{12}^{G,\PI} = \, 0 .
583: %\end{eqnarray}
584: To obtain the NLO corrections $F^{\WA,(1)}_{ij} \ldots G_{S,ij}^{
585: \PI,(1)}$ we have calculated the diagrams $E_i$ and the
586: imaginary parts of $D_i$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nlo}.
587: \begin{nfigure}{t!}
588: \centerline{
589: \epsfxsize=\textwidth
590: \epsffile{deltab1-nlo.eps}
591: }
592: \caption{WA contributions in the next-to-leading order of QCD. The PI
593: diagrams are obtained by interchanging $u$ and $d$ and reversing the
594: fermion flow of the $u$ and $d$ lines. The first line shows the
595: radiative corrections to $\Delta B\!=\!0$ operators, which are
596: necessary for the proper infrared factorization.
597: Not displayed are the diagrams ${\rm E}_3^\prime$, ${\rm E}_4^\prime$
598: and ${\rm D}_{3-8}^\prime$ which are obtained from the corresponding
599: unprimed diagrams by left-right reflection and the reverse of the
600: fermion flow.}\label{fig:nlo}
601: \end{nfigure}
602: At NLO one becomes sensitive to the renormalization scheme. First,
603: this affects the quantities $m_b$, $z$ and $\alpha_s$
604: entering our calculation. The NLO coefficients given below correspond
605: to the use of the pole-mass definition for $m_b$ and the
606: definition of $\alpha_s$ in the $\ov{\rm MS}$ scheme \cite{bbdm}. $z$
607: can be either calculated from the pole masses or from the $\ov{\rm
608: MS}$ masses, because $z=m_c^2/m_b^2=\ov{m}_c^2(m_c)/\ov{m}_b^2 (m_b)
609: + {\cal O} (\alpha_s^2) $. Second, the choice of the
610: renormalization scheme is also an issue for the effective four-quark
611: operators appearing at the various stages of our calculation. In the
612: prediction of physical quantities this scheme dependence cancels to
613: the calculated order, nevertheless it must be taken care of when
614: assembling pieces from different theoretical sources. The Wilson
615: coefficients $C_{1,2}$ of $H$ in \eq{heff} and
616: $F^{\WA,(1)}_{ij} \ldots G_{S,ij}^{\PI,(1)}$ depend on the scheme used
617: to renormalize the $\Delta B=1$ operators in \eq{q1q2}, but this
618: dependence cancels in $F^{\WA,(1)} \ldots G_S^{\PI,(1)}$. Our results
619: below correspond to the definition of $C_{1,2}$ in \cite{bw}.
620: $F^{\WA,(1)} \ldots G_S^{\PI,(1)}$ also depend on the
621: renormalization scheme of the $\Delta B=0$ operators in \eq{ops}. This
622: dependence cancels only when these coefficients are combined with the
623: hadronic parameters $B_{1,2}$ and $\epsilon_{1,2}$ calculated from
624: lattice QCD. It is therefore important that our scheme is used in the
625: lattice-continuum matching of these quantities. We use the $\ov{\rm
626: MS}$ scheme with the NDR prescription for $\gamma_5$ \cite{bw}.
627: To specify the
628: scheme completely, it is further necessary to state the definition of
629: the evanescent operators appearing in the calculation \cite{hn}. We
630: use
631: \begin{eqnarray}
632: E[Q] &=& \ov{b} \gamma_\mu \gamma_\rho \gamma_\nu (1-\gamma_5) q \,
633: \ov{q} \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5) b
634: \; - \;
635: (4 - 8 \varepsilon) \, Q \nn
636: E[Q_S] &=& \ov{b} \gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu (1-\gamma_5) q \,
637: \ov{q} \gamma^\nu \gamma^\mu (1+\gamma_5) b \; - \;
638: (4 - 8 \varepsilon) \, Q_S \label{defev}
639: \end{eqnarray}
640: and analogous definitions of $E[T]$ and $E[T_S]$. When the diagrams
641: ${\rm E}_1\ldots {\rm E}_4$ for e.g.\ $Q_S$ are calculated in $D=4-2
642: \varepsilon$ dimensions, the result can be expressed as a linear
643: combination of $Q_S$ and $E[Q_S]$.
644: Effectively, \eq{defev} defines how Dirac strings with
645: two or three Dirac matrices are reduced. (Note that \eq{defev} also
646: implies the replacement rules $\gamma_\nu \gamma_\rho \gamma_\mu
647: (1-\gamma_5) \otimes \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho \gamma^\mu (1-\gamma_5)
648: \to (16 - 4 \varepsilon ) \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) \otimes \gamma^\mu
649: (1-\gamma_5)$ and $ \gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu (1-\gamma_5) \otimes
650: \gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu (1+\gamma_5) \to 4 (1+\varepsilon) (1-\gamma_5)
651: \otimes (1+\gamma_5)$.) The particular choice of the $- 8\varepsilon $
652: terms in \eq{defev} is motivated by Fierz invariance: the
653: one-loop matrix elements of e.g.\ $Q_S$ and its Fierz transform
654: $Q_S^F=-1/2\, \ov{b}_i\gamma_\nu (1+\gamma_5) b_j \ov{q}_j \gamma^\nu
655: (1-\gamma_5) q_i$ are in general different. This feature is an artifact of
656: dimensional regularization. With \eq{defev} and a corresponding
657: definition of $E[Q_S^F]$, however, Fierz invariance is maintained at
658: the one-loop level. This choice, which has also been made in \cite{bw}
659: for the $\Delta B=1$ operators, has the practical advantage that
660: one can freely use the Fierz transformation at any step of the
661: calculation. In other words: ``Fierz-evanescent'' operators like
662: $Q_S-Q_S^F$ can be identified with 0.
663:
664: In the procedure of matching the full theory (eq. (\ref{deft})) to the
665: effective $\Delta B=0$ theory, infrared singularities are
666: encountered at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ both in the full-theory diagrams
667: and in the matrix elements of operators in the effective theory.
668: The diagrams relevant for this issue are $D_1$ -- $D_4$ and
669: $E_1$ -- $E_4$. The singularities cancel in the Wilson coefficients
670: $F$ and $G$, but need to be regularized at intermediate steps of the
671: calculation. We take the $b$-quark on-shell, assign zero $4$-momentum
672: to the external light quarks and use dimensional regularization for
673: the infrared (as well as the ultraviolet) divergences. In this case,
674: care has to be taken to treat the Dirac algebra in a consistent way.
675: In computing the matching condition between $D_1$ -- $D_4$ and
676: $E_1$ -- $E_4$ we have used two different methods, which lead
677: to the same result.
678: In both methods ultraviolet divergences appearing in $E_1$ -- $E_4$
679: and $D_3$ are subtracted, respectively, by $\Delta B=0$ and
680: $\Delta B=1$ counterterms, in the usual way.
681:
682: In the first method, we distinguish IR singularities arising in loop
683: integrals from UV singularities, and treat the Dirac algebra in strictly
684: four dimensions in the IR-divergent parts.
685: In the second method, IR and UV divergences are not distinguished
686: and $d$-dimensional Dirac algebra is used throughout. In this case
687: evanescent operators $E$, as those given in (\ref{defev}), give a
688: non-vanishing contribution in the matching procedure. This is a
689: subtlety of the IR regulator used in method 2 \cite{MU}. If a different
690: IR regulator, such as a gluon mass or method 1, is used, the
691: non-vanishing bare one-loop matrix element of $E$ is cancelled by a
692: finite counterterm, so that $E$ disappears from the NLO matching
693: calculation \cite{bw,hn}. The non-zero contribution in method 2
694: originates in diagram $E_1$ with the insertion of an evanescent
695: operator $E$. This diagram is zero in dimensional regularization,
696: thus leaving the corresponding counterterm uncancelled.
697: We have further parametrized the evanescent ${\cal O}(\varepsilon)$
698: parts appearing in the $d$-dimensional projections of general Dirac
699: structures $\Gamma\otimes\Gamma$ onto the basic operators $Q$ and $Q_S$.
700: There are four independent parameters in the calculation, corresponding
701: to $\Gamma$ being a string of two, three, four or five Dirac matrices.
702: We have checked that all four parameters disappear from the final
703: result for the coefficients. (This is true for the evanescent
704: ${\cal O}(\varepsilon)$ parts multiplying IR poles.
705: The UV poles give rise to a dependence on these parameters, which
706: corresponds to a usual scheme dependence that is cancelled by the
707: matrix elements of operators in the effective theory. Our choice
708: of scheme is specified by (\ref{defev}).)
709:
710: We would also like to mention that the Fierz ordering of
711: $\Delta B=1$ operators is immaterial because Fierz symmetry
712: is respected by the standard NDR renormalization scheme employed
713: by us. This has been checked by using the Fierz form leading to
714: Dirac strings with flavour structure $\bar bb\otimes \bar uu$
715: in method 1, and $\bar bu\otimes\bar ub$ in method 2, and
716: similarly for the contribution with $u\to d$. (The Fierz form
717: used in method 2 for $\bar bd\otimes\bar db$ is such that a
718: closed fermion loop is generated in $D_1$ -- $D_4$.)
719:
720:
721:
722: In the NLO corrections to \eq{diffg} we set $|V_{ud}|=1$ and
723: $V_{cd}=0$. This introduces an error of order $|V_{cd}|^2
724: \alpha_s(m_b) z \ln z$, which is well below 1\% of
725: $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)-1$. Hence \eq{diffg} only involves the
726: differences $F^{\WA,(1)}_{ij} - F^{\PI,(1)}_{ij} \ldots
727: G^{\WA,(1)}_{S,ij} - G^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,ij}$. Our results for these
728: coefficients read:
729: %\input{diffcoeff.input}
730: \begin{eqnarray}
731: \lefteqn{
732: F^{\WA ,(1)}_{11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
733: F^{\PI ,(1)}_{11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
734: = } \no \\[2mm]
735: &&
736: \ds \left[
737: \frac{16\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -4 - 3\,z + 3\,z^2 \right) }{3}
738: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
739: &&\ds \left[
740: \frac{4\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 16 + 19\,z \right) }{3}
741: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
742: \ds \left[
743: \frac{4\,z\,\left( 93 + 40\,z - 57\,z^2 \right) }{9}
744: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
745: &&\ds \left[
746: 32\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2
747: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
748: \ds \left[
749: -16\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2
750: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
751: &&\ds \left[
752: \frac{32\,\left( 1 - z \right) }{9}
753: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
754: \ds
755: \frac{2\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 152 + 149\,z + 155\,z^2 \right) }{27}
756: \no
757: \end{eqnarray}
758:
759:
760: \begin{eqnarray}
761: \lefteqn{
762: F^{\WA ,(1)}_{12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
763: F^{\PI ,(1)}_{12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
764: = } \no \\[2mm]
765: &&
766: \ds \left[
767: \frac{32\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -4 - 6\,z + z^2 \right) }{3}
768: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
769: &&\ds \left[
770: \frac{8\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 2 + 13\,z + 3\,z^2 \right) }{3\,z}
771: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
772: \ds \left[
773: \frac{8\,z\,\left( 37 - 6\,z - 6\,z^2 \right) }{3}
774: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
775: &&\ds \left[
776: 16\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 2 + z \right)
777: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
778: \ds \left[
779: \frac{16\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 6 + 2\,z + z^2 \right) }{9}
780: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \no \\[2mm]
781: &&\ds
782: \frac{4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 30 + 33\,z - 13\,z^2 \right) }{3}
783: \no
784: \end{eqnarray}
785:
786:
787: \begin{eqnarray}
788: \lefteqn{
789: F^{\WA ,(1)}_{22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
790: F^{\PI ,(1)}_{22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
791: = } \no \\[2mm]
792: &&
793: \ds \left[
794: \frac{16\,\left( 19 - z \right) \,\left( -1 + z \right) \,z}{9}
795: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
796: &&\ds \left[
797: \frac{16\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,{\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }^2}{9\,z}
798: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
799: \ds \left[
800: \frac{4\,z\,\left( 135 + 30\,z - 68\,z^2 \right) }{27}
801: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
802: &&\ds \left[
803: \frac{16\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 8 + z \right) }{3}
804: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
805: \ds \left[
806: \frac{-8\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 8 + z \right) }{3}
807: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
808: &&\ds \left[
809: \frac{16\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 6 + 2\,z + z^2 \right) }{27}
810: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
811: \ds
812: \frac{4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 544 - 185\,z - 68\,z^2 \right) }{81}
813: \no
814: \end{eqnarray}
815:
816:
817: \begin{eqnarray}
818: \lefteqn{
819: F^{\WA ,(1)}_{S,11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
820: F^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
821: = } \no \\[2mm]
822: &&
823: \ds \left[
824: 32\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
825: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
826: &&\ds \left[
827: -8\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 2 + 10\,z - 3\,z^2 \right)
828: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
829: &&\ds \left[
830: \frac{8\,z\,\left( 18 - 155\,z + 144\,z^2 - 27\,z^3 \right) }{9}
831: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
832: &&\ds \left[
833: -48\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
834: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \;
835: \ds
836: \frac{-4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 133 - 53\,z + 40\,z^2 \right) }{27}
837: \no
838: \end{eqnarray}
839:
840:
841: \begin{eqnarray}
842: \lefteqn{
843: F^{\WA ,(1)}_{S,12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
844: F^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
845: = } \no \\[2mm]
846: &&
847: \ds \left[
848: \frac{64\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 2 - z \right) \,
849: \left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{3}
850: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
851: &&\ds \left[
852: \frac{-16\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,
853: \left( 1 + 2\,z + 6\,z^2 - 3\,z^3 \right) }{3\,z}
854: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
855: &&\ds \left[
856: \frac{16\,z\,\left( 4 - 24\,z + 18\,z^2 - 3\,z^3 \right) }{3}
857: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
858: &&\ds \left[
859: -32\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
860: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
861: \ds \left[
862: -32\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
863: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
864: &&\ds \left[
865: \frac{-32\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,z\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{9}
866: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
867: \ds
868: \frac{8\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -17 - 29\,z + 36\,z^2 \right) }{3}
869: \no
870: \end{eqnarray}
871:
872:
873: \begin{eqnarray}
874: \lefteqn{
875: F^{\WA ,(1)}_{S,22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
876: F^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
877: = } \no \\[2mm]
878: &&
879: \ds \left[
880: \frac{32\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 3 - z \right) \,
881: \left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{9}
882: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
883: &&\ds \left[
884: \frac{-8\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,
885: \left( 2 + 5\,z + 8\,z^2 - 3\,z^3 \right) }{9\,z}
886: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
887: &&\ds \left[
888: \frac{8\,z\,\left( 18 - 123\,z + 82\,z^2 - 9\,z^3 \right) }{27}
889: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
890: &&\ds \left[
891: \frac{-32\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{3}
892: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
893: \ds \left[
894: \frac{-16\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{3}
895: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
896: &&\ds \left[
897: \frac{-32\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,z\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{27}
898: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
899: \ds
900: \frac{4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -259 - 421\,z + 488\,z^2 \right) }{81}
901: \no
902: \end{eqnarray}
903:
904:
905: \begin{eqnarray}
906: \lefteqn{
907: G^{\WA ,(1)}_{11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
908: G^{\PI ,(1)}_{11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
909: = } \no \\[2mm]
910: &&
911: \ds \left[
912: 16\,\left( 4 - 3\,z \right) \,\left( 1 - z \right)
913: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
914: &&\ds \left[
915: {\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 122 + 5\,z \right)
916: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
917: \ds \left[
918: \frac{z\,\left( 384 - 256\,z - 21\,z^2 \right) }{3}
919: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
920: &&\ds \left[
921: -24\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2
922: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
923: \ds \left[
924: -6\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 4 + 3\,z \right)
925: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
926: &&\ds \left[
927: \frac{4\,\left( 7 - 9\,z \right) \,\left( 1 - z \right) }{3}
928: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
929: \ds
930: \frac{\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -2450 + 2575\,z + 517\,z^2 \right) }{18}
931: \no
932: \end{eqnarray}
933:
934:
935: \begin{eqnarray}
936: \lefteqn{
937: G^{\WA ,(1)}_{12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
938: G^{\PI ,(1)}_{12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
939: = } \no \\[2mm]
940: &&
941: \ds \left[
942: 8\,\left( 4 - 13\,z \right) \,\left( 1 - z \right)
943: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
944: &&\ds \left[
945: \frac{2\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 2 + 3\,z + 13\,z^2 \right) }{z}
946: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
947: \ds \left[
948: \frac{4\,z\,\left( 12 + 24\,z - 25\,z^2 \right) }{3}
949: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
950: &&\ds \left[
951: 12\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 14 + z \right)
952: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
953: \ds \left[
954: -12\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 8 + z \right)
955: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
956: &&\ds \left[
957: \frac{4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 6 + 2\,z + z^2 \right) }{3}
958: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
959: \ds
960: \frac{\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 818 - 667\,z - 19\,z^2 \right) }{9}
961: \no
962: \end{eqnarray}
963:
964:
965: \begin{eqnarray}
966: \lefteqn{
967: G^{\WA ,(1)}_{22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
968: G^{\PI ,(1)}_{22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
969: = } \no \\[2mm]
970: &&
971: \ds \left[
972: \frac{-8\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 36 + 31\,z + 5\,z^2 \right) }{3}
973: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
974: &&\ds \left[
975: \frac{4\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( -1 + 68\,z + 5\,z^2 \right) }
976: {3\,z}
977: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
978: \ds \left[
979: \frac{4\,z\,\left( 162 - 102\,z - z^2 \right) }{9}
980: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
981: &&\ds \left[
982: -4\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 8 + z \right)
983: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
984: \ds \left[
985: 2\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 8 + z \right)
986: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
987: &&\ds \left[
988: \frac{2\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 60 + 77\,z + 7\,z^2 \right) }{9}
989: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
990: \ds
991: \frac{\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -2803 + 2786\,z + 725\,z^2 \right) }{27}
992: \no
993: \end{eqnarray}
994:
995:
996: \begin{eqnarray}
997: \lefteqn{
998: G^{\WA ,(1)}_{S,11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
999: G^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,11} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
1000: = } \no \\[2mm]
1001: &&
1002: \ds \left[
1003: -18\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
1004: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
1005: \ds \left[
1006: \frac{-44\,\left( 4 - 3\,z \right) \,z^2}{3}
1007: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
1008: &&\ds
1009: \frac{4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 28 + 103\,z - 164\,z^2 \right) }{9}
1010: \no
1011: \end{eqnarray}
1012:
1013:
1014: \begin{eqnarray}
1015: \lefteqn{
1016: G^{\WA ,(1)}_{S,12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
1017: G^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,12} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
1018: = } \no \\[2mm]
1019: &&
1020: \ds \left[
1021: 16\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
1022: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
1023: &&\ds \left[
1024: \frac{-4\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + z \right) \,
1025: \left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{z}
1026: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \;
1027: \ds \left[
1028: \frac{4\,z\,\left( 6 - 51\,z + 28\,z^2 \right) }{3}
1029: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
1030: &&\ds \left[
1031: -24\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
1032: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
1033: \ds \left[
1034: \frac{-8\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,z\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) }{3}
1035: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \no \\[2mm]
1036: &&\ds
1037: \frac{4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( -53 - 80\,z + 82\,z^2 \right) }{9}
1038: \no
1039: \end{eqnarray}
1040:
1041:
1042: \begin{eqnarray}
1043: \lefteqn{
1044: G^{\WA ,(1)}_{S,22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0}) -
1045: G^{\PI ,(1)}_{S,22} (z,x_{\mu_1},x_{\mu_0})
1046: = } \no \\[2mm]
1047: &&
1048: \ds \left[
1049: \frac{16\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) \,
1050: \left( 3 + 5\,z \right) }{3}
1051: \right] \; \ds \left[\li(z) + \frac{\ln (1 - z)\,\ln (z)}{2}\right] \; + \no \\[2mm]
1052: &&\ds \left[
1053: \frac{-2\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,
1054: \left( -2 + 31\,z + 64\,z^2 + 3\,z^3 \right) }{3\,z}
1055: \right] \; \ds \ln (1 - z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
1056: &&\ds \left[
1057: \frac{2\,z\,\left( 36 - 336\,z + 62\,z^2 + 9\,z^3 \right) }{9}
1058: \right] \; \ds \ln (z) \; + \no \\[2mm]
1059: &&\ds \left[
1060: 8\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
1061: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 1}) \; + \;
1062: \ds \left[
1063: 4\,{\left( 1 - z \right) }^2\,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right)
1064: \right] \; \ds \ln (x\su {\mu\su 0}) \; + \no \\[2mm]
1065: &&\ds \left[
1066: \frac{-4\,\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 1 + 2\,z \right) \,
1067: \left( 9 + 7\,z \right) }{9}
1068: \right] \; \ds {\pi }^2 \; + \;
1069: \ds
1070: \frac{\left( 1 - z \right) \,\left( 385 + 1519\,z - 3278\,z^2 \right) }{27}
1071: \label{diffcoeff}
1072: \end{eqnarray}
1073: Here $\li (z) = - \int_0^z \,dt \, [\ln (1-t)]/t$ is the dilogarithm
1074: function.
1075: %To allow a comparison with \cite{rome} we also quote the
1076: %individual coefficients for $z=0$:
1077: %\input{coeff_z=0.input} %\label{coeffz0}
1078: Any dependence on infrared regulators has cancelled from the
1079: coefficients in \eq{diffcoeff} showing that infrared effects properly
1080: factorize. As another check we have verified that the dependence on
1081: $\mu_1$ cancels analytically to the calculated order.
1082:
1083: For our numerical studies we choose the following range for the input
1084: parameters:
1085: \begin{eqnarray}
1086: \alpha_s (M_Z) &=& 0.118 \pm 0.003, \qquad m_b \; = \; 4.8 \pm 0.1
1087: \gev, \qquad z=0.085 \pm 0.015 . \label{inp}
1088: \end{eqnarray}
1089: Throughout this paper we always remove ${\cal
1090: O}(\alpha_s^2)$ terms from the calculated coefficients. (For instance,
1091: at NLO we write a product such as $C_1^2 F^u$ as
1092: $C_{1,\rm LO}^2 F^u_{\rm NLO}+2 C_{1,\rm LO} \,dC_{1}
1093: F^u_{\rm LO}$, where $C_{1,\rm NLO}=C_{1,\rm LO}+dC_{1}$
1094: denotes the NLO Wilson coefficient.)
1095: In all terms we use the two-loop expression for the running
1096: coupling $\alpha_s$ in QCD with
1097: five flavours. Numerical
1098: values for the calculated coefficients can be found in Tab.~\ref{tab}.
1099: \begin{ntable}{tb}
1100: \begin{displaymath}
1101: \begin{array}{r|r|r|r|r|r}
1102: \ds z\, & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{\ds 0.085} &\ds 0.070 &\ds 0.100 \\
1103: \ds \mu_1\, &\ds m_b/2 &\ds m_b &\ds 2\, m_b &\ds m_b &\ds m_b
1104: \\[1mm]\hline\hline &&&&&\\[-2mm]
1105: \ds F^{\WA ,{\rm LO}} - F^{\PI ,{\rm LO}}
1106: &\ds 0.865&\ds 0.270&\ds -0.176&\ds 0.280&\ds 0.261\\
1107: \ds F^{\WA ,{\rm NLO}} - F^{\PI ,{\rm NLO}}
1108: &\ds 0.396&\ds 0.460&\ds 0.386&\ds 0.469&\ds 0.452\\[1mm]\hline &&&&&\\
1109: [-2mm]
1110: \ds F_S^{\WA ,{\rm LO}} - F_S^{\PI ,{\rm LO}}
1111: &\ds 0.002&\ds 0.042&\ds 0.105&\ds 0.043&\ds 0.042\\
1112: \ds F_S^{\WA ,{\rm NLO}} - F_S^{\PI ,{\rm NLO}}
1113: &\ds 0.035&\ds 0.033&\ds 0.026&\ds 0.031&\ds 0.035\\[1mm]\hline &&&&&\\
1114: [-2mm]
1115: \ds G^{\WA ,{\rm LO}} - G^{\PI ,{\rm LO}}
1116: &\ds -9.912&\ds -8.618&\ds -7.848&\ds -8.887&\ds -8.353\\
1117: \ds G^{\WA ,{\rm NLO}} - G^{\PI ,{\rm NLO}}
1118: &\ds -8.665&\ds -8.501&\ds -8.154&\ds -8.718&\ds -8.280\\[1mm]\hline &&&&&\\
1119: [-2mm]
1120: \ds G_S^{\WA ,{\rm LO}} - G_S^{\PI ,{\rm LO}}
1121: &\ds 2.679&\ds 2.404&\ds 2.231&\ds 2.420&\ds 2.385\\
1122: \ds G_S^{\WA ,{\rm NLO}} - G_S^{\PI ,{\rm NLO}}
1123: &\ds 1.668&\ds 1.850&\ds 1.902&\ds 1.854&\ds 1.843
1124:
1125: \end{array}
1126: \end{displaymath}
1127: \caption{Numerical values for the coefficients in \eq{diffg} for
1128: $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.118$ and $\mu_0=m_b=4.8\gev$. }\label{tab}
1129: \end{ntable}
1130: The two contributions from $(F^{\WA } - F^{\PI})B_1 + (G^{\WA } - G^{\PI})
1131: \epsilon_1$ and from $(F_S^{\WA } - F_S^{\PI})B_2 + (G_S^{\WA } - G_S^{\PI})
1132: \epsilon_2$ to $\Gamma (B_d^0) - \Gamma (B^+)$ are separately
1133: scheme-independent. Tab.~\ref{tab} reveals that the former part is
1134: expected to give the dominant contribution to the desired width
1135: difference. The results also show a substantial improvement of the
1136: $\mu_1$-dependence in the NLO compared to LO.
1137: \begin{nfigure}{t!}
1138: \centerline{
1139: \epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth
1140: \epsffile{Fu-Fd_mu1.eps}~~~
1141: \epsfxsize=0.5\textwidth
1142: \epsffile{Gu-Gd_mu1.eps}
1143: }
1144: \caption{Dependence of $ F^{\WA } - F^{\PI } $ and $ G^{\WA}
1145: - G^{\PI} $ on $\mu_1/m_b$ for the input parameters in \eq{inp} and
1146: $\mu_0=m_b$. The solid (short-dashed) line shows the NLO (LO)
1147: result. The long-dashed line shows the NLO result in the
1148: approximation of \cite{rome}, i.e.\ $z$ is set to zero in the NLO
1149: corrections. }\label{fig:plot}
1150: \end{nfigure}
1151: This dependence is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:plot} for the two Wilson
1152: coefficients of the important vector operators. The approximation
1153: employed in \cite{rome} setting $z=0$ in the NLO correction is also
1154: plotted. Expectedly, the accuracy of this approximation decreases for
1155: small $\mu_1$, because the difference to the exact NLO result is of
1156: order $\alpha_s(\mu_1)\, z\ln z$. For the final result of our
1157: coefficients we estimate the $\mu_1$-dependence in a more conservative
1158: way: we vary $\mu_1$ in $F^{\WA }\ldots G_S^{\WA }$ and $F^{\PI
1159: }\ldots G_S^{\PI }$ independently. Further the variation with $z$
1160: and $\alpha_s(M_Z)$ in the ranges of \eq{inp} is calculated and all
1161: these sources of theoretical uncertainty are symmetrized
1162: individually and added in quadrature. The
1163: dependence on $z$ is only an issue for $ G^{\WA} - G^{\PI} $. We find:
1164: \begin{eqnarray}
1165: \begin{array}{r|@{~~~}r|@{~~~}r|@{~~~}r}
1166: & {\rm NLO}\phantom{0.10} & {\rm LO} \phantom{0.106}&
1167: {\rm app}\phantom{0.10} \\\hline &&&\\[-2mm]
1168: F^{\WA } - F^{\PI } & 0.460 \pm 0.101 & % NLO: almz relevant 0.115 - 0.121
1169: 0.270 \pm 0.480 &
1170: 0.440 \pm 0.119
1171: \\[1mm]
1172: F_S^{\WA } - F_S^{\PI } & 0.033 \pm 0.046 &
1173: 0.042 \pm 0.052 &
1174: 0.025 \pm 0.045
1175: \\[1mm]
1176: G^{\WA } - G^{\PI } & -8.50 \pm 0.40~~ % z-dependence relev.
1177: & -8.62 \pm 0.90~~
1178: & -8.00 \pm 0.32~~
1179: \\[1mm]
1180: G_S^{\WA } - G_S^{\PI } & 1.85 \pm 0.08~~
1181: & 2.40 \pm 0.23~~ % z-dependence relev.
1182: & 1.80 \pm 0.10~~
1183: \end{array}
1184: \label{tabres}
1185: \end{eqnarray}
1186: The quoted central values correspond to the choice $\mu_1=m_b$ and the
1187: central values in \eq{inp}. The third column in \eq{tabres} shows the
1188: result for the approximation of \cite{rome}, setting $z=0$ in the NLO
1189: corrections. For $\mu_1=m_b$ this approximation reproduces the size
1190: of the NLO corrections to $ F^{\WA } - F^{\PI } $ and $ G_S^{\WA} -
1191: G_S^{\PI} $ to better than 15\% . The small NLO correction to $
1192: G^{\WA } - G^{\PI } $ is, however, overestimated. The NLO result for
1193: this coefficient, which is largest in magnitude, is better reproduced
1194: by the LO result than by the approximation of \cite{rome}.
1195:
1196: The origin of the $\alpha_s(\mu_1)\, z\ln z$ terms, which are the main
1197: cause of the discrepancy between the first and third column in
1198: \eq{tabres}, can be traced back to diagram ${\rm D}_{11}$ of
1199: Fig.~\ref{fig:nlo}. This diagram defines the scheme of the charm-quark
1200: mass. One can absorb the $\alpha_s(\mu_1)\, z\ln z$ terms into the LO
1201: by replacing $z$ with $\ov{z}= \ov{m}^2_c(\mu)/\ov{m}^2_b(\mu) $,
1202: which implies the replacement
1203: \begin{eqnarray}
1204: F^{\WA, (1)} \to F^{\WA, (1)} - \frac{\alpha_s }{4\pi }
1205: \frac{\partial F^{\WA, (0)} }{\partial \ov{z}}
1206: \, \gamma_m^{(0)} \, \ov{z} \ln \ov{z} \label{sumlnz}
1207: \end{eqnarray}
1208: in the NLO corrections to $F^{\WA }$ and similarly in the other Wilson
1209: coefficients. Here $\gamma_m^{(0)}=8$ is the LO anomalous dimension of
1210: the quark mass. This procedure sums the terms of order $\alpha_s^n
1211: (\mu_1)\, z\ln^n z$ with $n=0,1,\ldots$ to all orders in perturbation
1212: theory. This can be seen by performing an OPE of the transition
1213: operator ${\cal T}$ which treats $m_c$ as a light mass scale: then
1214: increasing powers of $m_c$ correspond to $\Delta B=0$ operators of
1215: increasing dimension and $m_c$ and $m_b$ enter the result at the same
1216: scale $\mu_1$ at which the OPE is performed. In every order of the
1217: perturbation series $\ln \ov{z}$ is split into $\ln (\mu_1^2/m_b^2)$
1218: contained in the Wilson coefficients and $\ln (m_c^2/\mu_1^2)$
1219: residing in the matrix elements. Since there are no dimension-8
1220: operators with charm-quark fields contributing to $\Gamma (B_d^0) -
1221: \Gamma (B^+)$, no terms of order $m_c^2 \ln (m_c^2/\mu_1^2)$ can
1222: occur. From our NLO results we can indeed verify that the procedure
1223: in \eq{sumlnz} removes the $\alpha_s(\mu_1)\, z\ln z$ terms, while
1224: e.g.\ terms of order $\alpha_s(\mu_1)\, z^2 \ln z$ persist as
1225: expected, because there are dimension-10 operators with charm-quark
1226: fields of the type $m_c(\bar bq)(\bar qb)(\bar cc)$.
1227: Using $\ov{z}=0.055$ rather than $z=0.085$ in the coefficients
1228: tabulated in the third column of \eq{tabres} indeed removes the
1229: disturbing discrepancy with the NLO result for $G^{\WA } - G^{\PI }$.
1230: Also the central values
1231: of $F^{\WA } - F^{\PI }$ and $G_S^{\WA } - G_S^{\PI }$ move closer to the
1232: NLO result, while no significant improvement occurs for $F_S^{\WA } -
1233: F_S^{\PI }$.
1234:
1235: The width difference in \eq{diffg} involves the product
1236: $\vec{F}{}^{q\,T}\, \vec{B}$, which is independent of the
1237: renormalization scheme and scales.
1238: In order to compare the scheme dependent coefficients
1239: $\vec F^q$ with the calculation in \cite{rome}
1240: for $z=0$, we need to take into account that the coefficients
1241: in \cite{rome} are defined for matrix elements in HQET rather than
1242: in full QCD. The matching relation connecting HQET and full-QCD
1243: matrix elements of the four operators $\vec O$ used in \cite{rome}
1244: has the form
1245: \begin{equation}\label{oqcdhqet}
1246: \langle\vec O\rangle_{QCD}(m_b)=
1247: \left(1+\frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4\pi}\hat C^{\overline{MS}}_1\right)
1248: \, \langle\vec O\rangle_{HQET}(m_b)\, ,
1249: \end{equation}
1250: where the $4\times 4$ matrix $\hat C^{\overline{MS}}_1$ can be found in
1251: Eq. (36) of \cite{rome}. The renormalization
1252: scheme of operator matrix elements in full QCD is identical
1253: in our paper and in \cite{rome,b}. The only further difference
1254: is that the operators $\vec O$ are linear combinations,
1255: $\vec O=S\vec Q$, of our basis $\vec Q=(Q,\, Q_S,\, T,\, T_S)^T$
1256: with
1257: \begin{equation}\label{s44}
1258: S=\left(
1259: \begin{array}{cccc}
1260: \frac{1}{3} & 0 & 2 & 0 \\
1261: 0 & -\frac{2}{3} & 0 & -4 \\
1262: \frac{4}{9} & 0 & -\frac{1}{3} & 0 \\
1263: 0 & -\frac{8}{9} & 0 & \frac{2}{3} \\
1264: \end{array}\right)\, .
1265: \end{equation}
1266: (This simple relation holds beyond tree level because the
1267: renormalization schemes are identical. The preservation of
1268: Fierz-symmetry by the choice of evanescent operators in (\ref{defev})
1269: is important for this property.)
1270: It follows that our coefficients $\vec F$ are related to the
1271: corresponding coefficients $\vec A+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\vec B$
1272: in \cite{rome} at scale $\mu=m_b$ through
1273: \begin{equation}\label{fabrome}
1274: \frac{1}{3}\left(\vec F^{(0)}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\vec F^{(1)}\right)^T
1275: =\vec A^{\, T}\, S+ \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}
1276: \left(\vec B^T\, S - \vec A^{\,T}\, \hat C^{\overline{MS}}_1\, S\right)\, .
1277: \end{equation}
1278: Here we have suppressed flavour labels $q=u$, $d$ and the double
1279: indices $ij=11$, $12$, $22$ refering to the $\Delta B=1$ coefficients
1280: $C_i C_j$ (see (\ref{ffij})). Note that in the notation of
1281: \cite{rome} labels $u$, $d$ are interchanged with respect to our
1282: convention and that the coefficients with label $12$ are defined
1283: with a relative factor of two.
1284: Using (\ref{fabrome}) we have verified that the results
1285: of \cite{rome} obtained for $z=0$ are in agreement with ours
1286: in this limit.
1287:
1288:
1289:
1290: \section{Phenomenology}
1291: \boldmath
1292: \subsection{$\tau(B^+)/\tau(B_d^0)$}
1293: \unboldmath
1294: One can directly use \eq{diffg} to predict the desired lifetime ratio:
1295: \begin{eqnarray} \lefteqn{
1296: \frac{\tau(B^+)}{\tau(B_d^0)} - 1 \; = \; \tau(B^+) \,
1297: \lt[ \Gamma (B_d^0) - \Gamma (B^+) \rt]} \nn & = &
1298: 0.0325 \, \lt( \frac{|V_{cb}|}{0.04} \rt)^2
1299: \, \lt( \frac{m_b}{4.8\gev} \rt)^2 \,
1300: \lt( \frac{f_B}{200\mev} \rt)^2 \,
1301: \times \nn &&
1302: \Big[ \, ( 1.0 \pm 0.2) \, B_1 \; + \; (0.1 \pm 0.1) \, B_2 \; - \;
1303: (18.4 \pm 0.9) \, \epsilon_1 \; + \; (4.0 \pm 0.2) \, \epsilon_2
1304: \, \Big] .~~~ \label{phent}
1305: \end{eqnarray}
1306: Here $\tau(B^+) = 1.653\,$ps${}$ has been used in the overall
1307: factor and the hadronic parameters $B_1\ldots \epsilon_2$ are
1308: normalized at $\mu_0=m_b$ throughout this section.
1309:
1310: In \cite{ns} it has been noticed that without a detailed study of the
1311: hadronic parameters one expects $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B_d^0)$ to deviate
1312: from 1 by up to $\pm 20\%$. This feature originates from the large
1313: coefficient of $\epsilon_1$ and persists in our NLO prediction in
1314: \eq{phent}, because the NLO corrections to $G^{\WA } - G^{\PI }$
1315: are small. Confronting \eq{phent} with the recent measurements
1316: \cite{babar,belle},
1317: \begin{eqnarray}
1318: \frac{\tau(B^+)}{\tau(B_d^0)} &=&
1319: \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1.082 \pm 0.026 \pm 0.012 & {\rm (BABAR)} \\
1320: 1.091 \pm 0.023 \pm 0.014 & {\rm (BELLE)}
1321: \end{array}\right.
1322: \label{babar}
1323: \end{eqnarray}
1324: one expects $|\epsilon_1|$ to be significantly smaller than
1325: $1/N_c=1/3$, i.e.\ nonfactorizable contributions appear to be small.
1326: This result is confirmed by the existing computations of the
1327: $\epsilon_i$'s in quenched lattice QCD \cite{b,ds}.
1328: %The smallness of
1329: %$|\epsilon_1|$ clearly limits the achievable precision of the
1330: %theoretical prediction from \eq{phent}, because in non-perturbative
1331: %calculations $\epsilon_1$ mixes with the large coefficient $B_1$.
1332: However, due to its large coefficient
1333: sophisticated non-perturbative methods are
1334: definitely necessary to compute $\epsilon_1$ sufficiently accurately.
1335: The other important term in \eq{phent} is the first one: the NLO
1336: enhancement of $F^{\WA} -F^{\PI}$ in \eq{tabres} has altered the
1337: coefficient of $B_1$ in \eq{phent} from $0.6 \pm 1.0$ in the LO to
1338: $1.0 \pm 0.2$. While from the LO result not even the sign of this
1339: contribution was known, the NLO result now clearly establishes a positive
1340: contribution of order 3\% to $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B_d^0)$ from the term
1341: involving $B_1$.
1342:
1343: The hadronic parameters have been computed in \cite{b} using
1344: the same renormalization scheme as in the present paper.
1345: They read
1346: \begin{eqnarray}
1347: (B_1,B_2, \epsilon_1,\epsilon_2) &=&
1348: (1.10\pm 0.20, \, 0.79 \pm 0.10, \, -0.02 \pm 0.02, \, 0.03 \pm
1349: 0.01 ) .
1350: \label{bec}
1351: \end{eqnarray}
1352: Using $|V_{cb}|=0.040 \pm 0.0016 $ from a CLEO analysis of inclusive
1353: semileptonic $B$ decays \cite{cleo}, the world average $f_B = (200 \pm
1354: 30)\mev $ from lattice calculations \cite{r} and $m_b=4.8 \pm 0.1
1355: \gev$ in \eq{phent}, we find
1356: \begin{eqnarray}
1357: \frac{\tau(B^+)}{\tau(B_d^0)} &=& 1.053 \pm 0.016 \pm 0.017, \qquad
1358: \lt[ \frac{\tau(B^+)}{\tau(B_d^0)} \rt]_{\rm LO} \; =\; 1.041 \pm 0.040
1359: \pm 0.013,
1360: \label{res}
1361: \end{eqnarray}
1362: where the first error is due to the errors on the NLO coefficients
1363: as given in (\ref{phent}) and the hadronic parameters (\ref{bec}),
1364: and the second error is
1365: the overall normalization uncertainty due to $m_b$, $|V_{cb}|$ and
1366: $f_B$ in (\ref{phent}). The first error reduces to 0.008 in NLO
1367: and 0.038 in LO, if the errors on the hadronic parameters
1368: are neglected, demonstrating the substantial reduction of
1369: scale dependence at NLO in comparison with the LO.
1370: This result is gratifying as the strong scale
1371: dependence observed at LO had been a major motivation for a
1372: NLO analysis. This is also seen in Fig. \ref{fig:ldplot}, where
1373: we show the lifetime ratio as a function
1374: of the renormalization scale $\mu_1$. We should, however,
1375: emphasize that the result and error given in (\ref{res}) do
1376: not include the effects of $1/m_b$ corrections and unquenching,
1377: which could well be on the order of 0.05.
1378: The NLO result slightly exceeds the central value of the LO result and
1379: improves the agreement with the experimental value in \eq{babar}.
1380:
1381: \begin{nfigure}{t!}
1382: \centerline{
1383: \epsfxsize=0.7\textwidth
1384: \epsffile{lifediff.eps}
1385: }
1386: \caption{Dependence of $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)-1$
1387: on $\mu_1/m_b$ for the central values of the input parameters and
1388: $\mu_0=m_b$. The solid (short-dashed) line shows the NLO (LO)
1389: result. The long-dashed line shows the NLO result in the
1390: approximation of \cite{rome}, i.e.\ $z$ is set to zero in the NLO
1391: corrections. }\label{fig:ldplot}
1392: \end{nfigure}
1393:
1394:
1395:
1396:
1397: \boldmath
1398: \subsection{$\tau(\Xi_b^0)/\tau(\Xi_b^-)$}\label{subs:xi}
1399: \unboldmath%
1400: The SU(3)$_{\rm F}$ anti-triplet $(\Lambda_b \sim bud,\, \Xi_b^0 \sim
1401: bus,\, \Xi_b^- \sim bds)$ comprises the $b$-flavoured baryons whose
1402: light degrees of freedom are in a $0^+$ state. These baryons decay
1403: weakly. Baryon lifetimes have attracted a lot of theoretical
1404: attention: the measured $\Lambda_b$ lifetime falls short of
1405: $\tau(B_d^0)$ by roughly 20\% \cite{pdg}, which has raised concerns
1406: about the applicability of the HQE to baryons. Unfortunately this
1407: interesting topic cannot yet be addressed at the NLO level, because
1408: $\tau(\Lambda_b)/\tau(B_d^0)$ receives contributions from the
1409: SU(3)$_{\rm F}$-singlet portion ${\cal T}_{sing}$ of the transition
1410: operator in \eq{t3} and NLO corrections to ${\cal T}_{sing}$ are unknown at
1411: present. Further the hadronic matrix elements entering
1412: $\tau(\Lambda_b)/\tau(B_d^0)$ involve penguin contractions of the
1413: operators in \eq{ops}, which are difficult to compute. It is, however,
1414: possible to predict the lifetime splitting within the iso-doublet
1415: $(\Xi_b^0,\Xi_b^-)$ with NLO precision. The corresponding LO diagrams
1416: are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bar}.
1417: \begin{nfigure}{t}
1418: \centerline{
1419: \epsfxsize=0.8\textwidth
1420: \epsffile{deltab1-xi.eps}
1421: }
1422: \caption{\textit{Weak scattering}\ (WS)
1423: and PI diagrams for $\Xi_b$ baryons in the leading order of QCD. They
1424: contribute to $\Gamma (\Xi_b^0)$ and $\Gamma (\Xi_b^-)$, respectively.
1425: CKM-suppressed contributions are not shown. }\label{fig:bar}
1426: \end{nfigure}
1427: For $\Xi_b$'s the weak decay of the valence $s$-quark could be
1428: relevant: the decays $\Xi_b^- \to \Lambda_b \pi^-$, $\Xi_b^- \to
1429: \Lambda_b e^- \ov{\nu}_e$ and $\Xi_b^0 \to \Lambda_b \pi^0$ are
1430: triggered by $s\to u$ transitions and could affect the total rates at
1431: the ${\cal O}(1\%)$ level \cite{v}. Once the lifetime measurements
1432: reach this accuracy, one should correct for this effect. To this end
1433: we define
1434: \begin{eqnarray}
1435: \ov{\Gamma} (\Xi_b) \! &\equiv& \!
1436: \Gamma (\Xi_b) - \Gamma (\Xi_b \to \Lambda_b X)
1437: \; = \; \frac{1- B(\Xi_b \to \Lambda_b X)}{\tau(\Xi_b)}
1438: \; \equiv \; \frac{1}{\ov{\tau}(\Xi_b)}
1439: \quad
1440: \mbox{for }\, \Xi_b=\Xi_b^0,\Xi_b^-, \qquad
1441: \end{eqnarray}
1442: where $B(\Xi_b \to \Lambda_b X)$ is the branching ratio of the
1443: above-mentioned decay modes. Thus $\ov{\Gamma} (\Xi_b)$ is the
1444: contribution from $b\to c$ transitions to the total decay rate.
1445: In analogy to \eq{diffg} one finds
1446: \begin{eqnarray}
1447: \ov{\Gamma} (\Xi_b^-) - \ov{\Gamma} (\Xi_b^0) & = &
1448: \frac{G_F^2 m_b^2 |V_{cb}|^2}{12 \pi } \, f_B^2 M_B \,
1449: \lt( |V_{ud}|^2 \vec{F}{}^{\WA} + |V_{cd}|^2 \vec{F}{}^{c}
1450: - \vec{F}{}^{\PI} \rt) \cdot \vec{B}{}^{\Xi_b}
1451: . \label{diffgxi}
1452: \end{eqnarray}
1453: Here $\vec{B}{}^{\Xi_b} = (L_1^{\Xi_b}(\mu_0),L_{1S}^{\Xi_b}(\mu_0),
1454: L_{2}^{\Xi_b}(\mu_0),L_{2S}^{\Xi_b}(\mu_0))^T$ comprises the hadronic
1455: parameters defined as
1456: \begin{eqnarray}
1457: \langle \Xi_b^0 | (Q^u - Q^d) (\mu_0) | \Xi_b^0 \rangle
1458: & = & f_B^2 M_B M_{\Xi_b} \, L_1^{\Xi_b} (\mu_0), \nn
1459: \langle \Xi_b^0 | (Q_S^u - Q_S^d) (\mu_0) | \Xi_b^0 \rangle
1460: & = & f_B^2 M_B M_{\Xi_b} \, L_{1S}^{\Xi_b} (\mu_0), \nn
1461: \langle \Xi_b^0 | (T^u - T^d) (\mu_0) | \Xi_b^0 \rangle
1462: & = & f_B^2 M_B M_{\Xi_b} \, L_2^{\Xi_b} (\mu_0), \nn
1463: \langle \Xi_b^0 | (T_S^u - T_S^d) (\mu_0) | \Xi_b^0 \rangle
1464: & = & f_B^2 M_B M_{\Xi_b} \, L_{2S}^{\Xi_b} (\mu_0) . \label{l}
1465: \end{eqnarray}
1466: In contrast to the $B$ meson system, the four matrix elements in
1467: \eq{l} are not independent at the considered order in
1468: $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$. Since the light degrees of freedom are in a
1469: spin-0 state, the matrix elements $\langle \Xi_b | 2Q_S^q+Q^q | \Xi_b
1470: \rangle$ and $\langle \Xi_b | 2T_S^q+T^q | \Xi_b \rangle$ are
1471: power-suppressed compared to those in \eq{l} (see e.g.\
1472: \cite{hqe,ns}). This, however, is not true in all renormalization
1473: schemes, in the $\ov{\rm MS}$ scheme used by us $2Q_S^q+Q^q$ and
1474: $2T_S^q+T^q$ receive short-distance corrections, because hard gluons
1475: can resolve the heavy $b$-quark mass. This feature is discussed in
1476: \cite{bbgln}. These short-distance corrections are calculated from the
1477: diagrams $E_1\ldots E_4$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:nlo}. For our scheme we find
1478: \begin{eqnarray}
1479: \lt( \begin{array}{c}
1480: L_{1S}^{\Xi_b} (m_b)\\
1481: L_{2S}^{\Xi_b} (m_b)
1482: \end{array}
1483: \rt)
1484: &=&
1485: \lt[ - \frac{1}{2} \; + \; \frac{\alpha_s(m_b)}{4 \pi} \,
1486: \lt( \begin{array}{cc}
1487: -28/3 & -7 \\
1488: -14/9 & 7/2
1489: \end{array}
1490: \rt) \rt] \,
1491: \lt( \begin{array}{c}
1492: L_1^{\Xi_b} (m_b)\\
1493: L_2^{\Xi_b} (m_b)
1494: \end{array}
1495: \rt) \; + \;
1496: {\cal O} \Big( \frac{\Lambda_{QCD}}{m_b} \Big).
1497: \quad \label{sdl}
1498: \end{eqnarray}
1499: As an important check we find that the dependence on the infrared regulator
1500: drops out in \eq{sdl}. With \eq{sdl} we can express the width
1501: difference in \eq{diffgxi} in terms of just the two hadronic
1502: parameters $L_1^{\Xi_b}$ and $L_2^{\Xi_b}$. We find
1503: \begin{eqnarray}
1504: \frac{\ov{\tau}(\Xi_b^0)}{\ov{\tau}(\Xi_b^-)} - 1 & = &
1505: \ov{\tau}(\Xi_b^0) \,
1506: \lt[ \Gamma (\Xi_b^-) - \Gamma (\Xi_b^0) \rt] \nn
1507: & = & 0.59 \, \lt( \frac{|V_{cb}|}{0.04} \rt)^2
1508: \, \lt( \frac{m_b}{4.8\gev} \rt)^2 \,
1509: \lt( \frac{f_B}{200\mev} \rt)^2 \,
1510: \frac{\ov{\tau}(\Xi_b^0)}{1.5\, {\rm ps}}
1511: \times \nn
1512: && \qquad \qquad \qquad
1513: \Big[ \, ( 0.04 \pm 0.01) \, L_1 \; - \;
1514: ( 1.00 \pm 0.04) \, L_2 \, \Big]
1515: ,~~~ \label{phentxi}
1516: \end{eqnarray}
1517: with $L_i=L_i^{\Xi_b}(\mu_0=m_b)$. For the baryon case there is no
1518: reason to expect the color-octed matrix element to be much smaller
1519: than the color-singlet ones, so that the term with $L_2$ will
1520: dominate the result. The hadronic parameters $L_{1,2}$ have been
1521: analysed in an exploratory study of lattice HQET \cite{dsm} for
1522: $\Lambda_b$ baryons. Up to SU(3)$_{\rm F}$ corrections, which are
1523: irrelevant in view of the other uncertainties, $L_i^{\Xi_b}$ and
1524: $L_i^{\Lambda_b}$ are equal.
1525:
1526: \section{Conclusions}
1527:
1528: We have computed the Wilson coefficients
1529: in the heavy quark expansion to order $(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)^3$
1530: for the $B^+$--$B_d^0$ lifetime difference at next-to-leading
1531: order in perturbative QCD.
1532: These coefficients depend on the scheme and scale $\mu_0$ used
1533: to define the matrix elements of the $\Delta B=0$ operators in the
1534: effective theory. Our scheme is specified by the NDR prescription
1535: for $\gamma_5$, $\overline{\rm MS}$ subtraction and the definition
1536: of evanescent operators given in (\ref{defev}).
1537: The ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ accuracy is crucial for a satisfactory
1538: matching of the Wilson coefficients to the matrix elements
1539: determined with lattice QCD. Current lattice calculations,
1540: which are still in a relatively early stage in this case,
1541: yield, when combined with our calculations,
1542: $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)=1.053\pm 0.016 \pm 0.017$ [see (\ref{res})].
1543: The effects of
1544: unquenching and $1/m_b$ corrections are not yet included,
1545: but could well be on the order of 0.05.
1546: Next-to-leading order corrections to $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)$
1547: were recently computed in the approximation $m_c=0$ \cite{rome}.
1548: Taking the limit $m_c\to 0$ of our results we find agreement
1549: with this calculation.
1550:
1551: A substantial improvement of the NLO calculation is the large
1552: reduction of perturbative uncertainty reflected in the scale
1553: dependence of $\Delta B=1$ Wilson coefficients from the
1554: standard weak Hamiltonian. This scale dependence had been found to
1555: be very large at leading order, preventing even an unambiguous
1556: prediction of the sign of $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0_d)-1$ up to
1557: now \cite{ns}.
1558: With this major source of uncertainty removed by the NLO calculation,
1559: further progress will depend on continuing advances in the
1560: evaluation of the nonperturbative hadronic matrix elements and
1561: the computation of $1/m_b$-suppressed effects.
1562:
1563:
1564:
1565:
1566: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1567: \bibitem{hqe}
1568: M.~A.~Shifman and M.~B.~Voloshin, in: \emph{Heavy Quarks}\ ed.\
1569: V.~A.~Khoze and M.~A.~Shifman,
1570: %``Heavy Quarks,''
1571: Sov.\ Phys.\ Usp.\ {\bf 26} (1983) 387;
1572: %%CITATION = SOPUA,26,387;%%
1573: M.~A.~Shifman and M.~B.~Voloshin,
1574: %``Preasymptotic Effects In Inclusive Weak Decays Of Charmed Particles,''
1575: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41} (1985) 120
1576: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 41} (1985) 187];
1577: %%CITATION = SJNCA,41,120;%%
1578: M.~A.~Shifman and M.~B.~Voloshin,
1579: %``Hierarchy Of Lifetimes Of Charmed And Beautiful Hadrons,''
1580: Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf 64} (1986) 698
1581: [Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 91} (1986) 1180];
1582: %%CITATION = SPHJA,64,698;%%
1583: I.~I.~Bigi, N.~G.~Uraltsev and A.~I.~Vainshtein,
1584: %``Nonperturbative corrections to inclusive
1585: %beauty and charm decays: QCD versus phenomenological models,''
1586: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 293} (1992) 430
1587: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 297} (1992) 477].
1588: %J.~Chay, H.~Georgi and B.~Grinstein,
1589: %``Lepton Energy Distributions In Heavy Meson Decays From QCD,''
1590: %Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 247} (1990) 399.
1591: For a recent review see: M.~Voloshin, in: \emph{$B$ physics at the
1592: Tevatron: Run-II and Beyond}, Chapter 8, [hep-ph/0201071].
1593:
1594: \bibitem{bb}
1595: M.~Beneke and G.~Buchalla,
1596: %``The $B_c$ Meson Lifetime,''
1597: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53} (1996) 4991.
1598: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601249;%%
1599:
1600: \bibitem{ns}
1601: M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
1602: %``Spectator effects in inclusive decays of beauty hadrons,''
1603: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 483} (1997) 339.
1604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603202;%%
1605: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla and I.~Dunietz,
1606: %``Width Difference in the $B_s-\bar{B_s}$ System,''
1607: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 4419.
1608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9605259;%%
1609:
1610: \bibitem{acmp}
1611: G.~Altarelli, G.~Curci, G.~Martinelli and S.~Petrarca,
1612: %``QCD Nonleading Corrections To Weak Decays As An Application Of
1613: %Regularization By Dimensional Reduction,''
1614: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 187} (1981) 461.
1615: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B187,461;%%
1616:
1617: \bibitem{bw}
1618: A.~J.~Buras and P.~H.~Weisz,
1619: %``QCD Nonleading Corrections To Weak Decays In Dimensional
1620: %Regularization And 'T Hooft-Veltman Schemes,''
1621: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 333} (1990) 66.
1622: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B333,66;%%
1623:
1624: \bibitem{kn}
1625: Y.~Y.~Keum and U.~Nierste,
1626: %``Probing penguin coefficients with the lifetime ratio tau(B/s)/tau(B/d),''
1627: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 4282.
1628: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710512;%%
1629:
1630: \bibitem{bbgln}
1631: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, C.~Greub, A.~Lenz and U.~Nierste,
1632: %``Next-to-leading order {QCD} corrections to the lifetime difference
1633: %of B/s mesons,''
1634: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 459} (1999) 631.
1635: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808385;%%
1636:
1637: \bibitem{rome}
1638: M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, V.~Lubicz and F.~Mescia,
1639: %``Next-to-Leading Order QCD Corrections to Spectator Effects in
1640: %Lifetimes of Beauty Hadrons,''
1641: [hep-ph/0110375].
1642: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110375;%%
1643:
1644: \bibitem{b}
1645: D.~Becirevic,
1646: %``Theoretical progress in describing the B-meson lifetimes,''
1647: [hep-ph/0110124].
1648: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110124;%%
1649:
1650: \bibitem{ds}
1651: M.~Di Pierro and C.~T.~Sachrajda [UKQCD Collaboration],
1652: %``A lattice study of spectator effects in inclusive decays of B mesons,''
1653: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534} (1998) 373;
1654: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9805028;%%
1655: %``Spectator effects in inclusive decays of beauty hadrons,''
1656: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 73} (1999) 384.
1657: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9809083;%%
1658:
1659: \bibitem{bbdm}
1660: W.~A.~Bardeen, A.~J.~Buras, D.~W.~Duke and T.~Muta,
1661: %``Deep Inelastic Scattering Beyond The Leading Order In
1662: %Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories,''
1663: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 18} (1978) 3998.
1664: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D18,3998;%%
1665:
1666:
1667: \bibitem{hn}
1668: S.~Herrlich and U.~Nierste,
1669: %``Evanescent operators, scheme dependences and double insertions,''
1670: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 455} (1995) 39.
1671: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9412375;%%
1672:
1673:
1674: \bibitem{MU}
1675: M.~Misiak and J.~Urban,
1676: %``{QCD} corrections to FCNC decays mediated by Z-penguins and W-boxes,''
1677: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 451} (1999) 161.
1678: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9901278;%%
1679:
1680:
1681: \bibitem{babar}
1682: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
1683: %``Measurement of the B0 and B+ meson lifetimes with
1684: %fully reconstructed hadronic final states,''
1685: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 201803.
1686: %[arXiv:hep-ex/0107019].
1687: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107019;%%
1688:
1689: \bibitem{belle}
1690: K.~Abe [Belle Collaboration],
1691: %``Precise measurement of B meson lifetimes with
1692: %hadronic decay final states,''
1693: [hep-ex/0202009].
1694: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0202009;%%
1695:
1696: \bibitem{cleo}
1697: D. Cassel [CLEO coll.], talk at \emph{Lepton Photon 01},
1698: 23-28 Jul 2001, Rome, Italy.
1699:
1700: \bibitem{r}
1701: S.~Ryan,
1702: %``Heavy quark physics from lattice QCD,''
1703: [hep-lat/0111010].
1704: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0111010;%%
1705:
1706: \bibitem{pdg}
1707: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group Collaboration],
1708: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
1709: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15} (2000) 1; updated at
1710: \emph{http://pdg.lbl.gov}.
1711: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
1712:
1713: \bibitem{v}
1714: M.~B.~Voloshin,
1715: %``Weak decays Xi/Q $\to$ Lambda/Q pi,''
1716: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 476} (2000) 297.
1717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001057;%%
1718:
1719: \bibitem{dsm}
1720: M.~Di Pierro, C.~T.~Sachrajda and C.~Michael [UKQCD collaboration],
1721: %``An exploratory lattice study of spectator effects in inclusive
1722: %decays of the Lambda/b baryon,''
1723: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 468} (1999) 143.
1724: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 9906031;%%
1725:
1726: \end{thebibliography}
1727:
1728: \end{document}