1: \documentclass[

2: %twocolumn,

3: floats,floatfix,

4: nofootinbib,

5: prd,aps,superscriptaddress,tightenlines]{revtex4}

6: \usepackage{graphicx}

7: \usepackage{bm}

8: %\usepackage{epsfig}

9: \usepackage{pstricks}

10: %\usepackage{showlabels}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\xslash}[1]{{\rlap{$#1$}/}}

13: \def\vev#1{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

14: \newcommand{\me}[3]{\ensuremath{\left\langle{#1}\vphantom{#2 #3}

15: \right|{#2}\left|\vphantom{#1 #2}{#3}\right\rangle}}

16: 

17: \def\OMIT#1{{}}

18: \def\lqcd{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}

19: 

20: \def\dist{\mu}

21: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber \\ }

22: 

23: \newcommand{\bn}{{\bar n}}

24: \newcommand{\bnP}{\bar {\cal P}}

25: \newcommand{\nP}{{\cal P}}

26: \def\nslash{n\!\!\!\slash}

27: \def\bnslash{\bar n\!\!\!\slash}

28: 

29: \def\abs#1{ \left| #1 \right| }

30: \def\bra#1{ \left\langle #1 \right| }

31: \def\ket#1{ \left| #1 \right\rangle }

32: 

33: \def\diff{{\text d}}

34: \def\bN{\bar N}

35: 

36: 

37: 

38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: %Put your definitions here

40: 

41: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

42: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

43: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

44: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

45: \newcommand{\bay}{\begin{array}}

46: \newcommand{\eay}{\end{array}}

47: \newcommand{\vslash}{\mbox{$\not{\hspace{-1.03mm}v}$}}        % vslash

48: \newcommand{\Dslash}{\mbox{$\not{\hspace{-1.03mm}D}$}}        % vslash

49: \newcommand{\Dslashleft}{\mbox{$\not{\hspace{-1.5mm} \overleftarrow D}$}}        % vslash

50: \newcommand{\qslash}{\mbox{$\not{\hspace{-0.8mm}q}$}}

51: \newcommand{\Dleft}{\overleftarrow D}

52: \newcommand{\Dright}{\overrightarrow D}

53: \newcommand{\epsslash}{\mbox{$\not{\hspace{-0.5mm}\epsilon}$}}

54: \newcommand{\varepsslash}{\mbox{$\not{\hspace{-0.5mm}\varepsilon}$}}

55: 

56: 

57: 

58: 

59: 

60: \begin{document}

61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

62: %Some more stuff to get graphics to work

63: %\ifpdf

64: %\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf, .jpg}

65: %\else

66: %\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.eps, .jpg}

67: %\fi

68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

69: %\vspace{1.5cm}

70: \begin{flushright}

71: CTP-MIT-3490

72: \end{flushright}

73: %\preprint{CTP-MIT-3490}

74: %\vspace{2.0cm}

75: 

76: %\title{Precise $|V_{ub}|$ determination from exclusive $B$ decays:\\ 

77: %controlling the long-distance effects} 

78: \title{Exclusive rare $B\to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ decays at low recoil:\\ 

79: controlling the long-distance effects} 

80: 

81: \author{Benjam\'\i{}n Grinstein}

82: \affiliation{Department of Physics, UCSD, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093}

83: 

84: \author{Dan Pirjol}

85: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute of 

86: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}

87: 

88: 

89: \date{\today }

90: 

91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

92: \begin{abstract}

93: \vspace{1.0cm}

94: %\setlength\baselineskip{18pt}

95: 

96: We present a model-independent description of the exclusive rare

97: decays $\bar B\to K^* e^+e^-$ in the low recoil region (large lepton

98: invariant mass $q^2\sim m_b^2$).  In this region the long-distance

99: effects from quark loops can be computed with the help of an operator

100: product expansion in $1/Q$, with $Q=\{m_b, \sqrt{q^2}\}$.

101: Nonperturbative effects up to and including terms suppressed by $\Lambda/Q$

102: and $m_c^2/m_b^2$ relative to the short-distance amplitude can be

103: included in a model-independent way.  Based on these results, we

104: propose an improved method for determining the CKM matrix element

105: $|V_{ub}|$ from a combination of rare and semileptonic $B$ and $D$

106: decays near the zero recoil point. The residual theoretical

107: uncertainty from long distance effects in this $|V_{ub}|$

108: determination comes from terms in the OPE of order $\alpha_s(Q)\Lambda/m_b,

109: \alpha_s^2(Q), m_c^4/m_b^4$ and duality violations, 

110: and is estimated to be below $10\%$.

111: \end{abstract}

112: 

113: 

114: \maketitle

115: 

116: \section{Introduction}

117: 

118: 

119: 

120: Radiative $B$ decays are important sources of information about the

121: weak couplings of heavy quarks. Experiments at the B factories have

122: measured precisely the branching ratios of the exclusive rare radiative 

123: $b\to s\gamma$ and semileptonic $b\to u e\nu$ decays, and decay spectra 

124: are beginning to be probed.

125: In addition to offering ways of extracting the CKM matrix

126: elements $V_{ub}$ and $V_{td}$, these processes hold good promise for the

127: detection of new physics effects (see e.g. \cite{ABHH}).

128: 

129: In contrast to the inclusive heavy hadron decays which can be reliably

130: described using the heavy mass expansion, the corresponding

131: heavy-light exclusive decays are comparatively less well

132: understood. The theoretical ignorance of the strong interaction

133: effects in these decays is parameterized in terms of unknown heavy to

134: light $B\to M$ form factors. Although lattice \cite{lattice} and QCD sum 

135: rules \cite{QCDSR} have

136: made significant progress in computing these form factors, they

137: are still beset with large errors and limitations. 

138: 

139: In the low recoil region, heavy quark symmetry has been used to relate

140: some of the $B\to M$ form factors \cite{IsWi,BuDo}. In Refs.~\cite{GrPi1,GrPi2} we

141: showed that the leading corrections to these symmetry relations when

142: $m_b\neq\infty$ do not involve any non-local contributions, that is, they are

143: characterized solely in terms of matrix elements of local

144: operators. Here we show that the cancellations of non-local terms,

145: which appear as a remarkable accident in the heavy quark effective

146: theory, are easily understood by deriving the form factors relations

147: directly from QCD at finite $m_b$. 

148: 

149: For the case of $b\to s e^+ e^-$ decays there is an additional source of theoretical

150: uncertainty due to long distance effects involving  the weak

151: nonleptonic Hamiltonian and the quarks' electromagnetic current.

152: In $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$, these effects are numerically significant

153: for a dilepton invariant mass close to the $c\bar c$

154: resonance region $q^2=(p_{e^+} + p_{e^-})^2 \sim 10$~GeV$^2$.

155: Usually these effects are computed using the parton model 

156: \cite{Heff,BuMu}, or vector meson dominance, by assuming saturation

157: with a few low lying resonances $\psi_n$ and using the factorization 

158: approximation for the nonleptonic decay amplitudes $B\to K^* \psi_n$ 

159: \cite{VMD,LSW,ABHH}.

160: Such a procedure is necessarily model dependent, and its effect on the 

161: $|V_{ub}|$ determination has been estimated at $\sim 10\%$.

162: Although in principle the validity of the approximations made can be 

163: tested {\em aposteriori}

164: by measuring other predicted observables, such as the shape of the $q^2$ spectrum

165: or angular distributions, it is clearly

166: desirable to have a more reliable computation of these effects.

167: 

168: The object of this paper is to show that, near the zero recoil point

169: $q^2 \sim q^2_{\rm max}=(m_B-m_{K^*})^2$, these long distance

170: contributions to $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$ can be computed as a short-distance

171: effect using simultaneous heavy quark and operator product expansions

172: in $1/Q$, with $Q = \{ m_b, \sqrt{q^2} \}$.

173: We use this expansion to develop a power counting scheme for the

174: long-distance amplitude, and classify the various contributions in

175: terms of matrix elements of operators. The leading term in the

176: expansion is calculated in terms of the form factors that were

177: necessary to parametrize the local, leading contribution to the decay

178: amplitude. Moreover, the first correction, of order $\Lambda/Q$, is given in

179: terms of the same operators introduced in Ref.~\cite{GrPi1} to parameterize 

180: the leading

181: order corrections to the heavy quark symmetry relations between form

182: factors, and is suppressed further by a factor of $\alpha_s(m_b)$. The

183: largest second order correction, of order $z = m_c^2/m_b^2$, is also

184: calculable in terms of the leading form factors. Hence, our method for

185: computing the long distance contributions introduces no new model dependencies to

186: good accuracy.  The terms we neglect are suppressed by $m_c^4/m_b^4$

187: and $\Lambda^2/m_b^2$ relative to the short-distance amplitude, and are

188: expected to introduce an uncertainty in $|V_{ub}|$ of about $1-2\%$.

189: 

190: 

191: A model-independent determination of $|V_{ub}|$ has been proposed

192: using semileptonic and rare B and D decays in the low recoil

193: kinematic region \cite{IsWi,SaYa,LiWi,LSW}.  This method uses

194: heavy quark symmetry to relate the semileptonic and rare radiative B form factors. 

195: More specifically, this method requires the rare and

196: semileptonic modes $\bar B\to K^* e^+ e^-$,  $\bar B\to \rho e\nu$, $\bar D\to

197: K^* e\nu$ and $\bar D\to \rho e\nu$. The main observation is that, neglecting

198: the long distance contribution to the radiative decay, the double

199: ratio $[\Gamma(\bar B\to K^* e^+ e^-)/ \Gamma(\bar B\to \rho e\nu)]/[\Gamma(\bar D\to K^*

200: e\nu)/ \Gamma(\bar D\to \rho e\nu)]$ is calculable since it is protected by both

201: heavy quark and $SU(3)$-flavor symmetries \cite{Grin}. We extend this result to

202: include the long distance contributions which, as explained above, are

203: calculable in terms of the same form factors in the endpoint

204: region. 

205: 

206: The modes required for this determination are beginning to be probed experimentally. 

207: The branching ratios of the rare decays $B\to K^{(*)}\ell^+\ell^-$ have

208: been measured by both the BABAR \cite{Babar} and BELLE \cite{Belle} (with

209: $\ell = e,\mu$)

210: collaborations

211: \begin{eqnarray}

212: {\cal B}(B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-) = 

213: \left\{

214: \begin{array}{ll}

215: (0.88^{+0.33}_{-0.29}\pm 0.10) \times 10^{-6} &  \mbox{(BABAR)} \\

216: (11.5 ^{+2.6}_{-2.4}\pm 0.8 \pm 0.2)\times 10^{-7} & \mbox{(BELLE)} \\

217: \end{array}

218: \right.

219: \nonumber

220: \end{eqnarray}

221: and

222: \begin{eqnarray}

223: {\cal B}(B\to K \ell^+ \ell^-) = 

224: \left\{

225: \begin{array}{ll}

226: (0.65^{+0.14}_{-0.13}\pm 0.04) \times 10^{-6} & \mbox{(BABAR)}\\

227: (4.8 ^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\pm 0.3 \pm 0.1)\times 10^{-7} & \mbox{(BELLE)}\,.

228: \nonumber

229: \end{array}

230: \right.

231: \end{eqnarray}

232: This suggests that a determination of $|V_{ub}|$

233: using these decays might become feasible in a not too distant future.

234: 

235: 

236: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~II we construct the operator

237: product expansion (OPE) formalism for the long-distance contribution to

238: exclusive $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$ decay in the low recoil region 

239: $q^2 \sim q_{\rm max}^2$. This is formulated as an expansion in $1/Q$,

240: with $Q = \{ m_b, \sqrt{q^2} \}$. The coefficients of the operators 

241: in the OPE are determined by matching at the scale $Q$, which is discussed in

242: some detail in Sec.~III. In Sec.~IV we present the evaluation of the hadronic

243: matrix elements of the operators appearing in the OPE, and explicit results

244: for the $|V_{ub}|$ determination are presented in Sec.~V. An Appendix contains

245: a simplified derivation of the improved form factor symmetry relations at low

246: recoil.

247: 

248: 

249: 

250: \section{Operator product expansion}

251: \label{sec2}

252: 

253: The effective Hamiltonian mediating the rare decays $b\to s e^+ e^-$ is \cite{Heff}

254: \bea\label{Hw}

255: {\cal H}_{\rm eff} = -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt2} V_{tb} V_{ts}^* \sum_{i=1}^{10} C_i(\mu)

256: Q_i(\mu)\,,

257: \eea

258: where the operators $Q_i$ can be chosen as

259: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Qi}

260: Q_1 &=& (\bar s_\alpha c_\beta)_{V-A} (\bar c_\beta b_\alpha)_{V-A}\\

261: Q_2 &=& (\bar s c)_{V-A} (\bar c b)_{V-A}\nonumber\\

262: Q_3 &=& (\bar s b)_{V-A} \sum_q (\bar q q)_{V-A}\nonumber\\

263: Q_4 &=& (\bar s_\alpha b_\beta)_{V-A} \sum_q (\bar q_\beta q_\alpha)_{V-A}\nonumber\\

264: Q_5 &=& (\bar s b)_{V-A} \sum_q (\bar q q)_{V+A}\nonumber\\

265: Q_6 &=& (\bar s_\alpha b_\beta)_{V-A} \sum_q (\bar q_\beta q_\alpha)_{V+A}\nonumber\\

266: Q_7 &=& \frac{e}{8\pi^2} m_b \bar s_\alpha \sigma_{\mu\nu} (1+\gamma_5)

267: b_\alpha F_{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\

268: Q_8 &=& \frac{g}{8\pi^2} m_b \bar s_\alpha \sigma_{\mu\nu} (1+\gamma_5)

269: T^a_{\alpha\beta} b_\beta G^a_{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\

270: Q_9 &=& \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}(\bar sb)_{V-A} (\bar e e)_{V}\nonumber\\

271: Q_{10} &=& \frac{e^2}{8\pi^2}(\bar sb)_{V-A} (\bar e e)_{A}\,.\nonumber

272: \end{eqnarray}

273: We denoted here $(\bar q q)_{V\pm A} = \bar q \gamma_\mu (1\pm \gamma_5) q$.

274: The contributions of the operators $Q_{7,9,10}$ are factorizable and can be 

275: directly expressed through form factors, while the remaining

276: operators $Q_{1-6}$ contribute through nonlocal matrix elements with the

277: quarks' electromagnetic coupling $j_{\rm e.m.}^\mu = \sum_q Q_q \bar q\gamma^\mu q$

278: as

279: \bea\label{AVAdef}

280: A(\bar B\to K^* e^+e^-) = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt2} V_{tb} V^*_{ts} \frac{\alpha}{2\pi}

281: \left\{ (\bar e\gamma^\mu e) A^{(V)}_\mu + 

282: (\bar e\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 e) A^{(A)}_\mu \right\}\,.

283: \eea

284: The two hadronic amplitudes $A_\mu^{(V,A)}$ are given explicitly by

285: \bea\label{AV}

286: A^{(V)}_\mu &=& -C_7(\mu) \frac{2m_b}{q^2} \langle K^*(k,\eta)|\bar si\sigma_{\mu\nu}

287: q^\nu (1+\gamma_5) b|\bar B(v)\rangle \\

288: & &+ C_9(\mu) \langle K^*(k,\eta)|\bar s \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) b|\bar B(v)\rangle

289: - 8 \pi^2 \frac{1}{q^2} \sum_{i=1}^6  C_i(\mu) {\cal T}^{(i)}_\mu(q^2, \mu)\nonumber\\

290: \label{AA}

291: A^{(A)}_\mu &=& C_{10}(\mu)

292: \langle K^*(k,\eta)|\bar s \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) b|\bar B(v)\rangle \,.

293: \eea

294: where we introduced the nonlocal matrix element parameterizing the

295: long-distance amplitude

296: \bea\label{Ti}

297: {\cal T}_i^\mu(q^2) = i \int d^4x e^{iq\cdot x} \langle K^*(k,\eta)|T

298: Q_i(0)\,, j_{\rm e.m.}^\mu(x) |\bar B(v)\rangle\,.

299: \eea

300: The conservation of the electromagnetic current implies in the usual

301: way the Ward identity (see e.g. \cite{GP0,GNR}) for the long-distance amplitude

302: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ward}

303: q^\mu {\cal T}_i^\mu(q^2) = 0\,.

304: \end{eqnarray}

305: 

306: 

307: Our problem is to compute ${\cal T}_i^\mu(q^2)$ in the low recoil

308: region, corresponding to $q^2 \sim m_b^2$. Consider the amplitude ${\cal

309: T}_i(q^2)$ as a function of the complex variable

310: $q^2$. This is an analytic function everywhere in the complex $q^2$

311: plane, except for poles and cuts corresponding to states with the

312: quantum numbers of the photon $J^{PC} = 1^{--}$. The region kinematically

313: accessible

314: in $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$ is the segment on the real axis $q^2 = [0,

315: q^2_{\rm max} = (m_B-m_V)^2]$.

316: 

317: This is very similar to $e^+ e^- \to $ hadrons, which is related by

318: unitarity to the correlator of two electromagnetic currents

319: $\Pi^{\mu\nu}(q^2) =\Pi(q^2)(q^\mu q^\nu-q^2 g_{\mu\nu}) = i\int d^4 x e^{iq\cdot x} \langle 0|T

320: j^\mu(0), j^\nu(x)|0\rangle $.  For this case, it is well known that at large

321: time-like $q^2$, both the dispersive and imaginary parts of the

322: correlator $\Pi(q^2)$ can be computed in perturbation theory. This is

323: the statement of local duality\cite{Bloom:1970xb}, which

324: is expected to hold up to power corrections in

325: $1/Q$\cite{PQW,Shifman:2000jv}.

326: In contrast to $e^+ e^-\to$ hadrons, the external states appearing in the definition

327: of ${\cal T}_i(q^2)$ are strongly interacting. For this reason, a closer analogy is to

328: the computation of the inclusive semileptonic width of $B$ hadrons 

329: using the OPE and heavy quark expansion\cite{heavyOPE}. 

330: 

331: The zero recoil

332: point in $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$  corresponds to a dilepton invariant mass 

333: $q^2_{\rm max}=(m_B - m_{K^*})^2 = 19.2$ GeV$^2$ and 

334: is sufficiently far away from the threshold of the

335: resonance region connected with $c\bar c$ states $q^2 \sim 10$ GeV$^2$.

336: Therefore duality can be expected to work reasonably well. 

337: There are, in addition, effects from thresholds of other  $J^{PC} =

338: 1^{--}$ states, like the $\rho$ and the $\Upsilon$. These effects are smaller

339: because they either enter through the operators $Q_3$--$Q_6$, which

340: have small Wilson coefficients, or through $Q_1^u=(\bar s_\alpha u_\beta) 

341: (\bar u_\beta b_\alpha)$ and $Q_2^u=(\bar s u) (\bar u b)$ through

342: CKM suppressed loops $\sim V_{ub} V_{us}^*$. The effects of light states, like the $\rho$-meson, are

343: under better control since the associated resonance regions are

344: even lower than for $c\bar c$. Heavier states, like the $\Upsilon$,  lie above

345: $q^2_{\rm max}$. These too are under better control since duality sets in

346: much faster from below resonance than from above, as evidenced by empirical

347: observation, as in the example of $e^+ e^- \to $ hadrons.

348: 

349: 

350: In analogy with the OPE for the inclusive B decays, we propose to

351: expand the amplitudes ${\cal T}_i(q^2)$ in an operator product expansion in

352: the large scale $Q = \{m_b, \sqrt{q^2}\}$

353: \bea\label{OPE}

354: {\cal T}_i^\mu(q^2) = \sum_{k \geq -2}\sum_{j}

355: C^{(k)}_{i,j}(q^2/m_b^2, \mu) \langle {\cal O}^{(k)\mu}_j(\mu) \rangle

356: \eea

357: where the contribution of the operator ${\cal O}^{(k)}_j$ scales like

358: $1/Q^k$. 

359: The operators appearing on the right-hand side are constructed

360: using the HQET bottom quark field $h_v$, and they can contain

361: explicit factors of the velocity $v$ and the dilepton momentum

362: $q$. Their matrix elements must satisfy the Ward identity Eq.~(\ref{ward})

363: for all possible external states, which has therefore to be satisfied

364: at operator level. In addition, they must transform 

365: in the same way as 

366: ${\cal T}_i^\mu$ under the chiral $SU_L(3) \times SU_R(3)$ 

367: group, up to factors of the light quark masses which can flip

368: chirality.

369: 

370: Our analysis will be valid in the small recoil region, where the 

371: light meson kinetic energy is small $E_V - m_V \sim \Lambda$.

372: Expressed in terms of the dilepton invariant mass $q^2$ this

373: translates into the range $(m_B-m_V)^2 - q^2 \leq 2m_B \Lambda$.

374: In the particular case of $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$ this region extends about 

375: 5 GeV$^2$ below the maximal

376: value $q_{\rm max}^2 = (m_B - m_{K^*})^2 = 19.2$ GeV$^2$.

377: 

378: 

379: Each term in the OPE Eq.~(\ref{OPE}) must have mass 

380: dimension 5. The leading contributions come

381: from operators whose matrix elements scale like $Q^2$ 

382: \bea\label{LO1}

383: {\cal O}^{(-2)}_1 &=& \bar s_L [q^2 \gamma_\mu - q^\mu \qslash] h_{vL}\\

384: \label{LO2}

385: {\cal O}^{(-2)}_2 &=& 

386: im_b \bar s_L \sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu  h_{vR} \,.

387: \end{eqnarray}

388: Another allowed operator $(q^2 v_\mu - q_\mu v\cdot q)(\bar s_L

389: h_{vR})$ can be shown in fact to scale like $Q\Lambda$ after using 

390: Eq.~(\ref{q}), and is included below as ${\cal O}_3^{(-1)}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{NLO3})).

391: These operators are written in terms of chiral 

392: fields $q_{L,R} = P_{L,R} q$, with $P_{L,R} = \frac12 (1\mp \gamma_5)$.

393: In the chiral limit only $s_L$ can appear, and

394: the right-handed field $s_R$ requires an explicit factor of $m_s$.

395: 

396: 

397: 

398: In general, the dilepton momentum $q^\alpha$ can be rewritten as a

399: constant part plus a total derivative acting on the current

400: \begin{eqnarray}\label{q}

401: q^\alpha (\bar s\Gamma h_v) = (m_b v^\alpha + i\partial^\alpha)

402: (\bar s\Gamma h_v)\,,

403: \end{eqnarray}

404: where the two terms on the right-hand side scale like $m_b$ and $\Lambda$,

405: respectively. For this reason, using $q^\alpha$ in the definition of the

406: operators gives them a non-homogeneous scaling in $1/m_b$. This is not

407: a problem in the power counting scheme adopted here, which counts $m_b$

408: and $Q$ as being comparable. We will keep $q^\alpha$ explicit in the

409: leading operators Eq.~(\ref{LO1}), (\ref{LO2}), which

410: we would like to write in a form as close as possible to the 

411: short-distance operators.

412: On the other hand, we expand in $1/m_b$ in the sub-leading operators below,

413: and keep only the leading term in Eq.~(\ref{q}).

414: 

415: \begin{figure}[t!]

416: \begin{center}

417:   \hspace{-0.5cm}

418:   \includegraphics[width=2in]{nocharm.eps}

419: \hspace{1cm}

420:   \includegraphics[width=2in]{charm.eps}\\

421: \vspace{0.4cm}

422: \hspace{0.2cm} (a) \hspace{5.5cm} (b) \hspace{5cm} 

423: \end{center}

424: {\caption{

425: Contributions to the $B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ amplitude near the zero

426: recoil point coming from different operators in the OPE Eq.~(\ref{OPE}).

427: In (a) the circled cross denotes one of the operators ${\cal O}^{(-1,0)}$

428: of the form $\bar q \Gamma iD_\mu h_v$ or $\bar q \Gamma gG_{\mu\nu} h_v$, 

429: and in (b) it denotes one of the 4-quark operators $(\bar q h_v)(\bar c c)$.

430: The contributions in (a) are suppressed relative to the short-distance amplitude

431: by $\Lambda/Q$ (for ${\cal O}^{(-1)}$),

432: $\Lambda^2/Q^2$ (for ${\cal O}^{(0)}$), and those in (b) by $m_c^4/Q^4$.

433: }}

434: \end{figure}

435: 

436: 

437: 

438: Next we include operators whose matrix elements scale like $Q\Lambda$.

439: They are dimension-4 operators of the form $\bar q \Gamma iD_\mu h_v$.

440: A complete set of operators which satisfies the condition (\ref{ward})

441: and which do not vanish by the equations of motion can be chosen as

442: \bea\label{NLO1}

443: {\cal O}^{(-1)}_1 &=& m_b \bar s_L 

444: [i\Dleft_\mu - v_\mu (v\cdot i\Dleft)] h_{vR}\\

445: \label{NLO2}

446: {\cal O}^{(-1)}_2 &=&  m_b (v\cdot i\partial) \bar s_L 

447: [\gamma_\mu - v_\mu \vslash ] h_{vL}\\

448: \label{NLO3}

449: {\cal O}^{(-1)}_3 &=&   m_b [ i\partial_\mu - v_\mu (v\cdot i\partial) ]

450: (\bar s_L h_{vR} ) \\

451: \label{NLO4}

452: {\cal O}^{(-1)}_4 &=&   m_b i\partial_\nu (\bar s_L 

453: [\gamma_\mu - v_\mu \vslash ] \gamma^\nu h_{vR})\\

454: \label{NLO5}

455: {\cal O}^{(-1)}_5 &=&  m_b m_s \bar s_R (\gamma_\mu - v_\mu \vslash) h_{vR}\,.

456: \end{eqnarray}

457: The operator ${\cal O}^{(-1)}_5$ describes effects where one chirality flip

458: occurs on the light quark side. Its matrix element scales like

459: $Q m_s$. 

460: 

461: 

462: There are no contributions scaling like $Q m_c$, since the dependence on

463: the charm quark mass  must contain only even powers of $m_c$. The leading contributions

464: containing $m_c$ scale like $m_c^2$ and come from operators similar to 

465: (\ref{LO1}) and (\ref{LO2}). We will define them as

466: \bea\label{NNLO1}

467: {\cal O}^{(0)}_1 &=& m_c^2 \bar s_L[\gamma_\mu - q_\mu \qslash/q^2 ] h_{vL}\\

468: \label{NNLO2}

469: {\cal O}^{(0)}_2 &=& 

470: %\frac{m_b m_c^2}{q^2} \bar s_L \gamma_\mu \qslash h_{vR} = 

471: im_b \frac{m_c^2}{q^2} \bar s_L \sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu  h_{vR} \,.

472: \eea

473: 

474: 

475: There are many operators whose matrix elements scale like $\Lambda^2$; generally,

476: they are of the form ${\cal O}^{(0)}_{3,\dots} = \bar q \Gamma (iD_\mu)(iD_\nu) h_v$ or contain one factor of

477: the gluon tensor field strength $\bar q \Gamma gG_{\mu\nu} h_v$. The latter operators 

478: can appear at $O(\alpha_s^0)$ in matching from graphs with $q\bar q$ quark loops

479: as shown in Fig.~2(c), and can contribute to the $B\to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ amplitude

480: through the graph in Fig.~1(a). 

481: 

482: Another class of operators appearing in the OPE describes effects of propagating

483: charm quarks (see Fig.~1(b)), and have the form

484: \begin{eqnarray}\label{cpengs}

485: {\cal O}^{(2)} = \frac{1}{Q^2} (\bar s \Gamma h_v)(\bar c \Gamma_c iD_\mu c)\,.

486: \end{eqnarray}

487: The explicit form of these operators will be given in the next section, where it 

488: is shown that their

489: contributions are further suppressed by $m_c^4/Q^4$ relative to the short-distance

490: amplitude.  

491: 

492: To sum up the discussion of this section, we argued that the long-distance

493: effects to $b\to s \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays in the zero recoil region come from

494: well-separated scales satisfying the hierarchy $m_b\sim Q > m_c > \Lambda$. 

495: These effects can be resolved using an OPE as shown in Eq.~(\ref{OPE}). The contributions

496: of the various operators in the OPE, relative to the dominant short-distance amplitude, 

497: are summarized in Table \ref{powercounting}, together with the order in matching 

498: (in $\alpha_s(Q)$) at which they start contributing. 

499: 

500: Some of the subleading operators appearing in the OPE give spectator type 

501: contributions to the exclusive $B\to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ amplitude, as shown in

502: Fig.~1. For example, the $O(\Lambda Q)$ operators ${\cal O}_j^{(-1)}$ and 

503: $O(\Lambda^2)$ operators ${\cal O}_j^{(0)}$ can contribute through the

504: graphs in Fig.~1(a), and the charm operators of the type Eq.~(\ref{cpengs}) 

505: contribute as in Fig.~1(b). Such spectator type contributions were studied at 

506: lowest order in perturbation theory in \cite{LiWi} where they were shown to be suppressed 

507: at least by $\Lambda/Q$. The effective theory approach used here extends this proof to

508: all orders in $\alpha_s$, and shows that the suppression factor is 

509: $\alpha_s(Q) \Lambda/Q$

510: (for the contributions from ${\cal O}_j^{(-1)}$) and $\Lambda^2/Q^2$ (for contributions

511: coming from ${\cal O}_j^{(0)}$).

512: 

513: We comment briefly on an alternative approach used in Refs.~\cite{BuMu,LiWi}

514: where the charm quarks and the large scales $\sqrt{q^2}, m_b$ are integrated 

515: out simultaneously. Such an approach includes the charm mass effects to

516: all orders in $m_c^2/m_b^2$, but has the disadvantage of introducing 

517: potentially large power corrections $\sim \Lambda^2/m_c^2$. For this reason

518: we prefer to integrate out only the large scale $Q$ and leave the charm as 

519: a dynamical field in the OPE.

520: 

521: The main result of our

522: paper is that the contributions of leading order $O(1)$ and the power suppressed

523: terms $O(m_c^2/Q^2)$ to the long-distance amplitude depend only on

524: known form factors and thus can be included {\em without

525: introducing any new hadronic uncertainty}. The power suppressed terms 

526: of $O(\Lambda/Q)$ can be accounted for in terms of the form factors of

527: the two dimension-4 currents $\bar q iD_\mu (\gamma_5) h_v$.

528: 

529: \begin{table}[t!]

530: \begin{center}

531: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

532: \hline

533: Operator & Power counting & Order in matching \\

534: \hline\hline

535: ${\cal O}_{1,2}^{(-2)}$  & 1                &  $\alpha_s^0(Q)$ \\

536: ${\cal O}_{1-5}^{(-1)}$  & $\Lambda/Q$     & $\alpha_s(Q)$  \\

537: ${\cal O}_{1,2}^{(0)}$   & $m_c^2/Q^2$     & $\alpha_s^0(Q)$  \\

538: ${\cal O}_{j>3}^{(0)}$    & $\Lambda^2/Q^2$ &  $\alpha_s^0(Q)$  \\

539: ${\cal O}_i^{(2)}$       & $m_c^4/Q^4$     & $\alpha_s^0(Q)$ \\

540: \hline

541: \end{tabular}

542: \end{center}

543: {\caption{Contributions to the long-distance amplitude for

544: $b\to s \ell^+\ell^-$ coming from the different operators in the OPE

545: Eq.~(\ref{OPE}), together with the order in $\alpha_s(Q)$ at which

546: they appear in matching.}

547: \label{powercounting} }

548: \end{table}

549: 

550: 

551: In the next Section we compute the matching conditions for these operators at

552: lowest order in perturbation theory.

553: 

554: 

555: \section{Matching}

556: \label{sec3}

557: 

558: Typical lowest order diagrams contributing to the $T-$products ${\cal T}_i^\mu(q^2)$

559: in QCD are shown in Fig.~1. The matching conditions for the operators appearing

560: in the OPE Eq.~(\ref{OPE}) are found by computing these graphs and expanding them in

561: powers in $1/Q$. At lowest order in $\alpha_s(Q)$ the graph in

562: Fig.~1(a) will match onto ${\cal O}^{(-2)}_j$, but not onto the $O(\Lambda Q)$ operators

563: ${\cal O}^{(-1)}_j$. These operators appear first at $O(\alpha_s(Q))$ from 

564: graphs containing one additional gluon as shown in Fig.~1(b).

565: 

566: \begin{figure}[t!]

567: \begin{center}

568:   \hspace{-0.5cm}

569:   \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{match1.eps}\hspace{1cm}

570: \includegraphics[width=2.0in]{match3.eps}\hspace{1cm}

571: \includegraphics[width=1.5in]{match2.eps} \\

572: \hspace{0.5cm} (a) \hspace{5cm} (b) \hspace{5cm} (c)

573: \end{center}

574: {\caption{

575: Graphs in QCD contributing to the matching onto $\bar s\Gamma h_v$ operators 

576: (a), $\bar s\Gamma iD_\mu h_v$ (b) and $\bar s gG^{\mu\nu} \Gamma_\nu h_v$ operators (c). 

577: The filled circle  denotes the insertion of $Q_{1-6}$. In (c) the wavy line is the 

578: virtual photon $\gamma^*$ and the curly line denotes a gluon.}}

579: \end{figure}

580: 

581: 

582: An explicit computation of the graph in Fig.~1(a) with one insertion of the 

583: operators $Q_{1-6}$  gives the following results for the matrix elements of the

584: $T-$products ${\cal T}_i^\mu(q^2)$ on free quark states \cite{Heff,BuMu}

585: (we use everywhere naive dimensional regularization (NDR) with an anticommuting

586: $\gamma_5$ matrix)

587: \bea\label{loop1}

588: \langle {\cal T}_1^\mu(q^2) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

589: \langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash)P_L b \rangle

590: \left\{ -\frac{2}{3\epsilon} + \frac23 + 4 G(m_c)\right\}\\

591: \label{loop2}\langle {\cal T}_2^\mu (q^2) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

592: \langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash)P_L b \rangle

593: \left\{ -\frac{2}{9\epsilon} + \frac29 + \frac{4}{3}G(m_c)\right\}\\

594: \label{loop3}\langle {\cal T}_3^\mu(q^2) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

595: \langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash)P_L b \rangle

596: \left\{ -\frac{1}{9\epsilon} - \frac{2}{9} + 4G(m_c) - \frac23 G(0) -

597: \frac83 G(m_b)\right\}\\

598: \label{loop4}\langle {\cal T}_4^\mu(q^2) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

599: \langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash)P_L b \rangle

600: \left\{ \frac{5}{9\epsilon} - \frac23 - 2G(0)

601: + \frac43 G(m_c) - \frac83 G(m_b)\right\}\\

602: \label{loop5}\langle {\cal T}_5^\mu(q^2) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

603: \langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash)P_L b \rangle

604: \left\{ -\frac{1}{3\epsilon} + 4G(m_c) - 2G(m_b) \right\}

605: - \frac{1}{6\pi^2}

606: m_b \langle \bar s (\qslash \gamma_\mu - q_\mu) P_R b \rangle \\

607: \label{loop6}\langle {\cal T}_6^\mu(q^2) \rangle &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

608: \langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash)P_L b \rangle

609: \left\{ -\frac{1}{9\epsilon} + \frac43 G(m_c) - \frac23 G(m_b)  

610: \right\}

611: - \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

612: m_b \langle \bar s (\qslash \gamma_\mu - q_\mu) P_R b \rangle \,.

613: \end{eqnarray}

614: We denoted here with $G(m_q)$ the function 

615: appearing in the basic fermion

616: loop with mass $m_q$\footnote{This function is related to

617: $h(z,\hat s)$ used in \cite{BuMu} as $h(m_q/m_b,q^2/m_b^2) = -8/3 G(m_q) - 4/9$.} 

618: \bea

619: G(m_q) = \int_0^1 \mbox{d} x x(1-x) \log

620: \left(

621: \frac{-q^2 x(1-x) + m_q^2 - i\epsilon}{\mu^2}\right)\,.

622: \eea

623: In the kinematical region considered here ($4m_c^2 < q^2 < 4m_b^2$), this function is

624: given explicitly by

625: \bea

626: G(m_c) &=& \frac16 \log\left(\frac{m_c^2}{\mu^2}\right) - \frac{5}{18} -

627: \frac{2m_c^2}{3q^2}

628:  + \frac16 \sqrt{r}\left(1 + \frac{2m_c^2}{q^2}\right)

629: \left(\log\frac{1+\sqrt{r}}{1-\sqrt{r}} - i\pi\right)\\

630: G(0) &=& \frac16 \left[\log\left(\frac{q^2}{\mu^2}\right) -i\pi\right] 

631: - \frac{5}{18} \\

632: G(m_b) &=& \frac16 \log\left(\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}\right) - \frac{5}{18} -

633: \frac{2m_b^2}{3q^2}

634:  + \frac13 \sqrt{\frac{4m_b^2}{q^2}-1}\left(1 + \frac{2m_b^2}{q^2}\right)

635: \arctan \frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{4m_b^2}{q^2}-1}}

636: \eea

637: where in $G(m_c)$ we denoted $r=\sqrt{1-4m_c^2/q^2}$.

638: 

639: To match onto the operators introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec2} we expand the

640: results (\ref{loop1})-(\ref{loop6}) in $1/Q$ and go over to the

641: HQET for the heavy quark field. To the order we work, this amounts to expanding

642: the charm quark loop using

643: \bea

644: G(m_c) = G(0) - \frac{m_c^2}{q^2} + \left(\frac{m_c^2}{q^2}\right)^2

645: \left[ \log\left(\frac{q^2}{m_c^2}\right) - i\pi - \frac12\right] + \cdots

646: \eea

647: On the other hand, since we treat $m_b^2$ and $q^2$ as being comparable,

648: the full result for the $b$ quark loop function $G(m_b)$ has to be kept.

649: 

650: To illustrate the matching computation we show how the result

651: (\ref{loop1}) for the T-product containing $Q_1$ is reproduced in 

652: the operator product expansion (\ref{OPE}). Expanding (\ref{loop1}) in 

653: powers of $m_c^2/q^2$ one finds 

654: \bea\label{loopexp}

655: \langle {\cal T}_1^\mu \rangle &=&

656: \frac{1}{2\pi^2} [\bar s(q^2 \gamma_\mu -q^\mu \qslash) P_L b]

657: \left\{

658: \left[ 4G(0) + \frac23\right]

659: - 4\frac{m_c^2}{q^2}\right.\\

660: & &\left.

661:  + 4 \frac{m_c^4}{q^4}\left[ \log\left(\frac{q^2}{m_c^2}\right)

662: - i\pi - \frac12\right] + O\left(\frac{m_c^6}{q^6}\right)

663: \right\} \nonumber

664: \eea

665: 

666: 

667: The terms of $O(q^2)$ and $O(m_c^2)$ in this result can be identified with

668: the matrix elements of the operators ${\cal O}_1^{(-2)}$ and ${\cal O}_1^{(0)}$,

669: respectively, provided that their Wilson coefficients are taken to be

670: \bea

671: C_{1,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

672: \left[ 4G(0) + \frac23\right]\,,\qquad

673: C_{1,1}^{(0)}(\mu) = -\frac{2}{\pi^2}

674: \eea

675: Reproducing the $O(m_c^4/q^4)$ term in (\ref{loopexp}) requires the introduction of

676: dimension-6 operators

677: containing explicit factors of the charm quark field. They are obtained

678: by matching from diagrams where the photon attaches to one of the external quark legs

679: (see Fig.~3).

680: Expanding these graphs in $1/Q$ and keeping only the term of $O(m_c/Q^2)$

681: gives (the leading term scales like $\sim 1/Q$, but its $b\to s$ matrix element

682: vanishes) 

683: \bea\label{4quark}

684: {\cal T}_1^\mu(q^2) & &\to {\cal O}^{(2)\mu} =

685: \frac{8Q_c}{q^2}

686: \left[ \bar c(\gamma^\nu i\Dright^\mu - i\Dleft^\mu \gamma^\nu) P_L c\right]

687: (\bar s\gamma_\nu P_L b)\\

688: & & + \frac{8Q_c}{q^4}  

689: \left[ \bar c(-\gamma^\nu\qslash\gamma^\mu (q\cdot i\Dright) +

690: \gamma^\mu \qslash \gamma^\nu (q\cdot i\Dleft)) P_L c\right]

691: (\bar s\gamma_\nu P_L b)\,.\nonumber

692: \end{eqnarray}

693: We dropped here operators which vanish by the equation of motion of the

694: charm quark field $(i\Dslash - m_c) c = 0$.

695: \begin{figure}[t!]

696: \begin{center}

697: %  \hspace{-0.5cm}

698:   \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{match4.eps}\hspace{0.5cm} +\hspace{0.5cm}

699: \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{match5.eps} \hspace{0.5cm}$\longrightarrow$

700: \hspace{0.5cm}

701: \includegraphics[width=1.2in]{match6.eps}\\

702: \vspace{0.4cm}

703:  (a) \hspace{4cm} (b) \hspace{4cm} (c)

704: \end{center}

705: {\caption{

706: Graphs contributing to the matching onto operators with explicit charm fields

707: (see, e.g. Eq.~(\ref{4quark})). In (a), (b) the filled circle denotes one of the

708: QCD operators $Q_{1-6}$. The crossed circle in (c) denotes the local operator

709: appearing in the OPE with quark content $(\bar sb)(\bar cc)$.

710: The wavy line is the virtual photon $\gamma^*$ connecting to the $e^+e^-$ lepton

711: pair.}}

712: \end{figure}

713: The matrix element of this operator is computed by closing the charm loop, which 

714: gives

715: \begin{eqnarray}

716: \langle s| {\cal O}^{(2)\mu}|b\rangle = 

717: \frac{N_c Q_c}{\pi^2}\langle \bar s(q^2 \gamma^\mu - q^\mu \qslash )P_L b \rangle

718: \frac{m_c^4}{q^4}

719: \left\{ \frac{1}{\epsilon} + \frac32 -

720: \log\left(\frac{m_c^2}{\mu^2}\right) \right\}

721: \end{eqnarray}

722: The coefficient of the logarithmic term $\log m_c$ agrees with that in the

723: expansion of the exact result in Eq.~(\ref{loopexp}). This shows that the

724: four-quark operators Eq.~(\ref{4quark}) reproduce the IR of the full theory

725: result. 

726: However, these contributions are suppressed by $m_c^4/Q^4 \sim 0.8\%$

727: relative to those of the leading operators ${\cal O}^{(-2)}_i$, so they can be

728: expected to be numerically small. This is fortunate, since their matrix elements on 

729: hadronic states would introduce new unknown form factors in addition

730: to those contributing to the short-distance amplitude.

731: In the following  we will not include 4-quark operators 

732: similar to those in Eq.~(\ref{4quark}).

733: 

734: Using a similar expansion one finds the matching for all remaining 

735: T-products in (\ref{loop1})-(\ref{loop6}) onto the operators in the OPE

736: (\ref{OPE}). The results for the Wilson coefficients $C_{i,1}^{(-2,0)}$ are

737: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Cii}

738: \frac{1}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}

739: C_{1,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

740: \left[ 4G(0) + \frac23 \right] - \frac{\alpha_s}{(4\pi)^3} 36C(q^2)\,,\\

741: \frac{1}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}

742: C_{2,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=& \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

743: \left[\frac43 G(0) + \frac29 \right] - \frac{\alpha_s}{(4\pi)^3} 

744: (-24B(q^2) + 12C(q^2))\,,\\

745: C_{3,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=&  \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

746: \left[ \frac{10}{3}G(0) + \frac{1}{27} - \frac83 G(m_b)\right]\,,\\

747: C_{4,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=&  \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

748: \left[ -\frac23 G(0) - \frac79 - \frac83 G(m_b)\right]\,,\\

749: C_{5,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=&  \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

750: \left[ 4G(0) - 2 G(m_b) - \frac{7}{27}\right]\,,\\

751: C_{6,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=&  \frac{1}{2\pi^2}

752: \left[ \frac43 G(0) - \frac23 G(m_b) + \frac19 \right]

753: \end{eqnarray}

754: and

755: \begin{eqnarray}

756: C_{i,1}^{(0)}(\mu) &=& -\frac{2}{\pi^2}\{ 1\,, \frac13\,, 1\,, \frac13 \,, 1\,, \frac13 \}

757: \qquad (i = 1-6)

758: \end{eqnarray}

759: To facilitate the inclusion of the next-to-leading corrections, these

760: results were computed using the operator basis in Ref.~\cite{CMM}, and transformed

761: to the basis in Eq.~(\ref{Qi}) using 4-dimensional Fierz identities.

762: For this reason, the constant terms in these expressions differ from those in

763: Eqs.~(\ref{loop1}).

764: With this convention, the Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu)$ used in the

765: remainder of this paper differ beyond the LL approximation from those in

766: Refs.~\cite{BBL,BuMu} and are equal to the ``barred'' coefficients $\bar C_i(\mu)$

767: defined in Eq.~(79) of Ref.~\cite{BeFeSe}.

768: We included here also the next-to-leading results for $C_{1,1}^{(-2)}$

769: and $C_{2,1}^{(-2)}$, which can be extracted from the recent two-loop

770: computation of Seidel \cite{Seidel:2004jh} (extending previous approximate

771: results in \cite{b2see}). The functions $A(s),B(s),C(s)$ are 

772: given in Eqs.~(29)-(31) of \cite{Seidel:2004jh} and can be written as

773: \begin{eqnarray}

774: A(q^2) &=& -\frac{104}{243} \log\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + \delta A(q^2)\nonumber\\

775: B(q^2) &=& \frac{8}{243}\big[ \big(\frac{4m_b^2}{q^2} - 34 - 17\pi i\big)

776: \log\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + 8 \log^2\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + 17

777: \log\frac{q^2}{m_b^2} \log\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}\big] \nonumber\\

778: &-& \frac{16}{243}\big( 1 + \frac{2m_b^2}{q^2} \big) 

779: \sqrt{\frac{4m_b^2}{q^2}-1} \arctan\frac{1}{\sqrt{\frac{4m_b^2}{q^2}-1}}

780: \log\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2} + \delta B(q^2)\nonumber\\

781: C(q^2) &=&  -\frac{16}{81}\log\frac{q^2}{\mu^2} + \frac{428}{243} -

782: \frac{64}{27}\zeta(3) + \frac{16}{81}\pi i\nonumber

783: \end{eqnarray}

784: The terms $\delta A$ and $\delta B$ do not contain explicit $\mu$ dependence

785: and take the following values at the zero recoil point in $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$ 

786: (for $\mu = 4.8$ GeV and $m_b(m_b) = 4.32$ GeV) $\delta A(q^2_{\rm max}) =

787: 0.736 + 0.836 i$,   $\delta B(q^2_{\rm max}) =

788: -1.332 + 3.058 i$.

789: $C_0^{(v)}(\mu)$ is one of the Wilson coefficients appearing in the matching 

790: of the vector current $\bar q\gamma_\mu b$ onto HQET currents and is defined

791: in Eq.~(\ref{match1}). It accounts for the factorizable two-loop

792: corrections not included in Ref.~\cite{Seidel:2004jh}.

793: 

794:  

795: The results for the coefficients $C_{i,2}^{(-2)}(\mu)$ can be computed in a 

796: similar way with the results

797: \begin{eqnarray}

798: \frac{1}{C_0^{(t)}(\mu)}

799: C_{1,2}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=& 0(\alpha_s^2)\,,\qquad 

800: \frac{1}{C_0^{(t)}(\mu)}

801: C_{2,2}^{(-2)}(\mu) = -\frac{\alpha_s}{(4\pi)^3}(48A(q^2))\,,\\

802: C_{i,2}^{(-2)}(\mu) &=& \frac{1}{\pi^2}\{ -\frac29\,, -\frac23\,,

803: \frac{1}{18}\,, \frac16 \}\qquad (i=3-6)\nonumber

804: \end{eqnarray}

805: The Wilson coefficient $C_0^{(t)}(\mu)$ appears in the matching of the tensor

806: current $\bar qi\sigma_{\mu\nu} b$ onto HQET operators and is defined in 

807: Eq.~(\ref{match2}). The $O(\alpha_s(m_b)$ terms in the first two coefficients have

808: been extracted from Ref.~\cite{Seidel:2004jh}, where they are given in terms of the 

809: function $A(q^2)$.

810: 

811: 

812: The only dimension-4 operators appearing at this order in matching are 

813: ${\cal O}_{1,4,5}^{(-1)}$, and are introduced through the matching

814: of the $b$ field onto HQET according to $b = (1+\frac{i\Dslash}{2m_b}) h_v$. 

815: Their Wilson coefficients are

816: \bea

817: C_{i,1}^{(-1)}(m_b) = - C_{i,1}^{(-2)}(m_b)\,,\quad

818: C_{i,4}^{(-1)}(m_b) =

819: -C_{i,5}^{(-1)}(m_b) = \frac{1}{2} C_{i,1}^{(-2)}(m_b)\qquad

820: (i=1-6)\,.

821: \eea

822: At two-loop order in the matching, all the other dimension-4 operators will

823: appear, through the dependence of graphs such as those in Fig.~2(b) on external 

824: quark momenta.

825: 

826: The gluonic penguin $Q_8$ contributes to the long-distance amplitude

827: at leading order in $1/Q$ through one-loop graphs. The corresponding

828: one-loop graphs were computed in the second reference of \cite{b2see} in 

829: an expansion in $q^2/m_b^2$ and in Ref.~\cite{BeFeSe} for arbitrary $q^2$.

830: Its contributions to the Wilson coefficients of the leading operators are

831: \begin{eqnarray}

832: C_{8,1}^{(-2)}(\mu) = \frac{\alpha_s}{16\pi^3} F_8^{(9)}(q^2)\,,\qquad

833: C_{8,2}^{(-2)}(\mu) = -\frac{\alpha_s}{8\pi^3} F_8^{(7)}(q^2)

834: \end{eqnarray}

835: with $F_8^{(9,7)}(q^2)$ given in Eqs.~(82), (83) of Ref.~\cite{BeFeSe}.

836: The operator $Q_8$ contributes also at tree level

837: through gluon-photon scattering graphs (with the

838: photon coupling to the $b$ and $s$ quarks). Expanding these graphs in 

839: powers of $1/Q$ one finds at leading order

840: \begin{eqnarray}

841: {\cal T}^\mu_8 \to  - \frac{m_b Q_b}{(4\pi)^2 v\cdot q}\bar s_L\sigma_{\alpha\beta}

842: gG^{\alpha\beta} \gamma^\mu h_{vR}

843: + \frac{Q_s}{8 \pi^2}

844: \bar s_L \gamma_\mu \vslash \sigma_{\alpha\beta}gG^{\alpha\beta} h_{vR}\,.

845: \end{eqnarray}

846: The matrix elements of these dimension-6 operators  are

847: suppressed by $\Lambda^2/Q^2$. 

848: 

849: 

850: The one-loop graphs in Fig.~2(c) with one insertion of $Q_{1-6}$ produce 

851: dimension-5 operators containing the gluon

852: field tensor of the form $\bar s gG_{\mu\nu} h_{v}$. Although their Wilson

853: coefficients start at $O(\alpha_s^0)$, their matrix elements are $\sim \Lambda^2$,

854: and therefore are suppressed by $\Lambda^2/Q^2$ relative to the short distance

855: amplitude. We will neglect all these higher

856: dimensional operators and keep only the $O(1), O(m_c^2/m_b^2)$ and 

857: $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ terms in the long distance amplitude.

858: 

859: 

860: \section{Matrix elements}

861: 

862: In this section we use the OPE result Eq.~(\ref{OPE}) for the long-distance amplitudes

863: ${\cal T}_i(q^2)$ 

864: to compute the hadronic amplitude  $A_\mu^{(V)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{AV}) up to

865: and including corrections of order $O(\alpha_s(Q), \Lambda/m_b, m_c^2/m_b^2)$.

866: At this point we encounter a technical complication connected with the fact that 

867: the OPE was performed in terms of HQET operators, while the matrix elements of 

868: the QCD currents

869: $\bar s\Gamma b$ appearing in the factorizable matrix elements of $Q_{7,9}$ are

870: expressed in terms of physical form factors.

871: This means that the matrix elements of the operators ${\cal O}^{(-2)}_{1,2}$ are

872: given in terms of HQET form factors, which are not known. Also, keeping all 

873: $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ contributions requires

874: that we include also $T$-products of the ${\cal O}^{(-2)}_{1,2}$ operators with

875: $1/m_b$ sub-leading terms in the HQET Lagrangian. Such nonlocal matrix elements 

876: introduce additional unknown form factors. This proliferation of unknown matrix elements

877: appears to preclude a simple form for our final result.

878: 

879: We will show next that it is possible to absorb all these nonlocal 

880: matrix elements into the physical form factors, through a simple 

881: reorganization of the operator expansion, such that one is left only with

882: local $1/m_b$ corrections.

883: This can be achieved by expressing the leading operators

884: ${\cal O}^{(-2)}_i$ in terms of QCD operators, up to  dimension-4

885: HQET operators $\bar s iD_\mu (\gamma_5) h_v$. 

886: Technically, this is obtained by inverting the HQET matching 

887:  relations (we assume here everywhere the NDR scheme)

888: \bea\label{match1}

889: \bar s_L \gamma_\mu b_L &=& C_0^{(v)}(\mu) \bar s_L \gamma_\mu h_{vL} +

890: C_1^{(v)}(\mu) \bar s_L v_\mu h_{vR} + 

891: \frac{1}{2m_b} \bar s_L \gamma_\mu i\Dslash h_{vR} + O(1/m_b^2)\\

892: \label{match2}

893: \bar s_L i\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu b_R &=& 

894: C_0^{(t)}(\mu) \bar s_L i\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu h_{vR} +

895: C_1^{(t)}(\mu) \bar s_L [(v\cdot q) \gamma_\mu - \qslash v_\mu] h_{vL}\\

896: & & + 

897: \frac{1}{2m_b} \bar s_L i\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu i\Dslash h_{vL} + O(1/m_b^2)

898: \,.\nonumber

899: \eea

900: The Wilson coefficients $C_i^{(v,t)}(\mu)$ are given 

901: at one-loop by \cite{EiHi}

902: \bea

903: C_0^{(v)}(\mu) &=& 1 - \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}(3\log\frac{\mu}{m_b}

904: + 4)\,,\qquad 

905: C_1^{(v)}(\mu) = \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{2\pi}\\

906: C_0^{(t)}(\mu) &=& 1 - \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}(5\log\frac{\mu}{m_b}

907: + 4)\,,\qquad 

908: C_1^{(t)} = O(\alpha^2_s)\,.

909: \eea

910: In the $O(1/m_b)$ terms we work at tree level in the matching, which will 

911: be sufficient for the precision required here, although the method can be

912: extended to any order in $\alpha_s(m_b)$.

913: 

914: Solving the matching relations Eqs.~(\ref{match1}), (\ref{match2}) for the 

915: leading order HQET operators appearing in the OPE ${\cal O}_{1,2}^{(-2)}$ one

916: finds

917: \begin{eqnarray}\label{inv1}

918: \bar s_L (q^2 \gamma_\mu - \qslash q_\mu) h_{vL} &=&

919: \frac{1}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} \bar s_L (q^2 \gamma_\mu - \qslash q_\mu) b_L

920: + {\cal O}_1^{(-1)} - \frac12 {\cal O}_4^{(-1)} + 

921: \frac12 {\cal O}_5^{(-1)}\\

922: \label{inv2}

923: \bar s_L i\sigma^{\mu\nu} q_\nu h_{vR} &=& \frac{1}{C_0^{(t)}(\mu)}

924: \bar s_L i\sigma^{\mu\nu} q_\nu b_R - 

925: \frac{C_1^{(t)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)C_0^{(t)}(\mu)}

926: \bar s_L [(v\cdot q) \gamma_\mu - v_\mu \qslash ] b_L

927: \end{eqnarray}

928: We neglected here terms of $O(\alpha_s(m_b) \Lambda/m_b)$.

929: 

930: 

931: Substituting these results into the OPE, the leading terms can be written

932: in terms of physical $B\to K^*$ form factors, with corrections of $O(\Lambda/m_b)$

933: coming from local dimension-4 operators ${\cal O}_{1-5}^{(-1)}$

934: \begin{eqnarray}

935: A_\mu^{(V)} &=& - C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) \frac{2m_b}{q^2}

936: \langle \bar s i\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu (1+\gamma_5) b\rangle \\

937: & & + C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) 

938: \langle \bar s \gamma_{\mu}  (1-\gamma_5) b\rangle

939: + \frac{1}{q^2} \sum_{i=1}^5 B_i(\mu) \langle {\cal O}_i^{(-1)} \rangle\,.

940: \nonumber

941: \end{eqnarray}

942: 

943: We absorbed here the contributions from the leading terms in Eqs.~(\ref{inv1}),

944: (\ref{inv2}) into 

945: a redefinition of the Wilson coefficients $C_{7,9}$

946: \bea\label{C7eff}

947: C_7(\mu) &\to & C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) = C_7(\mu) + 2\pi^2\sum_{i=1}^{6,8} C_i(\mu) 

948: \left[  \frac{C_{i,2}^{(-2)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(t)}(\mu)} +

949: C_{i,2}^{(0)}(\mu) \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}    \right]\\

950: \label{C9eff}

951: C_9(\mu) &\to & C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) = C_9(\mu)\\

952: & & - 4\pi^2\sum_{i=1}^{6,8} C_i(\mu) \left[

953: \frac{C_{i,1}^{(-2)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} -

954: \frac{C_{i,2}^{(-2)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(t)}(\mu) C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}

955: C_1^{(t)}(\mu) +

956: C_{i,1}^{(0)}(\mu) \frac{m_c^2}{q^2}        \right]\,.\nonumber

957: \eea

958: The $O(1)$ and $O(m_c^2/q^2)$ contributions to the long-distance amplitude

959: are contained in $C_{7,9}^{\rm eff}$, and the $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ part is

960: encoded in the matrix elements of ${\cal O}_i^{(-1)}$. 

961: Note that the effective Wilson coefficients $C_{7,9}^{\rm eff}$ introduced here

962: are different from the ``effective Wilson coefficients'' commonly used in the

963: literature $\tilde C_{7,9}^{\rm eff}$ \cite{BuMu,b2see}. The latter include contributions

964: from the matrix elements of the

965: operators $Q_{1-9}$ (usually computed in perturbation theory), and are thus

966: dependent on the final state. In contrast, our effective Wilson coefficients

967: are state independent, and encode only contributions from the hard scale

968: $\mu \sim m_b$.

969: 

970: Combining everything, the next-to-leading expressions for the

971: effective Wilson coefficients are 

972: \begin{eqnarray}

973: C_9^{\rm eff} &=& C_9 -  (C_1 + \frac{C_2}{3})[8G(0)+\frac43] -

974: C_3 [\frac{20}{3}G(0) - \frac{16}{3} G(m_b) + \frac{2}{27}] +

975: C_4 [\frac43 G(0) + \frac{16}{3} G(m_b) + \frac{14}{9}]\\ 

976: &-& 

977: C_5 [8 G(0) - 4 G(m_b) - \frac{14}{27}] -

978: C_6 [\frac83 G(0) - \frac43 G(m_b) + \frac{2}{9}] +

979: \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} [C_1 9 C(q^2) + C_2 (-6B(q^2)+3C(q^2))

980: - C_8 F_8^{(9)}(q^2)]\nonumber\\

981: C_7^{\rm eff} &=& C_7 -  \frac49 C_3 - \frac43 C_4 + \frac19 C_5 + \frac13 C_6 

982: + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}[-C_2 6 A(q^2) - C_8 F_8^{(7)}(q^2)]

983: \end{eqnarray}

984: 

985: The effective Wilson coefficient $C_9^{\rm eff}$ is RG invariant. At the order

986: we work here, it satisfies the RG equation

987: \begin{eqnarray}

988: \mu\frac{d}{d\mu} C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) = O(\alpha_s^2 C_{1,2} , \alpha_s C_{3-6})\,.

989: \end{eqnarray}

990: The coefficient $C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu)$ satisfies a RG equation 

991: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gam7}

992: \mu \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}\mu} C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) = \gamma_7(\alpha_s)

993:  C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu)

994: \end{eqnarray}

995:  with anomalous dimension $\gamma_7(\alpha_s) = \gamma_t(\alpha_s)

996: - \gamma_m(\alpha_s)$ (see Eqs.~(\ref{gamt}) and (\ref{gamm}) for definitions).

997: 

998: 

999: The Wilson coefficients of the dimension-4 operators $B_i(\mu)$ are given by

1000: \begin{eqnarray}

1001: B_1(\mu) &=& 8\pi^2 \sum_i C_i(\mu) (C_{i,1}^{(-1)}(\mu) + C_{i,1}^{(-2)}(\mu))\\

1002: B_2(\mu) &=& 8\pi^2 \sum_i C_i(\mu) C_{i,2}^{(-1)}(\mu)\\

1003: B_3(\mu) &=& 8\pi^2 \sum_i C_i(\mu) C_{i,3}^{(-1)}(\mu)\\

1004: B_4(\mu) &=& 8\pi^2 \sum_i C_i(\mu) (C_{i,4}^{(-1)}(\mu) 

1005: -\frac12 C_{i,1}^{(-2)}(\mu))\\

1006: B_5(\mu) &=& 8\pi^2 \sum_i C_i(\mu) (C_{i,5}^{(-1)}(\mu) 

1007: + \frac12 C_{i,1}^{(-2)}(\mu))\,.

1008: \end{eqnarray}

1009: These Wilson coefficients start at $O(\alpha_s)$ in matching. By absorbing

1010: the factor of $8\pi^2$ in their definition, their expansion in 

1011: $\alpha_s(Q)$ starts with a term of order $\alpha_s(Q)/\pi$.

1012: At the order we work (keeping terms in the OPE of $O(\alpha_s, \Lambda/Q, m_c^2/Q^2)$,

1013: but neglecting $O(\alpha_s \Lambda/Q)$ terms), they all vanish $B_{1-5}=0$.

1014: However, we will include them in the following expressions, which is required

1015: for a complete result to $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ accuracy for the long-distance 

1016: amplitude.

1017: 

1018: 

1019: It is convenient to parameterize the physical amplitudes $A_\mu^{(V,A)}$ 

1020: introduced in Eq.~(\ref{AVAdef}) in

1021: terms of eight scalar form factors ${\cal A}^{(V,A)}-{\cal D}^{(V,A)}$ defined as

1022: \bea\label{param}

1023: A_\mu^{(V,A)} &=& {\cal A}^{(V,A)}(q^2) 

1024: i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} \eta^{*\nu}

1025: (p+k)^\lambda (p-k)^\sigma + 

1026: {\cal B}^{(V,A)}(q^2)  \eta_\mu^*\\ 

1027: & & + {\cal C}^{(V,A)}(q^2) 

1028: (\eta^*\cdot p)(p+k)_\mu +

1029: {\cal D}^{(V,A)}(q^2) 

1030: (\eta^*\cdot p)(p-k)_\mu\nonumber

1031: \eea

1032: 

1033: 

1034: The $B\to K^* e^+ e^-$ decay rate can be represented as a sum over the

1035: helicity $\lambda=\pm 1, 0$ of the vector meson. In the limit of massless leptons, 

1036: this is given by

1037: \bea

1038: \frac{d\Gamma(B\to K^* e^+ e^-)}{dq^2} = 

1039: \frac{4G_F^2 |V_{tb} V_{ts}^*|^2 \alpha^2}{3m_B^2 (4\pi)^5}

1040: q^2 |\vec q\,| \sum_{\lambda = \pm 1,0}

1041: \left\{ |H_\lambda^{(V)}|^2 + |H_\lambda^{(A)}|^2 \right\}

1042: \eea

1043: where the $H_\lambda^{(V)}$ and $H_\lambda^{(A)}$ correspond to the vector and

1044: axial leptons coupling, respectively.

1045: Expressed in terms of the scalar

1046: amplitudes ${\cal A,B,C}$ introduced in Eq.~(\ref{param}), they are given 

1047: by ($i=V,A$)

1048: \bea

1049: H_\pm^{(i)}(q^2) &=& \mp 2m_B |\vec q| {\cal A}^{(i)}(q^2) - 

1050: {\cal B}^{(i)}(q^2)\\

1051: H_0^{(i)}(q^2) &=& \frac{1}{2m_V\sqrt{q^2}}

1052: \left\{ (-q^2+m_B^2-m_V^2) {\cal B}^{(i)}(q^2) +

1053: 4m_B^2 \vec q\,^2 {\cal C}^{(i)}(q^2) \right\}\,.

1054: \eea

1055: 

1056: The explicit results for the amplitudes ${\cal A}^{(V,A)}-{\cal D}^{(V,A)}$ 

1057: are obtained by taking matrix elements on physical states and are given by

1058: \bea\label{calA}

1059: {\cal A}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& -C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) \frac{2m_b}{q^2} g_+(q^2) + 

1060: C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) g(q^2) +  {\cal A}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)\\

1061: \label{calB}

1062: {\cal B}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& -C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) \frac{2m_b}{q^2} 

1063: [(m_B^2-m_V^2) g_+(q^2) + q^2 g_-(q^2)]

1064:  - C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) f(q^2)

1065: +  {\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)\\

1066: \label{calC}

1067: {\cal C}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& -C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) \frac{2m_b}{q^2} 

1068: [-g_+(q^2) + q^2 h(q^2)]

1069: - C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) a_+(q^2) + 

1070: {\cal C}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)\\

1071: \label{calD}

1072: {\cal D}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu) \frac{2m_b}{q^2} 

1073: [g_-(q^2) + (m_B^2-m_V^2) h(q^2)]

1074: - C_9^{\rm eff}(\mu) a_-(q^2) + {\cal D}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)

1075: \eea

1076: and 

1077: \bea

1078: {\cal A}^{(A)}(q^2) &=& C_{10} g(q^2)\\

1079: {\cal B}^{(A)}(q^2) &=& - C_{10} f(q^2)\\

1080: {\cal C}^{(A)}(q^2) &=& - C_{10} a_+(q^2)\\

1081: {\cal D}^{(A)}(q^2) &=& - C_{10} a_-(q^2)\,.

1082: \eea

1083: The coefficients ${\cal D}^{(V,A)}(q^2)$ do not contribute to the 

1084: $B\to V e^+ e^-$ decay rate

1085: into massless leptons, but are relevant for the $B\to V \tau^+ \tau^-$ mode. 

1086: We will not consider them further.

1087: The $O(\Lambda/Q)$ contribution to the long-distance contribution

1088: appears as matrix elements of the

1089: local dimension-4 operators ${\cal O}_i^{(-1)}$ (denoted as

1090: ${\cal A}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)-{\cal D}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)$ in 

1091: Eqs.~(\ref{calA})-(\ref{calD})). They are given explicitly by

1092: \begin{eqnarray}

1093: {\cal A}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) &=& \frac{1}{2m_b} d^{(0)}(q^2) B_1 + 

1094: \frac{1}{2m_b} (\bar\Lambda-v.k) g(q^2) B_2

1095: - \frac{1}{4m_b} [(1+\frac{\bar\Lambda}{m_B}) g_+(q^2) +

1096: (1-\frac{\bar\Lambda}{m_B}) g_-(q^2)] B_4\\

1097: \nonumber & & + \frac{m_s}{2m_b} g(q^2) B_5\\

1098: {\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) &=& \frac{1}{2m_b} d_1^{(0)}(q^2) B_1 - \frac{1}{2m_b} 

1099: (\bar\Lambda-v.k) f(q^2) B_2\\

1100: \nonumber

1101: & & - \frac{1}{2m_b}

1102: [(\bar\Lambda v-k).(p+k) g_+(q^2) + (\bar\Lambda v-k).(p-k) g_-(q^2)] B_4

1103: + \frac{m_s}{2m_b} f(q^2) B_5\\

1104: {\cal C}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) &=&

1105: \frac{1}{2m_b} [d_+^{(0)}(q^2)-\frac{\bar\Lambda-v.k}{2m_b} s(q^2)] B_1 -

1106: \frac{1}{2m_b}(\bar\Lambda - v.k)

1107:  [ a_+(q^2) + \frac{1}{2m_b} s(q^2)] B_2\\

1108: \nonumber

1109: & & - \frac{1}{4m_b} (1-\frac{v.k}{m_B}) s(q^2) B_3 + 

1110: (\frac{\bar\Lambda}{2m_b^2} g_+(q^2) - \frac12 (\bar\Lambda - v.k) h(q^2)

1111: - \frac{1}{4m_b} s(q^2)) B_4  \\

1112: \nonumber & & +

1113: \frac{m_s}{2m_b} 

1114: [ a_+(q^2) + \frac{1}{2m_b} s(q^2)] B_5

1115: \end{eqnarray}

1116: The form factors appearing here are defined in the Appendix. The corresponding

1117: result for ${\cal D}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)$ can be obtained from the Ward identity

1118: which gives ${\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) + (m_B^2-m_V^2) {\cal C}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)

1119:  + q^2 {\cal D}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) = 0$.

1120: Expanding in powers of $1/m_b$ and keeping the leading terms gives

1121: ${\cal D}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) = - {\cal C}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2) + O(\Lambda/m_b)$.

1122: 

1123: 

1124: For completeness we quote here also the relevant results for the

1125: semileptonic decay $B\to \rho e\bar\nu$.

1126: The decay rate is given by a sum over contributions corresponding to 

1127: helicities of the final vector meson $\lambda = \pm,0$

1128: \bea

1129: \frac{d\Gamma(\bar B\to \rho e \nu)}{dq^2} = 

1130: \frac{G_F^2 |V_{ub}|^2}{96 \pi^3 m_B^2}

1131: q^2 |\vec q\,| \sum_{\lambda = \pm 1,0} |H_\lambda|^2

1132: \eea

1133: where the helicity amplitudes are given by

1134: \begin{eqnarray}

1135: H_\pm(q^2) &=& \mp 2m_B |\vec q| g(q^2) + f(q^2)\\ 

1136: H_0(q^2) &=& \frac{1}{2m_V\sqrt{q^2}}

1137: \left\{ (q^2-m_B^2+m_V^2) f(q^2) -

1138: 4m_B^2 \vec q\,^2 a_+(q^2) \right\}\,.

1139: \end{eqnarray}

1140: 

1141: 

1142: 

1143: \section{Phenomenology}

1144: 

1145: 

1146: In the low recoil region, the amplitudes ${\cal A}^{(V)},{\cal B}^{(V)},

1147: {\cal C}^{(V)}$  for $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ are dominated by the operator 

1148: $Q_9$. The contribution proportional to $C_7$ can be

1149: expressed in terms of the $C_9$ terms using the form factor relations

1150: Eqs.~(\ref{W-1p}),(\ref{W-2p}),(\ref{W-3p}) given in the Appendix. 

1151: Keeping terms to subleading order in $\Lambda/m_b$, these amplitudes

1152: can be written as

1153: \begin{eqnarray}

1154: {\cal A}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& C_9^{\rm eff} g(q^2) \left\{

1155: 1 + \frac{C_7^{\rm eff}}{C_9^{\rm eff}} \frac{2m_b}{q^2}

1156: \left[ (1+\frac{2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}) m_b + m_q + 2 

1157: \frac{d^{(0)}(q^2)}{g(q^2)} \right] + 

1158: \frac{{\cal A}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)}{C_9^{\rm eff} g(q^2)} +

1159: O(\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_b^2})

1160: \right\}\\

1161: {\cal B}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& -C_9^{\rm eff} f(q^2) \left\{

1162: 1 + \frac{C_7^{\rm eff}}{C_9^{\rm eff}} \frac{2m_b}{q^2}

1163: \left[ (1+\frac{2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}) m_b - m_q - 

1164: 2 \frac{d_1^{(0)}(q^2)}{f(q^2)} \right] -

1165: \frac{{\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)}{C_9^{\rm eff} f(q^2)} +

1166: O(\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_b^2})

1167: \right\}\\

1168: {\cal C}^{(V)}(q^2) &=& -C_9^{\rm eff} a_+(q^2) \left\{

1169: 1 + \frac{C_7^{\rm eff}}{C_9^{\rm eff}} \frac{2m_b}{q^2}

1170: \left[(1+\frac{2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}) m_b - m_q - 

1171: 2 \frac{d_+^{(0)}(q^2)}{a_+(q^2)} \right] + 

1172: \frac{{\cal C}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)}{C_9^{\rm eff} a_+(q^2)} +

1173: O(\frac{\Lambda^2}{m_b^2}) \right\}\,.

1174: \end{eqnarray}

1175: 

1176: 

1177: Inserting these results into the expressions for the helicity 

1178: amplitudes $H_\lambda^{(V)}(q^2)$ one finds

1179: \begin{eqnarray}

1180: H_\pm^{(V)}(q^2) &=& \mp 2m_B m_V \sqrt{y^2-1} C_9^{\rm eff} g(q^2) 

1181: (1 + \delta + r_a)

1182: + C_9^{\rm eff} f(q^2) (1 + \delta + r_b)\\

1183: H_0^{(V)}(q^2) &=& - \frac{m_B y - m_V}{\sqrt{q^2}} C_9^{\rm eff} f(q^2) 

1184: (1+\delta + r_b)

1185: - 2m_B^2 m_V \frac{y^2-1}{\sqrt{q^2}} C_9^{\rm eff} a_+(q^2) (1 + \delta + r_c)

1186: \end{eqnarray}

1187: Here $1+\delta(q^2)$ scales like $m_b^0$ and $r_{a,b,c}(q^2)$ parameterize 

1188: the $1/m_b$ correction. Their explicit expressions are

1189: \begin{eqnarray}

1190: \delta(q^2) &=& \frac{C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu)}{C_9^{\rm eff}} \frac{2m_b^2(\mu)}{q^2}

1191: \left(1 + \frac{2 D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right)\\

1192: r_a(q^2) &=& \delta(q^2) \frac{1}{m_b}(m_q + 2 \frac{d^{(0)}(q^2)}{g(q^2)}) 

1193: +\frac{{\cal A}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)}{C_9^{\rm eff} g(q^2)}  \\

1194: \label{rb}

1195: r_b(q^2) &=& \delta(q^2) \frac{1}{m_b} ( - m_q - 2 

1196: \frac{d_1^{(0)}(q^2)}{f(q^2)}) +

1197: \frac{{\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)}{C_9^{\rm eff} f(q^2)}  \\

1198: r_c(q^2) &=& \delta(q^2) \frac{1}{m_b} (- m_q - 2 

1199: \frac{d_+^{(0)}(q^2)}{a_+(q^2)}) -

1200: \frac{{\cal C}_{\rm l.d.}(q^2)}{C_9^{\rm eff} a_+(q^2)}\,.

1201: \end{eqnarray}

1202: Combining the RG equations satisfied by $C_7^{\rm eff}(\mu)$ Eq.~(\ref{gam7})

1203: and by the $1 + 2 D_0^{(v)}(\mu)/C_0^{(v)}(\mu)$ factor Eq.~(\ref{gamD}), one can see that the

1204: $\delta(q^2)$ parameter is RG invariant.

1205: 

1206: These results imply that {\em the $H_\lambda^{(V)}(q^2)$ amplitudes

1207: for rare $B\to V \ell^+\ell^-$ decays are related at leading order 

1208: in $\Lambda/m_b$  to those

1209: for semileptonic decay $B\to V e\bar\nu$ with a common proportionality

1210: factor}

1211: \begin{eqnarray}\label{helrel}

1212: H_\lambda^{(V)}(q^2) = C_9^{\rm eff} 

1213: (1 + \delta(q^2) + O(\Lambda/m_b)) H_\lambda(q^2)\,.

1214: \end{eqnarray}

1215: Combining this with the rate formulas one finds a

1216: relation among the decay rates for the rare and semileptonic decays

1217: \begin{eqnarray}\label{11}

1218: \frac{\mbox{d}\Gamma(\bar B\to \rho e\nu)/\mbox{d}q^2}

1219: {\mbox{d}\Gamma(\bar B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-)/\mbox{d}q^2}

1220: = 

1221: \frac{|V_{ub}|^2}{|V_{tb} V_{ts}^*|^2} \cdot \frac{8\pi^2}{\alpha^2}\cdot

1222: \frac{1}{|C_9^{\rm eff}(1+\delta(q^2))|^2 + |C_{10}|^2}

1223: \frac{\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{B\to\rho}(q^2)|^2}

1224: {\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{B\to K^*}(q^2)|^2}

1225: \end{eqnarray}

1226: The corrections to this relation are of order $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ and can be

1227: expressed in terms of the three parameters $r_{a,b,c}(q^2)$ introduced above.

1228: 

1229: The ratio of decay rates in Eq.~(\ref{11}) has been considered previously

1230: in Ref.~\cite{SaYa,LiWi,LSW} in connection with a method for determining 

1231: $|V_{ub}|$. This requires some information about the SU(3) breaking ratio

1232: of helicity amplitudes appearing on the right-hand side 

1233: \begin{eqnarray}

1234: R_B(y) \equiv \frac{\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{B\to\rho}(y)|^2}

1235: {\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{B\to K^*}(y)|^2} 

1236: %R_D(y) = \frac{\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{D\to\rho}(y)|^2}

1237: %{\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{D\to K^*}(y)|^2}\,.

1238: \end{eqnarray}

1239: It has been proposed in \cite{LiWi,LSW} to 

1240: determine $R_B$ in terms of the corresponding ratio of $D\to \rho/K^*$ 

1241: decay amplitudes $R_D(y)$ using a double ratio \cite{Grin}, up to corrections 

1242: linear in both heavy quark and SU(3) symmetry breaking

1243: \begin{eqnarray}\label{dbl}

1244: R_B(y) = R_D(y)(1 + O(m_s(\frac{1}{m_c}-\frac{1}{m_b}))

1245: \end{eqnarray}

1246: In this relation, the two sides must be taken at the same value of the

1247: kinematical variable $y=E_V/m_V$.

1248: A chiral perturbation theory computation \cite{LSW} at the zero recoil point 

1249: $y=1$ shows

1250: that the corrections to this prediction are even smaller than suggested by

1251: the naive dimensional estimate Eq.~(\ref{dbl}). We do not have anything new to 

1252: add on this point, and focus instead on the structure of the denominator in 

1253: Eq.~(\ref{11}).

1254: 

1255: The results of our paper improve on previous work in two main respects. 

1256: First, we point out that the rate ratio (\ref{11}) can be computed at leading 

1257: order in

1258: $1/m_b$ over the entire small recoil region, and not only at the zero recoil

1259: point $q^2 = (m_B-m_V)^2$. 

1260: This has important experimental implications, as the rate itself vanishes at 

1261: the zero recoil point,

1262: such that measuring the ratio in Eq.~(\ref{11}) would  involve an 

1263: extrapolation from

1264: $q^2 < q^2_{\rm max}$. Most importantly,  Eq.~(\ref{11}) allows the 

1265: determination of $V_{ub}$ using ratios of rates integrated over a range

1266: in $q^2$, as long as such a range is still contained within the low recoil region.

1267: 

1268: Second, we present

1269: explicit results for the subleading $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ correction to this

1270: result in terms of new form factors contained in the parameters 

1271: $r_{a,b,c}(q^2)$. Using model computations of these form factors, this allows

1272: a quantitative estimate of the power corrections effect on the 

1273: $V_{ub}$ determination. 

1274: 

1275: 

1276: In the rest of this section we will study in some detail the (RG-invariant) 

1277: quantity $N_{\rm eff}(q^2)$ defined through the 

1278: ratio of rare radiative and semileptonic decays in Eq.~(\ref{11})

1279: \begin{eqnarray}

1280: \frac{\mbox{d}\Gamma(\bar B\to \rho e\nu)/\mbox{d}q^2}

1281: {\mbox{d}\Gamma(\bar B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-)/\mbox{d}q^2}

1282: = 

1283: \frac{|V_{ub}|^2}{|V_{tb} V_{ts}^*|^2} \cdot \frac{8\pi^2}{\alpha^2}\cdot

1284: \frac{1}{N_{\rm eff}(q^2)}

1285: \frac{\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{B\to\rho}(q^2)|^2}

1286: {\sum_\lambda |H_\lambda^{B\to K^*}(q^2)|^2}

1287: \end{eqnarray}

1288: The results of this paper offer a systematic way of computing this

1289: quantity in an expansion in $\alpha_s(Q)$, $m_c^2/Q^2$ and $\Lambda/m_b$.

1290: The precision of a $|V_{ub}|$ determination using this method is ultimately

1291: determined by the precision in our knowledge of this parameter. 

1292: There are several sources of uncertainty in $N_{\rm eff}(q^2)$, coming from 

1293: scale dependence,  $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ power 

1294: corrections and duality violations. We will consider them  in turn.

1295: 

1296: 

1297: At leading order in $\Lambda/m_b$, the $N_{\rm eff}(q^2)$ parameter is given by

1298: \begin{eqnarray}\label{NeffLO}

1299: N_{\rm eff}(q^2) = |C_9^{\rm eff} + \frac{2m_b(\mu)^2}{q^2} C_7^{\rm eff}

1300: \left(1 + 2\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right)|^2 + 

1301: |C_{10}|^2 +  O(\Lambda/m_b)\,.

1302: \end{eqnarray}

1303: We give in Table II results for the effective Wilson coefficients

1304: $C_{7,9}^{\rm eff}$ at several values of the renormalization scale

1305: $\mu \sim m_b$. We work both at leading log order (next-to-leading log

1306: order for $C_9(\mu)$), and at next-to-leading order (NNLL order for $C_9$).

1307: In each of these approximations the combination of effective Wilson coefficients

1308: in Eq.~(\ref{NeffLO}) satisfies the RG equation

1309: \begin{eqnarray}

1310: \mu\frac{d}{d\mu}\left[ C_9^{\rm eff} + \frac{2m_b(\mu)^2}{q^2} C_7^{\rm eff}

1311: \left(1 + 2\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right) \right] =

1312: \left\{

1313: \begin{array}{cc}

1314: O(\alpha_s)\,, & \mbox{(LL)} \\

1315: O(\alpha_s^2 C_{1,2}, \alpha_s C_{3-6})\,, & \mbox{(NLL)} \\

1316: \end{array}

1317: \right.

1318: \end{eqnarray}

1319: 

1320: The structure of the NNLL running for the Wilson coefficients in the 

1321: $b\to s e^+ e^-$ weak Hamiltonian was given in Ref.~\cite{BoMiUr} (see also 

1322: \cite{BeFeSe}). The complete NNLL result requires  the 3-loop 

1323: mixing of the

1324: four-quark operators into $Q_{7,9}$, which was obtained only recently \cite{ADM}.

1325: We use here the full NNLL results for the Wilson coefficients $C_{7,9}$, 

1326: which were presented in \cite{BoGaGoHa}.

1327: The factor containing $D_0^{(v)}(\mu)$ can be extracted from Eq.~(\ref{kappa1}) 

1328: and its 

1329: inclusion is necessary at NLL to achieve the scale independence of $N_{\rm eff}$

1330: to this order.

1331: 

1332: 

1333: \begin{table}[t!]

1334: \begin{center}

1335: \begin{tabular}{c|c|cc|cc|cc|cc}

1336: \hline\hline

1337:  & $\mu_b$ (GeV) & $C_9$ & $C_7$ & $C_9^{\rm eff}(y=1)$ & $C_9^{\rm eff}(y=1.5)$ & 

1338: $C_7^{\rm eff}(y=1)$ & $C_7^{\rm eff}(y=1.5)$ & 

1339: $N_{\rm eff}(y=1)$ & $N_{\rm eff}(y=1.5)$\\

1340: \hline

1341:    & 2.4 & 4.378 & -0.388 & $4.315 + 0.198 i$ & $4.338 + 0.198 i$ 

1342:    & $C_7$ & $C_7$ & 30.80 & 28.96 \\

1343: LL & 4.8 & 4.140 & -0.343 & $4.331 + 0.550 i$ & $4.395 + 0.550 i$ 

1344:    & $C_7$ & $C_7$ & 33.37 & 32.34 \\

1345:    & 9.6 & 3.760 & -0.304 & $4.420 + 0.822 i$ & $4.513 + 0.822 i$ 

1346:    & $C_7$ & $C_7$ & 35.81 & 35.38 \\

1347: \hline\hline

1348: & 2.4 & 4.510 & -0.366 & $4.685 + 0.494 i$ & $4.742 +0.442 i$ 

1349:   & -0.352-0.127i & -0.360-0.122i & 32.75 & 30.83 \\

1350: NLL & 4.8 & 4.218 & -0.332 & $4.611 + 0.556 i$ & $4.680 + 0.514 i$ 

1351:   & -0.401-0.100i & -0.408-0.097i & 32.76 & 31.11 \\

1352: & 9.6 & 3.799 & -0.300 & $4.589 + 0.643 i$ & $4.668 + 0.609 i$ 

1353:   & -0.422-0.083i & -0.428-0.080i & 33.46 & 32.10 \\

1354: \hline\hline

1355: \end{tabular}

1356: \end{center}

1357: \caption{\setlength\baselineskip{12pt}

1358: Results for  the Wilson coefficients in the weak Hamiltonian $C_{7,9}$

1359: and the effective Wilson coefficients appearing in the $B\to K^* e^+e^-$

1360: decay rate at LL and NLL order. 

1361: %These numbers include also the contributions from $Q_8$. 

1362: The Wilson coefficient

1363: $C_{10}$ is equal to $C_{10}^{\rm NLL} = -4.409$ and 

1364: $C_{10}^{\rm NNLL} = -4.279$. The other parameters used here are

1365: $m_b(m_b)=4.32$ GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.119$ and $m_c(m_c)=1.335$ GeV.

1366: }

1367: \end{table}

1368: 

1369: To illustrate the $q^2$ dependence of the effective Wilson coefficients,

1370: we quote their values at two kinematical points $y=1$ and $y=1.5$, 

1371: corresponding to the low recoil

1372: region overlapping with that kinematically accessible in $D$ decays. The

1373: resulting dependence on $y$ is very mild, of about 2.5\% in $C_9^{\rm eff}$

1374: and almost negligible in $C_7^{\rm eff}$. 

1375: 

1376: Next we consider the scale dependence of the results, by computing

1377: the variation of the effective Wilson coefficients 

1378: between the scales $2\mu_b$ and $\mu_b/2$ with $\mu_b = 4.8$ GeV.

1379: The LLO Wilson coefficient $C_9$ changes in this range by 15\%, while the corresponding

1380: variation in $C_9^{\rm eff}$ is reduced to 2\% (for the real part), and 36\%

1381: (for $\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im }C_9^{\rm eff}$).

1382: At NNLL the change in $C_9$ is 17\%, which is reduced in the effective

1383: Wilson coefficient $C_9^{\rm eff}$ to 2\% for $\mbox{Im }C_9^{\rm eff}$, 

1384: and $8.5\%$ for $\frac{1}{\pi}\mbox{Im }C_9^{\rm eff}$.

1385: Combining everything, at LL order the scale dependence of $N_{\rm eff}$ is about 16\% 

1386: which is reduced at NNL order to about $3.5\%$ (at the zero recoil point $y=1$). 

1387: 

1388: To get a sense for the relative contributions

1389: to  the long-distance effects in $C_9^{\rm eff}$, we give below

1390: the detailed structure of this effective coefficient at LL and NLL orders for 

1391: $\mu_b=4.8$ GeV at $y=1$

1392: \begin{eqnarray}

1393: LL &:& C_9^{\rm eff}(y=1) = 4.140 + (0.136 + 0.506 i) + (0.004 + 0.044 i) 

1394: + 0.000 + 0.050

1395: = 4.330 + 0.550 i\\

1396: NLL &:& C_9^{\rm eff}(y=1) = 4.218 + (0.313 + 0.505 i) + (0.001 + 0.050 i) 

1397: - 0.006 + 0.085

1398: = 4.611 + 0.556 i\,.\nonumber

1399: \end{eqnarray}

1400: The five terms  correspond to  $C_9$, the contribution of

1401: $Q_{1,2}$, from $Q_{3-6}$, $Q_8$ and the $m_c^2/Q^2$ term respectively.

1402: As expected, the dominant contribution to the long-distance part of

1403: $C_9^{\rm eff}$ comes from the operators $Q_{1,2}$, with $Q_{3-6}$ contributing

1404: about 3\% and the $m_c^2/Q^2$ term about 0.1\%.

1405: 

1406: The structure of the power corrections of $O(\Lambda/m_b)$ is in general very 

1407: complicated and depends on both the leading and subleading $B\to V$ form factors.

1408: Details of such an analysis will be presented

1409: elsewhere. We will limit ourselves here to the study of these corrections

1410: at the zero recoil point, where they are given only by $r_b(q^2)$, defined in

1411: Eq.~(\ref{rb}). At the

1412: zero recoil point $q^2=q_{\rm max}^2$, the relation among rare radiative

1413: and semileptonic helicity amplitudes Eq.~(\ref{helrel})

1414: can be extended to subleading order in $1/m_b$ and reads

1415: \begin{eqnarray}

1416: H_\lambda^{(V)}(q^2_{\rm max}) =

1417: C_9^{\rm eff} (1+\delta(q^2_{\rm max}) + r_b(q^2_{\rm max})) 

1418: H_\lambda(q^2_{\rm max})\,.

1419: \end{eqnarray}

1420: The corresponding modification of the relation for decay rates 

1421: Eq.~(\ref{11}) is obtained

1422: by the replacement $1+\delta(q^2) \to 1+\delta(q^2) +r_b(q^2)$. 

1423: Since the leading order result for $N_{\rm eff}(q^2)$ has only a weak 

1424: dependence on $q^2$ in the low recoil region

1425: (see Table II), this is a reasonably good approximation.

1426: 

1427: 

1428: A complete computation of $r_b(q^2_{\rm max})$ is not possible at present

1429: as ${\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}$ depends on the (as yet unknown) Wilson coefficients 

1430: $B_{1-5}$. Dimensional analysis estimates of the first term in (\ref{rb}) give

1431: $r_b(q^2_{\rm max}) \sim -(0.03 \pm 0.01) \Lambda/m_b$, which represents

1432: at most an uncertainty of $1\%$ in $N_{\rm eff}(q^2_{\rm max})$.

1433: Barring an anomalously large value for ${\cal B}_{\rm l.d.}$, this

1434: suggests very small power corrections to the coefficient $N_{\rm eff}$.

1435: 

1436: Finally, we address the issue of duality violations. Their effects are 

1437: difficult to quantify in a precise way, but some guidance can be obtained 

1438: from the experimental data on the 

1439: $R=\sigma(e^+e^-\to hadrons)/\sigma(e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-)$

1440: ratio, to which the coefficient $N_{\rm eff}(q^2)$ is very similar.

1441: Good data is available on the ratio $R$ in the $c\bar c$ resonance 

1442: region (see e.g. Fig.~39.8 in \cite{PDG}). In the region $\sqrt{q^2} =

1443: 4.1-4.4$ GeV (corresponding to the kinematics relevant here), the ratio 

1444: $R$ oscillates around its pQCD predicted value by less than $\sim 25\%$. 

1445: %Integrating the rate over $q^2$, these oscillations would largely cancel out,

1446: %and a duality violation effect of $\sim 10\%$ appears reasonable. 

1447: Strictly speaking, the quantity analogous to $R$ in our case is Im$(C_9^{\rm eff})$,

1448: which represents only about 12\% of the magnitude of $|C_9^{\rm eff}|$. In

1449: the real part of $C_9^{\rm eff}$, the relative error introduced by these 

1450: oscillations is

1451: suppressed by the large value of $C_9$ to about $0.3/4.3\times 10\% \sim

1452: 1\%$. Due to the fact that Im $(C_9^{\rm eff}$)/Re $(C_9^{\rm eff}) \sim 12\%$, the 

1453: 25\% duality violation effect in Im$(C_9^{\rm eff})$ is reduced in

1454: $|C_9^{\rm eff} + 2m_q^2/q^2 C_7^{\rm eff}|^2$ to about 2\%.

1455: The corresponding effect in $N_{\rm eff}$ is reduced by a further factor of 0.5

1456: since the contributions of the two terms in $N_{\rm eff}$ are roughly equal,

1457: and $C_{10}$ is an invariant.

1458: These arguments show that duality violation effects are likely to be very

1459: small in $N_{\rm eff}$ in the kinematical region considered, 

1460: probably below 5\%.

1461: Precise measurements of the $q^2$ spectrum in this region could help resolve 

1462: and reduce this source of uncertainty. 

1463: 

1464: 

1465: Combining all sources of errors, we find a total uncertainty in 

1466: $N_{\rm eff}$ of less than $\sim 10\%$, which is dominated by duality

1467: violation effects. This gives a total theory uncertainty 

1468: on $|V_{ub}|$ from this method of about 5\%.

1469: 

1470: We comment briefly on the experimental feasibility of this method.

1471: Model estimates of the dilepton invariant mass spectrum in $B\to K^* \mu^+\mu^-$

1472: indicate that the integrated branching ratio corresponding to the

1473: region considered here $q^2 = [15,19]$ GeV$^2$ is about $(2-5)\times 10^{-7}$,

1474: depending on the form factor models used \cite{ABHH}. Extrapolating the uncertainties

1475: in the present data \cite{Babar,Belle} to 1000 fb$^{-1}$, corresponding to the

1476: entire data sample from the B factories, suggests that this

1477: integrated branching ratio will be measured to about 25\%. This is

1478: beginning to be comparable to the theory uncertainty, and indicates

1479: that a competitive determination of $|V_{ub}|$ using this method

1480: will likely require a super B-factory.

1481: 

1482: 

1483: 

1484: 

1485: 

1486: 

1487: 

1488: \section{Conclusions}

1489: 

1490: We presented in this paper a short-distance expansion for the long-distance

1491: contributions to exclusive $B\to K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays in the small

1492: recoil region. The main observation is that in this kinematical region,

1493: there are 3 relevant energy scales: $Q = m_b \sim \sqrt{q^2}, m_c, \Lambda$.

1494: We use an operator product expansion (OPE) and the heavy quark effective

1495: theory (HQET) to integrate out the effects of the large scale $Q$, and 

1496: classify the effects from the remaining scales in terms of operators 

1497: contributing at a given order in $m_c^2/Q^2$ and $\Lambda/Q$.

1498: 

1499: Our main result is a systematic expansion for the long-distance amplitude

1500: in $B\to K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^-$ decays

1501: including terms of $O(m_c^2/Q^2)$ and $O(\Lambda/Q)$, which can be

1502: extended to any order in $\alpha_s(Q)$. The final results for physical

1503: observables are explicitly scale and scheme independent, order by order

1504: in perturbation theory. This is to be contrasted with the often used

1505: naive factorization approximation (combined with resonance saturation),

1506: which is not consistent with constraints imposed by renormalization group

1507: evolution.

1508: 

1509: 

1510: 

1511: The form of the result is analogous to that for the

1512: $R$ ratio in $e^+e^-\to hadrons$, which can be computed systematically

1513: in an expansion in $1/Q^2$. For example, the nonperturbative effects in

1514: the $R$ ratio have an analog in the $b\to s e^+ e^-$ case as form factors 

1515: of higher dimensional flavor-changing currents. We classify all the

1516: nonperturbative matrix elements required for a complete description of

1517: $B\to K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^-$ to the order considered.

1518: We find that none of these new form factors enter

1519: at order $O(1)$ and $O(m_c^2/m_b^2)$ for the long-distance contribution,

1520: and start contributing first at $O(\alpha_s(Q) \Lambda/m_b)$. 

1521: 

1522: 

1523: These results are applied to a method for extracting the CKM matrix 

1524: element $V_{ub}$ from the ratio of semileptonic and rare exclusive $B$ 

1525: decays in the small recoil region. We find that the long-distance

1526: effect in this determination is well controlled by the expansion in

1527: $\Lambda/m_b$ and $m_c^2/m_b^2$, and the precision of such a method is

1528: dominated by scale dependence and

1529: duality violating effects. Experimental measurements of the dilepton

1530: invariant mass spectrum $d\Gamma/dq^2$ in $B\to K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^-$

1531: will allow a direct control of these effects.

1532: 

1533: The methods of this paper can be applied to other problems of interest for

1534: the phenomenology of rare B decays. The long distance amplitude has a 

1535: complex phase, which is

1536: however completely calculable using the OPE. This means that observables

1537: such as CP violating asymmetries (in the SM and beyond) can be computed 

1538: in a model-independent way. 

1539: Combined with methods based on the soft-collinear effective theory (SCET)

1540: \cite{SCET} and perturbative QCD \cite{BeFe,BeFeSe}, which are applicable at 

1541: large recoil, the approach proposed here

1542: opens up the possibility of attacking the exclusive 

1543: $b\to s e^+ e^-$ rare $B$ decays from the both ends of the $q^2$ spectrum.

1544: 

1545: 

1546: 

1547: 

1548: 

1549: \begin{acknowledgments}

1550: We would like to thank Christoph Bobeth for providing us with the Mathematica

1551: code for the NNLO running of the Wilson coefficients presented in 

1552: Ref.~\cite{BoGaGoHa}. D.P. is grateful to Andrzej Czarnecki for useful discussions.

1553: The work of B.G. was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Grant 

1554: DE-FG03-97ER40546.

1555: The work of D. P. has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

1556: under the Grant No. DF-FC02-94ER40818.

1557: \end{acknowledgments}

1558: 

1559: 

1560: 

1561: \newpage

1562: \appendix

1563: \section{Form factor relations}

1564: 

1565:  

1566: We give here an alternative derivation of the improved heavy quark symmetry

1567: form factor relations at low recoil presented in Ref.~\cite{GrPi1}, including

1568: the leading power corrections $\sim O(\Lambda/m_b)$ and hard gluon effects.

1569: As a by-product we derive exact relations for the HQET Wilson coefficients

1570: of dimension-4 operators following from the equations of motion.

1571: 

1572: We start by giving the definitions of the $B\to V$ form factors used. 

1573: One possible parameterization is

1574: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Vdef}

1575: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar q\gamma_\mu b|\bar B(p)\rangle &=&

1576: g(q^2) i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} \eta^{*\nu}

1577: (p+k)^\lambda (p-k)^\sigma\\

1578: \label{Adef}

1579: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar q\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 b| \bar B(p)\rangle &=&

1580: f(q^2) \eta^*_\mu 

1581: + \, a_+(q^2)(\eta^*\cdot p)(p+k)_\mu\\

1582:  & &\qquad\quad\,\,\,\, +\,

1583: a_-(q^2)(\eta^*\cdot p)(p-k)_\mu\,,\nonumber\\

1584: \label{Tdef}

1585: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar qi\sigma_{\mu\nu} b|\bar B(p)\rangle &=&

1586: g_+(q^2) i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} \eta^{*\lambda}

1587: (p+k)^\sigma + 

1588: g_-(q^2) i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} 

1589: \eta^{*\lambda} (p-k)^\sigma\\

1590:  & +&

1591: h(q^2)(\eta^*\cdot p) i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} (p+k)^\lambda

1592: (p-k)^\sigma \nonumber\,.

1593: \eea

1594: We use the convention $\varepsilon^{0123}=1$. This particular

1595: definition of the form factors is convenient in the low recoil region

1596: $q^2 \sim (m_B-m_V)^2$, where it

1597: simplifies the power counting in $m_b$. Taking into  account the usual 

1598: relativistic normalization of the $B$ meson state, these form factors 

1599: satisfy the scaling laws \cite{IsWi}

1600: \bea\nonumber

1601: & & f(q^2) \propto m_b^{1/2}\,,\quad

1602: g(q^2) \propto m_b^{-1/2}\,,\quad

1603: a_+(q^2)-a_-(q^2) \propto m_b^{-1/2}\,,\quad

1604: a_+(q^2)+a_-(q^2) \propto m_b^{-3/2}

1605: \\

1606: \label{pc}

1607: & & g_+(q^2) - g_-(q^2) \propto m_b^{1/2}\,,\qquad 

1608: g_+(q^2) + g_-(q^2) \propto m_b^{-1/2}\,,\qquad

1609: h(q^2) \propto m_b^{-3/2}

1610: \,.

1611: \eea 

1612: We will require also the form factor of the pseudoscalar density 

1613: defined as

1614: \begin{eqnarray}

1615: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar q\gamma_5 b|\bar B(p)\rangle &=&

1616: (\eta^*\cdot p) s(q^2)\,.

1617: \end{eqnarray}

1618: This is not independent and can be obtained using the equation of motion

1619: for the quark fields in terms of the form

1620: factors defined above as

1621: \begin{eqnarray}

1622: s(q^2) = -\frac{1}{m_b+m_q}[f(q^2) + (m_B^2-m_V^2) a_+(q^2) + q^2 a_-(q^2)]\,.

1623: %\frac{1}{m_B}f(q^2) + (m_B+v.k) a_+(q^2) + (m_B-v.k) a_-(q^2)\,.

1624: \end{eqnarray}

1625: The leading term in the expansion of $s(q^2)$ in powers of $\Lambda/m_b$

1626: scales like $s(q^2) \propto m_b^{-1/2}$ and can be written as

1627: \begin{eqnarray}

1628: s(q^2) = -\frac{1}{m_B}f(q^2) - a_+(q^2) (m_B+v\cdot k) - 

1629: a_-(q^2) (m_B-v\cdot k) + O(m_b^{-3/2})\,.

1630: \end{eqnarray}

1631: 

1632: 

1633: 

1634: 

1635: An alternative parameterization commonly used in the literature 

1636: defines the form factors as (with $q_\mu = p_\mu - k_\mu$)

1637: \bea

1638: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar q\gamma_\mu(1-\gamma_5) b|\bar B(p)\rangle &=& 

1639: \frac{2V(q^2)}{m_B+m_V} \,i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}

1640:  \eta^{\ast\nu} \, p^\rho\: k^\sigma \\

1641: & &\hspace*{-2cm} - 2m_VA_0(q^2)\,\frac{\eta^\ast\cdot p}{q^2}\,q_\mu - 

1642:   (m_B+m_V)\,A_1(q^2)\left[\eta^{\ast\mu}-

1643:   \frac{\eta^\ast\cdot p}{q^2}\,q^\mu\right] \nonumber \\

1644: & &\hspace*{-2cm}

1645: +\,A_2(q^2)\,\frac{\eta^\ast\cdot p}{m_B+m_V}

1646:  \left[p_\mu+k_{\mu} -\frac{m_B^2-m_V^2}{q^2}\,q_\mu\right],\nonumber \\

1647: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar qi\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu b|\bar B(p)\rangle &=& 

1648: -2T_1(q^2) \,i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}

1649:  \eta^{\ast\nu} \, p^\rho\: k^\sigma\\

1650: \langle V(k,\eta)|\bar qi\sigma_{\mu\nu} q^\nu \gamma_5 b|\bar B(p)\rangle &=& 

1651: T_2(q^2) [(m_b^2-m_V^2) \eta_\mu^\ast - (\eta^*\cdot p)(p_\mu+k_\mu)]\\

1652: & & +

1653: T_3(q^2) \frac{\eta^*\cdot p}{m_B^2-m_V^2} [(m_B^2-m_V^2) (p_\mu - k_\mu) - q^2

1654: (p_\mu + k_\mu)]\nonumber

1655: \eea

1656: The relation to the alternative definition in Eqs.~(\ref{Vdef})-(\ref{Tdef}) is

1657: \begin{eqnarray}

1658: g(q^2) &=& - \frac{1}{m_B+m_V} V(q^2)\,,\qquad f(q^2) = (m_B + m_V) A_1(q^2) \\

1659: a_+(q^2) &=& -\frac{1}{m_B+m_V} A_2(q^2) \,,\quad

1660: a_-(q^2) = \frac{2m_V}{q^2}A_0(q^2) - \frac{m_B+m_V}{q^2} A_1(q^2) + 

1661: \frac{m_B-m_V}{q^2} A_2(q^2)

1662: \nonumber\\

1663: g_+(q^2) &=& T_1(q^2)\,,\quad g_-(q^2) = 

1664: \frac{m_B^2-m_V^2}{q^2}(T_2(q^2)-T_1(q^2))\,,\quad

1665: h(q^2) = \frac{1}{q^2}(T_1(q^2)-T_2(q^2)) - 

1666: \frac{1}{m_B^2-m_V^2} T_3(q^2)\nonumber\,.

1667: \end{eqnarray}

1668: 

1669: 

1670: In addition to these form factors, we require also the matrix elements of 

1671: the dimension-4 operators $\bar q i\Dleft_\mu (\gamma_5) b$, which can be defined as 

1672: \bea\label{Ddef}

1673: \langle V(k,\eta) |\bar q i\Dleft_\mu b|\bar B(v)\rangle &=&

1674: d(q^2) i\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma} \eta^{*\nu} (p+k)^\lambda (p-k)^\sigma\\

1675: \label{D1def}

1676: \langle V(k,\eta) |\bar q i\Dleft_\mu \gamma_5 b|\bar B(v)\rangle &=&

1677: d_1(q^2) \eta^*_\mu + d_+(q^2) (\eta^*\cdot p)(p_\mu + k_\mu)\\

1678: &+& d_-(q^2) (\eta^*\cdot p)(p_\mu - k_\mu)\,.\nonumber

1679: \eea

1680: Their scaling with the heavy quark mass $m_b$ is complicated by the presence

1681: of the covariant derivative $iD_\mu$, which can introduce factors of the large 

1682: scale $m_b$ through

1683: loops. To make it explicit, we consider the matching of the

1684: dimension-4 QCD operators in Eqs.~(\ref{Ddef}), (\ref{D1def}) onto HQET. Working at

1685: tree level in the dimension-4 operators, but keeping all contributions enhanced by

1686: $O(m_b)$, this can be written as

1687: \begin{eqnarray}\label{matchD1}

1688: \bar q i\Dleft_\mu b &=& D_0^{(v)}(\mu) m_b \bar q \gamma_\mu h_v + 

1689: D_1^{(v)}(\mu) m_b \bar q v_\mu h_v + \bar q i\Dleft_\mu h_v + \cdots\\

1690: \label{matchD5}

1691: \bar q i\Dleft_\mu \gamma_5 b &=& - D_0^{(v)}(\mu) m_b \bar q \gamma_\mu\gamma_5  h_v + 

1692: D_1^{(v)}(\mu) m_b \bar q v_\mu\gamma_5  h_v + \bar q i\Dleft_\mu\gamma_5  h_v + \cdots

1693: \end{eqnarray}

1694: We assumed here the naive anticommuting $\gamma_5$ scheme. The Wilson coefficients

1695: $D_i^{(v)}(\mu)$ start at $O(\alpha_s)$. 

1696: 

1697: The matrix elements of the dimension-4 HQET operators analogous to those appearing

1698: in Eqs.~(\ref{Ddef}), (\ref{D1def}) (obtained by replacing $\bar q 

1699: i\Dleft_\mu (\gamma_5) b \to \bar q i\Dleft_\mu (\gamma_5) h_v$)

1700: can be parameterized in terms of similar form factors, 

1701: denoted with $d^{(0)}(q^2), \dots$. They have a simple scaling with the heavy

1702: quark mass, which is the same as in Eq.~(\ref{pc}) 

1703: with the substitution $(d^{(0)},d_1^{(0)},d_+^{(0)},d_-^{(0)}) \to (g,f,a_+,a_-)$.

1704: These form factors are related to the

1705: effective theory form factors introduced in \cite{GrPi1} as

1706: \bea

1707: d^{(0)}(q^2) = \frac12 {\cal D}(q^2)  \,,\qquad 

1708: d_1^{(0)}(q^2) = - {\cal D}_1(q^2)  \,,\qquad \cdots

1709: \eea

1710: 

1711: 

1712: Taking the $B\to V$ matrix element of Eq.~(\ref{matchD1}) one finds for the

1713: leading terms in the $1/m_b$ expansion of $d(q^2)$ 

1714: \begin{eqnarray}\label{dexp}

1715: d(q^2) = \frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} m_b g(q^2) + d^{(0)}(q^2,\mu) + \dots

1716: \end{eqnarray}

1717: We keep here all terms of order $O(\alpha_s m_b^{1/2})$ and $O(m_b^{-1/2})$

1718: and the ellipses denote terms of order $O(\alpha_s m_b^{-1/2}, m_b^{-3/2})$.

1719: Similar expansions are obtained from Eq.~(\ref{matchD5}) 

1720: \begin{eqnarray}

1721: d_1(q^2) &=& -\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} m_b f(q^2) + d_1^{(0)}(q^2) + \dots\\

1722: d_+(q^2) &=& -\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} m_b a_+(q^2) + d_+^{(0)}(q^2) + \dots\\

1723: d_-(q^2) &=& -\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} m_b a_-(q^2) + d_-^{(0)}(q^2) + \dots\,.

1724: \end{eqnarray}

1725: 

1726: 

1727: In the low recoil region, heavy quark symmetry predicts relations among

1728: these form factors \cite{IsWi,BuDo}. The sub-leading corrections to these 

1729: relations were computed in \cite{GrPi1}. We give here an alternative

1730: simpler derivation, valid to all orders in $1/m_b$ (see also \cite{proc}). 

1731: We take this

1732: opportunity to include also $O(m_q)$ light quark mass effects 

1733: (with $m_q$ the mass of the quark produced in the weak decay $b\to q$)

1734: in these relations, which were neglected in \cite{GrPi1}.

1735: Such effects can be important for the case of $B\to K^*$ decays.

1736: 

1737: The first relation is obtained from the operator identity

1738: \begin{eqnarray}\label{ward1}

1739: i\partial^\nu (\bar q i\sigma_{\mu\nu} b) = -(m_b+m_q) \bar q\gamma_\mu

1740: b - 2\bar q i\Dleft_\mu b + i\partial_\mu(\bar q b)\,,

1741: \end{eqnarray}

1742: which follows from a simple application of the QCD equations of motion

1743: for the quark fields. Taking the $B\to V$ matrix element one finds the

1744: exact relation

1745: \bea\label{W-1}

1746: g_+(q^2) = -(m_b+m_q) g(q^2) -2 d(q^2)\,.

1747: \eea

1748: Counting powers of $m_b$ and keeping the leading order terms gives

1749: the well-known Isgur-Wise relation among vector and tensor form factors

1750: \cite{IsWi} $g_+(q^2) = -m_B g(q^2)$. Keeping also the subleading terms of 

1751: $O(m_b^{-1/2})$ reproduces the

1752: improved form factor relations derived in \cite{GrPi1}.

1753: Inserting the expansion of $d(q^2)$ Eq.~(\ref{dexp}) into

1754: Eq.~(\ref{W-1}) gives 

1755: \begin{eqnarray}\label{W-1p}

1756: g_+(q^2) = - \left(1 + 2\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right) m_b g(q^2) 

1757: - 2 d^{(0)}(q^2) - m_q g(q^2)  + \cdots\,.

1758: \end{eqnarray}

1759: This agrees with the improved symmetry relation Eq.~(48) of Ref.~\cite{GrPi1} and 

1760: generalizes it by including light quark mass effects and by making explicit the

1761: renormalization scale dependence. The radiative corrections to this relation

1762: were computed in Ref.~\cite{GrPi1} at $\mu=m_b$ in terms of a coefficient 

1763: $\kappa_1$ (defined in Eq.~(23) of \cite{GrPi1}). Using Eq.~(\ref{D0exp})

1764: below this coefficient can be expressed as

1765: \begin{eqnarray}\label{kappa1}

1766: \kappa_1(\mu) = \left(1 + 2\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right) 

1767: \frac{m_b(\mu)}{m_B}

1768: = \frac{C_0^{(t)}(\mu) - C_1^{(t)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)} \,.

1769: \end{eqnarray}

1770: 

1771: 

1772: 

1773: 

1774: 

1775: The equation of motion Eq.~(\ref{ward1}) can be used to determine the 

1776: Wilson coefficients $D_{0,1}^{(v)}(\mu)$ in the matching of the dimension-4 

1777: operators Eq.~(\ref{matchD1}) in terms of the Wilson coefficients of the

1778: dimension-3 currents. In this derivation we  set $i\partial_\mu = m_B

1779: v_\mu - p_\mu = m_B v_\mu(1 + O(\Lambda/m_b))$. We find

1780: \begin{eqnarray}\label{D0exp}

1781: & &C_0^{(t)}(\mu) - C_1^{(t)}(\mu) = 

1782: \frac{m_b(\mu)}{m_B} \left( C_0^{(v)}(\mu) + 2D_0^{(v)}(\mu) \right)\\

1783: \label{D1exp}

1784: & &C_0^{(t)}(\mu) - C_1^{(t)}(\mu) = -\frac{m_b(\mu)}{m_B} 

1785: \left( C_1^{(v)}(\mu) + 2D_1^{(v)}(\mu) \right) + C_0^{(s)}(\mu)\,,

1786: \end{eqnarray}

1787: where $C_0^{(s)}(\mu)$ is the Wilson coefficient appearing in  the matching of the

1788: scalar current in QCD onto HQET

1789: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Cs}

1790: \bar s b = C_0^{(s)}(\mu) \bar q h_v  + \cdots\,.

1791: \end{eqnarray}

1792: Another application of the equations of motion for the vector current

1793: $i\partial^\mu (\bar q \gamma_\mu b) = (m_b-m_q) (\bar qb)$ determines this Wilson

1794: coefficient in terms of those of the vector current as

1795: \begin{eqnarray}

1796: C_0^{(v)}(\mu) + C_1^{(v)}(\mu) = \frac{m_b(\mu)}{m_B} C_0^{(s)}(\mu)\,.

1797: \end{eqnarray}

1798: At the order we work, the B meson mass can be replaced with the $b$

1799: quark pole mass, and the corresponding mass ratios in Eqs.~(\ref{D0exp}), 

1800: (\ref{D1exp}) and (\ref{Cs}) are given by

1801: \begin{eqnarray}

1802: \frac{m_b(\mu)}{m_B} = 1 + \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}

1803: \big(-6\log\frac{\mu}{m_b} - 4\big)\,.

1804: \end{eqnarray}

1805: Combining these relations we find 

1806: predictions for the Wilson coefficients $D_{0,1}^{(v)}(\mu)$, which are confirmed

1807: also by explicit computation at one-loop order

1808: \begin{eqnarray}

1809: D_0^{(v)}(\mu) = \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\left( 2 \log\frac{\mu}{m_b} + 2\right)\,,

1810: \qquad

1811: D_1^{(v)}(\mu) = \frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\left( 4 \log\frac{\mu}{m_b} + 2\right)\,.

1812: \end{eqnarray}

1813: 

1814: 

1815: 

1816: The constraint Eq.~(\ref{D0exp}) can be used to relate the scaling of the

1817: $1 + 2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)/C_0^{(v)}(\mu)$ factor to known anomalous dimensions.

1818: It satisfies the RG equation

1819: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gamD}

1820: \mu \frac{d}{d\mu}\left(1 + 2\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right) = 

1821: \gamma_D(\alpha_s) \left(1 + 2\frac{D_0^{(v)}(\mu)}{C_0^{(v)}(\mu)}\right)

1822: \end{eqnarray}

1823: with anomalous dimension $\gamma_D(\alpha_s) = - \gamma_t(\alpha_s) - 

1824: \gamma_m(\alpha_s)$. We denoted here with $\gamma_t$ the anomalous dimension of the

1825: tensor current defined as

1826: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gamt}

1827: \mu \frac{d}{d\mu} g_+(q^2) = -\gamma_t(\alpha_s) g_+(q^2) \,,\qquad

1828: \gamma_t(\alpha_s) = \frac{2\alpha_s}{3\pi} + \cdots

1829: \end{eqnarray}

1830: and $\gamma_m$ is the mass anomalous dimension

1831: \begin{eqnarray}\label{gamm}

1832: \mu \frac{d}{d\mu} m(\mu) = \gamma_m(\alpha_s) m(\mu) \,,\qquad

1833: \gamma_m(\alpha_s) = -\frac{2\alpha_s}{\pi} + \cdots\,.

1834: \end{eqnarray}

1835: 

1836: 

1837: Similar relations among the tensor and axial form factors 

1838: are obtained starting with the operator identity 

1839: (valid in the NDR anti-commuting $\gamma_5$ scheme)

1840: \bea

1841: i\partial^\nu (\bar q i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_5 b) = (m_b - m_q) \bar q\gamma_\mu\gamma_5

1842: b - 2\bar qi\Dleft_\mu \gamma_5 b + i\partial_\mu(\bar q\gamma_5 b)\,.

1843: \eea

1844: Taking the $B\to V$ matrix element gives three relations

1845: \begin{eqnarray}\label{W-2}

1846: & &(m_B^2-m_V^2) g_+(q^2) + q^2 g_-(q^2) = (m_b-m_q) f(q^2) - 2d_1(q^2)\\

1847: \label{W-3}

1848: & &- g_+(q^2) + q^2 h(q^2) = (m_b - m_q) a_+(q^2) - 2 d_+(q^2)\\

1849: & & - g_-(q^2) - (m_B^2-m_V^2) h(q^2) = (m_b - m_q) a_-(q^2) - 

1850: 2d_-(q^2) + s(q^2)

1851: \end{eqnarray}

1852: After using here the $1/m_b$ expansions for the $d_{1,+,-}(q^2)$ form factors,

1853: we find the final form of the symmetry relations to subleading order in $1/m_b$

1854: \begin{eqnarray}\label{W-2p}

1855: & &(m_B^2-m_V^2) g_+(q^2) + q^2 g_-(q^2) = (1+2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)/C_0^{(v)}(\mu))(m_b-m_q) f(q^2) - 

1856: 2d_1^{(0)}(q^2) + \cdots\\

1857: \label{W-3p}

1858: & &- g_+(q^2) + q^2 h(q^2) = (1+2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)/C_0^{(v)}(\mu)) (m_b - m_q) a_+(q^2) - 

1859: 2 d_+^{(0)}(q^2) + \cdots\\

1860: & & - g_-(q^2) - (m_B^2-m_V^2) h(q^2) = (1+2D_0^{(v)}(\mu)/C_0^{(v)}(\mu)) (m_b - m_q) a_-(q^2) - 

1861: 2d_-^{(0)}(q^2) + \cdots

1862: \end{eqnarray}

1863: Together with Eq.~(\ref{W-1p}), these relations are of phenomenological significance 

1864: and are used in Sec.~V to express the contribution of the electromagnetic

1865: penguin $Q_7$ to the $B\to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ amplitude.

1866: 

1867: 

1868: We illustrate in the following the application of Eq.~(\ref{W-2}) to give

1869: an alternative derivation of the power correction to a heavy quark symmetry 

1870: relation presented in \cite{GrPi1}.

1871: Consider the combination of form factors

1872: \bea\label{calF}

1873: {\cal F}(q^2) &=& (m_B + m_V) g_+(q^2) + (m_B-m_V) g_-(q^2) \,.

1874: %=(m_B+m_V) T_2(q^2) 

1875: \eea

1876: The relation Eq.~(\ref{W-2}) gives a prediction for ${\cal F}(q^2) $

1877: at the zero recoil point $q^2_{\rm max}=(m_B-m_V)^2$

1878: \bea

1879: {\cal F}(q^2_{\rm max}) =

1880: \left( 1 + \frac{m_V - \bar\Lambda - m_q}{m_B}\right) f(q^2_{\rm max}) -

1881: \frac{2}{m_B} d_1^{(0)}(q^2_{\rm max})\,.

1882: \eea

1883: The leading term on the right-hand side was obtained in \cite{IsWi,SaYa} and the 

1884: $1/m_b$ correction was given in \cite{GrPi1} (we correct here the sign of the 

1885: $O(1/m_b)$ term in the brackets). 

1886: 

1887: 

1888: 

1889: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1890: 

1891: 

1892: \bibitem{ABHH} A.~Ali, P.~Ball, L.T.~Handoko and G.~Hiller,

1893: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 61}, 074024 (2000).

1894: 

1895: \bibitem{lattice}

1896: T.~Onogi,

1897: %``Lattice determination of semileptonic form factors,''

1898: arXiv:hep-ph/0309225;

1899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309225;%%

1900: D. Becirevic, S. Prelovsek and J. Zupan, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 054010 (2003);

1901: J.~Shigemitsu, S.~Collins, C.~T.~H.~Davies, J.~Hein, R.~R.~Horgan and G.~P.~Lepage,

1902: %``Semileptonic B decays from an NRQCD/D234 action,''

1903: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 074506 (2002).

1904: %[arXiv:hep-lat/0207011].

1905: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0207011;%%

1906: A.~X.~El-Khadra, A.~S.~Kronfeld, P.~B.~Mackenzie, S.~M.~Ryan and J.~N.~Simone,

1907: %``The semileptonic decays B $\to$ pi l nu and D $\to$ pi l nu from lattice

1908: %QCD,''

1909: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 014502 (2001).

1910: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0101023].

1911: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101023;%%

1912: 

1913: \bibitem{QCDSR}

1914: P.~Ball,

1915: %``QCD sum rules on the light-cone, factorisation and SCET,''

1916: arXiv:hep-ph/0308249;

1917: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308249;%%

1918: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,

1919: %``Improved analysis of B $\to$ pi e nu from QCD sum rules on the  light-cone,''

1920: JHEP {\bf 0110}, 019 (2001).

1921: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0110115].

1922: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110115;%%

1923: 

1924: \bibitem{IsWi} N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 42}, 2388

1925: (1990).

1926: 

1927: \bibitem{BuDo} G. Burdman and J.~F. Donoghue, Phys. Lett. B{\bf 270},

1928: 55 (1991).

1929: 

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{GrPi1} %\cite{Grinstein:2002cz}

1932: %\bibitem{Grinstein:2002cz}

1933: B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,

1934: %``Symmetry-breaking corrections to heavy meson form-factor relations,''

1935: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 533}, 8 (2002)

1936: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0201298].

1937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201298;%%

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{GrPi2} %\cite{Grinstein:2002rm}

1940: %\bibitem{Grinstein:2002rm}

1941: B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,

1942:  %``Subleading corrections to the $|$V(ub)$|$ determination from exclusive B

1943: %decays,''

1944: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 549}, 314 (2002)

1945: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209211].

1946: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209211;%%

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{Heff} B. Grinstein, M. Savage and M. B. Wise, 

1949: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 319}, 271 (1989); B. Grinstein, R. Springer and M. B. Wise, 

1950: Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 339}, 269 (1990).

1951: 

1952: \bibitem{BBL} G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras and M. E. Lautenbacher,Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 68}, 1125 (1996).

1953: 

1954: \bibitem{BuMu} A. J. Buras and M. M\"unz, Phys. Rev. D{\bf52}, 186 (1995);

1955: M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 393}, 23 (1993); [(E) Nucl. Phys. B{\bf 439}, 461 (1995).]

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{VMD} C.~S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A.~I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. 

1958: B{\bf 218}, 343 (1989); N.~G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose,

1959: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 39}, 1461 (1989); P.~J. O'Donnell and H.~K.~K. Tung,

1960: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 43}, 2067 (1991);

1961: F.~Kruger and L.~M.~Sehgal,

1962:  %``Lepton Polarization in the Decays $B\to X_s\mu~+\mu~-$ and $B\to

1963: %X_s\tau~+\tau~-$,''

1964: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 380}, 199 (1996).

1965: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9603237].

1966: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603237;%%

1967: 

1968: 

1969: \bibitem{LSW} Z. Ligeti, I. W. Stewart and M. B. Wise, 

1970: Phys. Lett. B{\bf 420}, 359 (1998).

1971: 

1972: 

1973: \bibitem{SaYa} A.~I.~Sanda and A.~Yamada, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75},

1974: 2807 (1995).

1975: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9507283;%%

1976: 

1977: \bibitem{LiWi} 

1978: Z.~Ligeti and M.~B.~Wise,

1979: %``$$|$V_{ub}$|$$ from exclusive $B$ and $D$ decays,''

1980: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 53}, 4937 (1996).

1981: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9512225].

1982: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512225;%%

1983: 

1984: 

1985: \bibitem{Grin}% B. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 3067 (1993).

1986: %\cite{Grinstein:1993ys}

1987: %\bibitem{Grinstein:1993ys}

1988: B.~Grinstein,

1989:  %``On a precise calculation of (f(B(s)) / f(B)) / (f(D(s)) / f(D)) and its

1990: %implications on the interpretation of B anti-B mixing,''

1991: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 71}, 3067 (1993)

1992: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9308226].

1993: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308226;%%

1994: 

1995: \bibitem{Babar} 

1996: B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

1997:  %``Evidence for the rare decay B $\to$ K* l+ l- and measurement of the B $\to$

1998: %K l+ l- branching fraction,''

1999: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91}, 221802 (2003)

2000: [arXiv:hep-ex/0308042].

2001: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0308042;%%

2002: 

2003: 

2004: \bibitem{Belle} 

2005: A.~Ishikawa {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

2006: %``Observation of the electroweak penguin decay B $\to$ K* l+ l-,''

2007: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91}, 261601 (2003)

2008: [arXiv:hep-ex/0308044].

2009: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0308044;%%

2010: %Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.

2011: %{\bf 88} 021801 (2002); Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\em et al.}, hep-ex/0107072;

2012: %S. Nishida, contribution to the 31$^{\rm st}$ International Conference on High 

2013: %Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

2014: 

2015: %\bibitem{b2rho} B. Aubert {\em et al.} (BABAR Collaboration),

2016: %SLAC-PUB-9305, contribution to the

2017: %31$^{\rm st}$ International Conference on High Energy Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands,

2018: %hep-ex/0207080.

2019: 

2020: \bibitem{GP0} 

2021: B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,

2022: %``Long-distance effects in B $\to$ V gamma radiative weak decays,''

2023: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 093002 (2000).

2024: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0002216].

2025: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002216;%%

2026: 

2027: \bibitem{GNR} 

2028: B.~Grinstein, D.~R.~Nolte and I.~Z.~Rothstein,

2029: %``A method for extracting cos(alpha),''

2030: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 4545 (2000).

2031: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910245].

2032: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910245;%%

2033: 

2034: 

2035: %\cite{Bloom:1970xb}

2036: \bibitem{Bloom:1970xb}

2037: E.~D.~Bloom and F.~J.~Gilman,

2038:  %``Scaling, Duality, And The Behavior Of Resonances In Inelastic Electron -

2039: %Proton Scattering,''

2040: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 25}, 1140 (1970);{\it idem}, 

2041: %%CITATION = PRLTA,25,1140;%%

2042: %

2043: %\cite{Bloom:1971ye}

2044: %\bibitem{Bloom:1971ye}

2045: %E.~D.~Bloom and F.~J.~Gilman,

2046:  %``Scaling And The Behavior Of Nucleon Resonances In Inelastic Electron -

2047: %Nucleon Scattering,''

2048: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 4}, 2901 (1971).

2049: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D4,2901;%%

2050: 

2051: \bibitem{PQW} 

2052: E. C. Poggio, H. R. Quinn and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 13},

2053: 1958 (1976).

2054: 

2055: %\cite{Shifman:2000jv}

2056: \bibitem{Shifman:2000jv}

2057: M.~A.~Shifman,

2058: %``Quark-hadron duality,''

2059: arXiv:hep-ph/0009131.

2060: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009131;%%

2061: 

2062: \bibitem{heavyOPE} J. Chay, H. Georgi and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 247},

2063: 399 (1990); M. A. Shifman and M. B. Voloshin, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 41}, 120 (1985).

2064: 

2065: %\cite{Seidel:2004jh}

2066: \bibitem{Seidel:2004jh}

2067: D.~Seidel,

2068: %``Analytic two-loop virtual corrections to b $\to$ d l+ l-,''

2069: arXiv:hep-ph/0403185.

2070: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403185;%%

2071: 

2072: 

2073: \bibitem{b2see} 

2074: A.~Ghinculov, T.~Hurth, G.~Isidori and Y.~P.~Yao,

2075:  %``The rare decay B $\to$ X/s l+ l- to NNLL precision for arbitrary dilepton

2076: %invariant mass,''

2077: arXiv:hep-ph/0312128.

2078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312128;%%

2079: H.~H.~Asatrian, H.~M.~Asatrian, C.~Greub and M.~Walker,

2080: %``Two-loop virtual corrections to B $\to$ X/s l+ l- in the standard model,''

2081: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 507}, 162 (2001);

2082: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0103087].

2083: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103087;%%

2084: H.~H.~Asatryan, H.~M.~Asatrian, C.~Greub and M.~Walker,

2085:  %``Calculation of two loop virtual corrections to b $\to$ s l+ l- in the

2086: %standard model,''

2087: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 074004 (2002).

2088: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109140].

2089: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109140;%%

2090: 

2091: \bibitem{EiHi} E.~Eichten and B.~Hill,

2092: %``Renormalization Of Heavy - Light Bilinears And F(B) For Wilson Fermions,''

2093: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 240}, 193 (1990).

2094: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B240,193;%%

2095: 

2096: \bibitem{CMM}

2097: K.~G.~Chetyrkin, M.~Misiak and M.~Munz,

2098: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 520}, 279 (1998).

2099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711280;%%

2100: 

2101: 

2102: \bibitem{BoMiUr}

2103: C. Bobeth, M. Misiak and J. Urban, 

2104: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 574}, 291 (2000).

2105: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9910220].

2106: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910220;%%

2107: 

2108: 

2109: \bibitem{BeFeSe} 

2110: M.~Beneke, T.~Feldmann and D.~Seidel,

2111: %``Systematic approach to exclusive B $\to$ V l+ l-, V gamma decays,''

2112: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 612}, 25 (2001).

2113: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0106067].

2114: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106067;%%

2115: 

2116: \bibitem{ADM}

2117: P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch,

2118: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 673}, 238 (2003).

2119: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0306079].

2120: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306079;%%

2121: 

2122: 

2123: \bibitem{BoGaGoHa}

2124: C. Bobeth, P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch,

2125: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312090].

2126: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312090;%%

2127: 

2128: 

2129: \bibitem{PDG} K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

2130: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''

2131: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).

2132: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%

2133: 

2134: 

2135: \bibitem{SCET}

2136: C.W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming and M.E.~Luke,

2137: %``Summing Sudakov logarithms in B $\to$ X/s gamma in effective field  theory,''

2138: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 014006 (2001);

2139: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0005275].

2140: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005275;%%

2141: C.W.~Bauer et al., %S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol and I.W.~Stewart,

2142: %``An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light  decays,''

2143: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 114020 (2001);

2144: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0011336].

2145: %% CITATION = HEP-PH 0011336;%%

2146: C.W.~Bauer and I.W.~Stewart,

2147: %``Invariant operators in collinear effective theory,''

2148: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 516}, 134 (2001);

2149: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0107001].

2150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107001;%%

2151: C.W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.W.~Stewart,

2152: %``Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory,''

2153: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054022 (2002).

2154: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109045].

2155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109045;%%

2156: %\bibitem{bpsff}

2157: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

2158: %``Factorization and endpoint singularities in heavy-to-light decays,''

2159: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 071502 (2003).

2160: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211069].

2161: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211069;%%

2162: 

2163: \bibitem{BeFe} 

2164: M.~Beneke and T.~Feldmann,

2165:  %``Symmetry-breaking corrections to heavy-to-light B meson form factors at

2166: %large recoil,''

2167: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 592}, 3 (2001).

2168: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0008255].

2169: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008255;%%

2170: 

2171: 

2172: \bibitem{proc} D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

2173: %``The phenomenology of rare and semileptonic B decays,''

2174: arXiv:hep-ph/0309053.

2175: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309053;%%

2176: 

2177: 

2178: \end{thebibliography}

2179: 

2180: \end{document}

2181: 

2182: \bibitem{NP}

2183: S.~R.~Choudhury, N.~Gaur, A.~S.~Cornell and G.~C.~Joshi,

2184: %``Lepton polarization correlations in B $\to$ K* tau- tau+,''

2185: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 054016 (2003);

2186: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0304084].

2187: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304084;%%T.~M.~Aliev, A.~Ozpineci, M.~Savci and C.~Yuce,

2188: %``T violation in B $\to$ K* l+ l- decay beyond standard model,''

2189: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 115006 (2002);

2190: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0208128].

2191: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208128;%%

2192: C.~H.~Chen and C.~Q.~Geng,

2193: %``T violation in B $\to$ K* l+ l- from SUSY,''

2194: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 014007 (2002);

2195: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205306].

2196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205306;%%

2197: W.~Bensalem, D.~London, N.~Sinha and R.~Sinha,

2198:  %``Lepton polarization and forward backward asymmetries in b $\to$ s tau+

2199: %tau-,''

2200: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 034007 (2003)

2201: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0209228].

2202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209228;%%

2203: 

2204: 

2205: 

2206: \begin{table}[t!]

2207: \begin{center}

2208: \begin{tabular}{c|c|cc|cc|cc|cc}

2209: \hline\hline

2210:  & $\mu_b$ (GeV) & $C_9$ & $C_7$ & $C_9^{\rm eff}(y=1)$ & $C_9^{\rm eff}(y=1.5)$ & 

2211: $C_7^{\rm eff}(y=1)$ & $C_7^{\rm eff}(y=1.5)$ & 

2212: $N_{\rm eff}(y=1)$ & $N_{\rm eff}(y=1.5)$\\

2213: \hline

2214:    & 2.4 & 4.378 & -0.388 & $4.315 + 0.198 i$ & $4.338 + 0.198 i$ 

2215:    & $C_7$ & $C_7$ & 30.80 & 28.96 \\

2216: LL & 4.8 & 4.140 & -0.343 & $4.331 + 0.550 i$ & $4.395 + 0.550 i$ 

2217:    & $C_7$ & $C_7$ & 33.37 & 32.34 \\

2218:    & 9.6 & 3.760 & -0.304 & $4.420 + 0.822 i$ & $4.513 + 0.822 i$ 

2219:    & $C_7$ & $C_7$ & 35.81 & 35.38 \\

2220: %LL & 4.2 & 4.198 & -0.351 & $4.280 + 0.443 i$ & $4.319 + 0.443 i$ & - & - & - \\

2221: %& 5.4 & 4.084 & -0.336 & $4.277 + 0.559 i$ & $4.327 + 0.559 i$ & - & - & - \\

2222: %& 2.1 & 4.403 & -0.398 & $4.389 + 0.524 i$ & $4.394 + 0.056 i$ & - & - & - \\

2223: %& 8.4 & 4.843 & -0.311 & $4.306 + 0.740 i$ & $4.372 + 0.740 i$ & - & - & - \\

2224: \hline\hline

2225: & 2.4 & 4.510 & -0.366 & $4.328 + 0.643 i$ & $4.408 +0.656 i$ 

2226:   & -0.369-0.014i & -0.370-0.014i & 30.41 & 28.98 \\

2227: NLL & 4.8 & 4.218 & -0.332 & $4.518 + 1.010 i$ & $4.636 + 1.020 i$ 

2228:   & -0.343-0.011i & -0.344-0.011i & 34.33 & 33.63 \\

2229: & 9.6 & 3.799 & -0.300 & $4.761+ 1.286 i$ & $4.905 +1.294 i$ 

2230:   & -0.317-0.010i & -0.317-0.009i & 38.28 & 38.19 \\

2231: %NLL & 4.2 & 4.285 & -0.338 & $4.405 + 0.896 i$ & $4.414+0.907 i$ & - & - & - \\

2232: %& 5.4 & 4.154 & -0.326 & $4.459+1.014 i$ & $4.469+1.024 i$ & - & - & - \\

2233: %& 2.1 & 4.549 & -0.373 & $4.459+1.014 i$ & $4.346+0.508 i$ & - & - & - \\

2234: %& 8.4 & 3.888 & -0.306 & $4.459+1.014 i$ & $4.596+1.207 i$ & - & - & - \\

2235: \hline\hline

2236: \end{tabular}

2237: \end{center}

2238: \caption{\setlength\baselineskip{12pt}

2239: Results for  the Wilson coefficients in the weak Hamiltonian $C_{7,9}$

2240: and the effective Wilson coefficients appearing in the $B\to K^* e^+e^-$

2241: decay rate at LL and NLL order. The Wilson coefficient

2242: $C_{10}$ is equal to $C_{10}^{\rm NLL} = -4.409$ and 

2243: $C_{10}^{\rm NNLL} = -4.279$. The other parameters used here are

2244: $m_b(m_b)=4.32$ GeV, $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.119$ and $m_c(m_c)=1.335$ GeV.

2245: }

2246: \end{table}

2247: