1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
3: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
4:
5: \begin{document}
6: \preprint{arXiv:hep-ph/0410155}
7: \title{Determining the Sign of the {\boldmath $b \to s \gamma$} Amplitude}
8: \author{Paolo Gambino}
9: \affiliation{INFN, Torino and Dipartamento di Fisica Teorica,
10: Universit\`a di Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy}
11: \author{Ulrich Haisch}
12: \affiliation{Theoretical Physics Department, Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois 60510, USA}
13: \author{Miko{\l}aj Misiak}
14: \affiliation{Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University, 00-681 Warsaw, Poland}
15: %\date{October 15, 2004}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: The latest Belle and BaBar measurements of the inclusive $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+
19: l^-$ branching ratio have smaller errors and lower central values than the
20: previous ones. We point out that these results indicate that the sign of the
21: $b \to s \gamma$ amplitude is the same as in the SM. This underscores the
22: importance of $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$ in searches for new physics, and may
23: be relevant for neutralino dark matter analyses within the MSSM.
24: \end{abstract}
25:
26: \pacs{13.20.He, 13.25.Hw, 12.60.Jv}
27:
28: \maketitle
29:
30: The branching ratio of the inclusive radiative $B$-decay is one of the most
31: important constraints for a number of new physics models, because it is
32: accurately measured and its theoretical determination is rather clean. The
33: present world average ${\cal B}(\bar B\to X_s \gamma)= (3.52 \pm 0.30)\times
34: 10^{-4}$ \cite{hfag} agrees very well with the Standard Model (SM) prediction
35: ${\cal B}(\bar B\to X_s \gamma)_{\rm SM}= (3.70 \pm 0.30) \times 10^{-4}$~\cite{bsgSM}.
36: A well-known way to avoid this constraint without excluding large new physics
37: effects consists in having new physics contributions that approximately
38: reverse the sign of the amplitude $A(b \to s \gamma)$ with respect to the SM
39: and leave ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s \gamma)$ unaltered within experimental and
40: theoretical uncertainties. Several authors pointed out that even a rather
41: rough measurement of the inclusive $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$ branching ratio
42: could provide information on the sign of $A(b \to s
43: \gamma)$~\cite{Ali:1994bf}.
44:
45: Other observables that are sensitive to the sign of $A(b \to s \gamma)$ are
46: the forward-backward and energy asymmetries in inclusive and exclusive $b \to
47: s l^+ l^-$ decays~\cite{Ali:1994bf, Ali:1991is}. Very recently, the first
48: measurement of the forward-backward asymmetry in $B \to K^{(*)} l^+ l^-$ was
49: announced by the Belle Collaboration~\cite{Abe:2004ir}. Within the limited
50: statistical accuracy, however, the results were found to be consistent with
51: both the SM and the ``wrong-sign'' $A(b \to s \gamma)$ case.
52:
53: The purpose of this Letter is to point out that the present measurements of
54: ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-)$ already indicate that the sign of $A(b \to
55: s \gamma)$ is unlikely to be different from that in the SM. The experimental
56: results that we consider are summarized in Tab.~\ref{tab:exp}.
57:
58: The results in Tab.~\ref{tab:exp} are averaged over muons and electrons. The
59: first range of the dilepton mass squared $q^2$ corresponds to the whole
60: available phase-space for $l=\mu$, but includes a cut for $l=e$. Moreover,
61: the intermediate $\psi$ and $\psi'$ are treated as background, and a Monte
62: Carlo simulation based on perturbative calculations is applied for the
63: unmeasured part of the $q^2$-spectrum that hides under the huge $\psi$ and
64: $\psi'$ peaks (see Refs.~\cite{Abe:2004sg,Aubert:2004it} for more details). In
65: the second range of $q^2$ in Tab.~\ref{tab:exp}, theoretical uncertainties
66: are smaller than in the first case (see below), but the experimental errors
67: are larger due to lower statistics. As we shall see, the analyses in both
68: regions lead to similar conclusions concerning the sign of $A(b \to s
69: \gamma)$.
70: %
71: \begin{table}[h]
72: \caption{\sf
73: %
74: Measurements of ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-)\;[10^{-6}]$ and their
75: weighted averages (w.a.) for two different ranges of the dilepton invariant mass
76: squared:~
77: %
78: (a)~ $(2m_{\mu})^2 < q^2 < (m_B-m_K)^2$~
79: %
80: and
81: %
82: (b)~ $1\,{\rm GeV}^2 < q^2 < 6\,{\rm GeV}^2$. \label{tab:exp}}
83: %
84: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
85: \hline \hline
86: Range & Belle~\cite{Abe:2004sg} & BaBar~\cite{Aubert:2004it} & w.a. \\
87: \hline
88: &&&\\[-2.5mm]
89: (a) &
90: $4.11 \pm 0.83 ~{}^{+0.74}_{-0.70}$ &
91: $5.6 \pm 1.5 \pm 0.6 \pm 1.1$ &
92: $4.5 \pm 1.0$ \\[1mm]
93: (b) &
94: $1.493 \pm 0.504 ~{}^{+0.382}_{-0.283}$ &
95: $1.8 \pm 0.7 \pm 0.5$ &
96: $1.60 \pm 0.51$ \\[0.5mm]
97: \hline \hline
98: \end{tabular}
99: \end{table}
100:
101: The Standard Model perturbative calculations are available at the
102: Next-to-Next-to-Leading Order (NNLO) in QCD for both the considered ranges of
103: $q^2$ --- see Refs.~\cite{Bobeth:2003at,Ghinculov:2003qd} for the most recent
104: phenomenological analyses and a list of relevant references. The dominant
105: electroweak corrections are also known \cite{Bobeth:2003at}. In the low-$q^2$
106: domain, non-perturbative effects are taken into account in the framework of
107: the Heavy Quark Expansion as $\Lambda^2/m_b^2$ and $\Lambda^2/m_c^2$
108: corrections \cite{nonpert}. Analytical expressions for such corrections are
109: also available for the full $q^2$ range, but they blow up in the vicinity of
110: the intermediate $\psi$ peak. Consequently, a cut needs to be applied, and it
111: is no longer clear what theoretical procedure corresponds to the interpolation
112: that is performed on the experimental side. Thus, the relative theoretical
113: uncertainty for the full $q^2$ range is larger than for the low-$q^2$ window.
114: %
115: \begin{table}[h]
116: \caption{\sf
117: %
118: Predictions for ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-)\;[10^{-6}]$
119: in the Standard Model and with reversed sign of $\widetilde{C}_7^{\rm eff}$
120: for the same ranges of $q^2$ as in Tab.~\ref{tab:exp}. \label{tab:th}}
121: %
122: \begin{tabular}{ccccc}
123: \hline \hline
124: &&\\[-3mm]
125: Range && SM && $\widetilde{C}_7^{\rm eff} \to -\widetilde{C}_7^{\rm eff}$ \\
126: \hline
127: &~~&&~~~&\\[-2.5mm]
128: (a) && $4.4 \pm 0.7$ && $8.8 \pm 1.0$ \\[1mm]
129: (b) && $1.57 \pm 0.16$ && $3.30 \pm 0.25$ \\
130: \hline \hline
131: \end{tabular}
132: \end{table}
133:
134: The results of the SM calculations are given in the central column of
135: Tab.~\ref{tab:th}. For the low-$q^2$ domain, they correspond to the ones of
136: Ref.~\cite{Bobeth:2003at} with updated input values $m_{t, \rm pole}=178.0\pm
137: 4.3$~GeV~\cite{Azzi:2004rc} and ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_c l \bar{\nu}) = 10.61
138: \pm 0.16 \pm 0.06$~\cite{Aubert:2004aw}. The dominant sources of uncertainty
139: are the values of the top and bottom quark masses, as well as the residual
140: renormalization scale dependence. For the full $q^2$ range, we make use of
141: the statement in Ref.~\cite{Ghinculov:2003qd} that the NNLO matrix elements
142: for $\hat s= q^2/m_b^2 > 0.25$ are accurately reproduced by setting the
143: renormalization scale $\mu_b = m_b/2$ at the Next-to-Leading Order (NLO) level.
144:
145: To a very good approximation, the amplitude \linebreak
146: $A(b\to s \gamma)$
147: is proportional to the effective Wilson coefficient
148: $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}(q^2=0)$
149: that determines the strength of the
150: $\bar{s}_L \sigma^{\alpha\beta} b_R F_{\alpha\beta}$
151: interaction term in the low-energy Hamiltonian. The sign of
152: $A(b\to s \gamma)$
153: is therefore given by the sign of
154: $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}(q^2=0)$.
155: Both the value and the sign of this coefficient matter for the
156: rare semileptonic decay. The results in the right column of Tab.~\ref{tab:th}
157: differ from those in the central column only by reversing the sign of
158: $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}$ in the expression for the differential $\bar{B}
159: \to X_s l^+ l^-$ decay rate
160: %
161: \begin{eqnarray}
162: \frac{d \Gamma[\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-]}{d {\hat s}} & = &
163: \frac{G_F^2 m_{b, {\rm pole}}^5 \left | V_{ts}^* V_{tb} \right |^2}{48 \pi^3}
164: \left ( \frac{\alpha_{em}}{4 \pi}\right )^2 \times
165: \nonumber\\ && \hspace{-2cm}
166: \times (1 - {\hat s})^2 \, \Bigg \{ (1 + 2 {\hat s})
167: \left( \Big | \widetilde{C}_{ 9}^{\rm eff} \Big |^2
168: + \Big | \widetilde{C}_{10}^{\rm eff} \Big |^2 \right)
169: \nonumber \\ \label{dgds} && \hspace{-2cm}
170: + \left( 4 + \frac{8}{{\hat s}} \right ) \Big | \widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff} \Big |^2
171: + 12 {\, \rm Re} \left ( \widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}
172: \widetilde{C}_{9}^{\rm eff *} \right ) \Bigg \} \, ,
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: %
175: where $\widetilde{C}_9^{\rm eff}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{10}^{\rm eff}$ correspond
176: to the low-energy interaction terms
177: %
178: $(\bar{s}_L \gamma_\alpha b_L) (\bar{l} \gamma^\alpha l)$
179: %
180: and
181: %
182: $(\bar{s}_L \gamma_\alpha b_L) (\bar{l} \gamma^\alpha \gamma_5 l)$,
183: %
184: respectively. The definitions of all the relevant effective coefficients can
185: be found in Sec.~5 of Ref.~\cite{Asatrian:2001de}. We stress that
186: $\widetilde{C}_i^{\rm eff}$ depend on $q^2$ and do {\em not} depend on the
187: renormalization scale, up to residual higher-order effects. For simplicity,
188: some of the NNLO QCD, electroweak and non-perturbative corrections are omitted
189: in Eq.~(\ref{dgds}). However, all those corrections are taken into account in
190: our numerical results and plots.
191:
192: The sensitivity of ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-)$ to the sign of
193: $\widetilde{C}_7^{\rm eff}$ is quite pronounced because the last term in
194: Eq.~(\ref{dgds}) is sizeable and it interferes destructively (in the SM) with
195: the remaining ones. One can see that the experimental values of the $\bar{B}
196: \to X_s l^+ l^-$ branching ratio in Tab.~\ref{tab:exp} differ from the values
197: in the right column of Tab.~\ref{tab:th} by 3$\sigma$ in both the low-$q^2$
198: window and the full $q^2$ range.
199: %2.6$\sigma$ in the low-$q^2$ window, and by
200: %2.4$\sigma$ for the full $q^2$ range.
201: This fact disfavors extensions of the SM
202: in which the sign of $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}$ gets reversed while
203: % other contributions to $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$
204: $\widetilde{C}_9^{\rm eff}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{10}^{\rm eff}$ receive small
205: non-standard corrections only.
206: %
207: \begin{figure}[t]
208: \scalebox{0.85}{\includegraphics{fig1a.eps}}\\[-5mm]
209: \scalebox{0.85}{\includegraphics{fig1b.eps}}\\[-5mm]
210: %
211: \caption{\sf Model-independent constraints on additive new physics
212: contributions to $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$ at 90\%~C.L. for the
213: SM-like (upper plot) and the opposite (lower plot) sign of
214: $\widetilde{C}_7^{\rm eff}$. The three lines correspond to three different
215: values of ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s \gamma)$ (see the text). The regions
216: outside the rings are excluded. The dot at the origin indicates the SM case
217: for $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$. \label{fig:all}}
218: %
219: \end{figure}
220: %
221: \begin{figure}[t]
222: \begin{center}
223: \scalebox{0.85}{\includegraphics{fig2.eps}}
224: \end{center}
225: \vspace*{-9mm}
226: %
227: \caption{\sf Same as in the lower plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:all}. Surroundings of
228: the origin. The maximal MFV MSSM ranges for $\widetilde{C}_{9,\rm NP}^{\rm
229: eff}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{10,\rm NP}^{\rm eff}$ are indicated by the dashed
230: cross (according to Eq.~(52) of Ref.~\cite{Ali}). \label{fig:origin}}
231: %
232: \end{figure}
233:
234: In Fig.~\ref{fig:all}, we present constraints on additive new physics
235: contributions to $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$ placed by the low-$q^2$
236: measurements of $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$ (Tab.~\ref{tab:exp}), once the $\bar
237: B\to X_s \gamma$ bounds on $|\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}|$ are taken into
238: account. Similar plots have been previously presented in
239: Refs.~\cite{Ali,Hiller:2003js}. The two plots correspond to the two possible
240: signs of the coefficient $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}$. The regions outside
241: the rings are excluded. Surroundings of the origin are magnified in
242: Fig.~\ref{fig:origin} for the non-standard case. The three lines correspond to
243: three different values of
244: %
245: ${\cal B}(\bar B\to X_s \gamma) \times 10^4$: 2.82, 3.52 and 4.22,
246: %
247: which include the experimental central value as well as borders of the
248: 90\%~C.L. domain. In evaluating this domain, the experimental error was
249: enlarged by adding the SM theoretical uncertainty in quadrature. A similar
250: procedure was applied to ${\cal B}(\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-)$. Its low-$q^2$
251: value was varied between $0.7\times 10^{-6}$ and $2.5 \times 10^{-6}$. The
252: three lines in each plot of Figs.~\ref{fig:all}~and~\ref{fig:origin} clearly
253: show that the exact value of $|\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}|$ has a minor
254: impact on the bounds, which are therefore rather insensitive to the
255: theoretical error estimate in ${\cal B}(\bar B\to X_s \gamma)$.
256:
257: The SM point (i.e. the origin) is located barely outside the border line of
258: the allowed region in the lower plot of Fig.~\ref{fig:all}. However, one
259: should take into account that the overall scale in this figure is huge, and
260: only a tiny part of the allowed region is relevant to realistic extensions of
261: the SM. Thus, it is more instructive to look at Fig.~\ref{fig:origin}, from
262: which it is evident that a non-standard sign of $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}$
263: could be made compatible with experiments only by large ${\cal O}(1)$ new
264: physics contributions to $\widetilde{C}_{9,10 }^{\rm eff}$. The SM values of
265: $\widetilde{C}_9^{\rm eff}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{10}^{\rm eff}$ are around
266: $+4.2$ and $-4.4$, respectively.
267:
268: A case in which large non-standard contributions to $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm
269: eff}$ that interfere destructively with the SM ones arise naturally, while
270: $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$ are only slightly affected, occurs in the
271: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) with Minimal Flavor Violation
272: (MFV) at large $\tan\beta$, with relatively light top squark and higgsino-like
273: chargino~\cite{Ali:1994bf,Ali,buras}. The maximal MFV MSSM contributions to
274: $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$ that were found in Ref.~\cite{Ali} are
275: indicated by the dashed cross in Fig.~\ref{fig:origin}. As one can
276: see, they are too small to reach the border of the allowed region.
277: For clarity, we note that although the bounds in Ref.~\cite{Ali} were given
278: for the electroweak-scale Wilson coefficients, they remain practically the
279: same for the $b$-scale coefficients $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$.
280:
281: Configurations of the MSSM couplings and masses for which the sign of
282: $\widetilde{C}_{7}^{\rm eff}$ gets reversed turn out to be relevant if no
283: physics beyond the MSSM contributes to the intergalactic dark matter (see
284: e.g. Ref.~\cite{dark2}). In particular, configurations characterized by
285: large mixing in the stop sector tend to be excluded by the new
286: constraint~\cite{Scopel}. While performing a dedicated scan over the MSSM
287: parameters is beyond the scope of this Letter, we expect that the
288: implementation of the $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$ constraints will result in a
289: significant reduction of the neutralino-dark-matter-allowed region in the
290: MSSM parameter space.
291:
292: One should be aware that in the MSSM at large $\tan\beta$, there are
293: additional contributions suppressed by powers of the lepton masses but enhanced by
294: $(\tan\beta)^3$. They are related to the chirality-flip
295: operators
296: %
297: $({\bar s}_L b_R)({\bar \mu}_L \mu_R)$
298: %
299: and
300: %
301: $({\bar s}_L b_R)({\bar \mu}_R \mu_L)$
302: %
303: and may contribute to the muon case in a significant way. Fortunately, such
304: contributions are bounded from above~\cite{Hiller:2003js,Chankowski:2003wz} by
305: the experimental constraints~\cite{Acosta:2004xj} on $B^0_s \to \mu^+ \mu^- $,
306: and turn out to be irrelevant to
307: our argument.
308:
309: Another interesting example occurs in the general MSSM with R-parity, where
310: new sources of flavor and CP violation in the squark mass matrices are
311: conveniently parameterized in terms of so-called mass insertions. The sign of
312: the $b\to s \gamma$ amplitude can be reversed without affecting
313: $\widetilde{C}_{9,10}^{\rm eff}$ if the mass insertion $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR}$
314: is large and positive \cite{luca}. The new results on $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$
315: exclude this possibility, and constrain significantly the case of a complex
316: $(\delta_{23}^d)_{LR}$.\\
317:
318: To conclude: We have pointed out that the recent measurements of ${\cal
319: B}(\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-)$ by Belle and BaBar already indicate that the
320: sign of the $b \to s \gamma$ amplitude is unlikely to be different from that
321: in the SM. This underscores the importance of $\bar{B} \to X_s l^+ l^-$ in
322: searches for new physics, and may be relevant for neutralino dark matter
323: analyses within the MSSM.\\[5mm]
324: %
325: {\bf Acknowledgments}\\[-4mm]
326:
327: We would like to thank I.~Blokland, C.~Bobeth, S.~Davidson, A.~Freitas,
328: L.~Roszkowski, S.~Scopel and L.~Silvestrini for helpful discussions and
329: correspondence. M.M. is grateful to INFN Torino for hospitality during his
330: visit. P.G.\ was supported in part by the EU grant MERG-CT-2004-511156.
331: U.~H.\ was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under contract
332: No.~DE-AC02-76CH03000. M.M.\ was supported in part by the Polish Committee for
333: Scientific Research under the grant 2~P03B~078~26, and from the European
334: Community's Human Potential Programme under the contract HPRN-CT-2002-00311,
335: EURIDICE.
336:
337: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
338: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
339: %
340: \bibitem{hfag} Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, J.~Alexander et al, hep-ex/0412073.
341: %
342: \bibitem{bsgSM} P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,
343: %``Quark mass effects in anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma,''
344: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611}, 338 (2001) [hep-ph/0104034];\\
345: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%
346: A.~J.~Buras, A.~Czarnecki, M.~Misiak and J.~Urban,
347: %``Completing the NLO QCD calculation of anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma,''
348: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 631}, 219 (2002) [hep-ph/0203135].
349: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203135;%%
350: %
351: \bibitem{Ali:1994bf}
352: A.~Ali, G.~F.~Giudice and T.~Mannel,
353: %``Towards a model independent analysis of rare B decays,''
354: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 67}, 417 (1995) [hep-ph/9408213];\\
355: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408213;%%
356: %\bibitem{Cho:1996we}
357: P.~L.~Cho, M.~Misiak and D.~Wyler,
358: %``$K_L \to \pi~0 e~+ e~-$ and $B \to X_s \ell~+ \ell~-$ Decay in the MSSM,''
359: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3329 (1996) [hep-ph/9601360];\\
360: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601360;%%
361: %\bibitem{Hewett:1996ct}
362: J.~L.~Hewett and J.~D.~Wells,
363: %``Searching for supersymmetry in rare B decays,''
364: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 5549 (1997) [hep-ph/9610323];\\
365: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9610323;%%
366: %\bibitem{Goto:1998qv}
367: T.~Goto, Y.~Okada and Y.~Shimizu,
368: %``Flavor changing neutral current processes in B and K decays in the
369: %supergravity model,''
370: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094006 (1998) [hep-ph/9804294].
371: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804294;%%
372: %
373: \bibitem{Ali:1991is}
374: A.~Ali, T.~Mannel and T.~Morozumi,
375: %``Forward backward asymmetry of dilepton angular distribution in the decay b
376: %$\to$ s l+ l-,''
377: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 273}, 505 (1991).
378: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B273,505;%%
379: %
380: \bibitem{Abe:2004ir}
381: K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),
382: %``Measurement of the Differential $q^2$ Spectrum and Forward-Backward Asymmetry
383: %for $B \to K^{(*)} \ell^+ \ell^-$,''
384: hep-ex/0410006.
385: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410006;%%
386: %
387: \bibitem{Abe:2004sg}
388: K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration),
389: %``Improved measurement of the electroweak penguin process B $\to$ X/s l+ l-,''
390: hep-ex/0408119.
391: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408119;%%
392: %
393: \bibitem{Aubert:2004it}
394: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),
395: %``Measurement of the B $\to$ X/s l+ l- branching fraction with a sum over
396: %exclusive modes,''
397: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 081802 (2004) [hep-ex/0404006].
398: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404006;%%
399: %
400: \bibitem{Bobeth:2003at}
401: C.~Bobeth, P.~Gambino, M.~Gorbahn and U.~Haisch,
402: %``Complete NNLO QCD analysis of anti-B $\to$ X/s l+ l- and higher order
403: %electroweak effects,''
404: J. High Energy Phys. {\bf 04}, 071 (2004) [hep-ph/0312090].
405: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312090;%%
406: %
407: \bibitem{Ghinculov:2003qd}
408: A.~Ghinculov, T.~Hurth, G.~Isidori and Y.~P.~Yao,
409: %``The rare decay B $\to$ X/s l+ l- to NNLL precision for arbitrary dilepton
410: %invariant mass,''
411: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685}, 351 (2004) [hep-ph/0312128].
412: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312128;%%
413: %
414: \bibitem{nonpert}
415: A.~Ali, G.~Hiller, L.~T.~Handoko and T.~Morozumi,
416: %``Power corrections in the decay rate and distributions in B $\to$ X/s l+ l-
417: %in the standard model,''
418: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55}, 4105 (1997) [hep-ph/9609449];\\
419: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609449;%%
420: G.~Buchalla, G.~Isidori and S.~J.~Rey,
421: %``Corrections of order Lambda(QCD)**2/m(c)**2 to inclusive rare B decays,''
422: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 511}, 594 (1998) [hep-ph/9705253];\\
423: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705253;%%
424: G.~Buchalla and G.~Isidori,
425: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 525}, 333 (1998) [hep-ph/9801456].
426: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801456;%%
427: %
428: \bibitem{Azzi:2004rc}
429: P.~Azzi {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
430: %``Combination of CDF and D0 results on the top-quark mass,''
431: hep-ex/0404010.
432: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404010;%%
433: %
434: \bibitem{Aubert:2004aw}
435: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),
436: %``Determination of the branching fraction for B $\to$ X/c l nu decays and of
437: %$|$V(cb)$|$ from hadronic mass and lepton energy moments,''
438: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 011803 (2004) [hep-ex/0404017].
439: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404017;%%
440: %
441: \bibitem{Asatrian:2001de}
442: H.~H.~Asatrian, H.~M.~Asatrian, C.~Greub and M.~Walker,
443: %``Two-loop virtual corrections to B $\to$ X/s l+ l- in the standard model,''
444: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 507}, 162 (2001) [hep-ph/0103087].
445: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103087;%%
446: %
447: \bibitem{Ali}
448: A.~Ali, E.~Lunghi, C.~Greub and G.~Hiller,
449: %``Improved model-independent analysis of semileptonic and radiative rare B
450: %decays,''
451: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 034002 (2002) [hep-ph/0112300].
452: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112300;%%
453: %
454: \bibitem{Hiller:2003js}
455: G.~Hiller and F.~Kr\"uger,
456: %``More model-independent analysis of b $\to$ s processes,''
457: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 074020 (2004) [hep-ph/0310219].
458: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0310219;%%
459: %
460: \bibitem{buras}
461: C.~Bobeth, A.~J.~Buras and T.~Ewerth,
462: %``Anti-B $\to$ X/s l+ l- in the MSSM at NNLO,''
463: hep-ph/0409293.
464: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0409293;%%
465: %
466: \bibitem{dark2}
467: A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
468: %``Light neutralinos and WIMP direct searches,''
469: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 037302 (2004) [hep-ph/0307303];
470: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307303;%%
471: %A.~Bottino, F.~Donato, N.~Fornengo and S.~Scopel,
472: %``Indirect signals from light neutralinos in supersymmetric models without
473: %gaugino mass unification,''
474: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 015005 (2004) [hep-ph/0401186].
475: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401186;%%
476: %
477: \bibitem{Scopel} S.~Scopel, private communication.
478: %
479: \bibitem{Chankowski:2003wz}
480: P.~H.~Chankowski and {\L}.~S{\l}awianowska,
481: %``Effects of the scalar FCNC in b $\to$ s l+ l- transitions and
482: %supersymmetry,''
483: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 33}, 123 (2004) [hep-ph/0308032].
484: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308032;%%
485: %
486: \bibitem{Acosta:2004xj}
487: D.~Acosta {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration),
488: %``Search for B/s0 $\to$ mu+ mu- and B/d0 $\to$ mu+ mu- decays in p anti-p
489: %collisions at s**(1/2) = 1.96-TeV,''
490: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93}, 032001 (2004) [hep-ex/0403032];\\
491: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0403032;%%
492: %\bibitem{Abazov:2004dj}
493: V.~M.~Abazov (D0 Collaboration), hep-ex/0410039
494: [Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published)].
495: %``A Search for the Flavor-Changing Neutral Current Decay B0_s $\to$ mu^+mu^-
496: %in pp(bar) Collisions at \sqrt{s} = 1.96 TeV with the D0 Detector,''
497: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0410039;%%
498: %
499: \bibitem{luca}
500: M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,
501: %``b $\to$ s transitions: A new frontier for indirect SUSY searches,''
502: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 075016 (2003)
503: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 68}, 079901 (2003)] [hep-ph/0212397].
504: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212397;%%
505: %
506: \end{thebibliography}
507: \end{document}
508:
509:
510:
511:
512: