1: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,showpacs,floats]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

3: \usepackage{bm}

4: \usepackage{euscript,amsmath}

5: \def\calAslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.08cm}/}{{\EuScript A}}}

6: \def\nbarslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}{\bar n}}

7: \def\nslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/} {n}}

8: \def\polslash{\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/} {\varepsilon}}

9: \begin{document}

10: %

11: \vspace*{-1cm}

12: \begin{flushright}

13: DESY 06-002 \\

14: %hep-ph/0601xxx\\

15: January 2006\\

16: \end{flushright}

17: %

18: \title{\boldmath{$B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$} {\Large \bf decay in soft-collinear effective theory }}

19:  \author{A. Ali}

20:  \email[E-mail address: ]{ahmed.ali@desy.de}

21:  \affiliation{Theory Group, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, \\

22:   Notkestrasse 85, 22603 Hamburg, Germany.}

23:  \author{G. Kramer}

24:   \email[E-mail address: ]{gustav.kramer@desy.de}

25:   \author{Guohuai Zhu}

26:   \email[E-mail address: ]{guohuai.zhu@desy.de}

27:   \thanks{Alexander-von-Humboldt Fellow}

28:  \affiliation{ II. Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit{\"a}t Hamburg, \\

29: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany}

30:   \date{\today}

31: \begin{abstract}

32: We study the rare B decay $B \to K^\ast

33: \ell^+ \ell^-$ using soft-collinear effective theory (SCET).

34: At leading power in $1/m_b$, a factorization formula is obtained

35:  valid to all orders in $\alpha_s$. For phenomenological application,

36: we calculate the decay amplitude including order $\alpha_s$ corrections, and resum

37: the logarithms by evolving the matching coefficients from the hard

38: scale ${\cal O}(m_b)$ down to the scale $\sqrt{m_b \Lambda_h}$.

39: The branching ratio for $B \to K^\ast

40: \ell^+ \ell^-$ is uncertain due to the imprecise knowledge of the

41: soft form factors $\zeta_\perp (q^2)$ and $\zeta_\parallel (q^2)$.

42: Constraining the soft form factor $\zeta_\perp (q^2=0)$ from data on

43: $B \to K^* \gamma$ yields $\zeta_\perp (q^2=0)=0.32 \pm 0.02$. Using this input,

44: together with the light-cone sum rules to determine the $q^2$-dependence

45: of $\zeta_\perp (q^2)$ and the other soft form factor $\zeta_\parallel (q^2)$,

46:  we estimate

47: the partially integrated branching ratio in the range

48: $1~\mbox{GeV}^2 \le q^2 \le 7~\mbox{GeV}^2$ to be $(2.92^{+0.67}_{-0.61})

49: \times 10^{-7}$. We discuss how to reduce the form factor related uncertainty

50: by combining data on $B \to \rho (\to \pi \pi) \ell \nu_\ell$ and

51: $B\to K^* (\to K\pi) \ell^+\ell^-$.

52:  The forward-backward asymmetry is less sensitive

53: to the input parameters. In particular,

54: for the zero-point of

55: the forward-backward asymmetry in the standard model, we get

56: $q_0^2=(4.07^{+0.16}_{-0.13})

57: ~\mbox{GeV}^2$. The scale dependence of $q_0^2$ is discussed in detail.

58: \end{abstract}

59:  \pacs{13.25.Hw, 12.39.St, 12.38.Bx}

60: \maketitle

61: 

62: \section{introduction}

63: The electroweak penguin decay $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ is

64: loop-suppressed in the Standard Model(SM). It may therefore provide

65: a rigorous test of the SM and also put strong constraints on the

66: flavor physics beyond the SM.

67: 

68: Though the inclusive decay $B \to X_s \ell^+ \ell^-$ is better

69: understood theoretically using the Operator Product Expansion,

70: and the first direct experimental measurements of the dilepton

71: invariant mass spectrum and $m_X$-distribution are already at

72:  hand~\cite{Kaneko:2002mr,Aubert:2004it},

73: being an inclusive process, it is

74: extremely difficult to be measured in a hadron machine, such as the LHC,

75: which is the only collider, except for a Super-B factory,

76: that could provide enough luminosity for the precise study of the

77: decay distributions of such a rare process. In contrast, for the

78: exclusive decay $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$, the difficulty lies in

79: the imprecise knowledge of the underlying hadron dynamics.

80:  Experimentally, BaBar \cite{BaBar} and Belle \cite{Belle}

81: Collaborations have observed this rare decay with the branching ratios:

82: \begin{equation}

83: {\cal B}(B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- )=\left \{ \begin{array}{ll}

84: (7.8 ^{+1.9}_{-1.7} \pm 1.2) \times 10^{-7} & \mbox{(BaBar)}~,\\

85: (16.5^{+2.3}_{-2.2}\pm 0.9 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-7} & \mbox{(Belle)}~.

86: \end{array} \right.

87: \end{equation}

88: We note that the Belle measurements are approximately a factor 2 higher

89: than the corresponding BaBar measurements.

90: In addition, Belle has published the measurements~\cite{Belle,Abe:2005km} of the so-called

91: forward-backward asymmetry (FBA)~\cite{Ali:1991is}. In particular, the best-fit

92: results by Belle for the Wilson coefficient ratios for negative value of $A_7$,

93: \begin{eqnarray}

94: \frac{A_9}{A_7} &=&-15.3 ^{+3.4}_{-4.8} \pm 1.1 , \nonumber\\

95: \frac{A_{10}}{A_7} &=&10.3 ^{+5.2}_{-3.5} \pm 1.8~,

96: \end{eqnarray}

97: are consistent with the SM values $A_9/A_7 \simeq -13.7$ and

98: $A_{10}/A_{7} \simeq +14.9$, evaluated in the NLO approximation

99: (see Table I).

100: With more data accumulated at the current B factories, and especially the huge

101: data that will be produced at the LHC, it is foreseeable that the dilepton

102: invariant mass spectrum and the FBA in this channel will be measured precisely in several

103: years from now, allowing a few \% measurements of the Wilson coefficient ratios and the

104: sign of $A_7$.

105: 

106: Theoretically, the exclusive decay $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$  has

107: been studied in a number of papers, see for example

108: \cite{Deshpande,Lim,Ali92,Greub94,Melikhov:1997zu,Ali00}. From the viewpoint of hadron

109: dynamics, the application of the QCD factorization approach

110: \cite{BBNS} to this channel \cite{Beneke01} deserves special mention, as we

111: shall be comparing our phenomenological analysis with the results obtained

112: in this paper.

113:  The emergence of an effective theory, called

114: soft-collinear effective theory (SCET)

115: \cite{Bauer1,Bauer2,Bauer3,Beneke02,Neubert02}, provides a

116: systematic and rigorous way to deal with the perturbative strong interaction

117: effects in  B decays in the heavy-quark expansion. A lot of theoretical work

118: has been done in SCET  related to the so-called heavy-to-light

119: transitions in $B$ decays, in particular, a demonstration of the soft-collinear

120: factorization~\cite{Bauer:2001yt,Neubert04B,Beneke04,Yang04}, a complete

121: catalogue of the

122: various 2-body and 3-body current

123: operators~\cite{Neubert02,Pirjol:2002km,Beneke04},

124: and the extension of SCET to two effective theories SCET$_I$ and SCET$_{II}$,

125:  with the two-step

126: matching QCD $\to$ SCET$_I$ $\to$  SCET$_{II}$~\cite{Bauer:2002aj}.

127: Among various phenomenological applications reported in the literature,

128:  SCET has been used to prove the factorization of radiative

129: $B \to V \gamma$ decays at leading power in $1/m_b$ and to all

130: orders in $\alpha_s$~\cite{Neubert05,Kim03}. Likewise, SCET, in combination

131: with the heavy-hadron chiral perturbation theory, has also been used to

132: study the forward-backward asymmetry in the non-resonant decay

133: $B \to K \pi \ell^+ \ell^- $ in certain kinematic

134:  region~\cite{Grinstein:2005ud}.

135: In this paper, our aim

136: is to use SCET in the decay $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$. Due to the

137: similarity between $B \to K^\ast \gamma$ and $B \to K^\ast \ell^+

138: \ell^-$ decays, our approach is quite similar to the earlier

139: SCET-based studies~\cite{Neubert05,Kim03}, in particular to

140: Ref.~\cite{Neubert05}. Moreover, an analysis of the exclusive radiative

141: and semileptonic decays $ B \to K^* \gamma$ and $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ in

142: SCET can be combined with data to reduce the

143: uncertainties in the input parameters. In particular, as we show here, the

144: location of the forward-backward asymmetry in $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ can be

145: predicted more precisely than is the case in the existing literature.

146: 

147: 

148: It is well known that, when $q^2$, the momentum squared of the lepton

149: pair, is comparable to  $M^2_{J/\psi}$, the resonant

150: charmonium contributions become very important, for which there is

151: no model-independent treatment yet. Likewise, for higher $q^2$-values,

152: higher $\psi$-resonances $(\psi^\prime, \psi^{\prime\prime},...)$ have to be

153: included. Thus, in the following we will

154: restrict ourselves to the region $1~\mbox{GeV}^2 <q^2 < 7

155: ~\mbox{GeV}^2$, which is dominated by the short-distance contribution.

156:  Note that the lower

157: cut-off $1~\mbox{GeV}^2$ is taken here because, as we shall see later,

158: when $q^2$ is very small, say $q^2 \sim {\cal O}(\Lambda_{QCD}^2)$,

159: the factorization of the annihilation topology breaks down.

160: In this kinematic region, a

161: factorization formula for the decay amplitude of $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$,

162: which holds to

163:  $O(\alpha_s)$ at the leading power in $1/m_b$,

164: has been derived in Ref.~\cite{Beneke01} using the QCD factorization approach

165:  We shall

166: derive the factorization of the decay amplitude of  $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$

167: in SCET, which {\it formally} coincides with the formula obtained  

168: by Beneke et al.~\cite{Beneke01}, but is valid to all orders of $\alpha_s$: 

169: \begin{equation}

170: \langle K_a^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert H_{eff} \vert B \rangle = T^I_a(q^2)

171: \zeta_a(q^2) + \sum_{\pm} \int_0^\infty \frac{d\omega}{\omega}

172: \phi^{B}_{\pm}(\omega) \int_0^1 du ~\phi_{K^\ast}^{ a}(u)T^{II}_{a,\pm}

173: (\omega, u,q^2)~,

174: \end{equation}

175: where $a=\parallel,\perp$ denotes the polarization of the $K^\ast$

176: meson. The functions $T^I$ and $T^{II}$ are perturbatively

177: calculable. $\zeta_a(q^2)$ are the soft form factors defined in SCET while

178: $\phi^{B}_{\pm}$ and $\phi_{K^\ast}^{a}$ are the light-cone distribution

179: amplitudes (LCDAs) for the B and $K^\ast$ mesons, respectively.

180: Compared to the earlier results of Ref.

181: \cite{Beneke01}, obtained in the QCD factorization approach,

182: the main phenomenological improvement is that for

183: the hard scattering function $T^{II}$, the perturbative logarithms

184: are summed from the hard scale $\mu_b \sim {\cal O}(m_b)$ down to

185: the intermediate scale $\mu_\ell\equiv \sqrt{\mu_b \Lambda_h}$, where $\Lambda_h$

186: represents a typical hadronic scale. Note also that the

187: definitions of the soft form factors $\zeta_a(q^2)$ for our SCET currents,

188: defined subsequently in section 2, are different

189: from those of Ref.~\cite{Beneke01}, a point to which we will return later in

190: section 3. Hence, 

191: the explicit expressions for $T^I$, derived here and in   Ref.~\cite{Beneke01}

192: are also different.

193: 

194: 

195: This paper is organized as follows: In section II, we

196: briefly review the basic ideas and notations of SCET. We then list the relevant

197: effective operators in SCET and do the explicit matching calculations

198: from QCD to SCET$_I$~(Sec. II A) and from SCET$_I$ to SCET$_{II}$~(Sec.~II B).

199: The matrix elements of the effective SCET operators are given in Sec.~II C.

200: At the end of this section, the logarithmic resummation in SCET$_I$ is discussed.

201: In section III, we consider some phenomenological aspects of the $B \to K^\ast \ell^+

202: \ell^-$ decay. We first specify the input parameters, especially the soft form

203: factors $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}(q^2)$~(Sec. III A), which are the cause of the

204: largest theoretical uncertainty. We use the $q^2$-dependence of the related

205: QCD form factors in the LC-QCD sum rule approach, but fix the

206: normalization of these soft form factors using constraints from data on the

207: exclusive decays $B \to K^* \gamma$.

208: In Sec. III B, we work out numerically

209: the evolution of the B-type SCET$_I$ matching coefficients, defined earlier in Sec.~II. We then give the dilepton

210: invariant mass spectrum and the forward-backward asymmetry in the decay

211: $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$, and compare the integrated branching ratios with the measurements from

212: BaBar and Belle (Sec.~III C). We end with a summary of our results in

213: section IV and suggestions for future measurements to reduce the model

214: dependence due to the form factors and other input parameters.

215: 

216: \section{SCET analysis of $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$}

217: 

218: For the $b \to s$ transitions, the weak effective Hamiltonian can be written as

219: \begin{equation}\label{Heff}

220: H_{eff}=-\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^\ast V_{tb} \sum_{i=1}^{10} C_i

221: (\mu) Q_i (\mu)~,

222: \end{equation}

223: where we have neglected the contribution proportional to $V_{us}^\ast V_{ub}$

224: in the penguin (loop) amplitudes,

225: which is doubly Cabibbo-suppressed, and have used the unitarity of the

226: CKM matrix to factorize the overall CKM-matrix element dependence. We use the operator basis introduced in

227: \cite{Misiak97,Beneke01}:

228: \begin{equation}

229: \begin{aligned}

230: Q_1&= (\bar{s} T^A c )_{V-A}

231:          ( \bar{c} T^A b )_{V-A}~,\hspace*{1.3cm}

232: Q_2= (\bar{s} c)_{V-A}

233:          ( \bar{c} b )_{V-A}~,\\

234: Q_3&= 2~(\bar{s} b)_{V-A}

235:       \sum \limits_{q}

236:      ( \bar{q} \gamma^\mu q )~,\hspace*{1.6cm}

237: Q_4= 2~(\bar{s} T^A b)_{V-A}

238:       \sum \limits_{q}

239:      ( \bar{q} \gamma^\mu T^A q )~,\\

240: Q_5&=2~\bar{s}\gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu \gamma_\rho (1-\gamma_5)b

241:      ~\sum \limits_q (\bar{q}\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho q

242:      )~,\\

243:  Q_6&=2~\bar{s}\gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu \gamma_\rho

244:      (1-\gamma_5)T^A b~\sum \limits_q

245:      (\bar{q}\gamma^\mu \gamma^\nu \gamma^\rho T^A q )~,\\

246: Q_7&=-\frac{g_{em}\overline{m}_b}{8 \pi^2}

247: \bar{s}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(1+\gamma_5)b F_{\mu\nu}~,\hspace*{0.66cm}

248: Q_8=-\frac{g_{s}{\overline m}_b}{8 \pi^2}

249: \bar{s}\sigma^{\mu\nu}(1+\gamma_5) T^A b ~G^A_{\mu\nu}~,\\

250: Q_9&=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi} (\bar{s} b)_{V-A} (\bar{\ell}

251: \gamma^\mu \ell)~, \hspace*{1.96cm} Q_{10}=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}

252: (\bar{s}b)_{V-A} (\bar{\ell} \gamma^\mu \gamma_5 \ell)~,

253: \end{aligned}

254: \end{equation}

255: where $T^A$ is the SU(3) color matrix, $\alpha_{em}=g^2_{em}/4\pi$ is

256: the fine-structure constant, and $\overline{m}_b(\mu)$ is the current mass of

257: the b quark in the $\overline{MS}$ scheme at the scale $\mu$.

258: 

259: Restricting ourselves to the kinematic region $1~\mbox{GeV}^2 <q^2 < 7

260: ~\mbox{GeV}^2$, the light $K^\ast$ meson moves fast with a large

261: momentum of the order of $m_B/2$, which thus can be viewed approximately as

262: a collinear particle. For convenience, let us assume that the $K^\ast$

263: meson is moving in the direction of the light-like reference vector

264: $n$, then its momentum can be decomposed as $p^\mu= {\bar n}\cdot p n^\mu/2

265: + p_\perp^\mu + n \cdot p {\bar n}^\mu/2$, where ${\bar n}^\mu$ is another

266: light-like reference vector satisfying $n \cdot {\bar n}=2$. In this

267: light-cone frame, the collinear momentum of $K^\ast$ is expressed as

268: \begin{equation}

269: p=(n \cdot p,{\bar n}\cdot p,p_\perp) \sim (\lambda^2, 1,

270: \lambda)m_b~,

271: \end{equation}

272: with $\lambda \sim \Lambda/m_b \ll 1$. In addition to this collinear mode, the

273: soft and hard-collinear modes, with momenta scaling as

274: $(\lambda,\lambda,\lambda)m_b$ and $(\lambda,1,\sqrt{\lambda})m_b$,

275: respectively, are also necessary to correctly reproduce the infrared

276: behavior of full QCD.

277: 

278: SCET introduces fields for every momentum mode and we will

279: encounter the following quark and gluon fields

280: \begin{eqnarray}

281: &&\xi_c \sim \lambda~,\hspace*{0.5cm} A_{c}^\mu \sim (\lambda^2, 1,

282: \lambda)~,\hspace*{0.5cm} \xi_{hc},~\xi_{\overline hc} \sim

283: \lambda^{1/2}~,\hspace*{0.5cm} A_{hc}^\mu \sim (\lambda, 1,

284: \lambda^{1/2})~, \nonumber \\

285: &&q_s \sim \lambda^{3/2}~,\hspace*{0.5cm} A_{s}^\mu \sim (\lambda,

286: \lambda, \lambda)~,\hspace*{0.5cm} h \sim \lambda^{3/2}~.

287: \end{eqnarray}

288: %% where we have made their scale-dependence explicit.

289: In the above, the symbol $A^\mu$ stands for the gluon field, $h$ represents a

290: heavy-quark field, the symbols $\xi$ and $q$ stand for the light quark fields, and

291: the subscripts c, s, hc stand for collinear, soft and hard-collinear modes, respectively.

292: Note that the momentum $q$ of the lepton pair is taken as a hard collinear

293: momentum, since in this paper we only consider the range

294: $1~\mbox{GeV}^2 <q^2 < 7 ~\mbox{GeV}^2$.

295: That is why an extra hard-collinear field $\xi_{\overline hc}$ in the

296: $\bar{n}$ direction is required later. As explained in detail

297: in Ref.~\cite{Neubert05}, to construct the gauge

298: invariant operators in SCET, it is more convenient to introduce the

299: building blocks, given below, which are obtained by multiplying the fields by

300:  the Wilson lines which run along the light-ray to infinity:

301: \begin{equation}

302: {\EuScript X}_{c}~,~~{\EuScript A}^\mu_{c}~,~~

303: {\EuScript X}_{hc}~,~~{\EuScript X}_{\overline hc}~,~~{\EuScript

304: A}^\mu_{hc}~,~~{\EuScript Q}_{s}~,~~{\EuScript

305: A}^\mu_{s}~,~~{\EuScript H}_{s}~,~~{\EuScript Q}_{\bar{s}}~,~~{\EuScript

306: H}_{\bar{s}}~.

307: \end{equation}

308: For example, the field ${\EuScript X}_{hc}$ is defined as

309: \begin{equation}

310: {\EuScript X}_{hc}(x)= W_{hc}^\dagger (x) \xi_{hc}(x);

311: ~~{\rm with}~~W_{hc}(x) = P \exp \left(ig \int_{-\infty}^{0} ds \bar{n}\cdot A_{hc} (x + s \bar{n})\right),

312: \end{equation}

313: where $W_{hc}(x)$ is the hard collinear Wilson line.

314: The notations ${\EuScript Q}_{\bar{s}}$ and

315: $ {\EuScript H}_{\bar{s}} $ are used when the associated soft Wilson

316: lines are in the $\bar{n}$-direction.

317: For the definitions of the other fields and more technical details about SCET,

318:  we refer the reader to Ref.~\cite{Neubert05} and references therein.

319: 

320: Since SCET contains two kinds of collinear fields, {\it i.e.} hard-collinear

321: and collinear fields, normally an intermediate effective theory,

322: called $\mbox{SCET}_I$, is introduced which contains only soft and

323: hard-collinear fields. While the final effective theory, called

324: $\mbox{SCET}_{II}$, contains only soft and collinear fields. We will

325: then do a two-step matching from $QCD \to \mbox{SCET}_I \to

326: \mbox{SCET}_{II}$.

327: 

328: \subsection{QCD to $\mbox{SCET}_I$ matching}

329: In $\mbox{SCET}_I$, the $K^\ast$ meson is taken as a hard-collinear

330: particle and the relevant building blocks are ${\EuScript

331: X}_{hc}$, ${\EuScript X}_{\overline{hc}}$, ${\EuScript A}^\mu_{hc}$ and

332: $h$. The velocity of the B meson is

333: defined as $v=P_B/m_B$. The matching from QCD to $\mbox{SCET}_I$

334: at leading power may be expressed as

335: \begin{eqnarray}

336: H_{eff} \to & &-\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} V_{ts}^\ast V_{tb} \left (

337: \sum_{i=1}^4 \int \! ds~\widetilde{C}_i^A (s) J_i^A (s) + \sum_{j=1}^4

338: \int \! ds \int \! dr~\widetilde{C}_j^B (s,r) J_j^B

339: (s,r) \right . \nonumber \\

340: & & \left . +\int \! ds \int \! dr \int \! dt

341: ~\widetilde{C}^C(s,r,t) J^C(s,r,t)\right )~,

342: \end{eqnarray}

343: where $\widetilde{C}_i^{(A,B)}$ and $\widetilde{C}^C $ are Wilson coefficients in

344: the position space. The relevant $\mbox{SCET}_I$ operators

345: for the $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay are constructed by using the

346: building blocks mentioned above~\cite{Neubert05}:

347: \begin{equation}

348: \begin{aligned}

349: J_1^A&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\mu

350: h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \ell~,\hspace*{1cm} J_2^A=\bar{\EuScript

351: X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)

352: \frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot v} h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \ell~,  \\

353: J_3^A&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\mu

354: h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,\hspace*{0.6cm}

355: J_4^A=\bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)

356: \frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot v} h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,   \\

357: J_1^B&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\mu

358: \calAslash_{hc\perp}(r\bar{n})h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \ell~,  \\

359: J_2^B&=\bar{\EuScript

360: X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\calAslash_{hc\perp}

361: (r\bar{n})\frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot v} h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \ell~, \\

362: J_3^B&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\mu

363: \calAslash_{hc\perp}(r\bar{n})h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,  \\

364: J_4^B&=\bar{\EuScript

365: X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\calAslash_{hc\perp}

366: (r\bar{n})\frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot v} h(0)~ \bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,  \\

367: J^C&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nbarslash}

368: {2} {\EuScript X}_{hc}(r\bar{n})~\bar{\EuScript

369: X}_{\overline hc}(an)(1+\gamma_5)

370: \frac{\nslash}{2} h(0)~,

371: \end{aligned}

372: \end{equation}

373: where the operators $J_i^A$ and $J_j^B$ represent the cases that the

374: lepton pair is emitted from the $b \to s$ transition currents, while

375: $J^C$ represents the diagrams in which the lepton pair is

376: emitted from the spectator quark of the B meson. Except

377: the lepton pair, the operators $J_i^{A,B}$ have the same Dirac

378: structures as those of the heavy-to-light transition currents in SCET,

379: which were first derived in Ref.~\cite{Bauer2} for $J_i^A$ and in

380: Refs.~\cite{Pirjol:2002km,Bauer:2002aj} for $J_j^B$ (see, also 

381: Refs.~\cite{Yang04,Neubert04}). In this paper we take the

382: operator basis of \cite{Neubert04,Neubert05} which makes $J_j^B$

383: multiplicatively renormalized, but we have neglected the operators which contain

384: the Dirac structure $\calAslash_{hc\perp}\gamma_\perp^\mu$ and which do not

385: contribute to the exclusive B meson decays. It is also clear that the

386: structure

387: $\bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell$ arises solely from $Q_{10}$ of

388: the weak effective Hamiltonian.

389: 

390: Since in practice the matching calculations are done

391: in the momentum space, it is more convenient to define the Wilson

392: coefficients in the momentum space by the following

393: Fourier-transformations:

394: \begin{equation}

395: \begin{aligned}

396: C_i^A(E)&=\int \! ds~e^{is\bar{n}\cdot P}

397: \widetilde{C}_i^A(s)~, \\

398: C_j^B(E,u)&=\int \! ds \int \! dr~e^{i(us+{\bar u}r){\bar n}\cdot P}

399: \widetilde{C}_j^B (s,r)~, \\

400: C^C(E,u)&=\int \! ds \int \! dr \int \! da~e^{i(us+{\bar

401: u}r){\bar n}\cdot P} e^{i an\cdot q} \widetilde{C}^C

402: (s,r,a)~,

403: \end{aligned}

404: \end{equation}

405: with $E\equiv n\cdot v {\bar n}\cdot P/2$ and ${\bar u}=1-u$. To get the

406: order $\alpha_s$ corrections to the decay amplitude, we need to

407: calculate the Wilson coefficients $C_i^A$ to one-loop level and

408: $C_j^{B}$ and $C^{C}$ to tree level. In the following we will use $\Delta_j

409: C_i^{(A,B,C)}$ to denote the matching results from the weak

410: effective operators $Q_j$ to the SCET currents $J_i^{A,B,C}$. With this,

411: the matching coefficients from $QCD \to \mbox{SCET}_I$ can be

412: written as

413: \begin{equation}

414: C_i^{(A,B,C)}= \sum_{j=1}^{10} \Delta_j

415: C_i^{(A,B,C)}(\mu_{QCD},\mu)~,

416: \end{equation}

417: where $\mu_{QCD}$ is the matching scale and $\mu$ is the

418: renormalization scale in $\mbox{SCET}_I$.

419: 

420: \begin{figure}[tb]

421: \begin{center}

422: \unitlength 1mm

423: \begin{picture}(140,81)

424: \put(0,0){\includegraphics{kllfig1.ps}}

425: \end{picture}

426: \vspace*{-0.2cm}

427: \caption{${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ contributions to the

428: matching of $Q_i$ to A-type SCET currents. The crossed circles denote

429: the possible locations from where the virtual photon is emitted and

430: then splits into a lepton pair.}

431: \end{center}

432: \end{figure}

433: Each operator of the weak effective Hamiltonian, namely $Q_{1-10}$,

434: will contribute to $C_i^A$ at order $\alpha_s$ level, as shown in

435: Fig. 1. But due to the small Wilson coefficients $C_{3-6}$, it

436: is numerically reasonable to neglect the contributions from

437: $Q_{3-6}$. For the operators $Q_{1,2}$ and $Q_8$, the results can be

438: easily derived from Eqs. (11) and (25) of Ref. \cite{Asatryan}:

439: \begin{equation}

440: \begin{aligned}

441: \Delta_{1,2} C_1^A(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

442: QCD}})&=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

443: QCD}})}{4\pi}\left [

444: \frac{1}{\hat{s}}(2F_2^{(7)}+\hat{s}F_2^{(9)})\bar{C}_2 +

445: 2(F_1^{(9)}+F_2^{(9)}/6)\bar{C}_1 \right ]~, \\

446: \Delta_{1,2} C_2^A(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

447: QCD}})&=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

448: QCD}})}{4\pi}\left [ (2F_2^{(7)}+F_2^{(9)})\bar{C}_2 +

449: 2(F_1^{(9)}+F_2^{(9)}/6)\bar{C}_1 \right ]~, \\

450: \Delta_8 C_1^A(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

451: QCD}})&=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

452: QCD}})}{4\pi}\frac{\overline{m}_b(\mu_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

453: QCD})}{m_b}

454: \left [ \frac{2}{\hat{s}}F_8^{(7)}+F_8^{(9)} \right ] C_8^{eff}~, \\

455: \Delta_8 C_2^A(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

456: QCD}})&=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\alpha_s(\mu_{\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

457: QCD}})}{4\pi}\frac{\overline{m}_b(\mu_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle

458: QCD})}{m_b} \left [ 2 F_8^{(7)}+F_8^{(9)} \right ] C_8^{eff}~,

459: \end{aligned}

460: \end{equation}

461: where $\hat{s} \equiv q^2/m_b^2$ and $m_b$ is the pole mass of the b quark.

462: The current mass $\overline{m}_b$ is related to the pole mass at

463: next-to-leading order by

464: \begin{equation}

465: \overline{m}_b(\mu)=m_b \left [ 1+\frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi} \left (

466: 3\ln \frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}-4 \right )  \right ]~,

467: \end{equation}

468: where $C_F=4/3$.

469: The functions $F_{1,2,8}^{(7,9)}$ are given in a mixed analytic and

470: numerical form in Ref. \cite{Asatryan}. Following the convention of Ref.

471: \cite{Beneke01}, we also use the "barred" coefficients

472: $\bar{C}_i$(i=1,...,6) here which are the linear combinations of the

473: Wilson coefficients $C_i$  of the weak effective Hamiltonian in

474: Eq.~(\ref{Heff}). The effective Wilson coefficient $C_8^{eff}$ is

475: defined as $C_8^{eff}=C_8+C_3-C_4/6+20C_5-10C_6$.

476: 

477: For the operators $Q_7$, $Q_9$ and $Q_{10}$, the matchings to the

478: A-type currents give

479: \begin{equation}

480: \begin{aligned}

481: \Delta_7 C_1^A&=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}

482: \frac{\overline{m}_b(\mu_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle QCD})}{m_b}

483: \frac{2}{\hat{s}}\widetilde{C}_9 C_7^{eff}~, \hspace*{1cm} \Delta_7

484: C_2^A=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}

485: \frac{\overline{m}_b(\mu_\mathrm{\scriptscriptstyle QCD})}{m_b}

486: 2\widetilde{C}_{10} C_7^{eff}~, \\

487: \Delta_9 C_1^A&=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\widetilde{C}_3 C_9^{eff}~,

488: \hspace*{3cm}\Delta_9 C_2^A=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}

489: \left ( \widetilde{C}_4+\frac{1-\hat{s}}{2}\widetilde{C}_5 \right )

490: C_9^{eff}~,\\

491: \Delta_{10}C_3^A&=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\widetilde{C}_3

492: C_{10}~,\hspace*{3.1cm} \Delta_{10}C_4^A=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}

493: \left (\widetilde{C}_4+\frac{1-\hat{s}}{2}\widetilde{C}_5 \right )

494: C_{10}~.

495: \end{aligned}

496: \end{equation}

497: To avoid confusion with the Wilson coefficients in Eq.

498: (\ref{Heff}), we use the notations $\widetilde{C}_i$ for the

499: matching coefficients, instead of $C_i$ used originally in

500: Ref.~\cite{Bauer2}. The explicit expressions of $\widetilde{C}_i$ up

501: to one-loop order can be read from \cite{Bauer2,Yang04}. Note that

502: although the operator basis of the tensor current in \cite{Yang04}

503: looks slightly different from that of \cite{Bauer2}, they are

504: actually the same and it is easy to find the relations

505: $\widetilde{C}_9=C_T^{(A0)2}$ and $\widetilde{C}_{10}=C_T^{(A0)1}$.

506: The effective Wilson coefficients are defined as

507: $C_7^{eff}=C_7-C_3/3-4C_4/9-20C_5/3-80C_6/9$ and

508: $C_9^{eff}(q^2)=C_9+Y(q^2)$, where the function $Y(q^2)$ represents the

509: contributions of the fermion loops and the explicit formula can be

510: found in \cite{Beneke01}.

511: 

512: \begin{figure}[tb]

513: \begin{center}

514: \unitlength 1mm

515: \begin{picture}(140,54)

516: \put(0,0){\includegraphics{kllfig2.ps}}

517: \end{picture}

518: \vspace*{-0.2cm} \caption{Tree-level matching of $Q_i$ onto B-type

519: SCET currents. The crossed circles denote the possible locations from

520: where the virtual photon is emitted, while the crosses mark the

521: possible places where a gluon line may be attached. }

522: \end{center}

523: \end{figure}

524: %

525: To get the decay amplitude of $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ in order

526: $\alpha_s$, the tree-level matching of the effective weak

527: Hamiltonian (4) onto B-type SCET currents (11) is already enough, as

528: illustrated in Fig. 2. If we use the notation $\Delta_{16} C^B_i$ to

529: stand for the matchings of $Q_{1-6}$ onto B-type SCET currents

530: $J^B_i$, namely $\Delta_{16} C^B_i \equiv \sum_{j=1}^6 \Delta_j C^B_i$,

531: we get from Fig. 2a that

532: \begin{equation}

533: \begin{aligned}

534: \Delta_{16}C_1^B&=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{1}{m_b\hat{s}}

535: \left ( \frac{2}{3}

536: F_{16}^\perp(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)(\bar{C}_2+\bar{C}_4-\bar{C}_6)-\frac{1}{3}

537: F_{16}^\perp(u,\hat{s},0)\bar{C}_3 - \right . \\

538: &\hspace*{3cm}\left. \frac{1}{3}

539: F_{16}^\perp(u,\hat{s},1)(\bar{C}_3+\bar{C}_4-\bar{C}_6-4\bar{C}_5) \right

540: )~,

541: \\

542: \Delta_{16}C_2^B&=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{2}{m_b} \left (

543: \frac{2}{3}

544: F_{16}^\parallel(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)(\bar{C}_2+\bar{C}_4-\bar{C}_6)-\frac{1}{3}

545: F_{16}^\parallel(u,\hat{s},0)\bar{C}_3- \right. \\

546: &\hspace*{3cm} \left. \frac{1}{3}

547: F_{16}^\parallel(u,\hat{s},1)(\bar{C}_3+\bar{C}_4-\bar{C}_6) \right )~,

548: \end{aligned}

549: \end{equation}

550: where $u$ is the momentum fraction carried by the strange quark in

551: the ${K}^\ast$ meson. The functions $F_{16}^{\perp,\parallel}$

552: are defined as

553: \begin{eqnarray}\label{F16perp}

554: F_{16}^\perp(u,\hat{s},\lambda)&=&1+\frac{2}{(1-\hat{s})(1-u)}\left (

555: \hat{s} \left ( \frac{\sqrt{-\hat{s}+4\lambda}}{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}

556: \arctan

557: \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}{\sqrt{-\hat{s}+4\lambda}} - \hspace*{2.5cm}\right . \right . \nonumber \\

558: &&\left.

559: \frac{\sqrt{-1+u-\hat{s}u+4\lambda}}{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}\arctan

560: \frac{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}{\sqrt{-1+u-\hat{s}u+4\lambda}} \right

561: )+ \lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

562: \frac{2\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}-\sqrt{\hat{s}-4\lambda}}

563: \right ) \nonumber \\

564: &&+ \lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

565: \frac{2\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}+\sqrt{\hat{s}-4\lambda}}\right

566: ) -\lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

567: \frac{2\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}+\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u-4\lambda}}\right

568: ) \nonumber \\

569: && \left. -\lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

570: \frac{2\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}-\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u-4\lambda}}\right

571: ) \right )~,

572: \end{eqnarray}

573: \begin{eqnarray}\label{F16para}

574: F_{16}^\parallel(u,\hat{s},\lambda)&=&2\hat{s}+\frac{4\hat{s}}{(1-\hat{s})(1-u)}\left

575: ( (1-u+u\hat{s}) \left (

576: \frac{\sqrt{-\hat{s}+4\lambda}}{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}} \arctan

577: \frac{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}{\sqrt{-\hat{s}+4\lambda}} - \right . \right .

578: \nonumber \\

579: &&\left .\frac{\sqrt{-1+u-\hat{s}u+4\lambda}}{

580: \sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}\arctan

581: \frac{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}{\sqrt{-1+u-\hat{s}u+4\lambda}} \right

582: )+\lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

583: \frac{2\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}-\sqrt{\hat{s}-4\lambda}}

584: \right )

585: \nonumber \\

586: && +\lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

587: \frac{2\sqrt{\hat{s}~}}{\sqrt{\hat{s}~}+\sqrt{\hat{s}-4\lambda}}\right

588: ) - \lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

589: \frac{2\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}+\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u-4\lambda}}\right

590: )\nonumber \\

591: && - \left. \lambda~ \mbox{Li}_2 \left (

592: \frac{2\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}}{\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u}-\sqrt{1-(1-\hat{s})u-4\lambda}}\right

593: ) \right )~.

594: \end{eqnarray}

595: As a check, it is not difficult to find the following relations

596: \[

597: F_{16}^\perp(u,\hat{s},\frac{m_q^2}{m_b^2})=t_\perp(u,m_q)\times \frac{(1-u)E}{2M_B}~,

598: \hspace*{1cm} F_{16}^\parallel(u,\hat{s},\frac{m_q^2}{m_b^2})=t_\parallel(u,m_q)\times

599: \frac{\hat{s}(1-u)E}{M_B}~,

600: \]

601: where the functions $t_{\perp,\parallel}(u,m_q)$ are defined in

602: Eqs.~(27)-(28) in the paper by Beneke

603: {\it et al.}~\cite{Beneke01}. We also note that the functions

604: $F_{16}^\perp(u,\hat{s},\lambda)$ and $F_{16}^\parallel(u,\hat{s},\lambda)$

605: are finite as $\bar{u}=1-u \to 0$, as opposed to the functions

606: $t_{\perp,\parallel}(u,m_q)$, which are singular as $\bar{u} \to 0$.

607: 

608: Fig.~2d and the operator $Q_9$ of Fig.~2f, combined with Fig.~2b,

609: will contribute to the matching coefficients

610: $\Delta_{7,9}C_{1,2}^B$, while the operator $Q_{10}$ of Fig.~2f will

611: contribute to $\Delta_{10} C_{3,4}^B$:

612: \begin{equation}

613: \begin{aligned}

614: \Delta_7 C_1^B&=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\overline{m}_b}{m_b^2

615: \hat{s}} 2 C_7^{eff}~, \hspace*{0.5cm}

616: \Delta_7C_2^B=\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\overline{m}_b}{m_b^2

617: (1-\hat{s})} 2 C_7^{eff}~, \\

618: \Delta_9 C_1^B&=0~, \hspace*{3.2cm}

619: \Delta_9C_2^B=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{1-2\hat{s}}{m_b(1-\hat{s})}

620: C_9^{eff}~, \\

621: \Delta_{10} C_3^B&=0~, \hspace*{3.05cm}

622: \Delta_{10}C_4^B=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{1-2\hat{s}}{m_b(1-\hat{s})}

623: C_{10}~.

624: \end{aligned}

625: \end{equation}

626: Finally, Fig.~2e and Fig.~2c contribute to the matching

627: coefficients

628: \begin{equation}

629: \Delta_8 C_1^B=-\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}\frac{\overline{m}_b}{m_b^2}

630: \frac{2(1-u)(1-\hat{s})}{3\hat{s}(u+\hat{s}-u \hat{s})}C_8^{eff}~,

631: \hspace*{1.5cm} \Delta_8 C_2^B=0~.

632: \end{equation}

633: \begin{figure}[tb]

634: \begin{center}

635: \unitlength 1mm

636: \begin{picture}(140,73)

637: \put(0,0){\includegraphics{kllfig3.ps}}

638: \end{picture}

639: \vspace*{-0.2cm} \caption{The diagrams where

640: the virtual photon, as

641: denoted by the crossed circle, is emitted from the spectator quark.}

642: \end{center}

643: \end{figure}

644: We shall now consider the diagrams where

645: the virtual (off-shell) photon is emitted from the spectator quark, as shown in

646: Fig.~3. Due to the off-shellness of the quark propagator, it is easy

647: to check that Fig.~(3d-3f) are of  order $1/m_b$ suppressed compared

648: with Fig.~(3a-3c) where the photon is emitted from the spectator

649: quark in the B meson. Therefore at leading power in $1/m_b$, only the

650: first three diagrams in Fig.~3 are relevant for our analysis. As we

651: shall see in the following, all of these three diagrams contribute

652: to the Wilson coefficients of the C-type SCET current.

653: 

654: The annihilation diagram, shown in Fig.~3a, contributes to the matching

655: coefficient $C^C$ at order $\alpha_s^0$, for which the calculation is

656: trivial,

657: \begin{equation}\label{anni1}

658: \Delta_{16}^{(0)} C^C =

659: \frac{2}{3}\left ( -\frac{V_{us}^\ast V_{ub}}{V_{ts}^\ast

660: V_{tb}}(\bar{C}_1+3\bar{C}_2)\delta_{qu}+(\bar{C}_3+3\bar{C}_4)\right

661: )~.

662: \end{equation}

663: %%$e_q$ is the electric charge of the spectator quark in the B meson and

664: Here $q$ is the flavor of the spectator quark in the B meson and the

665: superscript $(0)$ denotes the matching at order

666: $\alpha_s^0$. At order $\alpha_s$, the diagrams shown in Figs.~(3b-3c) also contribute to

667: the matching onto the C-type SCET current with the coefficients

668: \begin{equation}\label{anni2}

669: \begin{aligned}

670: \Delta_8

671: C^C&=\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}

672: \frac{-4C_8^{eff}}{1-u+u\hat{s}}~, \\

673: \Delta_{16}^{(1)} C^C &=

674: 2\frac{C_F}{N_c}\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \left \{ \frac{}{}

675: (\bar{C}_2+\bar{C}_4+\bar{C}_6)G(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)+

676: (\bar{C}_3+3\bar{C}_4+3\bar{C}_6)G(u,\hat{s},0) \right .\\

677:  &\hspace*{2.5cm} \left. +

678: (\bar{C}_3+\bar{C}_4+\bar{C}_6)G(u,\hat{s},1)+

679:  \frac{4}{9}(\bar{C}_3-\bar{C}_5-15\bar{C}_6)

680: \right \}~,

681: \end{aligned}

682: \end{equation}

683: where the function $G(u,\hat{s},\lambda)$ is defined as

684: \begin{equation}

685: G(u,\hat{s},\lambda)=\frac{2}{3}+\frac{2}{3}\ln \frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}+

686: 4\int_0^1 \! dx~x(1-x)\ln [\lambda-x(1-x)(1-u+u\hat{s}) ]~.

687: \end{equation}

688: %%For later convenience, the notation $\Delta_i \widehat{C}^C

689: %%\equiv  (\omega-q^2/m_b)\Delta_i C^C$ is introduced.

690: %

691: \subsection{$\mbox{SCET}_I \to \mbox{SCET}_{II}$ matching}

692: As shown in Refs.~\cite{Bauer:2002aj,Neubert04B}, which analyzed the form factors

693: in the framework of SCET, one may simply define the matrix

694: elements of the A-type $\mbox{SCET}_I$ currents as non-perturbative

695: input since the non-factorizable parts of the form factors are all

696: contained in such matrix elements. Therefore the explicit matching

697: of $J_i^A$ to $\mbox{SCET}_{II}$ operators is not necessary here.

698: 

699: For B-type $\mbox{SCET}_I$ operators, they are matched onto the

700: following $\mbox{SCET}_{II}$ operators

701: \begin{equation}

702: \begin{aligned}

703: O_1^B&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{c}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\mu

704: \frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_{c}(0)~\bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}(t

705: n)(1-\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2}{\EuScript H}_{s}(0)~ \bar{\ell}

706: \gamma_\mu \ell~, \\

707: O_2^B&=\bar{\EuScript

708: X}_{c}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot

709: v}\frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_{c}(0)~\bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}(t

710: n)(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2}{\EuScript H}_{s}(0)~ \bar{\ell}

711: \gamma_\mu \ell~, \\

712: O_3^B&=\bar{\EuScript X}_{c}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\mu

713: \frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_{c}(0)~\bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}(t

714: n)(1-\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2}{\EuScript H}_{s}(0)~ \bar{\ell}

715: \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~, \\

716: O_4^B&=\bar{\EuScript

717: X}_{c}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot

718: v}\frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_{c}(0)~\bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}(t

719: n)(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2}{\EuScript H}_{s}(0)~ \bar{\ell}

720: \gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,

721: \end{aligned}

722: \end{equation}

723: where we only include the color-singlet operators that have non-zero

724: matrix elements for the $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay. Again,

725: it is in practice more convenient to do the matching calculations in

726: the momentum space, and the Wilson coefficients $D_i^B(\omega,u)$ can be

727: defined by Fourier transforming the corresponding ones

728:  $\tilde{D}_i^B(s,t)$ introduced in

729: the position space, just like the case in $\mbox{SCET}_I$,

730: \begin{equation}

731: D_i^B(\omega,u)=\int \! ds \int \! dt~ e^{-i\omega n\cdot v t}

732: e^{ius\bar{n}\cdot P} \tilde{D}_i^B (s,t).

733: \end{equation}

734: Following the notations of \cite{Neubert05}, the Wilson coefficients

735: $D_i^B$ can be expressed as

736: \begin{equation}

737: D_i^B(\omega, u, \hat{s}, \mu)=\frac{1}{\omega}\int_0^1 \! dv~{\cal J}_i \left

738: ( u,v,\ln\frac{m_b \omega (1-\hat{s})}{\mu^2},\mu \right )

739: C_i^B(v,\mu)~,

740: \end{equation}

741: where the jet functions ${\cal J}_i$ arise from the $\mbox{SCET}_I

742: \to \mbox{SCET}_{II}$ matching and it is clear that ${\cal

743: J}_1={\cal J}_3\equiv {\cal J}_\perp$ and ${\cal J}_2={\cal

744: J}_4\equiv {\cal J}_\parallel$. At tree level, using the

745: Fierz transformation in the operator basis,

746: \begin{equation}

747: \begin{aligned}

748: \bar{\EuScript X}_c N {\EuScript H}_{s}~\bar{\EuScript Q}_{s} M

749: {\EuScript X}_c &=-\frac{1}{4}\bar{\EuScript

750: X}_c(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_{c}~

751: \bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}M(1-\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2}N{\EuScript

752: H}_{s}-\frac{1}{4}\bar{\EuScript

753: X}_c(1-\gamma_5)\frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_{c} \\

754: & \times \bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}M(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2}N{\EuScript

755: H}_{s}-\frac{1}{8}\bar{\EuScript

756: X}_c(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nbarslash}{2}\gamma_{\perp \alpha}{\EuScript

757: X}_{c}~ \bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}M(1+\gamma_5)\gamma_\perp^\alpha

758: \frac{\nslash}{2}N{\EuScript H}_{s}~,

759: \end{aligned}

760: \end{equation}

761: one obtains

762: \begin{equation}

763: {\cal J}_\perp(u,v)={\cal J}_\parallel(u,v)=-\frac{4\pi C_F

764: \alpha_s}{N_c}\frac{1}{m_b(1-u)(1-\hat{s})}\delta (u-v)~.

765: \end{equation}

766: Finally, the C-type $\mbox{SCET}_I$ current is matched

767: onto the $\mbox{SCET}_{II}$ operator

768: \begin{equation}

769: O^C=\bar{\EuScript X}_{c}(s\bar{n})(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nbarslash}{2}

770: {\EuScript X}_{c}(0)~\bar{\EuScript Q}_{\bar s}(t \bar

771: {n})(1+\gamma_5)\frac{\nslash}{2} {\EuScript

772: H}_{\bar s}(0)~ \frac{\bar{n}^\mu}{\bar{n}\cdot v}\bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu 

773: \ell~.

774: \end{equation}

775: We may similarly define

776: \begin{equation}

777: D^C(\omega,u)=\int \! ds \int \! dt~ e^{-i\omega \bar{n}\cdot v t}

778: e^{ius\bar{n}\cdot P} \tilde{D}^C (s,t).

779: \end{equation}

780: with

781: \begin{equation}

782: D^C(\omega, u, \hat{s}, \mu)=\frac{-e

783: e_q \hat{s}}{(\omega-q^2/m_b-i\epsilon)}{\cal J}^C

784: \left

785: (\ln\frac{m_b \omega (1-\hat{s})}{\mu^2},\mu \right )

786: C^C(E,u,\mu)~,

787: \end{equation}

788: where $e_q$ is the electric charge of the spectator quark in the B

789: meson. At tree level the corresponding jet function is

790: trivial, ${\cal J}^C=1$. For later convenience, we will define

791: $D^C \equiv \widehat{D}^C/(\omega-q^2/m_b-i\epsilon)$.

792: \subsection{Matrix elements of SCET operators}

793: The last step before we can finally get the decay amplitude for the $B

794: \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay is to take the matrix elements of

795: the relevant SCET operators. For the A-type SCET currents (11), one may

796: simply define~\cite{Neubert05}

797: \begin{equation}\label{SCETff}

798: \langle M(p)\vert \bar{\EuScript X}_{hc}\Gamma h \vert

799: B(v)\rangle=-2E\zeta_M(E)tr[\overline{\cal M}_M(n)\Gamma {\cal

800: M}_B(v)]~,

801: \end{equation}

802: where the projection operators are

803: \begin{equation}

804: {\cal M}_B(v)=-\frac{1+\rlap{\hspace{0.02cm}/}v}{2} \gamma_5~,

805: \hspace*{1cm} \overline{\cal M}_{K^\ast_\perp}(n)=\polslash^*_\perp

806: \frac{\nbarslash \nslash}{4}~,\hspace*{1cm} \overline{\cal

807: M}_{K^\ast_\parallel}(n)=-\frac{\nbarslash \nslash}{4}~,

808: \end{equation}

809: with $\varepsilon^\mu_\perp$ being the polarization vector of the

810:  $K^\ast_\perp$ meson. It is then straightforward to get the matrix elements

811:  of the $\mbox{SCET}_I$ currents $J_i^A$ as

812: \begin{equation}

813: \begin{aligned}

814: \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert J_1^A \vert B \rangle &=-2E

815: \zeta_\perp(g^{\mu\nu}_\perp - i\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_\perp )

816: \varepsilon^{*}_{\perp\nu} \bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \ell~,

817: \hspace*{0.9cm} \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert J_2^A \vert B

818: \rangle =-2E \zeta_\parallel

819: \frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot v} \bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \ell~, \\

820: \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert J_3^A \vert B \rangle &=-2E

821: \zeta_\perp(g^{\mu\nu}_\perp - i\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_\perp )

822: \varepsilon^{*}_{\perp\nu} \bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,

823: \hspace*{0.5cm} \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert J_4^A \vert B

824: \rangle =-2E \zeta_\parallel \frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot v}

825: \bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell~,

826: \end{aligned}

827: \end{equation}

828: where $g^{\mu\nu}_\perp \equiv g^{\mu\nu}-(n^\mu {\bar n}^\nu+{\bar

829: n}^\mu n^\nu)/2$ and $\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_\perp\equiv

830: \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}v_\rho n_\sigma/(n\cdot v)$. Note that in the

831: above equations, we use the convention $\epsilon^{0123}=+1$, as adopted in

832: the book by Peskin and Schroeder \cite{Peskin}.

833: 

834: For the B-type $\mbox{SCET}_{II}$ operators (25), although naively the soft

835: and collinear degrees of freedom seem to be decoupled, the factorization may

836: be invalidated unless no endpoint divergences appear in the

837: convolution integrals \cite{Beneke04,Neubert04B}. The relevant meson

838: LCDAs are defined as \cite{BBNS,Neubert97}

839: \begin{equation}

840: \begin{aligned}

841: \langle 0 \vert \bar{\EuScript Q}_{s}(tn)\Gamma {\EuScript H}_{

842: s}(0) \vert B(v)\rangle=&\frac{iF(\mu)}{2}\sqrt{m_B}\int_0^\infty \!

843: d\omega~e^{-i\omega n\cdot v t} \\

844: &\hspace*{-0.5cm}tr \left [ \left (

845: \phi^B_+(\omega,\mu)-\frac{\nslash}{2n\cdot v}

846: (\phi^B_-(\omega,\mu)-\phi^B_+(\omega,\mu))\right ) \Gamma

847: {\cal M}_B(v) \right ]~,\\

848: \langle K^\ast(p) \vert \bar{\EuScript X}_c(s\bar{n})\Gamma

849: \frac{\nbarslash}{2}{\EuScript X}_c(0) \vert 0 \rangle =&

850: \frac{if_{K^\ast}(\mu)}{4}\bar{n}\cdot p~ tr[\overline{\cal

851: M}_{K^\ast}\Gamma]\int_0^1 \! du~e^{ius\bar{n}\cdot p}

852: \phi_{K^\ast}(u,\mu)~,

853: \end{aligned}

854: \end{equation}

855: where two different $K^*$-distribution amplitudes

856: ($\phi_{K^*}^\parallel(u,\mu)  $

857: for $\Gamma=1$ and $\phi_{K^*}^\perp(u,\mu)  $

858: for $\Gamma=\gamma_\perp$) with their corresponding decay constants

859: $f_{K^*}^\parallel$ and 

860: $f_{K^*}^\perp(\mu)$, respectively, are involved;  

861:  $F(\mu)$ is related to the B meson decay constant $f_B$ up to higher

862: orders in $1/m_b$ by \cite{Neubert94}

863: \begin{equation}

864:  f_B \sqrt{m_B}=F(\mu) \left ( 1+\frac{C_F \alpha_s(\mu)}{4\pi}

865:                             \left ( 3\ln\frac{m_b}{\mu}-2 \right )

866: \right )~.

867: \end{equation}

868: With the above LCDAs, the matrix elements of the operators $O_i^B$

869: can be written as

870: \begin{equation}

871: \begin{aligned}

872: \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert C_1^B O_1^B \vert B \rangle

873: &=-\frac{F(\mu)m_B^{3/2}}{4}(1-\hat{s})(g^{\mu\nu}_\perp -

874: i\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_\perp )

875: \varepsilon^{*}_{\perp\nu}\bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \ell~\int_0^\infty

876: \frac{d\omega}{\omega}\phi_+^B(\omega,\mu)\\ & \times \int_0^1 \! du~

877: f_{K^\ast_\perp}(\mu)\phi_{K^\ast_\perp}(u,\mu) \int_0^1 \! dv {\cal

878: J}_\perp(u,v,\ln \frac{m_b \omega

879: (1-\hat{s})}{\mu^2},\mu)C_1^B(v,\mu) \\

880: &\equiv-\frac{F(\mu)m_B^{3/2}}{4}(1-\hat{s})(g^{\mu\nu}_\perp -

881: i\epsilon^{\mu\nu}_\perp )

882: \varepsilon^{*}_{\perp\nu}\bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \ell~ \phi_+^B

883: \otimes f_{K^\ast_\perp}\phi_{K^\ast_\perp} \otimes {\cal J}_\perp

884: \otimes C_1^B~,\\

885: \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert C_2^B O_2^B \vert B

886: \rangle&=-\frac{F(\mu)m_B^{3/2}}{4}(1-\hat{s}) \frac{n^\mu}{n\cdot

887: v}\bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \ell~ \phi_+^B \otimes

888: f_{K^\ast_\parallel}\phi_{K^\ast_\parallel} \otimes {\cal

889: J}_\parallel \otimes C_2^B~,

890: \end{aligned}

891: \end{equation}

892: while for the matrix element of $C_3^B O_3^B$($C_4^B O_4^B$), it can

893: be obtained by simply replacing the lepton current

894: $\bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \ell$ on the right hand side of the above

895: equations by $\bar{\ell}\gamma_\mu \gamma_5 \ell$ and also

896: replacing $C_1^B

897: \to C_3^B$ ($C_2^B \to C_4^B$).

898: 

899: The matrix element of $O^C$ is obtained likewise, with the result

900: \begin{equation}

901: \langle K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^- \vert D^C O^C \vert B

902: \rangle=-\frac{F(\mu)m_B^{3/2}}{4}(1-\hat{s})\frac{\bar{n}^\mu}

903: {\bar{n}\cdot

904: v}\bar{\ell} \gamma_\mu \ell~\frac{\omega \phi_-^B}{\omega-q^2/m_b-i\epsilon}

905: \otimes f_{K^\ast_\parallel} \phi_{K^\ast_\parallel} \otimes

906: \widehat{D}^C~.

907: \end{equation}

908: Since $\phi_-^B(\omega)$ does not vanish as $\omega$ approaches

909: zero, the integral $\int \!

910: d\omega~\phi_-^B(\omega)/(\omega-q^2/m_b)$ would be divergent if

911: $q^2\to 0$. This endpoint singularity will violate the

912: $\mbox{SCET}_{II}$ factorization, that is why we should restrict our

913: attention to the kinematic region where the invariant mass of the

914: lepton pair is not too small, say $q^2\geq 1~\mbox{GeV}^2$.

915: %

916: %

917: \subsection{Resummation of logarithms in SCET}

918: In the above analysis a two-step matching procedure $\mbox{QCD} \to

919: \mbox{SCET}_I \to \mbox{SCET}_{II}$ has been implemented. This

920: introduces two matching scales, $\mu_h \sim m_b$ at which QCD is

921: matched onto SCET$_I$ and $\mu_l \sim \sqrt{m_b \Lambda}$ at which

922: SCET$_I$ is matched onto SCET$_{II}$. Thus, with the SCET$_I$

923: matching coefficients at scale $\mu_h$, one may use the

924: renormalization-group equations (RGE) of SCET$_I$ to evolve them

925: down to scale $\mu_l$ and then match onto SCET$_{II}$. The large

926: logarithms due to different scales are resummed during this procedure.

927: Note that the meson LCDAs may be given at another scale $\mu_L$,

928: and, in principle, one should also use the RGE of SCET$_{II}$ to run the

929: corresponding matching coefficients from $\mu_l$ down to $\mu_L$.

930: But since in B decays the scale $\mu_l \simeq 1.5 \mbox{GeV}$ is

931: already quite low, we may just take the meson LCDAs at the scale $\mu_l$

932: in this paper for simplicity and thereby avoid the running of the

933: SCET$_{II}$ matching coefficients.

934: 

935: Furthermore, one should note that for the A-type SCET currents, only the

936: scale $\mu_h$ is involved since it is not necessary to do the second step

937: matching of SCET$_I \to$ SCET$_{II}$. Similarly, we

938: may choose the nonperturbative form factors $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}$

939: at the scale $\mu_h$ and avoid the RGE running of the A-type SCET$_I$

940: matching coefficients. For the B-type currents, the RGE of SCET$_I$ can

941: be obtained by calculating the anomalous dimensions of the relevant

942: SCET operators, which has been done in \cite{Neubert04}, where the

943: matching coefficients at any scale $\mu$ can be obtained by an evolution from

944: the matching scale $\mu_h$ as follows

945: \begin{equation}\label{evolution}

946: \begin{aligned}

947: C^B_j (E,u,\mu_h, \mu)&=\left ( \frac{2E}{\mu_h} \right )^{a(\mu_h,\mu)}

948: e^{S(\mu_h,\mu)} \int_0^1 \! dv~U_\Gamma (u,v,\mu_h,\mu)C_j^B

949: (E,v,\mu_h)\\

950: &\equiv \left ( \frac{2E}{\mu_h} \right )^{a(\mu_h,\mu)}

951: e^{S(\mu_h,\mu)}~ \widetilde{U}^j_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)~,

952: \end{aligned}

953: \end{equation}

954: with the subscript $\Gamma=\perp,\parallel$ and the functions

955: $a(\mu_h,\mu)$ and $S(\mu_h,\mu)$ are given in Eq.~(66) of Ref.~\cite{Neubert04}. Note

956: that in the above equation one should use the subscript $\Gamma=\perp$

957: for $j=1,3$, while $\Gamma=\parallel$ for $j=2,4$. The evolution kernel

958: $\widetilde{U}^j_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)$ obeys

959: \begin{equation}\label{kernel}

960: \frac{d\widetilde{U}^j_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)}{d\ln\mu}=\int_0^1 \!

961: dy~ y V_\Gamma (y,u)\widetilde{U}^j_\Gamma (E,y,\mu_h,\mu) +

962: \omega(u)\widetilde{U}^j_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)~,

963: \end{equation}

964: with the initial condition

965: $\widetilde{U}^j_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu_h)=C_j^B(E,u,\mu_h)$.

966: Again, the functions $V_\Gamma (y,u)$ and

967: $\omega(u)$ are defined in \cite{Neubert04}. In the next section on

968: phenomenological application, we will solve the above

969: integro-differential equation numerically.

970: 

971: Finally, for the C-type SCET current $J^C$, its anomalous dimension

972: just equals the sum of the anomalous dimensions of the $K^\ast$

973: meson LCDA $\phi_{K^*}$ and the B meson LCDA $\phi_-^B$. However, as the

974: evolution equation of $\phi_-^B$ is still unknown, we will not

975: resum the  perturbative logarithms for the $J^C$ current in this

976: paper. Numerically the contribution from the $J^C$ current to the decay

977: amplitude is small. Furthermore, as we will see later, the $J^C$ current is

978: completely irrelevant for the forward-backward asymmetry of the

979: charged leptons. Therefore, this treatment has only minor

980: impact on our phenomenological discussion.

981: %

982: %

983: \section{Numerical analysis of $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$}

984: We are now in the position to write the decay amplitude of $B \to

985: K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$, using the similar notations adopted in

986: \cite{Beneke01},

987: \begin{equation}\label{decayamplitude}

988: \begin{aligned}

989: \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d q^2 d \cos \theta} &= \frac{G_F^2 \vert

990: V_{ts}^\ast V_{tb} \vert^2}{128\pi^3} \left

991: (\frac{\alpha_{em}}{4\pi} \right )^2 m_B^3 \lambda_{K^\ast}

992:  (1-\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2 \times \\

993: & \left \{ 2\zeta_\perp^2 (1+\cos^2 \theta)\frac{q^2}{m_B^2} (\vert

994: {\cal C}_{9}^\perp \vert^2 + ({\cal C}_{10}^\perp)^2 )

995:  \right. \\

996: & \left . - 8\zeta_\perp^2 \cos \theta \frac{q^2}{m_B^2} Re({\cal

997: C}_{9}^\perp){\cal C}_{10}^\perp +\zeta_\parallel^2(1-\cos^2

998: \theta)(\vert {\cal C}_{9}^\parallel \vert^2 + ({\cal

999: C}_{10}^\parallel)^2 ) \right \}~,

1000: \end{aligned}

1001: \end{equation}

1002: with $m_B \lambda_{K^\ast}/2$ being the 3-momentum of the $K^\ast$ meson in the

1003: rest frame of the B meson,

1004: \begin{equation}

1005:  \lambda_{K^\ast} =\left [ \left ( 1-\frac{q^2}{m_B^2}

1006: \right )^2 - 2 \frac{m^2_{K^\ast}}{m_B^2} \left (

1007: 1+\frac{q^2}{m_B^2} \right ) + \frac{m^4_{K^\ast}}{m_B^4} \right

1008: ]^{1/2}~.

1009: \end{equation}

1010: The angle $\theta$ denotes the angle between the momenta of the

1011: positively charged lepton and  the B meson in the rest frame

1012: of the lepton pair. Note that in the above equations the leptons are

1013: taken in the massless limit and the $K^\ast$ meson mass is kept nonzero

1014: only for $\lambda_{K^\ast}$, which arises from the phase space.

1015: The "effective" Wilson coefficients ${\cal C}_9^{\perp,\parallel}$ and ${\cal

1016: C}_{10}^{\perp,\parallel}$ are given by

1017: 

1018: \begin{equation}

1019: \begin{aligned}

1020: {\cal C}_9^\perp &= \frac{2\pi}{\alpha_{em}} \left ( C_1^A +

1021: \frac{m_B}{4}\frac{f_B \phi_+^B \otimes

1022: f^\perp_{K^\ast}\phi^\perp_{K^\ast} \otimes {\cal J}_\perp \otimes

1023: C_1^B}{\zeta_\perp} \right )~, \\

1024: {\cal C}_9^\parallel &= \frac{2\pi}{\alpha_{em}} \left (C_2^A +

1025: \frac{m_B}{4}\frac{f_B \phi_+^B \otimes

1026: f^\parallel_{K^\ast}\phi^\parallel_{K^\ast} \otimes {\cal

1027: J}_\parallel \otimes C_2^B}{\zeta_\parallel}  \right .\\

1028: & \left . \hspace*{2.cm} - \frac{q^2}{4m_B}

1029: \frac{f_B\omega \phi_-^B/(\omega-q^2/m_b-i\epsilon)

1030: \otimes f_{K^\ast}^\parallel \phi_{K^\ast}^\parallel \otimes

1031: \widehat{D}^C}{\zeta_\parallel}\right )~,\\

1032: {\cal C}_{10}^\perp &= \frac{2\pi}{\alpha_{em}}C_3^A~,\\

1033: {\cal C}_{10}^\parallel &= \frac{2\pi}{\alpha_{em}} \left (C_4^A +

1034: \frac{m_B}{4}\frac{f_B \phi_+^B \otimes

1035: f^\parallel_{K^\ast}\phi^\parallel_{K^\ast} \otimes {\cal

1036: J}_\parallel \otimes C_4^B}{\zeta_\parallel} \right )~,

1037: \end{aligned}

1038: \end{equation}

1039: where $C_i^{\rm A,B}$ and $D^{\rm C} $ are defined in Eqs.~(13)

1040: and (32), respectively.

1041: The above expressions are valid at leading power in $1/m_b$ and to

1042: all orders in $\alpha_s$. But in this paper we only calculate explicitly

1043: the "effective Wilson coefficients" at one-loop order. At this order our

1044: results are quite similar to those of \cite{Beneke01} using the

1045: large-energy limit of QCD.

1046: The main phenomenological improvement is that for

1047: the hard scattering part, the matching coefficients $C_i^B$ are evolved

1048: from the scale $\mu_h \sim {\cal O}(m_b)$ down to $\mu_l \sim

1049: \sqrt{m_b \Lambda_h}$, during which the perturbative logarithms

1050: are summed. Here, $\Lambda_h$

1051: represents a typical hadronic scale. Note also that the

1052: definitions of the soft form factors $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}$ in SCET are

1053: different from those of Ref \cite{Beneke01},

1054: therefore the explicit expressions for $C^A_i$ are also different from the

1055: coefficients $C_a^{0,1}$ appearing in

1056: \cite{Beneke01} which are related to the form factor corrections.

1057: 

1058: In terms  of the helicity amplitudes for the decay $B \to K^* (\to K + \pi)

1059: \ell^+\ell^- $, the double differential distribution $d^2{\cal B}/d\cos

1060: \theta_+ ds$ is given in Eq.(44) of Ref. \cite{AliSafir}. This requires the

1061: helicity amplitudes, $\vert H_0(s)\vert^2= \vert H^L_0(s)\vert^2 + \vert

1062: H^R_0(s)\vert^2$, $ \vert H_-^{L,R}(s)\vert^2$ and $ \vert

1063: H_+^{L,R}(s)\vert^2$.

1064: While the amplitudes $H_+^{L,R}(s)$ are both power suppressed in $1/m_b$ and

1065: numerically small, the expressions for the others in SCET are given below:

1066: %

1067: \begin{equation}

1068: \begin{aligned}

1069: \vert H_0 \vert^2&=\frac{m_B^2}{2}(1-\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2

1070: (\vert {\cal C}_{9}^\parallel \vert^2 + ({\cal

1071: C}_{10}^\parallel)^2 ) \zeta_\parallel^2~,\\

1072: \vert H_-^{L,R} \vert^2&= q^2 (1-\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2

1073: \vert {\cal C}_{9}^\perp \pm {\cal

1074: C}_{10}^\perp \vert^2  \zeta_\perp^2~.

1075: \end{aligned}

1076: \end{equation}

1077: %

1078: Note that the dependence on the soft form factors factorizes in

1079: $\zeta_\parallel^2$ and $ \zeta_\perp^2$ for the helicity components

1080: $ \vert H_0 \vert^2 $ and $ \vert H_-^{L,R} \vert^2 $, respectively.

1081: Since a similar analysis in terms of the helicity amplitudes of the charged

1082: current decay $B \to \rho (\to \pi \pi) \ell^+\nu_\ell$ can be performed, the

1083: ratios $R_{0}(s)$ and $R_{-}(s)$ of the two differential distributions

1084: (in $B \to K^* (\to K \pi) \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $B \to \rho (\to \pi \pi) \ell^+\nu_\ell$)

1085: have lot less hadronic uncertainties, as these ratios (see Eq. (76)

1086:  in Ref.~\cite{AliSafir} for their definition) involve estimates of the

1087:  SU(3)-breaking in the soft form factors. The point is that the ratios

1088:  $\zeta_\parallel^{K^*}/\zeta_\parallel^{\rho}$ and

1089: $ \zeta_\perp^{K^*}/\zeta_\perp^{\rho} $ are more reliably calculable than

1090: the form factors themselves.

1091: %

1092: %

1093: \subsection{Input parameters}

1094: To get the differential distributions numerically, some input parameters have to be specified.

1095: For the calculation of the Wilson coefficients, the relevant parameters are chosen as \cite{PDG04}

1096: \begin{equation}

1097: M_W=80.425~\mbox{GeV}~,\hspace*{0.5cm} \sin^2 \theta_W=0.2312~, \hspace*{0.5cm}

1098: \Lambda^{(5)}_{\overline{MS}}=217^{+25}_{-23}~\mbox{MeV}~,

1099: \end{equation}

1100: and $m_t^{pole}=(172.7 \pm 2.9)~\mbox{GeV}$, updated recently by the Tevatron

1101: electroweak group \cite{CDFD0}.

1102: Numerical values of the Wilson coefficients, evaluated at scale $\mu=m_b=4.8~\mbox{GeV}$,

1103:  with the

1104: three-loop running of $\alpha_s$ and the input parameters fixed at their

1105: central values given above are shown in Table I.

1106: Note that the NNLL formula for $C_9$ can be found, for example, in the

1107: appendix of \cite{Beneke01}, while the relevant elements of three-loop

1108: anomalous dimension matrix have been calculated recently in

1109: \cite{Gambino03,Gorbahn05}.

1110: \begin{table}[htb]

1111: \begin{center}

1112: \caption{The leading-logarithmic (LL) and next-to-leading-logarithmic (NLL)

1113: Wilson coefficients evaluated at the scale $m_b=4.8~\mbox{GeV}$. For $C_{9,10}$,

1114: they are also given in the NNLL order.}

1115: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline

1116:  ~ & LL & NLL & ~ & LL & NLL & NNLL\\ \hline

1117:  $~~~\bar{C}_1$~~~ & ~~-0.2501~~ & ~~-0.1459~~ &

1118:  ~~~$\bar{C}_6$~~~ & ~~-0.0316~~ & ~~-0.0388~~ & ~ \\ \hline

1119: $\bar{C}_2$ & 1.1082 & 1.0561 & $C_7^{eff}$ & -0.3145 & -0.3054 & ~ \\ \hline

1120: $\bar{C}_3$ & 0.0112 & 0.0116 & $C_8^{eff}$ & -0.1491 & -0.1678 & ~ \\ \hline

1121: $\bar{C}_4$ &-0.0257 &-0.0337 & $   C_9   $ &  1.9919 &  4.1777 & ~~4.2120~~ \\ \hline

1122: $\bar{C}_5$ & 0.0075 & 0.0097 & $   C_{10}$ &    0    & -4.5415 & -4.1958 \\ \hline

1123: \end{tabular}

1124: \end{center}

1125: \end{table}

1126: 

1127: The CKM factor $\vert V_{ts} V_{tb}^* \vert \simeq (1-\lambda^2/2)

1128: \vert V_{cb} \vert$ is estimated to be $0.0403 \pm 0.0020$ by taking

1129: $\vert V_{cb} \vert = 0.0413 \pm 0.0021$ \cite{HFAG} and $\lambda=0.2226$.

1130: For the B meson lifetimes, we use $\tau_{B^+}=1.643 ~\mbox{ps}$ and $

1131: \tau_{B^0}=1.528~\mbox{ps}$ \cite{HFAG}. The pole mass $m_b$ is chosen to be

1132: $4.8~\mbox{GeV}$. The ratio of the charm quark

1133: mass over the b-quark mass is taken to be $m_c/m_b=0.29 \pm 0.02$. For the

1134: matching scale from SCET$_I$ to SCET$_{II}$, we use $\mu_l=\sqrt{m_b \Lambda_h}

1135: \simeq 1.5~\mbox{GeV}$.

1136: 

1137: The hadronic parameters for the decay $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ include decay

1138:  constants,

1139: light-cone distribution amplitudes (LCDAs) and the soft form

1140: factors. The B meson decay constant can be estimated by QCD sum rules or lattice

1141: calculations, here we take $f_B=(200 \pm 30)~\mbox{MeV}$. For the $K^\ast$ meson,

1142: experimental measurements give \cite{PDG04} $f^\parallel_{K^\ast}=(217 \pm 5)

1143: ~\mbox{MeV}$ while the most recent light-cone sum rules (LCSRs)

1144: estimate \cite{Ball0510} is

1145: $f^\perp_{K^\ast}(1~\mbox{GeV})=(185 \pm 10)~\mbox{MeV}$. Note that

1146: $f^\perp_{K^\ast}$ obeys the scale evolution equation $f^\perp_{K^\ast}(\mu)=

1147: f^\perp_{K^\ast}(\mu_0)(\alpha_s(\mu)/\alpha_s(\mu_0))^{4/23}$.

1148: 

1149: The B meson LCDAs

1150: enter into the decay amplitudes only in terms of the integrated quantities

1151: $\lambda_{B,+}^{-1} $ and $ \lambda_{B,-}^{-1}(q^2) $ defined as

1152: by the following integrals

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: \lambda_{B,+}^{-1} \equiv \int_0^\infty \! \frac{d\omega}{\omega}

1155: \phi^B_+(\omega)~, \hspace*{1cm}

1156: \lambda_{B,-}^{-1}(q^2)\equiv \int_0^\infty \! d\omega \frac{\phi^B_-(\omega)}

1157: {\omega-q^2/m_b-i\epsilon}~.

1158: \end{equation}

1159: Therefore, it is not necessary to know the details about the shape of

1160: $\phi^B_+(\omega)$. The most recent estimate gives \cite{Neubert05B}

1161: $\lambda_{B,+}^{-1}=(1.86 \pm 0.34)~\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$ at the scale

1162: $\mu=1.5 ~\mbox{GeV}$. However, $\lambda_{B,-}^{-1}(q^2)$ does require the

1163: knowledge of $\phi^B_-(\omega)$, about which we know very little. Fortunately,

1164: $\lambda_{B,-}^{-1}(q^2)$ only appears in the annihilation term which plays

1165: numerically a minor role in the $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay. To be definite, we

1166: adopt a simple model function \cite{Neubert97}

1167: $\phi^B_-(\omega)=\omega_0^{-1}e^{-\omega/\omega_0}$ with

1168: $\omega_0^{-1} \simeq 3~\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$.

1169: 

1170: The $K^\ast$ meson LCDAs may be

1171: expanded in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials:

1172: \begin{equation}

1173: \phi_{K^\ast}^{\perp,\parallel}(u,\mu)=6u(1-u)\left [ 1 + \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}

1174: a_n^{\perp,\parallel} (\mu) C_n^{3/2}(2u-1) \right ]~.

1175: \end{equation}

1176: However, the coefficients $a_n$ are largely unknown. Following \cite{Ball05},

1177: we shall ignore the terms $a_n^{\perp,\parallel}~(n>2)$.

1178: For $a_{1,2}$, we omit their scale dependence and estimate in a conservative

1179: manner:

1180: $a_1^{\perp,\parallel}=0.1 \pm 0.1$, $a_2^{\perp,\parallel}=0.1 \pm 0.1$.

1181: We note that recently the first Gegenbauer moment of the

1182: $K^\ast$ meson has been revisited in LCSRs \cite{Ball0510} which

1183: gives smaller uncertainties.

1184: 

1185: There are only two independent $B \to K^\ast$ form factors in SCET, namely

1186: $\zeta_\perp(q^2)$ and $\zeta_\parallel(q^2)$. They are related to the full QCD

1187: form factors as discussed in \cite{Neubert04}. The current knowledge of these

1188: form factors is fragmentary. For instance, $\zeta_\perp$

1189: may be extracted from $V^{B\to K^\ast}$ \cite{Neubert05}:

1190: \begin{equation}

1191: \zeta_\perp(q^2)=\frac{\zeta_\perp(0)}{r_1^V+r_2^V}

1192: \left ( \frac{r_1^V}{1-q^2/m_V^2} + \frac{r_2^V}{1-q^2/m_{Vfit}^2} \right )~,

1193: \end{equation}

1194: with $r_1^V=0.923$, $r_2^V=-0.511$,

1195: $m_V=5.32~\mbox{GeV}$ and $m_{Vfit}^2=49.40~\mbox{GeV}^2$.

1196: Note that the $q^2$-dependence above is the same as

1197: that of $V^{B\to K^\ast}(q^2)$, calculated

1198: in \cite{Ball05} using LCSRs. However, analyses of the radiative B decays $B \to K^\ast \gamma$

1199: \cite{Ali01,Beneke01,Buchalla01,Neubert05}, $B \to \rho \gamma$

1200: \cite{Ali01,Buchalla01} and the semi-leptonic B decay $B \to \rho \ell \nu$

1201: \cite{BaBarrho} imply that the LCSRs overestimate the

1202: $B \to V$ form factors significantly. We use the radiative $B \to K^\ast

1203: \gamma$ decay,

1204:  which has been measured quite precisely

1205: \cite{HFAG}: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to K^{\ast0} \gamma)=(4.01 \pm 0.20) \times

1206: 10^{-5}$, to normalize the

1207: soft form factor at $q^2=0$.

1208: In SCET, it is straightforward to get the decay amplitude of $B \to K^\ast \gamma$ from the $B \to

1209: K^\ast_\perp \ell^+ \ell^-$ decay, by taking the limit $q^2 \to 0$. Then, using the input parameters

1210: from Table II, we obtain $\zeta_\perp(0)=0.32 \pm 0.02$. Here the error is mainly from the CKM factor

1211: $V_{ts}V^*_{tb}$ and the experimental uncertainty of the branching ratio

1212:  ${\cal B}(B^0 \to K^{\ast0} \gamma)$.

1213: This estimate is consistent with the result of Ref. \cite{Neubert05}, but

1214: significantly smaller

1215: than the number $0.40 \pm 0.04$ we get from LCSRs.

1216: In our numerical analysis, we will choose the value $\zeta_\perp(0)=0.32 \pm 0.02$

1217: determined from the radiative B decays, but assume that the $q^2$-dependence of

1218:  $\zeta_\perp(q^2)$ can be reliably obtained from the LCSRs.

1219: 

1220: 

1221:  For the longitudinal soft form factor $\zeta_\parallel$,

1222: unfortunately there is no quantitative determination from the existing experiments,

1223: though this may change in the future with good quality data available on the

1224: decay $B \to \rho \ell \nu_\ell$. Using helicity analysis, one can extract

1225: $\zeta^{\rho}_\parallel(q^2)$; combined with estimates of the

1226: SU(3)-breaking one may determine $\zeta^{K^*}_\parallel(q^2)$. Not having this

1227: experimental information at hand, one may

1228: extract $\zeta_\parallel(q^2)$ from the full QCD form factor

1229: $A_0^{B\to K^\ast}(q^2)$:

1230: \begin{equation}

1231: \begin{aligned}

1232: A_0^{B\to K^\ast}(q^2)&=

1233: \left [ 1-\frac{\alpha_s(m_b) C_F}{4\pi} \left ( 2 \ln^2 [1-s]

1234: -\frac{2}{s}\ln [1-s] + 2~Li_2[s] +4 + \frac{\pi^2}{12} \right ) \right ]

1235: \zeta_\parallel (q^2)\\

1236: & \hspace*{-1.1cm}

1237: - \frac{1}{4(1-s)}f_B\phi_+^B \otimes f_{K^\ast}^\parallel

1238: \phi_{K^\ast}^\parallel \otimes {\cal J}_\parallel \otimes

1239: \left ( \frac{2E}{\mu_h} \right )^{a(\mu_h,\mu_l)}

1240: e^{S(\mu_h,\mu_l)} \int_0^1 \! dy~U_\parallel (v,y,\mu_h,\mu_l)~\end{aligned}

1241: \end{equation}

1242: with $s=q^2/m_B^2$. LCSRs estimate \cite{Ball05}

1243: $A_0^{B\to K^\ast}(0)=0.374 \pm 0.043$ with the $q^2$-dependence

1244: \begin{equation}

1245: A_0^{B\to K^\ast}(q^2)=\frac{1.364}{1-q^2/m_B^2}-\frac{0.990}{1-q^2/36.78 \mbox{GeV}^2}~.

1246: \end{equation}

1247: From which we get $\zeta_\parallel(0)=0.40 \pm 0.05$, using the input

1248: parameters discussed above and/or listed in Table II. Its $q^2$-dependence is

1249: drawn in Fig. 4.

1250: \begin{table}[tb]

1251: \begin{center}

1252: \caption{Numerical values of the input parameters and their uncertainties used

1253: in the phenomenological study.}

1254: \begin{tabular}{|ll|ll|}\hline

1255: $M_W$ & $80.425~\mbox{GeV}$ & $\sin^2 \theta_W$ & $0.2312$ \\ \hline

1256: $m_t^{pole}$& $(172.7 \pm 2.9)~\mbox{GeV} $ & $\Lambda^{(5)}_{\overline{MS}}$

1257: & $(217^{+25}_{-23})~\mbox{MeV}$ \\ \hline

1258: $\vert V_{ts} V^*_{tb} \vert$ & $(40.3 \pm 2.0) \times 10^{-3}$ &

1259: $\alpha_{em}(m_b)$ & $1/133$ \\ \hline

1260: $m_B$ & $5.279~\mbox{GeV}$ & $m_b^{pole}$ & $4.8~\mbox{GeV}$

1261: \\ \hline

1262: $\tau_{B^+}$  & $1.643~$ps &

1263: $\tau_{B^0}$ \hspace*{2.2cm} &  $1.528~$ps  \\ \hline

1264: $m_c/m_b$ & $0.29 \pm 0.02$ & $\mu_l$ & $1.5~\mbox{GeV}$ \\ \hline

1265: $\lambda^{-1}_{B,+}(1.5~\mbox{GeV})$\hspace*{0.2cm} &

1266: $(1.86 \pm  0.34)~\mbox{GeV}^{-1}$ & $f_B$ & $(200 \pm 30)~\mbox{MeV}$ \\ \hline

1267: $\zeta_\perp(0)$ & $0.32 \pm 0.02$ & $\zeta_\parallel(0)$ & $0.40 \pm 0.05$

1268: \\ \hline

1269: $f_{K^\ast}^\perp (1~\mbox{GeV})$ & $(185 \pm 10)~\mbox{MeV}$ &

1270: $f_{K^\ast}^\parallel$ & $(217 \pm 5)~\mbox{MeV}$ \\ \hline

1271: $a_1^{\perp,\parallel}$ & $0.1 \pm 0.1$ &

1272: $a_2^{\perp,\parallel}$ & $0.1 \pm 0.1$ \\ \hline

1273: \end{tabular}

1274: \end{center}

1275: \end{table}

1276: 

1277: Alternatively, $\zeta_\parallel(q^2)$ may also be determined from the

1278: following relation,

1279: \begin{equation}

1280: \begin{aligned}

1281: \frac{E m_B (V-A_2)^{B \to K^*}(q^2)}{m_{K^\ast}(m_B+m_{K^\ast})} &=

1282: \left [ 1-\frac{\alpha_s(m_b) C_F}{4\pi} \left ( 2 \ln^2 [1-s]

1283: -2\ln [1-s] + 2~Li_2[s] +6 + \frac{\pi^2}{12} \right ) \right ]

1284: \zeta_\parallel (q^2)\\

1285: & \hspace*{-2.1cm}

1286: - \frac{1-2s}{4(1-s)}f_B\phi_+^B \otimes f_{K^\ast}^\parallel

1287: \phi_{K^\ast}^\parallel \otimes {\cal J}_\parallel \otimes

1288: \left ( \frac{2E}{\mu_h} \right )^{a(\mu_h,\mu_l)}

1289: e^{S(\mu_h,\mu_l)} \int_0^1 \! dy~U_\parallel (v,y,\mu_h,\mu_l)~.

1290: \end{aligned}

1291: \end{equation}

1292: With the input $V^{B\to K^\ast}(0)-A_2^{B\to K^\ast}(0)=0.152 \pm 0.057$ from

1293: LCSRs, we obtain $\zeta_\parallel(0)=0.42 \pm 0.16$, which

1294: agrees with the range extracted from $A_0^{B\to K^\ast}$.

1295: We will use $\zeta_\parallel(0)=0.40 \pm 0.05$, obtained from its

1296: relation to the full form factor

1297: $A_0^{B\to K^\ast}$ and the LCSR, as discussed above. Fig. 4 shows the $q^2$-dependence of both soft form

1298: factors $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}(q^2)$. However, since the analysis of the semileptonic decay

1299: $B \to \rho \ell \nu$ \cite{BaBarrho} suggests that both the transverse and longitudinal form

1300: factors might be overestimated by LCSRs, we will also consider, as an

1301: illustration of the non-perturbative uncertainties, the value

1302: $\zeta_\parallel(0)=\zeta_\perp(0)=0.32$

1303:  with all the other parameters taken at their central values.

1304: 

1305: 

1306: \begin{figure}[tb]

1307: \begin{center}

1308: \unitlength 1mm

1309: \begin{picture}(80,50)

1310: \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kllfig4.eps}}

1311: \end{picture}

1312: \vspace*{-0.2cm} \caption{The $q^2$-dependence of the soft form

1313: factors $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}(q^2)$. The solid curve represents

1314: $\zeta_\perp(q^2)$, while the dashed curve represents $\zeta_\parallel(q^2)$. We

1315: have rescaled the transverse form factor at $q^2=0$, to be consistent with the experimental

1316: measurements of the $B \to K^* \gamma$ decay rate.}

1317: \end{center}

1318: \end{figure}

1319: 

1320: \subsection{Numerical solution of the SCET$_I$ evolution functions}

1321: As we discussed in Sect. II.D, the B-type matching coefficients $C_i^B$ should

1322: be run from the scale $\mu_h=4.8~\mbox{GeV}$ down to $\mu_l=1.5~\mbox{GeV}$,

1323: with the evolution kernel $\widetilde{U}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)$ obeying the

1324: integro-differential equation (\ref{kernel}). To solve this equation numerically,

1325: it is more convenient to define the following evolution functions,

1326: \begin{equation}

1327: \begin{aligned}

1328: \widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(a)}(E,u,\mu_h,\mu)&=\int_0^1 \! dv

1329: U_\Gamma(u,v,\mu_h,\mu)~, \\

1330: \widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(b)}(E,u,\mu_h,\mu)&=\frac{u+\hat{s}-u\hat{s}}{1-u}

1331: \int_0^1 \! dv U_\Gamma(u,v,\mu_h,\mu) \frac{1-v}{v+\hat{s}-v\hat{s}}~, \\

1332: \widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(c)}(E,u,\mu_h,\mu)&=\int_0^1 \! dv

1333: U_\Gamma(u,v,\mu_h,\mu) \frac{F_{16}^\Gamma(v,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)}

1334: {F_{16}^\Gamma(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)}~,

1335: \end{aligned}

1336: \end{equation}

1337: where $\Gamma=\perp,\parallel$ and the functions

1338: $F_{16}^{\perp,\parallel}(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)$ are defined in

1339: Eqs.~(\ref{F16perp}) and (\ref{F16para}). Note that at

1340: the quark level, the $K^\ast$ meson

1341: energy is related to $\hat{s}$ by $E=m_b(1-\hat{s})/2$ in the rest frame

1342: of the $b$-quark.

1343: With such definitions, the above evolution functions are normalized to one at

1344: the scale $\mu_h$:

1345: $\widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(a,b,c)}(E,u,\mu_h,\mu_h)=1$,

1346: and the QCD parameter $\Lambda^{(5)}_{\overline{MS}}$ would be the only input

1347: for their numerical evaluations.

1348: The matching coefficients $C_j^B$ at scale $\mu_l$ can then be written as

1349: \begin{equation}

1350: \Delta_i C_j^B(E,u,\mu_l)=\left (\frac{2E}{\mu_h} \right )^{a(\mu_h,\mu_l)}

1351: e^{S(\mu_h,\mu_l)}

1352: \widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(a,b,c)}(E,u,\mu_h,\mu_l) \Delta_i C_j^B(E,u,\mu_h)~,

1353: \end{equation}

1354: where we should use the superscript $(a)$ for $\Delta_{7,9,10}C_j^B$, the

1355: superscript $(b)$ for $\Delta_8 C_j^B$ and the superscript $(c)$ for

1356: $\Delta_{16} C_j^B$. For the subscript $\Gamma$, one should use $\Gamma=\perp$

1357: for $j=1,3$ and $\Gamma=\parallel$ for $j=2,4$, which is the same as the

1358: convention of Eq.~(\ref{evolution}). Note that for the evolution of

1359: $\Delta_{16} C_j^B$, we have taken into account the fact that

1360: the term $F^\Gamma_{16}(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)$ is dominant due to the

1361: large Wilson coefficient $\bar{C}_2$.

1362: 

1363: It is then straightforward to get the following evolution equations

1364: \begin{equation}

1365: \begin{aligned}

1366: \frac{d\widetilde{U}^{(a)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)}{d\ln\mu}&=\int_0^1 \!

1367: dy~ y V_\Gamma (y,u)\widetilde{U}^{(a)}_\Gamma (E,y,\mu_h,\mu) +

1368: \omega(u)\widetilde{U}^{(a)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)~, \\

1369: \frac{d\widetilde{U}^{(b)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)}{d\ln\mu}&=\int_0^1 \!

1370: dy~ y V_\Gamma (y,u)\frac{(1-y)(u+(1-u)\hat{s})}{(1-u)(y+(1-y)\hat{s})}

1371: \widetilde{U}^{(b)}_\Gamma (E,y,\mu_h,\mu) + \\

1372: & \hspace*{1cm} \omega(u)\widetilde{U}^{(b)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)~, \\

1373: \frac{d\widetilde{U}^{(c)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)}{d\ln\mu}&=\int_0^1 \!

1374: dy~ y V_\Gamma (y,u)\frac{F_{16}^\Gamma(y,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)}

1375: {F_{16}^\Gamma(u,\hat{s},m_c^2/m_b^2)}\widetilde{U}^{(c)}_\Gamma (E,y,\mu_h,\mu) + \\

1376: & \hspace*{1cm}\omega(u)\widetilde{U}^{(c)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu)~.

1377: \end{aligned}

1378: \end{equation}

1379: \begin{figure}[tb]

1380: \begin{center}

1381: \unitlength 1mm

1382: \begin{picture}(160,120)

1383: \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{kllfig5.eps}}

1384: \end{picture}

1385: \vspace*{-0.2cm} \caption{Numerical values of the functions

1386: $\widetilde{U}^{(a,b,c)}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu_l)$, evolved from

1387: $\mu_h=4.8~\mbox{GeV}$ down to $\mu_l=1.5~\mbox{GeV}$, the relevant

1388: parameters are taken at their central values. For the upper-left plot,

1389: the solid line denotes $\widetilde{U}_\perp^{(a)}$ while the dashed line denotes

1390: $\widetilde{U}_\parallel^{(a)}$. For the lower plots, since

1391: $\widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(c)}$ are complex functions, we only show

1392: their absolute values. }

1393: \end{center}

1394: \end{figure}

1395: To get the numerical solutions of the above integro-differential equations, we

1396: will perform the scale evolution in one hundred discrete steps. While from the

1397: scale $\mu_n$ to $\mu_{n+1}$, the convolution integral is evaluated for three

1398: hundred different values and discrete $\hat{s}$ values of

1399: $\delta \hat{s}=0.01$ in the interval $\hat{s}\in[0.04,0.35]$.

1400: The function $\widetilde{U}_\Gamma (E,u,\mu_h,\mu_{n+1})$ is obtained from

1401: a fit to these values. Taking $\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(5)}=217~\mbox{MeV}$, the

1402: numerical results of these evolution functions are shown in Fig. 5. Note that

1403: the function $\widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(a)}(E,u,\mu_h,\mu)$ actually does not

1404: depend on the energy $E$, as shown in Fig. (5a). In fact, it is just

1405: the same function as $U_\Gamma(u,\mu_h,\mu)$ defined in Eq.~(5.23) by

1406: Neubert {\it et al.} \cite{Neubert04}. The function

1407: $\widetilde{U}_\parallel^{(b)}$ is not shown in Fig. 5, since it does not

1408: enter into the decay amplitude at the one-loop level, due to $\Delta_8 C_2^B=0$.

1409: While for the complex functions $\widetilde{U}_\Gamma^{(c)}$, only the absolute

1410: values of the functions are plotted.

1411: 

1412: \subsection{The dilepton invariant mass spectrum and the forward-backward asymmetry}

1413: Experimentally, the dilepton invariant mass spectrum and the

1414: forward-backward (FB) asymmetry are the observables of principal

1415: interest. Their theoretical expressions in SCET

1416: can be easily derived from Eq.~(\ref{decayamplitude}):

1417: 

1418: \begin{equation}

1419: \begin{aligned}

1420: \frac{d Br}{d q^2} &= \tau_B \frac{G_F^2 \vert

1421: V_{ts}^\ast V_{tb} \vert^2}{128\pi^3} \left

1422: (\frac{\alpha_{em}}{4\pi} \right )^2 m_B^3 \vert \lambda_{K^\ast}

1423: \vert (1-\frac{q^2}{m_B^2})^2 \times \\

1424: & \left \{ \frac{16}{3}\zeta_\perp^2 \frac{q^2}{m_B^2} (\vert

1425: {\cal C}_{9}^\perp \vert^2 + ({\cal C}_{10}^\perp)^2 )

1426: +\frac{4}{3}\zeta_\parallel^2(\vert {\cal C}_{9}^\parallel \vert^2 + ({\cal

1427: C}_{10}^\parallel)^2 ) \right \}~,

1428: \end{aligned}

1429: \end{equation}

1430: \begin{equation}\label{DAFB}

1431: \begin{aligned}

1432: \frac{d A_{FB}}{d q^2}&=\frac{1}{d \Gamma / d q^2} \left (

1433: \int_0^1 \! d \cos \theta \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d q^2 d\cos \theta} -

1434: \int_{-1}^0 \! d \cos \theta \frac{d^2 \Gamma}{d q^2 d\cos \theta} \right ) \\

1435: &=\frac{-6 (q^2/m_B^2) \zeta_\perp^2 Re({\cal C}_{9}^\perp)

1436: {\cal C}_{10}^\perp }{4(q^2/m_B^2) \zeta_\perp^2 (\vert

1437: {\cal C}_{9}^\perp \vert^2 + ({\cal C}_{10}^\perp)^2 )

1438: +\zeta_\parallel^2(\vert {\cal C}_{9}^\parallel \vert^2 + ({\cal

1439: C}_{10}^\parallel)^2 ) }~.

1440: \end{aligned}

1441: \end{equation}

1442: With the input parameters listed in Table II, the decay spectrum and the FB

1443: asymmetry are shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, respectively.

1444: In our calculation we have dropped the small isospin-breaking effects,

1445: which come from the annihilation diagrams, and take the spectator quark as the

1446: down quark in Eqs. (\ref{anni1}, \ref{anni2}). To estimate the

1447: residual scale dependence, we vary the QCD matching scale $\mu_h$ by a

1448: factor $\sqrt{2}$ around the default value $\mu_h=m_b$. Note that the soft

1449: form factors $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}(q^2)$ defined in SCET are actually scale

1450: dependent, which effect has been taken into account in our error analysis.

1451: \begin{figure}[tb]

1452: \begin{center}

1453: \unitlength 1mm

1454: \begin{picture}(160,53)

1455: \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{kllfig6.eps}}

1456: \end{picture}

1457: \vspace*{-0.2cm} \caption{The differential branching ratio

1458: $d {\cal B}(B^0 \to K^{\ast 0} \ell^+ \ell^-)/d q^2$ in the range

1459: $1~{\rm GeV}^2 \leq q^2 \leq 8~~{\rm GeV}^2$. In the left plot,

1460: the solid line denotes the theoretical prediction

1461: with the input parameters taken at their central values, while the gray

1462: area between two dashed lines reflects the uncertainties from input parameters

1463: and scale dependence. In the right plot, the soft form factors are normalized as

1464: $\zeta_\parallel(0)=\zeta_\perp(0)=0.32$, while all the other parameters

1465:  are chosen at their central values.}

1466: \end{center}

1467: \end{figure}

1468: 

1469: \begin{figure}[tb]

1470: \begin{center}

1471: \unitlength 1mm

1472: \begin{picture}(80,50)

1473: \put(0,0){\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{kllfig7.eps}}

1474: \end{picture}

1475: \vspace*{-0.2cm} \caption{The differential spectrum of the forward-backward

1476:  asymmetry $d A_{FB}(B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-)/d q^2$ in the range

1477: $1~{\rm GeV}^2 \leq q^2 \leq 8~~{\rm GeV}^2$. Here the solid

1478: line denotes the theoretical prediction

1479: with the input parameters taken at their central values, while the gray

1480: band between two dashed lines reflects the uncertainties from input parameters

1481: and scale dependence. The dotted line represents the LO predictions, obtained by

1482: dropping the $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections.}

1483: \end{center}

1484: \end{figure}

1485: 

1486: Restricting to the integrated branching ratio of $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$

1487: in the range $1~\mbox{GeV}^2 \leq q^2 \leq 7~\mbox{GeV}^2$, where the SCET

1488: method should work, we obtain

1489: \begin{equation}

1490: \int \limits_{1\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2}^{7\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2} d q^2

1491: \frac{d Br(B^+ \to K^{\ast +} \ell^+ \ell^-)}{dq^2}=(2.92^{+0.57}_{-0.50}

1492: \vert_{\zeta_\parallel}~^{+0.30}_{-0.28} \vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize CKM}}

1493: ~^{+0.18}_{-0.20})\times 10^{-7}~.

1494: \end{equation}

1495: Here we have isolated the uncertainties from the soft form factor

1496: $\zeta_\parallel$ and the CKM factor $\vert V_{ts}^* V_{tb} \vert$.

1497: The last error reflects the uncertainty

1498: due to the variation of the other input parameters and the residual scale

1499: dependence. If the smaller value for the longitudinal form factor $\zeta_\parallel(0)=

1500: 0.32$ is used, as shown in Fig. (6b), the central value of the branching ratio

1501: is reduced  to $2.11 \times 10^{-7}$.

1502: For $B^0$ decay, the branching ratio is about $7\%$ lower due to the

1503: lifetime difference:

1504: \begin{equation}

1505: \int \limits_{1\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2}^{7\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2} d q^2

1506: \frac{d Br(B^0 \to K^{\ast 0} \ell^+ \ell^-)}{dq^2}=(2.72^{+0.53}_{-0.47}

1507: \vert_{\zeta_\parallel}~^{+0.28}_{-0.26} \vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize CKM}}

1508: ~^{+0.17}_{-0.19})\times 10^{-7}~.

1509: \end{equation}

1510: 

1511: To compare with the current experimental observations, it was proposed in

1512: Ref.~\cite{Beneke01} to consider the integrated branching ratio over the range

1513: $4~\mbox{GeV}^2 \le q^2 \le 6~\mbox{GeV}^2$, for which we get

1514: $(0.92 ^{+0.21}_{-0.19}) \times 10^{-7}$. This is smaller than the number

1515: $(1.2 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-7}$ obtained in Ref. \cite{Beneke01}, which is mainly

1516: due to the fact that the most recent LCSRs estimation \cite{Ball05} prefers

1517: the form factor $A_0^{B \to K^\ast}$ to be smaller. Experimentally one of the

1518: Belle observations \cite{Belle} of our interest is

1519: \begin{equation}

1520: \int \limits_{4\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2}^{8\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2} d q^2

1521: \frac{d Br(B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-)}{dq^2}=(4.8^{+1.4}_{-1.2}

1522: \vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize stat.}}\pm 0.3 \vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize syst.}}

1523: \pm 0.3 \vert_{\mbox{\scriptsize model}})\times 10^{-7}~,

1524: \end{equation}

1525: for which we predict $(1.94^{+0.44}_{-0.40}) \times 10^{-7}$. This is smaller

1526: than the published Belle data by a factor of about 2.5. But at this

1527: stage, it is still too early to conclude that one should change some theoretical

1528: input significantly to be consistent with the experimental data. For

1529: instance, the BaBar collaboration measures the total branching ratio of

1530: $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ to be \cite{BaBar}

1531: $(7.8^{+1.9}_{-1.7}\pm 1.2) \times 10^{-7}$,

1532: which is about twice smaller than the Belle observation \cite{Belle}

1533: $(16.5^{+2.3}_{-2.2}\pm 0.9 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-7}$. This implies that, if

1534: finally the total branching ratio of $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ is found to

1535: be closer to the BaBar result, the partially integrated branching ratio over the

1536: range $4~\mbox{GeV}^2 \le q^2 \le 8~\mbox{GeV}^2$ could be lowered to around

1537: $2.3 \times 10^{-7}$, which is consistent with our estimate

1538: $(1.94^{+0.44}_{-0.40}) \times 10^{-7}$ within the stated errors. We look

1539: forward to experimental analyses from BaBar and Belle based on their

1540: high statistic data.

1541: 

1542: One of the most interesting observables in the decay $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ is

1543: the location, $q_0^2$,  where the FB asymmetry vanishes. It was first noticed in

1544: the context of form factor models in \cite{Burdman} and later demonstrated in

1545: \cite{Ali00},

1546: using the symmetries of the effective theory in the large-energy limit, that

1547: the value of $q_0^2$ is

1548: almost free of hadronic uncertainties at leading order. From Eq. (\ref{DAFB}), it is easy to see

1549: that the location of the vanishing FB asymmetry is determined by

1550: $Re({\cal C}_{9}^\perp)=0$.

1551:  At the leading order, this leads to the equation

1552: $C_9+C_7^{eff}+Re(Y(q_0^2))=0$.

1553: Including the order $\alpha_s$ corrections, our analysis estimates the

1554: zero-point of the FB asymmetry to be

1555: \begin{equation}

1556: q^2_0=(4.07^{+0.16}_{-0.13})~ \mbox{GeV}^2~,

1557: \end{equation}

1558: of which the scale-related uncertainty is

1559:  $\Delta(q_0^2)_{\rm scale}=^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$

1560:  GeV$^2$ for the range

1561:  $m_b/2 \leq \mu_h \leq 2 m_b$ together with the jet function scale

1562: $\mu_l=\sqrt{\mu_h \times 0.5~\mbox{GeV}}$, as used in the

1563: paper by  Beneke et al.~\cite{Beneke01}. Since no reliable estimates of the

1564: power corrections in $1/m_b$ are available, we should compare our results

1565: with the one given in Eq.~(74) of~\cite{Beneke01}, also obtained in the

1566: absence of $1/m_b$ corrections:

1567: $ q^2_0=(4.39^{+0.38}_{-0.35})~ \mbox{GeV}^2$. Of this the largest single

1568: uncertainty (about $\pm 0.25~ \mbox{GeV}^2 $) is attributed to the scale

1569: dependence. While our central value for $q_0^2$ is similar to theirs, with the

1570: differences reflecting the different input values, the scale

1571: dependence in our analysis is significantly smaller than that of

1572: \cite{Beneke01}. This improved theoretical precision on $q_0^2$ requires a

1573: detailed discussion to which we now concentrate in the rest of this section.

1574: 

1575: As already stated in the introduction, the expressions  for the differential distributions in the decay

1576: $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ derived here and in \cite{Beneke01} are

1577: similar except for the definitions of the soft form factors

1578: and the additional step of the SCET logarithmic resummation incorporated in our

1579: paper. This resummation has also been derived in the existing

1580: literature~\cite{Neubert05,Neubert04,Beneke:2005gs}. However, its effect

1581: on the scale-dependence of $q_0^2$ has not been studied

1582: in sufficient detail. With the SCET form factors $\zeta_\perp(q^2,\mu)$

1583: and  $\zeta_\parallel(q^2,\mu)$ defined in Eq.~(33) here, which are

1584: scale-dependent quantities, and neglecting the resummation effects

1585: consistently in both the decays

1586:  $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $B \to K^* \gamma$, the scale uncertainty 

1587: is increased, with $q_0^2=4.12^{+0.17}_{-0.07}$ GeV$^2$.

1588: We draw two inferences from this numerical study: (i)

1589: Incorporating the SCET

1590: logarithmic resummation helps in the reduction of scale dependence

1591: in $q_0^2$,

1592: (ii) $\Delta (q_0^2)_{\rm scale}=~^{+0.17}_{-0.07}$, obtained by dropping the

1593: resummation effects is still significantly smaller (by a factor 2) compared to

1594: the corresponding uncertainty

1595: $\Delta(q_0^2)_{\rm scale}=~\pm 0.25$ GeV$^2$ calculated in

1596:  Ref.~\cite{Beneke01}.

1597: This deifference, as argued below, is to be traced back to 

1598: the different definitions of the soft form factors used by us

1599: for the SCET currents and the corresponding quantities employed by

1600: Beneke et al.~\cite{Beneke01} in the QCD factorization approach.

1601: The results in Ref.~\cite{Beneke01} are, however, formally equivalent

1602: to the so-called "physical form factor'' (PFF)

1603: scheme  in SCET, as discussed subsequently by Beneke and

1604: Yang~\cite{Beneke:2005gs}. Thus, the scale dependence of the 

1605: distributions in $B \to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$, in particular of $q_0^2$, is

1606: related also to the definitions (or scheme dependence) of the form factors 

1607: in effective theories. The PFF-scheme is one such choice, but this choice is

1608: by no means unique. 

1609: 

1610: Concentrating on the transverse

1611: form factor, relevant for $q_0^2$ of the FB asymmetry, in the PFF

1612: scheme, the corresponding SCET$_I$

1613: form factor $\zeta_\perp^P$ (where we have now added a suffix $P$ for this

1614: scheme) is defined as

1615: \begin{equation}

1616: \zeta_\perp^P\equiv \frac{m_B}{m_B+m_{K^*}}V~,

1617: \end{equation}

1618: where $V$ is one of the physical form factors in the decay $B \to K^*

1619: \ell^+\ell^-$ in full QCD. In contrast, in our paper, the soft SCET form

1620: factors are defined in Eq.

1621: (\ref{SCETff}). These two definitions can be related to each

1622: other by $\zeta_\perp^P=\widetilde{C}_3 \zeta_\perp$, where the expression

1623: for the perturbative QCD coefficient $\widetilde{C}_3$ is given below

1624:  ($\widetilde{C}_3$ is called $C_V^{(A0)1}$ in \cite{Yang04}). Since the

1625: decay amplitude should be independent on how one defines the soft form

1626: factors, one must have

1627: \begin{equation}

1628: {\cal C}_9^{\perp P} \zeta_\perp^P \equiv {\cal C}_9^\perp \zeta_\perp

1629: \Longrightarrow

1630: {\cal C}_9^{\perp P}= {\cal C}_9^\perp / \widetilde{C}_3~,

1631: \end{equation}

1632:  Since

1633: $\widetilde{C}_3=1+{\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, by expanding

1634: ${\cal C}_{9}^\perp/\widetilde{C}_3$ to order $\alpha_s$, one

1635: obtains

1636: \begin{eqnarray}

1637: {\cal C}_9^{\perp P}&=&\frac{{\cal C}_9^\perp}{ 1-(1-\widetilde{C}_3)}

1638: \nonumber \\

1639: &\simeq&\frac{2\pi}{\alpha_{em}} \left ( C_1^A +\frac{\alpha_{em}}{2\pi}

1640: (1 - \widetilde{C}_3)(\frac{2}{\hat{s}}C_7^{eff}+C_9^{eff}) +

1641: \frac{m_B}{4}\frac{f_B \phi_+^B \otimes

1642: f^\perp_{K^\ast}\phi^\perp_{K^\ast} \otimes {\cal J}_\perp \otimes

1643: C_1^B}{\zeta^P_\perp} \right ) \nonumber \\

1644: &=&C_9^{eff}+\frac{2}{\hat{s}}C_{7}^{eff}

1645: \left ( 1+\frac{C_F\alpha_s}{4\pi}\left [

1646: 4 \ln\frac{m_b^2}{\mu^2}-4+\frac{1-\hat{s}}{\hat{s}}

1647: \ln ( 1-\hat{s})  \right ] \right ) + ...~,

1648: \end{eqnarray}

1649: which agrees with the expression for ${\cal C}_9^{\perp P}$ in Eq.(40) of

1650: \cite{Beneke01} (called $C_{9,\perp}(q^2)$ there). We recall that to determine $q_0^2$, we solve the equation

1651: ${\rm Re}~{\cal C}_{9}^\perp=0$, where now the quantity ${\cal C}_{9}^\perp$

1652: is defined as follows

1653: \begin{equation}

1654: {\cal C}_{9}^\perp=\widetilde{C}_3(\mu)

1655: C_9^{eff}+\frac{2}{\hat{s}} C_{7}^{eff}\frac{{\overline m}_b}{m_b}

1656: \widetilde{C}_9(\mu)+...~,

1657: \end{equation}

1658: with the QCD coefficients \cite{Bauer2} ($\widetilde{C}_9$ is called

1659: $C_T^{(A0)2}$ in \cite{Yang04})

1660: \begin{eqnarray}

1661: \widetilde{C}_3&=&1-\frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\left [ 2\ln^2 \left (

1662: \frac{\mu}{m_b} \right ) - (4\ln(1-\hat{s})-5)\ln \left (

1663: \frac{\mu}{m_b} \right ) \right . \nonumber \\

1664: &&\left . +2\ln^2(1-\hat{s})+2 \mbox{Li}_2(\hat{s})+\frac{\pi^2}{12}+

1665: \left ( \frac{1}{\hat{s}}-3 \right ) \ln (1-\hat{s})+6 \right ]~,

1666: \nonumber \\

1667: \widetilde{C}_9&=&1-\frac{\alpha_s C_F}{4\pi}\left [ 2\ln^2 \left (

1668: \frac{\mu}{m_b} \right ) - (4\ln(1-\hat{s})-7)\ln \left (

1669: \frac{\mu}{m_b} \right ) \right . \nonumber \\

1670: &&\left . +2\ln^2(1-\hat{s})-2\ln(1-\hat{s})+2

1671: \mbox{Li}_2(\hat{s})+\frac{\pi^2}{12}+6 \right ]~.

1672: \end{eqnarray}

1673: The ellipses above denote the terms which are the same for ${\cal C}_9^{\perp P}$

1674: and ${\cal C}_9^{\perp}$.

1675: The functions multiplying the effective Wilson coefficients

1676:  $C_9^{eff}$ and $C_{7}^{eff}$

1677: appearing in ${\cal C}_9^{\perp P}$ and ${\cal C}_{9}^\perp$ in Eqs.~(64)

1678: and (65), respectively, lead to

1679: different scale-dependence for $q_0^2$.

1680: 

1681:  Our result for $q_0^2$ using the SCET

1682: form factors has been given above in Eq.~(61) with the scale-dependent

1683:  uncertainty

1684: $\Delta(q_0^2)_{\rm scale}=^{+0.08}_{-0.05}$ GeV$^2$ . Note that we have 

1685: considered in a correlated way the scale-dependence of $\zeta_\perp(\mu,q^2)$ in 

1686: our analysis. To illustrate this, we use the experimental data on

1687: the branching ratio of  $B \to K^* \gamma$ and the central values of the

1688: other input parameters given in Table II, which yields the following

1689: scale-dependence of the relevant form factor: $\zeta_\perp(0,\mu=2m_b)=0.34$ and

1690: $\zeta_\perp(0,\mu=m_b/2)=0.30$. In solving the equation

1691:  $Re[{\cal C}_9^{\perp}]=0$, relevant for the zero-point of the

1692: FB asymmetry in the decay $B \to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$, we have factored in the

1693: scale-dependence of $\zeta_\perp(\mu,q^2)$.

1694: We do  a similar numerical analysis of $q_0^2$ in the PFF-scheme,

1695: where the corresponding form factor $\zeta^P_\perp(q^2)$ is scale-independent,

1696: and incorporate the effect of the logarithmic resummation in both the

1697: $B \to K^* \gamma$ and $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ decays.

1698: Solving now the equation

1699:  $Re[{\cal C}_9^{\perp P}]=0$,

1700:  using the central value of the soft form factor

1701: $\zeta^P_\perp(0)$ obtained from the analysis of the $B\to K^*

1702: \gamma$ branching ratio: $\zeta^P_\perp(0)=0.28$, and with all the other parameters

1703: fixed at their central values given in Table~II,

1704:  we find that in the PFF-scheme $q_0^2=3.98 \pm 0.18~\mbox{GeV}^2$. Had we

1705:  dropped the resummation effect, we would get $q_0^2=4.03 \pm 0.22~\mbox{GeV}^2$,

1706:  where the scale uncertainty $\Delta(q_0^2)_{\rm scale}=\pm 0.22$ GeV$^2$,

1707:  derived here in the PFF-scheme, is

1708:  consistent with the number $\Delta(q_0^2)_{\rm scale}=\pm 0.25$  GeV$^2$

1709: obtained in \cite{Beneke01}.  Therefore, we conclude that the

1710: difference in the

1711: estimates of the scale dependence of $q_0^2$ here and in

1712: Ref.~\cite{Beneke01} is both due to the incorporation of the SCET logarithmic

1713: resummation and the different (scheme-dependent)

1714: definitions of the effective form factors for the SCET currents 

1715: and the ones used by Beneke et al.~\cite{Beneke01}.

1716:  Using the SCET form factors defined in Eq.~(\ref{SCETff}) in this paper,

1717:  we find that the scale-related uncertainty

1718: $\Delta(q_0^2)_{\rm scale}$ is reduced than in the PFF-scheme of

1719: Beneke et al.~\cite{Beneke01}. One expects that such scheme-dependent

1720: differences will

1721: become less marked after incorporating the $O(\alpha_s^2)$ effects in the

1722: decay distributions for $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$. Our comparative analysis 

1723: hints at rather large $O(\alpha_s^2)$ corrections to $q_0^2$ in the PFF-scheme

1724: and a moderate correction in the SCET analysis carried out by us in this

1725: paper. Since the value of $q_0^2$ offers a precision test of the SM, and by

1726: that token provides a window on the possible beyond-the-SM physics effects, it is

1727: mandatory to undertake an  $O(\alpha_s^2)$ improvement of the current

1728: theory of $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ decay.

1729: As power corrections in

1730: $1/m_b$ have not been considered here, although they are probably

1731: comparable to the $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections as argued in a model-dependent

1732: estimate of the $1/m_b$ corrections by Beneke et al.~\cite{Beneke01},

1733: it also remains to be seen how a model-independent calculation of the same

1734: effect the numerical value of $q_0^2$.  

1735: 

1736: %

1737: \section{Summary}

1738: In this paper, we have examined the rare B decay channel $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$

1739: in the framework of SCET, where the factorization formula holds to all orders in

1740: $\alpha_s$ and leading order in $1/m_b$. Making use of the existing

1741: literature, we work with the relevant effective operators

1742: in SCET and the corresponding matching procedures are discussed

1743: in detail. The logarithms related to the different scales

1744: $\mu_h=m_b$ and $\mu_l=\sqrt{m_b \Lambda_h}$ are  resummed by solving

1745: numerically the renormalization group equation in SCET. We then give explicit

1746: expressions for the differential distributions in $q^2$ for the

1747: decay $B \to K^\ast \ell^+ \ell^-$ including the

1748:  $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections. In the phenomenological analysis, we first

1749: discuss the input parameters, especially how to extract the soft form factors

1750: $\zeta_{\perp,\parallel}(q^2)$ from the full QCD form factors and also the constraints

1751: on $\zeta_{\perp}(0)$ from the experimental data on the $B \to K^\ast \gamma$

1752: decay.

1753: Using the $q^2$-dependence of the form factors from the LCSRs and the

1754: normalization

1755: $\zeta_{\perp}(0)=0.32 \pm 0.02$ and $ \zeta_{\parallel}(0)=0.40 \pm 0.05$,

1756: we work out the differential branching ratio and the forward-backward asymmetry as a

1757: function of the dilepton invariant mass. In the region $1~ \mbox{GeV}^2 \le

1758: q^2 \le 7~\mbox{GeV}^2$, where the perturbative method should be reliable, our

1759: analysis yields

1760: \begin{equation}

1761: \int \limits_{1\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2}^{7\mbox{\scriptsize ~GeV}^2} d q^2

1762: \frac{d Br(B^+ \to K^{\ast +} \ell^+ \ell^-)}{dq^2}=(2.92^{+0.67}_{-0.61}

1763: )\times 10^{-7}~,

1764: \end{equation}

1765: which can be compared with the B factory measurements in the near future.

1766: The largest uncertainty in the branching ratio is due to the imprecise

1767: knowledge of $\zeta_{\parallel} (q^2)$. We have illustrated this by

1768: using a value $\zeta_{\parallel} (0)=0.32$, which reduces the central value of

1769: the branching ratio to $2.11 \times 10^{-7}$.

1770:  We point out  that precisely measured

1771: $q^2$-distributions in $B \to K^* \ell^+\ell^-$ and $B \to \rho \ell \nu_\ell$

1772: would greatly reduce the form-factor related uncertainties in the differential

1773: branching ratios. The FBA is less dependent on the soft form

1774: factors, and the residual parametric dependencies are worked out.

1775: We estimate the zero-point of the FBA to be

1776: $q^2_0=(4.07^{+0.16}_{-0.13})~ \mbox{GeV}^2$. The stability of this result

1777: against $O(\alpha_s^2)$ and $1/m_b$ corrections should be investigated in the

1778: future.

1779: \section*{Acknowledgement}

1780: G.Z acknowledges the financial support from Alexander-von-Humboldt

1781: Stiftung. G.Z is also grateful to D.s. Yang for useful discussions.

1782: We thank Martin Beneke, Thorsten Feldmann, Alexander Parkhomenko and Dan

1783: Pirjol for their comments on the earlier version of this manuscript and 

1784: helpful communications.

1785: %

1786: %

1787: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1788: %\cite{Kaneko:2002mr}

1789: \bibitem{Kaneko:2002mr}

1790:   J.~Kaneko {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1791:   %``Measurement of the electroweak penguin process B $\to$ X/s l+ l-. ((B)),''

1792:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}, 021801 (2003)

1793:   [hep-ex/0208029].

1794:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208029;%%

1795: 

1796: %\cite{Aubert:2004it}

1797: \bibitem{Aubert:2004it}

1798:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

1799:   %``Measurement of the B $\to$ X/s l+ l- branching fraction with a sum over

1800:   %exclusive modes,''

1801:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 081802 (2004)

1802:   [hep-ex/0404006].

1803:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404006;%%

1804: 

1805: \bibitem{BaBar}

1806:  B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration], hep-ex/0507005,

1807: contributed to 22nd International Symposium on Lepton-Photon

1808: Interactions at High Energy (LP 2005), Uppsala, Sweden, 30 June - 5

1809: July 2005.

1810: 

1811: \bibitem{Belle}

1812:  K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration], hep-ex/0410006, presented

1813: at 32nd International Conference on High-Energy Physics (ICHEP 04),

1814: Beijing, China, 16-22 Aug 2004.

1815: 

1816: %\cite{Abe:2005km}

1817: \bibitem{Abe:2005km}

1818:   K.~Abe {\it et al.}  [Belle Collaboration],

1819:   %``Measurement of forward-backward asymmetry and Wilson coefficients in B

1820:   %$\to$ K* l+ l-,''

1821:   hep-ex/0508009.

1822:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0508009;%%

1823: 

1824: %\cite{Ali:1991is}

1825: \bibitem{Ali:1991is}

1826:   A.~Ali, T.~Mannel and T.~Morozumi,

1827:   %``Forward backward asymmetry of dilepton angular distribution in the decay b

1828:   %$\to$ s l+ l-,''

1829:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 273}, 505 (1991).

1830:   %%CITATION = PHLTA,B273,505;%%

1831: 

1832: \bibitem{Deshpande}

1833: N.G. Deshpande, J. Trampetic and K. Panose, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 39},

1834: 1461 (1989).

1835: 

1836: \bibitem{Lim}

1837: C.S. Lim, T. Morozumi and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 218}, 343

1838: (1989).

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{Ali92}

1841: A.~Ali and T.~Mannel,

1842: %``Exclusive rare B decays in the heavy quark limit,''

1843: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 264}, 447 (1991)

1844: [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 274}, 526 (1992)].

1845: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B264,447;%%

1846: 

1847: \bibitem{Greub94}

1848: C. Greub, A. Ioannisian and D. Wyler, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 346}, 149

1849: (1994).

1850: 

1851: %\cite{Melikhov:1997zu}

1852: \bibitem{Melikhov:1997zu}

1853:   D.~Melikhov, N.~Nikitin and S.~Simula,

1854:   %``Rare decays B $\to$ (K, K*)(l+ l-, nu anti-nu) in the quark model,''

1855:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 410}, 290 (1997).

1856:     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704268;%%

1857: 

1858: 

1859: \bibitem{Ali00}

1860: A.~Ali, P.~Ball, L.~T.~Handoko and G.~Hiller,

1861: %``A comparative study of the decays B $\to$ (K,K*) l+ l- in standard  model

1862: %and supersymmetric theories,''

1863: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 074024 (2000)

1864: [hep-ph/9910221].

1865: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910221;%%

1866: 

1867: \bibitem{BBNS}

1868: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev.

1869: Lett. {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999); Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 591}, 313 (2000).

1870: 

1871: \bibitem{Beneke01}

1872: M. Beneke, Th. Feldmann and D. Seidel, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 612}, 25

1873: (2001); Eur. Phys. J.~C {\bf 41}, 173 (2005).

1874: 

1875: \bibitem{Bauer1}

1876: C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming and M.E. Luke, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 014006

1877: (2001).

1878: 

1879: \bibitem{Bauer2}

1880: C.W. Bauer, S. Fleming, D. Pirjol and I.W. Stewart, Phys. Rev. D

1881: {\bf 63}, 114020 (2001).

1882: 

1883: \bibitem{Bauer3}

1884: C.W. Bauer and I. W. Stewart, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 516}, 134 (2001).

1885: 

1886: \bibitem{Beneke02}

1887: M. Beneke, A.P. Chapovsky, M. Diehl and Th. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B

1888: {\bf 643}, 431 (2002).

1889: 

1890: \bibitem{Neubert02}

1891: R.J. Hill and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 657}, 229 (2003).

1892: 

1893: %\cite{Bauer:2001yt}

1894: \bibitem{Bauer:2001yt}

1895: C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1896: %``Soft-collinear factorization in effective field theory,''

1897: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054022 (2002)

1898: [hep-ph/0109045].

1899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109045;%%

1900: 

1901: \bibitem{Neubert04B}

1902: B. Lange and M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 690}, 249 (2004);

1903: [Erratum-ibid. B {\bf 723}, 201 (2005)].

1904: 

1905: \bibitem{Beneke04}

1906: M. Beneke and Th. Feldmann, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 685}, 249 (2004);

1907: Eur.~Phys.~J. C {\bf 33}, S241 (2004).

1908: 

1909: \bibitem{Yang04}

1910: M. Beneke, Y. Kiyo and D. s. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 692}, 232

1911: (2004).

1912: 

1913: %\cite{Pirjol:2002km}

1914: \bibitem{Pirjol:2002km}

1915:  D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1916:  %``A complete basis for power suppressed collinear-ultrasoft operators,''

1917: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 094005 (2003)

1918: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69}, 019903 (2004)]

1919: [hep-ph/0211251].

1920:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211251;%%

1921: 

1922: %\cite{Bauer:2002aj}

1923: \bibitem{Bauer:2002aj}

1924:  C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol and I.~W.~Stewart,

1925:  %``Factorization and endpoint singularities in heavy-to-light decays,''

1926:  Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 071502 (2003)

1927:  [hep-ph/0211069].

1928:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211069;%%

1929: 

1930: \bibitem{Neubert05}

1931:   T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,

1932:   %``Factorization in B $\to$ V gamma decays,''

1933:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094017 (2005).

1934:     %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503263;%%

1935: 

1936: \bibitem{Kim03}

1937: J.g. Chay and C. Kim, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 034013 (2003).

1938: %\cite{Grinstein:2005ud}

1939: \bibitem{Grinstein:2005ud}

1940:   B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,

1941:   %``The forward-backward asymmetry in B $\to$ K pi l+ l- decays,''

1942:   [hep-ph/0505155].

1943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505155;%%

1944: 

1945: \bibitem{Kruger}

1946: F. Kr{\"u}ger and L.M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 380}, 199 (1996).

1947: 

1948: \bibitem{Misiak97}

1949: K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak and M. M{\" u}nz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 400},

1950: 206 (1997).

1951: 

1952: 

1953: \bibitem{Neubert04}

1954: R.J. Hill, T. Becher, S.J. Lee and M. Neubert, JHEP {\bf 0407}, 081

1955: (2004).

1956: 

1957: \bibitem{Asatryan}

1958: H.H. Asatryan, H.M. Asatrian, C. Greub and M. Walker, Phys. Lett. B

1959: {\bf 507}, 162 (2001); Phys.~Rev.~ D 65, 074004 (2002).

1960: 

1961: \bibitem{Peskin}

1962: M.E. Peskin and D.V. Schroeder, {\it An Introduction to Quantum Field

1963: Theory}, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA, 1995.

1964: 

1965: \bibitem{Neubert97}

1966: A.G. Grozin and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 55}, 272 (1997).

1967: 

1968: \bibitem{Neubert94}

1969: M. Neubert, Phys. Rept. {\bf 245}, 259 (1994).

1970: 

1971: \bibitem{AliSafir}

1972: A.~Ali and A.~S.~Safir,

1973: %``Helicity analysis of the decays B $\to$ K* l+ l- and B $\to$ rho l nu/l  in

1974: %the large energy effective theory,''

1975: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25}, 583 (2002)

1976: [hep-ph/0205254].

1977: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205254;%%

1978: 

1979: \bibitem{PDG04}

1980: Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B

1981: {\bf 592}, 1 (2004).

1982: 

1983: \bibitem{CDFD0}

1984: CDF Collaboration, D0 Collaboration and the Tevatron Electroweak Working

1985: Group, hep-ex/0507091.

1986: 

1987: \bibitem{Gambino03}

1988: P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 673}, 238 (2003).

1989: 

1990: \bibitem{Gorbahn05}

1991: M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 713}, 291 (2005).

1992: 

1993: \bibitem{HFAG}

1994: The Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/

1995: (Winter 2005 averages).

1996: 

1997: \bibitem{Ball0510}

1998: P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 633}, 289 (2006)

1999: [hep-ph/0510338].

2000: 

2001: \bibitem{Neubert05B}

2002:   S.~J.~Lee and M.~Neubert,

2003:   %``Model-independent properties of the B-meson distribution amplitude,''

2004:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72}, 094028 (2005).

2005:    %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509350;%%

2006: 

2007: \bibitem{Ball05}

2008: P. Ball and R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 014029 (2005).

2009: 

2010: \bibitem{Ali01}

2011: A.~Ali and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko,

2012: %``Branching ratios for B $\to$ rho gamma decays in next-to-leading order in

2013: %alpha(s) including hard spectator corrections,''

2014: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23}, 89 (2002)

2015: [hep-ph/0105302];

2016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105302;%%

2017: %``Implication of the B $\to$ (rho, omega) gamma branching ratios for the  CKM

2018: %phenomenology,''

2019: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595}, 323 (2004)

2020: [hep-ph/0405075].

2021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405075;%%

2022: 

2023: \bibitem{Buchalla01}

2024: S.W. Bosch and G. Buchalla, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 621}, 459 (2002).

2025: 

2026: \bibitem{BaBarrho}

2027:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BABAR Collaboration],

2028:   %``Study of B $\to$ pi l nu and B $\to$ rho l nu decays and determination of

2029:   %$|$V(ub)$|$,''

2030:   hep-ex/0507003.

2031:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507003;%%

2032: 

2033: \bibitem{Burdman}

2034: G. Burdman, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 4254 (1998).

2035: 

2036: %\cite{Beneke:2005gs}

2037: \bibitem{Beneke:2005gs}

2038: M.~Beneke and D.~Yang,

2039: %``Heavy-to-light B meson form factors at large recoil energy: Spectator

2040: %scattering corrections,''

2041: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 736}, 34 (2006)

2042: [hep-ph/0508250].

2043:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0508250;%%

2044: 

2045: \end{thebibliography}

2046: \end{document}

2047: