1: \documentclass[twocolumn,nofootinbib,aps,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[preprint,nofootinbib,aps,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6:
7: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
9: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
12:
13: \newcommand{\Aslash}{{\cal A}\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}
14: \newcommand{\Bslash}{{\cal B}\hspace*{-5.5pt}\slash}
15: \def\Dslash{D\hspace*{-6.5pt}\slash}
16: \def\nslash{n\!\!\!\slash}
17: \def\bnslash{\bar n\!\!\!\slash}
18:
19: \arraycolsep 2pt
20:
21: \def\OMIT#1{{}}
22: \def\lqcd{\ensuremath{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}}
23: \def\MSbar{\ensuremath{\overline{\rm MS}}}
24: \def\GeV{\mbox{GeV}}
25: \def\MeV{\mbox{MeV}}
26:
27:
28: \def\Bbar{\,\overline{\!B}{}}
29: \def\Kbar{\,\overline{\!K}{}}
30: \def\B0bar{\Bbar{}^0}
31: \def\K0bar{\Kbar{}^0}
32: \def\Ks0bar{\Kbar{}^{0*}}
33: \def\GeV{{\rm GeV}}
34: \def\d{{\rm d}}
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: \preprint{\vbox{\hbox{UCSD/PTH 04--21} \hbox{LBNL--56648} \hbox{MIT--CTP 3571}
39: \hbox{hep-ph/0412019}}}
40:
41: \vspace*{1cm}
42:
43: \title{\boldmath The photon polarization in $B\to X\gamma$ in the standard
44: model}
45:
46: \author{Benjam\'\i{}n Grinstein}
47: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of California at San Diego,
48: La Jolla, CA 92093}
49:
50: \author{Yuval Grossman}
51: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Technion--Israel Institute of Technology,
52: Technion City, 32000 Haifa, Israel}
53:
54: \affiliation{Physics Department, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215}
55:
56: \affiliation{Jefferson Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University,
57: Cambridge, MA 02138}
58:
59: \author{Zoltan Ligeti}
60: \affiliation{Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,
61: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720}
62:
63: \author{Dan Pirjol}
64: \affiliation{Center for Theoretical Physics, Massachusetts Institute for
65: Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139}
66:
67:
68: \begin{abstract}
69:
70: The standard model prediction for the $\B0bar\to X_{s,d}\gamma$ decay amplitude
71: with a right-handed photon is believed to be tiny, suppressed by $m_{s,d}/m_b$,
72: compared to the amplitude with a left-handed photon. We show that this
73: suppression is fictitious: in inclusive decays, the ratio of these two
74: amplitudes is only suppressed by $g_s/(4\pi)$, and in exclusive decays by
75: $\lqcd/m_b$. The suppression is not stronger in $\B0bar\to X_d \gamma$ decays
76: than it is in $\B0bar\to X_s \gamma$. We estimate that the time dependent $CP$
77: asymmetries in $B\to K^*\gamma$, $\rho\gamma$, $K_S\pi^0\gamma$, and
78: $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ are of order 0.1 and that they have significant
79: uncertainties.
80:
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \maketitle
84:
85:
86:
87: \section{Introduction}
88:
89:
90:
91: The standard model (SM) predicts that photons are mainly left-handed in $b\to
92: q\gamma$ ($q = s, d$) decay (and right-handed in $\bar b\to \bar q\gamma$). We
93: define the ratio
94: \beq \label{rdef}
95: r_{q}\, e^{i(\phi_q + \delta_q)} \equiv {A_R\over A_L}
96: \equiv {A(\Bbar\to f_q\gamma_R)\over A(\Bbar\to f_q\gamma_L)} \,,
97: \eeq
98: where $\phi$ is a weak phase and $\delta$ is a strong phase. It is usually
99: stated that $r_q = m_q/m_b \ll 1$ in the SM~\cite{Atwood:1997zr}.
100: (Throughout this paper $\Bbar$ refers to $\B0bar$ or $B^-$ that contain a $b$
101: quark, and $r$, $\phi$ and $\delta$ depend on the final state, $f$.) New
102: physics can modify this prediction, and therefore several methods have been
103: proposed to measure the photon helicity~\cite{Atwood:1997zr,Grossman:2000rk}.
104:
105: In $B\to f\gamma$, where $f$ is a $CP$ eigenstate, since $\gamma_L$ and
106: $\gamma_R$ cannot interfere, the time dependent $CP$ asymmetry
107: \beqa
108: &&{} {\Gamma[\B0bar(t)\to f \gamma] - \Gamma[B^0(t)\to f\gamma]\over
109: \Gamma[\B0bar(t)\to f\gamma] + \Gamma[B^0(t)\to f\gamma] } \nn\\
110: &&{}\qquad = S_{f\gamma} \sin(\Delta m\, t)
111: - C_{f\gamma} \cos(\Delta m\, t)\,,
112: \eeqa
113: is sensitive to $r$. In the SM, $\phi_s$ and $C_{f_s\gamma}$ are suppressed by
114: $|(V_{ub}V_{us})/(V_{tb}V_{ts})|$, and to first order in $r_s (\ll 1)$
115: \beq\label{Ss}
116: S_{f_s\gamma} = -2\, r_s \cos\delta_s \sin2\beta \,.
117: \eeq
118: The first measurements of such $CP$ asymmetries were carried out recently,
119: \beq
120: S_{K^*\gamma} = \cases{+0.25\pm0.63\pm0.14 &
121: BABAR~\cite{Aubert:2004pe}\,,\cr
122: -0.79^{+0.63}_{-0.50}\pm0.10 & BELLE~\cite{Abe:2004xp}\,, }
123: \eeq
124: yielding a world average $S_{K^*\gamma} = -0.28 \pm 0.45$. At a
125: super-$B$-factory the statistical error with 50\,ab$^{-1}$ data is estimated to
126: be $\delta(S_{K^*\gamma}) = 0.04$~\cite{Akeroyd:2004mj}. The Belle
127: Collaboration also measured the $CP$ asymmetry $S_{K_S\pi^0\gamma} =
128: -0.58^{+0.46}_{-0.38} \pm 0.11$, integrating over the invariant mass range
129: $0.6\,\GeV < m_{K_S\pi^0} < 1.8\,\GeV$~\cite{Abe:2004sx}. It will also be
130: possible to measure this $CP$ asymmetry in $B\to
131: \pi^+\pi^-\gamma$~\cite{Atwood:2004jj}, and maybe even with additional
132: pions~\cite{owen}.
133:
134: The purpose of this paper is to study the SM prediction for $r$. (For earlier
135: attempts to go beyond the naive estimate, see
136: Refs.~\cite{Grinstein:2000pc,Sehgal:2004xy}.) We find that $r$ is only
137: suppressed by $g_s/(4\pi)$ in inclusive $b\to X\gamma$ decay, and by
138: $\lqcd/m_b$ in exclusive $\Bbar\to \Kbar^*\gamma$ and $\rho\gamma$ decay.
139:
140: To understand the origin of such effects, recall that the effective
141: Hamiltonian for $b\to s\gamma$ is~\cite{GSW}
142: \beq\label{Heffs}
143: H_{\rm eff} = -{4G_F\over\sqrt2}\, V_{tb} V_{ts}^*\,
144: \sum_{i=1}^8 C_i(\mu)\, O_i(\mu) \,.
145: \eeq
146: For our discussion the operators directly relevant are
147: \beqa\label{O27}
148: O_2 &=& (\bar c\, \gamma^\mu P_L b)\, (\bar s\, \gamma_\mu P_L c) \,,\nn\\
149: O_7 &=& {e\over16\pi^2}\, \bar s\, \sigma^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu}
150: (m_b P_R + m_s P_L)\, b \,,
151: \eeqa
152: where $P_{R,L} = (1\pm\gamma_5)/2$, and we neglect the $m_s P_L$ part of $O_7$
153: hereafter. At the parton level, as long as $b\to s\gamma$ is a two-body decay
154: (either from the leading contribution of $O_7$ or subleading virtual
155: contributions from $O_{i\neq7}$), the left-handed $s$ quark is back-to-back to
156: a photon. Then the two-body kinematics implies that only $\gamma_L$ is
157: allowed. This argument does not apply to multi-body final states, such as $b
158: \to s \gamma\ +$ gluons.
159:
160: The $m_b P_R$ part of the leading operator $O_7$ contributes only to $A_L$ to
161: all orders in the strong interaction. To prove this, note that the
162: electromagnetic tensor for $\gamma_{L,R}$ is $F_{\mu\nu}^{L,R} = \frac12
163: (F_{\mu\nu} \pm i \widetilde F_{\mu\nu})$, where $\widetilde F_{\mu\nu} =
164: \frac12 \varepsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\lambda} F^{\rho\lambda}$, and $O_7$ can be
165: written in terms of $m_b F_{\mu\nu}^L$. Thus, independent of hadronic physics,
166: the photon from $O_7$ is left-handed. This argument only applies for $O_7$.
167: Indeed, we find by explicit calculation that other operators produce
168: right-handed photons once QCD corrections are included.
169:
170:
171:
172: \section{\boldmath Inclusive $B\to X_s\gamma$ and $B\to X_d\gamma$}
173:
174:
175:
176: In this section we estimate $r$ from an inclusive calculation. The result can
177: only be trusted if several hadronic final states are allowed to contribute, and
178: $r$ for specific final states cannot be obtained from this calculation model
179: independently.
180:
181: \begin{figure}[t]
182: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=.3\columnwidth]{O2brem}}
183: \caption{Leading contribution to $\Bbar\to X_s\gamma_R$. A second diagram
184: with the gluon and the photon exchanged is not shown.}
185: \label{fig:O2brem}
186: \end{figure}
187:
188: The leading contribution to the inclusive $\Bbar\to X_s\gamma_R$ rate is of
189: order $\alpha_s$. It arises from bremsstrahlung contributions to the matrix
190: elements of operators other that $O_7$. The numerically dominant contribution
191: comes from $O_2$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:O2brem}. The corresponding amplitude was
192: calculated in Ref.~\cite{Ali:1990tj,Pott:1995if}. We find that it yields equal
193: rates for left- and right-handed photons at order $\alpha_s$, at any point in
194: the $b\to sg\gamma$ Dalitz plot.
195:
196: Because of the complicated $m_c$-dependence of the double differential rate,
197: $\d\Gamma_{22}^{\rm (brem)}/\d E_\gamma \d E_g$, we integrate over $E_g$ and
198: $E_\gamma$ numerically. To reduce the large sensitivity to the scale of
199: $\alpha_s$, we include the known order $\alpha_s^2\beta_0$ contribution to
200: $\Gamma_{22}^{\rm (brem)}$~\cite{Ligeti:1999ea}. (At this order the equality
201: of the decay rates to left- and right-handed photons is violated by less than
202: 1\%, and can be neglected.)
203:
204: Using the ``effective" Wilson coefficients at leading
205: order~\cite{Buras:1993xp}, $C_2(m_b) = 1.1$ and $C_7(m_b) = -0.31$,
206: $\alpha_s(m_b) = 0.22$ with $m_b=4.8\,$GeV, and $m_c=1.4\,$GeV, we obtain
207: \beq\label{22ratec}
208: {\Gamma_{22}^{\rm (brem)}\over \Gamma_0} \simeq 0.025 \,, \qquad
209: \Gamma_0 = {G_F^2 |V_{tb}V_{ts}^*|^2 \alpha_{\rm em}\, C_7^2\, m_b^5
210: \over 32\pi^4}\,.
211: \eeq
212: This result corresponds to integrating the numerator over $x \equiv
213: 2E_\gamma/m_b > 0.75$ (that is, roughly, $E_\gamma > 1.8\,$GeV). This result
214: includes also the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s^2\beta_0)$ correction, which is sizable,
215: indicating that the relevant scale of $\alpha_s$ may be well below $m_b$;
216: without including it the result in Eq.~(\ref{22ratec}) would be 0.015. Thus, we
217: find at lowest order in $g_s$
218: \beq\label{bigestimate}
219: \langle r_s \rangle \big|_{x > 0.75}
220: = \sqrt{\Gamma_{22}^{\rm (brem)} / (2 \Gamma_0)} \simeq 0.11\,.
221: \eeq
222: This value of $\langle r_s\rangle$ decreases only slowly with a stiffer cut on
223: $x$.
224:
225: The value of $\cos\delta_s$ is physical, as it enters $S_{f_s\gamma}$ in
226: Eq.~(\ref{Ss}). Yet it cannot be estimated from the inclusive calculation.
227: The reason is that the dominant contribution to $A_R$ comes from the $b \to s
228: \gamma g$ amplitude generated by $O_2$, while to $A_L$ from the $b \to s
229: \gamma$ decay generated by $O_7$. These are different final states, for which
230: one can chose the phase conventions independently. These amplitudes can still
231: contribute to the same hadronic final states and interfere once hadronization
232: effects are included. Thus, the relevant phase for any final state is
233: determined by the hadronization processes and cannot be extracted from the
234: inclusive calculation. Comparing the absorptive and dispersive parts of the
235: inclusive result, we find $\cos^2\delta_s \simeq 0.3$ with small variation over
236: $0.75 < x < 1$. The only conclusion we can draw here is that we expect the
237: strong phase to be generically large.
238:
239: Next we discuss inclusive $B\to X_d\gamma$. In Eq.~(\ref{Heffs}), operators
240: multiplying the suppressed CKM factor $V_{ub}V_{us}^*$ were neglected. The
241: analogous terms are important in $b\to d\gamma$, since in this decay the $u$
242: quark loop is not CKM suppressed compared to the $c$ and $t$ loops. The $b\to
243: d\gamma$ effective Hamiltonian is of the form
244: \beqa\label{Heffd}
245: H_{\rm eff} &=& -{4G_F\over\sqrt2}\, V_{tb} V_{td}^*
246: \sum_{i=1}^8 C_i(\mu)\, O'_i(\mu) \\*
247: && - {4G_F\over\sqrt2}\, V_{ub} V_{ud}^*
248: \sum_{i=1}^2 C_i(\mu)\, [O'_i(\mu) - O'_{i,u}(\mu)] \,, \nn
249: \eeqa
250: where prime denotes that in the standard operator basis in Eq.~(\ref{O27}) the
251: $s$ quark is replaced by $d$, and the $u$ subscript means that $c$ and $\bar c$
252: are replaced by $u$ and $\bar u$; for example,
253: \beq
254: O'_{2,u} = (\bar u\, \gamma^\mu P_L b)\, (\bar d\, \gamma_\mu P_L u) \,.
255: \eeq
256: It is useful to define
257: \beq
258: r_d\, e^{i(\phi_d + \delta_d)} = r_s\, e^{i \delta_s}
259: + {V_{ub} V_{ud}^* \over V_{tb} V_{td}^*}\, r_d^u\, e^{i \delta_d^u} ,
260: \eeq
261: where the first [second] term comes from the contribution of the top [bottom]
262: line in Eq.~(\ref{Heffd}) to $A_R$. The first term is the same as in $b\to s$
263: decay (recall that we neglected~$m_s$).
264:
265: For the $u$ quark loop, taking the limit of the quark mass to zero, the
266: calculation of Ref.~\cite{Ligeti:1999ea} simplifies considerably, and we can
267: obtain analytic results
268: \beqa\label{22rateu}
269: {1\over\Gamma_0} {\d\Gamma_{22}^{(u, \rm brem)}\over \d x}
270: &=& {C_2^2\over C_7^2}\, \bigg\{ {\alpha_s\over 27\pi}\, 2x(2-x) \\*
271: &+& {\alpha_s^2\beta_0\over 27 \pi^2}\,
272: \bigg[ {x(44 - 19x + 18x^2 - 24x^3)\over 12} \nn\\*
273: &&{} - {x(2 - x)\over 2} \ln[x(1 - x)]
274: + {2x^3\over 3} \ln x \bigg] \bigg\} , \nn
275: \eeqa
276: where $\alpha_s$ is evaluated at the scale $m_b$ in the $\overline{\rm MS}$
277: scheme. For the difference of the rates to $\gamma_R$ and $\gamma_L$ we obtain
278: \beq\label{22rateudiff}
279: {1\over\Gamma_0} {\d\big[\Gamma_{22}^{(u,R)}-\Gamma_{22}^{(u,L)}\big]\over \d x}
280: = {C_2^2\over C_7^2}\, {\alpha_s^2\beta_0\over 27 \pi^2}\,
281: {x^2(3 - 3x + 4x\ln x)\over 6} \,.
282: \eeq
283: This difference integrates to zero, and it gives a slight $\gamma_L$
284: enhancement near $x=1$. We obtain for $x>0.75$
285: \beq\label{22rateunum}
286: {\Gamma_{22}^{\rm (u,brem)}\over \Gamma_0} \simeq 0.030\,.
287: \eeq
288:
289: The absolute values of the amplitudes corresponding to the $c$ and $u$ loops
290: [the squares of which yield Eqs.~(\ref{22ratec}) and (\ref{22rateunum})] are
291: comparable to each other. In the absence of strong phases this would result in
292: a cancellation and lead to a very small $r_d^u$. Note that, as in the $b \to s
293: \gamma$ case, we cannot predict the sign of $\cos\delta_d^u$. Moreover, the
294: values of $r_d^u$ and $\delta_d^u$ are sensitive to the difference between the
295: strong phases of the $c$ and $u$ loops, for which we do not consider the
296: perturbative result reliable. In particular, the matrix element of $O'_{2,u}$
297: in $b\to d\gamma$ may have sizable long distance contributions. In any event,
298: the short distance calculation predicts that the strong phase vanishes for the
299: $u$ loop contribution, while it is sizable for the $c$ loop. Therefore, the
300: cancellation in $r_d^u$ is unlikely to be effective. The important point is
301: that we expect $r_d \sim r_d^u \sim r_s$.
302:
303: The crucial difference between the time dependent $CP$ asymmetries in $B\to
304: f_s\gamma$ and $B\to f_d\gamma$ is that in the latter case, naively, there are
305: two very strong suppression factors. First, considering $O_7$ only,
306: $S_{f_d\gamma}$ is suppressed by $m_d/m_b$. Second, the phase of the dominant
307: decay amplitude, $V_{tb} V_{td}^*$, cancels the phase of the $B^0-\B0bar$
308: mixing amplitude, yielding another strong suppression of $S_{f_d\gamma}$. Both
309: of these suppressions are fictitious, since the $V_{ub} V_{ud}^*\, (O'_2 -
310: O'_{2,u})$ contributions lift both the $m_d/m_b$ suppression, just like in the
311: $b\to s\gamma$ case discussed earlier, and also the suppression coming from the
312: cancellation of the mixing and the decay phases. The leading contribution to
313: $S_{f_d\gamma}$ is proportional to $r_d^u$, which gives a contribution to $A_R$
314: with weak phase $\gamma$. Using the fact that the phase of the mixing amplitude
315: is $2 \beta$, and that of $A_L$ is $\beta$, we obtain at leading order
316: \beq\label{Sd}
317: S_{f_d\gamma} = -2\, \bigg| {V_{ub} V_{ud}^* \over V_{tb} V_{td}^*}\bigg|\,
318: r_d^u \cos\delta_d^u \sin(\beta+\gamma) \,.
319: \eeq
320: This result is independent at first order in $r_d^u$ of the small direct $CP$
321: violation in $b\to d\gamma$ in the SM.
322:
323: A model dependent way to connect the inclusive calculations with exclusive
324: $B\to K^*\gamma$ or $\rho\gamma$ is the Ali--Greub model~\cite{Ali:1990vp}
325: obtained by smearing the inclusive rate with a model shape function and
326: integrating over $E_\gamma > (m_B^2-1\,\GeV^2)/(2m_B)$ (i.e., attributing the
327: rate to $m_X < 1\,$GeV to the $K^*$ or $\rho$). Restricting the shape function
328: parameters to reproduce ${\cal B}(B\to K^*\gamma)$, we obtain $r_{K^*} \sim
329: 0.025$, with little sensitivity to the model parameters. This is comparable in
330: magnitude but independent of the $m_s/m_b$ contribution. This model also
331: yields $r_\rho \sim r_{K^*}$, which is much larger than $m_d/m_b$. To compare
332: with the ``more inclusive" measurement~\cite{Abe:2004sx}, we computed $\langle
333: r_s \rangle_{m_{X_s} < 1.8\,\GeV} \sim 0.055$ using simple shape function
334: models. Given the model uncertainties, this figure should be taken as a very
335: rough estimate.
336:
337:
338:
339: \section{\boldmath Exclusive $B\to K^*\gamma$ and $B\to \rho\gamma$}
340:
341:
342:
343: We consider next the photon polarization in exclusive $\Bbar\to \Kbar^*\gamma$
344: and $\rho\gamma$ decays using SCET~\cite{Bauer:2000ew}. We prove that
345: $O_{1-6}$ contribute only to $A_L$ to all orders in $\alpha_s$ at leading order
346: in $\lqcd/m_b$ (this is viewed as of the same order as $m_{K^*}/E_{K^*}$). We
347: identify several types of subleading SCET operators that give amplitudes to
348: right-handed photons, and yield $r_{K^*}$ and $r_\rho$ of order $\lqcd/m_b$.
349:
350: Using SCET, a factorization theorem for heavy-to-light form factors has been
351: proven at leading order in
352: $\lqcd/m_b$~\cite{Bauer:2002aj,Beneke:2003pa,Lange:2003pk}. There are two
353: contributions to the form factors, a nonfactorizable (or soft or form-factor)
354: part and factorizable (or hard scattering) part, which are of the same order in
355: $\lqcd/m_b$.
356:
357: The exclusive radiative decays considered here were analyzed in an expansion in
358: $\lqcd/m_b$ in~\cite{Grinstein:2000pc,Beneke:2001at,Bosch:2001gv,Ali:2001ez},
359: and recently in SCET~\cite{Chay:2003kb}. The nonfactorizable part receives its
360: dominant contribution from $O_7$ and gives rise to $A_L$ only. The operator
361: $O_2$ enters at leading order only via factorizable contributions.
362:
363: When operators $O_{i\neq7}$ are included, the hierarchy of the relevant scales
364: gets rather complicated, since $m_b^2 > m_c^2 \sim \lqcd m_b > \lqcd^2$.
365: Ref.~\cite{Chay:2003kb} assumed that the $c\bar c$ loop is dominated by hard
366: loop momenta and can be integrated out near the scale $m_b$. Here we adopt a
367: simpler approach, by neglecting the charm mass and assuming that its effects
368: can be included as a perturbation using the formalism of
369: Ref.~\cite{Leibovich:2003jd} without encountering singularities. This
370: assumption is borne out by the explicit one- and two-loop calculations.
371:
372: The effective Hamiltonian in Eq.~(\ref{Heffs}) is matched in SCET$_{\rm I}$
373: onto
374: \beqa\label{HeffSCET}
375: H_{\rm eff} &=& \frac{G_F V_{tb} V_{ts}^*\, e}{\sqrt2\, \pi^2}\,
376: E_\gamma \Big[ c(\omega)\, \bar s_{n,\omega} \Aslash^\perp m_b P_L\, b_v \\
377: &+& b_{1L}(\omega_i)\, O^{(1L)}(\omega_i)
378: + b_{1R}(\omega_i)\, O^{(1R)}(\omega_i) + {\cal O}(\lambda^2) \Big] , \nn
379: \eeqa
380: where the $\omega$'s are the usual collinear label momenta. The relevant modes
381: are soft quarks and gluons with momenta $k_s \sim \Lambda$ and two types of
382: collinear quarks and gluons along $n$ and $\bar n$ (including charm, which can
383: be soft or collinear). Note that the approach of Ref.~\cite{Chay:2003kb},
384: treating $m_c \sim m_b$, will likely require additional modes. We take the
385: photon momentum as $q_\mu = E_\gamma \bar n_\mu$, the collinear $s$ quark to
386: move along $n_\mu$, and ${\cal A}_\mu^\perp$ denotes the transverse photon
387: field. The operator in the first line in Eq.~(\ref{HeffSCET}) occurs at
388: leading order in the expansion parameter, $\lambda = \sqrt{\Lambda/m_b}$, and
389: its Wilson coefficient is dominated by $C_7$, $c(\omega) = C_7 + {\cal
390: O}[\alpha_s(m_b)]$. The operators in the second line,
391: \beqa
392: O^{(1L)}(\omega_1,\omega_2) &=& \bar s_{n,\omega_1}\, \Aslash^\perp
393: \Big[\frac1{\bar n\cdot {\cal P}} ig \Bslash^\perp_n\Big]_{\omega_2}
394: P_R\, b_v , \nn\\*
395: O^{(1R)}(\omega_1,\omega_2) &=& \bar s_{n,\omega_1}
396: \Big[\frac1{\bar n\cdot {\cal P}} ig \Bslash^\perp_n\Big]_{\omega_2}
397: \Aslash^\perp P_R\, b_v ,
398: \eeqa
399: are the only SCET$_{\rm I}$ operators suppressed by $\lambda$ that couple to a
400: transverse photon and are allowed by power counting and $s$ chirality. Here
401: $ig{\cal B}_n^\nu \equiv [\bar n\cdot iD_c\,, iD_{c\perp}^\nu]$ is the
402: collinear gluon field tensor; for the remaining notations see Ref.~\cite{ps1}.
403: The operators $O^{(1L)}$ and $O^{(1R)}$ couple only to $\gamma_{L,R}$,
404: respectively. Their Wilson coefficients are
405: \beqa\label{b1LR}
406: b_{1L}(\omega_1,\omega_2) &=& C_7 + C_2/3 + {\cal O}[C_{3-6}, \alpha_s(m_b)]\,,
407: \nn\\*
408: b_{1R}(\omega_1,\omega_2) &=& -\, C_2/3 + {\cal O}[C_{3-6}, \alpha_s(m_b)]\,.
409: \eeqa
410:
411: Although the operators in the first and second lines of Eq.~(\ref{HeffSCET})
412: are of different orders in $\lambda$, after matching onto SCET$_{\rm II}$, they
413: contribute at the same order in $\lqcd/m_b$ to the $B\to K^*\gamma$ amplitude.
414: The leading order $c(\omega)$ term gives the nonfactorizable contribution,
415: which only contributes to $A_L$, while $O^{(1L)}$ and $O^{(1R)}$ give the
416: factorizable contributions through time-ordered products with the
417: ultrasoft-collinear Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_{\xi q}^{(1)}$~\cite{Beneke:2002ph}.
418: After matching onto SCET$_{\rm II}$ one finds, schematically
419: \beqa
420: && \int\! \d^4 x\, T \big\{ O^{(1L)}(\omega_i), i{\cal L}_{\xi q}^{(1)}(x)\big\}
421: \to \int\! \d k_+\, {\cal J}_\perp(\omega^{(\prime)}_i, k_+) \nn\\
422: \label{O1L}
423: &&{} \quad \otimes \big[(\bar qY_n)_{k_+} \nslash \Aslash^\perp
424: \gamma^\alpha_\perp P_R (Y^\dagger_n b_v)\big]\,
425: (\bar s_{n,\omega'_1} \bnslash\gamma_\perp^\alpha q_{n,\omega'_2}) ,\\
426: && \int\! \d^4 x\, T \big\{ O^{(1R)}(\omega_i), i{\cal L}_{\xi q}^{(1)}(x)\big\}
427: \to \int\! \d k_+\, {\cal J}_\parallel(\omega^{(\prime)}_i, k_+) \nn\\
428: \label{O1R}
429: &&{} \quad \otimes \big[(\bar qY_n)_{k_+} \nslash \Aslash^\perp P_R
430: (Y^\dagger_n b_v)\big]\, (\bar s_{n,\omega'_1} \bnslash P_L q_{n,\omega'_2}) ,
431: \eeqa
432: where ${\cal J}_{\perp,\parallel}$ are jet functions that have expansions in
433: $\alpha_s(\sqrt{\lqcd m_b})$. The operator in Eq.~(\ref{O1L}) contributes to
434: $B\to K^* \gamma$ at leading order,
435: \beqa
436: &&\!\!\!\! A_L = \frac{G_F V_{tb} V_{ts}^*\, e}{\sqrt2\, \pi^2}\, {m_B^3\over 2}
437: \Big[ c(m_B) \zeta_\perp^{BK^*}
438: + {f_B f_{K^*}^\perp\over m_B}\! \int\! \d x \d t \d k_+ \nn\\
439: &&\!\!\!\! \times \, b_{1L}(m_B (1-t), m_B t)\,
440: {\cal J}_\perp(x,t,k_+) \phi_{K^*}^\perp(x)\, \phi_B^+(k_+)\Big] ,
441: \eeqa
442: where all nonperturbative matrix elements are defined as in~\cite{ps1}. The
443: operator in Eq.~(\ref{O1R}) only gives rise to longitudinal $K^*$ and therefore
444: does not contribute to $B\to K^*\gamma$. This proves that $O_2$ contributes at
445: leading order in $\lqcd/m_b$ to $\Bbar\to \Kbar^*\gamma_L$ via Eq.~(\ref{O1L}),
446: but its contribution to $\Bbar\to \Kbar^*\gamma_R$ vanishes at this order.
447: (Interestingly, it would contribute to $\Bbar^*\to \Kbar^{(*)}\gamma_R$ at
448: leading order.) The same proof also holds for the other four-quark operators,
449: $O_{1-6}$.
450:
451: This result agrees with the ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$
452: computation~\cite{Beneke:2001at,Bosch:2001gv}, and extends it to all orders in
453: $\alpha_s$. This is important, since $\alpha_s(\mu)$ at the hard-collinear
454: scale $\mu^2 \sim \Lambda m_b$ may or may not be
455: perturbative~\cite{Bauer:2002aj,Bauer:2004tj,Hill:2004if}. The suppression of
456: $A_R$ can be understood from a simple helicity argument. Since the $s$ quark
457: is left-handed, the $K^*$ cannot be right-handed, unless additional
458: right-handed gluons end up in the final meson. However, the contributions of
459: higher Fock states are power suppressed.
460:
461: The $\Bbar\to \Kbar^*\gamma_R$ amplitude does arise at subleading order in
462: $\lqcd/m_b$. There are several sources of such corrections. For example, (i)
463: time ordered products of $O^{(1R)}$ with the subleading collinear Lagrangian
464: ${\cal L}_{\xi\xi}^{(n\geq 1)}$, which lead to factorizable contributions
465: similar to Eq.~(\ref{O1L}) containing an explicit factor
466: $\alpha_s(\sqrt{\lqcd m_b})$; (ii) higher order terms in the SCET$_{\rm I}$
467: effective Lagrangian in Eq.~(\ref{HeffSCET}), such as the ${\cal O}(\lambda^2)$
468: operator
469: \beqa\label{O2R}
470: O^{(2R)}(\omega) &=& \int \frac{\d x_+}{2\pi}\, \d k_-\, e^{-i x_+ k_-/2}\,
471: \kappa\Big({2E_\gamma k_-\over m_c^2}\Big) \nn\\
472: &\times& \bar s_{n,\omega}
473: \big[Y^\dagger_{\bar n} i\Dslash^{\rm\,us} Y_{\bar n}\big]\!
474: \Big({\bar n x_+\over2}\Big)\, \Aslash_\perp P_R\, b_v ,
475: \eeqa
476: where the gauge invariant operator $[Y^\dagger_{\bar n} i\Dslash^{\rm\,us}
477: Y_{\bar n}](x)$ contains Wilson lines of the ultrasoft fields in the $\bar n$
478: direction. $O^{(2R)}$ is obtained by matching the graph in Fig.~1 with one
479: ultrasoft gluon, and its Wilson coefficient is related to $b_{1R}$ in
480: Eq.~(\ref{b1LR}) by reparameterization invariance~\cite{Manohar:2002fd}. The
481: $C_2/3$ terms in Eq.~(\ref{b1LR}) correspond to $m_c = 0$, when $\kappa(z) =
482: 1/2$. In this case the $k_-$ and $x_+$ integrals in Eq.~(\ref{O2R}) can be
483: performed trivially. However, in Eq.~(\ref{O2R}) we kept $m_c \neq 0$ to
484: exhibit the analogy with the nonperturbative corrections to inclusive $b\to
485: s\gamma$ decay~\cite{Voloshin:1996gw,Ligeti:1997tc}. For $m_c \neq 0$,
486: additional nonlocality is introduced by $\kappa(z) = 1/2 - 2
487: \arctan[\sqrt{z/(4-z)}]^2 / z$ with $z = 2E_\gamma
488: k_-/m_c^2$~\cite{Ali:1990tj}. [For $m_c\neq0$, the $C_2/3$ terms in
489: Eq.~(\ref{b1LR}) should be multiplied by $2\kappa(2E_\gamma\omega_2/m_c^2)$.]
490: Expanding $O^{(2R)}$ in $x_+$ reproduces the series of operators proportional to
491: $(m_b\lqcd/m_c^2)^n$ in Eq.~(5) in \cite{Ligeti:1997tc}. Time-ordered products
492: of $O^{(2R)}$ with the ultrasoft-collinear Lagrangian, ${\cal L}_{\xi q}^{(2)}$,
493: give ${\cal O}(\lqcd/m_b)$ soft contributions to $A_R$, with no $\alpha_s$
494: suppression compared to $A_L$.
495:
496: A complete study of these subleading contributions is rather involved and we
497: leave it for future work. It seems unlikely to us that a cancellation could
498: result in a suppression of $r_{K^*}$ and $r_\rho$ to order $\lqcd^2/m_b^2$.
499: This leads to the dimensional estimate
500: \beq\label{excls}
501: r_{K^*} \sim \frac13\, \frac{C_2}{C_7}\, \frac{\lqcd}{m_b} \sim 0.1\,.
502: \eeq
503: This effect dominates over the $m_s$ piece of $O_7$ for $r_{K^*}$. The
504: estimate for $r_\rho$ is more involved because of the contributions with
505: different weak phases,
506: \beq\label{excld}
507: r_\rho \sim r_{K^*} \bigg[ 1 + {V_{ub} V_{ud}^* \over V_{tb} V_{td}^*}
508: \bigg( C_{\rm loop}\, {m_c^2\over m_b^2} +
509: C_{\rm WA}\, 4\pi\, {\lqcd \over m_b} \bigg) \bigg] ,
510: \eeq
511: The $C_{\rm loop}$ term comes from the non-cancellation of the $c$ and $u$
512: loops, and we expect it to have a numerically large coefficient. The $C_{\rm
513: WA}$ term arises from weak annihilation, whose contribution to $A_R$ at order
514: $\lqcd/m_b$ vanishes~\cite{Grinstein:2000pc}. The latter contributes
515: significantly only in $B^\pm$, while in $B^0$ it is color suppressed. Thus, we
516: expect that the SM prediction for $S_{\rho\gamma}$ is not much smaller than it
517: is for $S_{K^*\gamma}$.
518:
519: For higher mass one-body hadronic final states, $A_R$ still vanishes at leading
520: order, but the suppression by $m_X/E_X$ is expected to be less effective as
521: $m_X$ increases (although there is no evidence for this in the $B\to DX$
522: data~\cite{Ligeti:2001dk}). Thus, the SM value of $r$ is expected to depend on
523: the final state. For high-mass and multi-body final states $A_R$ may arise,
524: formally, at leading order in $\lqcd/m_b$. For example, $\Bbar\to \Bbar^*
525: \pi_{\rm (soft)}$ followed by $\Bbar^*\to \Kbar^{(*)}\gamma_R$ can give rise to
526: $\B0bar\to K_S\pi^0\gamma_R$ with $m_{K_S\pi^0} \sim \sqrt{\lqcd m_b}$, without
527: a $\lqcd/m_b$ suppression. Therefore, averaging the results of $B\to
528: K^*\gamma$~\cite{Aubert:2004pe,Abe:2004xp} with $B\to K_S\pi^0
529: \gamma$~\cite{Abe:2004sx} is not free from theoretical uncertainties.
530:
531:
532:
533: \section{Discussion and Summary}
534:
535:
536:
537: We studied the standard model prediction for the $\Bbar\to X_{s,d}\gamma_R$
538: decay amplitude with a right-handed photon, $A_R$, compared to the amplitude
539: with a left-handed photon. Considering only $O_7$, their ratio is $r_{s,d} =
540: m_{s,d}/m_b$, which reproduces the often-quoted prediction independent of the
541: hadronic final state. However, including the other operators, $O_{i \neq 7}$,
542: $A_R$ becomes much larger than this naive estimate, and hadronic physics gives
543: rise to sizable uncertainties. The time dependent $CP$ asymmetries also become
544: sensitive to the strong phase.
545:
546: In inclusive $B\to X_s\gamma$ and $X_d\gamma$ decays, $A_R$ is only suppressed
547: by $g_s/(4\pi)$. We calculated $r$ inclusively, and found it to be of order
548: $0.1$ depending on the cut on the photon energy [see Eq.~(\ref{bigestimate})].
549: While this calculation is reliable, it cannot be easily compared to data. If
550: one restricts the hadronic final state, such as in the measurement of the time
551: dependent $CP$ asymmetry $S_{K_S\pi^0\gamma}$ with a range of $K_S\pi^0$
552: invariant masses, then that can no longer be calculated using inclusive
553: methods. Still, our results indicate that it would be hard to argue that a
554: measurement of $S_{K_S\pi^0\gamma} \sim 0.1$ cannot be due to SM physics.
555:
556: In exclusive $\Bbar\to \Kbar^*\gamma$ and $\rho\gamma$ decays, we proved using
557: SCET that $A_R$ vanishes at lowest order in the $\lqcd/m_b$ expansion to all
558: orders in $\alpha_s$. The leading contribution to $A_R$ is formally of order
559: $\lqcd/m_b$, but numerically it is enhanced by $C_2/C_7$ [see
560: Eqs.~(\ref{excls}) and (\ref{excld})]. The result depends on unknown hadronic
561: matrix elements, which give rise to a sizable uncertainty in the SM prediction.
562:
563: Both the inclusive and the exclusive calculations predict that $r_s$ and $r_d$
564: are comparable to each other in the SM. Thus, we also expect the time
565: dependent $CP$ asymmetries in $\B0bar\to f_d \gamma$ to be comparable to those
566: in $\B0bar\to f_s \gamma$ (except for a modest suppression by
567: $|V_{ub}/V_{td}|$), in contrast to what has been widely believed. We estimate
568: these asymmetries in decays such as $B\to K^*\gamma$, $\rho\gamma$,
569: $K_S\pi^0\gamma$, and $\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$ to be of order $0.1$, with large
570: uncertainties.
571:
572: To conclude, our main result is that the standard model prediction for
573: $A_R/A_L$ is of order $0.1$, with sizable uncertainty. A measurement of it
574: much above this level would indicate new physics. To draw conclusions from a
575: smaller value would require a more complete analysis and knowledge of hadronic
576: matrix elements including strong phases. More effort in this direction would
577: be welcome.
578:
579:
580:
581: \acknowledgments
582:
583:
584:
585: We thank Andy Cohen and Iain Stewart for helpful discussions.
586: Z.L.\ thanks the particle theory group at Boston University for its hospitality
587: while part of this work was completed.
588: B.G.~was supported in part by the DOE under Grant DE-FG03-97ER40546.
589: Z.L.~was supported in part by the Director, Office of Science, Office of
590: High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics, of the U.S.\
591: Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098 and by a DOE Outstanding
592: Junior Investigator award.
593: D.P.\ was supported by the U.S.\ Department of Energy under Grant
594: DOE-FG03-97ER40546 and by the NSF under grant PHY-9970781.
595:
596:
597:
598: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
599:
600:
601: %\cite{Atwood:1997zr}
602: \bibitem{Atwood:1997zr}
603: D.~Atwood, M.~Gronau and A.~Soni,
604: %``Mixing-induced CP asymmetries in radiative B decays in and beyond the
605: %standard model,''
606: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 185 (1997)
607: [hep-ph/9704272].
608: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704272;%%
609:
610: %\cite{Grossman:2000rk}
611: \bibitem{Grossman:2000rk}
612: T.~Mannel and S.~Recksiegel,
613: %``Probing the helicity structure of b $\to$ s gamma in Lambda/b $\to$ Lambda
614: %gamma,''
615: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 28}, 2489 (1997)
616: [hep-ph/9710287];
617: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710287;%%
618: Y.~Grossman and D.~Pirjol,
619: %``Extracting and using photon polarization information in radiative B
620: %decays,''
621: JHEP {\bf 0006} (2000) 029
622: [hep-ph/0005069];
623: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005069;%%
624: %\cite{Gronau:2001ng}
625: %\bibitem{Gronau:2001ng}
626: M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, D.~Pirjol and A.~Ryd,
627: %``Measuring the photon helicity in radiative B decays,''
628: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 051802
629: [hep-ph/0107254];
630: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107254;%%
631: G.~Hiller and A.~Kagan,
632: %``Probing for new physics in polarized Lambda/b decays at the Z,''
633: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 074038 (2002)
634: [hep-ph/0108074];
635: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108074;%%
636: %\cite{Gronau:2002rz}
637: %\bibitem{Gronau:2002rz}
638: M.~Gronau and D.~Pirjol,
639: %``Photon polarization in radiative B decays,''
640: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 054008
641: [hep-ph/0205065].
642: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205065;%%
643:
644: %\cite{Aubert:2004pe}
645: \bibitem{Aubert:2004pe}
646: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
647: %``Measurement of time-dependent CP-violating asymmetries in B0 $\to$ K*0 gamma
648: %(K*0 $\to$ K0(S) pi0) decays,''
649: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 201801
650: [hep-ex/0405082].
651: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0405082;%%
652:
653: %\cite{Abe:2004xp}
654: \bibitem{Abe:2004xp}
655: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
656: %``New measurements of time-dependent CP-violating asymmetries in b $\to$ s
657: %transitions at Belle,''
658: hep-ex/0409049.
659: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0409049;%%
660:
661: %\cite{Akeroyd:2004mj}
662: \bibitem{Akeroyd:2004mj}
663: A.~G.~Akeroyd {\it et al.} [SuperKEKB Physics Working Group Collaboration],
664: %``Physics at super B factory,''
665: hep-ex/0406071.
666: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406071;%%
667:
668: %\cite{Abe:2004sx}
669: \bibitem{Abe:2004sx}
670: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
671: %``New measurements of time-dependent CP-violating asymmetries in B0 $\to$ K(S)
672: %K(S) K(S) and K(S) pi0 gamma decays at Belle,''
673: hep-ex/0411056.
674: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0411056;%%
675:
676: %\cite{Atwood:2004jj}
677: \bibitem{Atwood:2004jj}
678: D.~Atwood, T.~Gershon, M.~Hazumi and A.~Soni,
679: %``Mixing-induced CP violation in B $\to$ P(1) P(2) gamma in search of clean
680: %new physics signals,''
681: hep-ph/0410036.
682: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410036;%%
683:
684: \bibitem{owen}
685: O.~Long, private communications.
686:
687: %\cite{Grinstein:2000pc}
688: \bibitem{Grinstein:2000pc}
689: B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,
690: %``Long-distance effects in B $\to$ V gamma radiative weak decays,''
691: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 093002.
692: [hep-ph/0002216].
693: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002216;%%
694:
695: %\cite{Sehgal:2004xy}
696: \bibitem{Sehgal:2004xy}
697: L.~M.~Sehgal and J.~van Leusen,
698: %``Stokes vector of photon in the decays B0 $\to$ rho0 gamma and B0 $\to$ K*
699: %gamma,''
700: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 591} (2004) 235
701: [hep-ph/0403215].
702: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0403215;%%
703:
704: \bibitem{GSW}
705: %\cite{Grinstein:1987vj}
706: %\bibitem{Grinstein:1987vj}
707: B.~Grinstein, R.~P.~Springer and M.~B.~Wise,
708: %``Effective Hamiltonian For Weak Radiative B Meson Decay,''
709: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 202} (1988) 138;
710: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B202,138;%%
711: %\cite{Grinstein:1990tj}
712: %\bibitem{Grinstein:1990tj}
713: %B.~Grinstein, R.~P.~Springer and M.~B.~Wise,
714: %``Strong Interaction Effects In Weak Radiative Anti-B Meson Decay,''
715: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 339} (1990) 269.
716: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B339,269;%%
717:
718: %\cite{Ali:1990tj}
719: \bibitem{Ali:1990tj}
720: A.~Ali and C.~Greub,
721: %``Inclusive Photon Energy Spectrum In Rare B Decays,''
722: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 49} (1991) 431.
723: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C49,431;%%
724:
725: %\cite{Pott:1995if}
726: \bibitem{Pott:1995if}
727: N.~Pott,
728: %``Bremsstrahlung corrections to the decay $b \to s \gamma$,''
729: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 938
730: [hep-ph/9512252].
731: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512252;%%
732:
733: %\cite{Ligeti:1999ea}
734: \bibitem{Ligeti:1999ea}
735: Z.~Ligeti, M.~E.~Luke, A.~V.~Manohar and M.~B.~Wise,
736: %``The anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma photon spectrum,''
737: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 034019
738: [hep-ph/9903305].
739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903305;%%
740:
741: %\cite{Buras:1993xp}
742: \bibitem{Buras:1993xp}
743: A.~J.~Buras, M.~Misiak, M.~Munz and S.~Pokorski,
744: %``Theoretical uncertainties and phenomenological aspects of B $\to$ X(s) gamma
745: %decay,''
746: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 424} (1994) 374
747: [hep-ph/9311345].
748: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311345;%%
749:
750: %\cite{Ali:1990vp}
751: \bibitem{Ali:1990vp}
752: A.~Ali and C.~Greub,
753: %``A Profile Of The Final States In B $\to$ X(S) Gamma And An Estimate Of The
754: %Branching Ratio Br (B $\to$ K* Gamma),''
755: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 259} (1991) 182.
756: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B259,182;%%
757:
758: %\cite{Bauer:2000ew}
759: \bibitem{Bauer:2000ew}
760: C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming and M.~E.~Luke,
761: %``Summing Sudakov logarithms in B $\to$ X/s gamma in effective field theory,''
762: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 014006 (2001)
763: [hep-ph/0005275];
764: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005275;%%
765: %
766: %\cite{Bauer:2000yr}
767: %\bibitem{Bauer:2000yr}
768: C.~W.~Bauer, S.~Fleming, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
769: %``An effective field theory for collinear and soft gluons: Heavy to light
770: % decays,''
771: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 114020 (2001)
772: [hep-ph/0011336];
773: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011336;%%
774: %
775: %\cite{Bauer:2001ct}
776: %\bibitem{Bauer:2001ct}
777: C.~W.~Bauer and I.~W.~Stewart,
778: %``Invariant operators in collinear effective theory,''
779: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 516}, 134 (2001)
780: [hep-ph/0107001];
781: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107001;%%
782: %
783: %\cite{Bauer:2001yt}
784: %\bibitem{Bauer:2001yt}
785: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
786: %``Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory,''
787: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054022 (2002)
788: [hep-ph/0109045].
789: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109045;%%
790:
791: %\cite{Bauer:2002aj}
792: \bibitem{Bauer:2002aj}
793: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
794: %``Factorization and endpoint singularities in heavy-to-light decays,''
795: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 071502 (2003)
796: [hep-ph/0211069].
797: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211069;%%
798:
799: \bibitem{Beneke:2003pa}
800: M.~Beneke and T.~Feldmann,
801: %``Factorization of heavy-to-light form factors in soft-collinear effective
802: %theory,''
803: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685}, 249 (2004)
804: [hep-ph/0311335].
805: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311335;%%
806:
807: \bibitem{Lange:2003pk}
808: B.~O.~Lange and M.~Neubert,
809: %``Factorization and the soft overlap contribution to heavy-to-light form
810: %factors,''
811: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 690}, 249 (2004)
812: [hep-ph/0311345].
813: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311345;%%
814:
815: %\cite{Beneke:2001at}
816: \bibitem{Beneke:2001at}
817: M.~Beneke, T.~Feldmann and D.~Seidel,
818: %``Systematic approach to exclusive B $\to$ V l+ l-, V gamma decays,''
819: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 612} (2001) 25
820: [hep-ph/0106067].
821: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106067;%%
822:
823: %\cite{Bosch:2001gv}
824: \bibitem{Bosch:2001gv}
825: S.~W.~Bosch and G.~Buchalla,
826: %``The radiative decays B $\to$ V gamma at next-to-leading order in QCD,''
827: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621} (2002) 459
828: [hep-ph/0106081].
829: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106081;%%
830:
831: %\cite{Ali:2001ez}
832: \bibitem{Ali:2001ez}
833: A.~Ali and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko,
834: %``Branching ratios for B $\to$ rho gamma decays in next-to-leading order in
835: %alpha(s) including hard spectator corrections,''
836: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 89
837: [hep-ph/0105302].
838: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105302;%%
839:
840: %\cite{Chay:2003kb}
841: \bibitem{Chay:2003kb}
842: J.~g.~Chay and C.~Kim,
843: %``Rare radiative exclusive B decays in soft-collinear effective theory,''
844: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 034013 (2003)
845: [hep-ph/0305033].
846: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305033;%%
847:
848: %\cite{Leibovich:2003jd}
849: \bibitem{Leibovich:2003jd}
850: A.~K.~Leibovich, Z.~Ligeti and M.~B.~Wise,
851: %``Comment on quark masses in SCET,''
852: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 564}, 231 (2003)
853: [hep-ph/0303099].
854: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303099;%%
855:
856: \bibitem{ps1}
857: D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
858: %``A complete basis for power suppressed collinear-ultrasoft operators,''
859: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 094005 (2003)
860: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69}, 019903 (2004)]
861: [hep-ph/0211251].
862: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211251;%%
863:
864: %\cite{Beneke:2002ph}
865: \bibitem{Beneke:2002ph}
866: M.~Beneke, A.~P.~Chapovsky, M.~Diehl and T.~Feldmann,
867: %``Soft-collinear effective theory and heavy-to-light currents beyond leading
868: %power,''
869: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 431 (2002)
870: [hep-ph/0206152].
871: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206152;%%
872:
873: %\cite{Bauer:2004tj}
874: \bibitem{Bauer:2004tj}
875: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart,
876: %``B $\to$ M(1) M(2): Factorization, charming penguins, strong phases, and
877: %polarization,''
878: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 054015
879: [hep-ph/0401188].
880: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401188;%%
881:
882: %\cite{Hill:2004if}
883: \bibitem{Hill:2004if}
884: R.~J.~Hill, T.~Becher, S.~J.~Lee and M.~Neubert,
885: %``Sudakov resummation for subleading SCET currents and heavy-to-light form
886: %factors,''
887: JHEP {\bf 0407} (2004) 081
888: [hep-ph/0404217];
889: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404217;%%
890: %\cite{Becher:2004kk}
891: %%\bibitem{Becher:2004kk}
892: T.~Becher and R.~J.~Hill,
893: %``Loop corrections to heavy-to-light form factors and evanescent operators in
894: %SCET,''
895: JHEP {\bf 0410} (2004) 055
896: [hep-ph/0408344].
897: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408344;%%
898:
899: %\cite{Manohar:2002fd}
900: \bibitem{Manohar:2002fd}
901: A.~V.~Manohar, T.~Mehen, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
902: %``Reparameterization invariance for collinear operators,''
903: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539} (2002) 59
904: [hep-ph/0204229].
905: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204229;%%
906:
907: %\cite{Voloshin:1996gw}
908: \bibitem{Voloshin:1996gw}
909: M.~B.~Voloshin,
910: %``Large O(m(c)**-2) nonperturbative correction to the inclusive rate of the
911: %decay B $\to$ X/s gamma,''
912: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 397} (1997) 275
913: [hep-ph/9612483].
914: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612483;%%
915:
916: %\cite{Ligeti:1997tc}
917: \bibitem{Ligeti:1997tc}
918: Z.~Ligeti, L.~Randall and M.~B.~Wise,
919: %``Comment on nonperturbative effects in anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma,''
920: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 402} (1997) 178
921: [hep-ph/9702322].
922: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702322;%%
923:
924: %\cite{Ligeti:2001dk}
925: \bibitem{Ligeti:2001dk}
926: Z.~Ligeti, M.~E.~Luke and M.~B.~Wise,
927: %``Comment on studying the corrections to factorization in B $\to$ D(*) X,''
928: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 507} (2001) 142
929: [hep-ph/0103020];
930: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103020;%%
931: %\cite{Bauer:2002sh}
932: %\bibitem{Bauer:2002sh}
933: C.~W.~Bauer, B.~Grinstein, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,
934: %``Testing factorization in B $\to$ D(*) X decays,''
935: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 014010
936: [hep-ph/0208034].
937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208034;%%
938:
939: \end{thebibliography}
940:
941: \end{document}
942: