1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{epsfig,cite}

3: \textwidth 16.0 true cm

4: \textheight 22.0 true cm

5: \oddsidemargin 0.05 true in

6: \def\baselinestretch{1.1}

7: 

8: %\topmargin -0.05 true in

9: \topmargin -2 cm % for the arXiv

10: 

11: \newcommand{\non}{\nonumber}

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

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

14: \newcommand{\bdm}{\begin{displaymath}}

15: \newcommand{\edm}{\end{displaymath}}

16: 

17: \def\ni{\noindent}

18: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

19: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

20: 

21: % miscellaneous symbols

22: 

23: \def\sdbeta{s_{2\beta}}

24: \def\hlf{\frac{1}{2}}

25: \def\qrt{\frac{1}{4}}

26: \def\drbar{\overline{\rm DR}}

27: \def\msbar{\overline{\rm MS}}

28: \def\sq2{\sqrt{2}}

29: \def\cb{c_{\beta}}

30: \def\sb{s_{\beta}}

31: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_s}

32: \def\bsg{B\to X_{\!s}\, \gamma}

33: 

34: \newcommand{\smallz}{{\scriptscriptstyle Z}} %  a smaller Z

35: \newcommand{\smallw}{{\scriptscriptstyle W}} %

36: \newcommand{\smallh}{{\scriptscriptstyle H}} %

37: \newcommand{\mz}{M_\smallz}

38: \newcommand{\mw}{M_\smallw}

39: \newcommand{\muw}{\mu_\smallw}

40: \newcommand{\susy}{\rm{\scriptscriptstyle SUSY}}

41: \newcommand{\mumfv}{\mu_{{\scriptscriptstyle MFV}}}

42: \newcommand{\mususy}{\mu_{\susy}}

43: \newcommand{\msusy}{M_{\susy}}

44: 

45: \def\mt{m_t}

46: \def\mb{m_b}

47: \def\mgl{m_{\tilde{g}}}

48: \def\mhc{m_{H^\pm}}

49: 

50: % bottom symbols

51: 

52: \def\hbs{\frac{h_b}{\sq2}}

53: \def\msbu{m_{\tilde{b}_1}^2}

54: \def\msbd{m_{\tilde{b}_2}^2}

55: \def\msbi{m_{\tilde{b}_i}^2}

56: \def\thsb{\bar{\theta}_{\tilde{b}}}

57: \def\Sdb{s_{2\theta_b}}

58: \def\Cdb{c_{2\theta_b}}

59: \def\sbl{\tilde{b}_L}

60: \def\sbr{\tilde{b}_R}

61: \def\sblc{\tilde{b}^*_L}

62: \def\sbrc{\tilde{b}^*_R}

63: \def\sbu{\tilde{b}_1}

64: \def\sbd{\tilde{b}_2}

65: \def\sbuc{\tilde{b}^*_1}

66: \def\sbdc{\tilde{b}^*_2}

67: \def\sbi{\tilde{b}_i}

68: \def\sbic{\tilde{b}^*_i}

69: 

70: \def\Stb{s_{\theta_b}}

71: \def\Ctb{c_{\theta_b}}

72: 

73: % strange symbols

74: 

75: \def\mssl{m_{\tilde{s}_L}^2}

76: 

77: \def\ssl{\tilde{s}_L}

78: \def\ssr{\tilde{s}_R}

79: \def\sslc{\tilde{s}^*_L}

80: \def\ssrc{\tilde{s}^*_R}

81: 

82: % down symbols

83: 

84: \def\msdu{m_{\tilde{d}_1}^2}

85: \def\msdd{m_{\tilde{d}_2}^2}

86: 

87: \def\sdi{\tilde{d}_i}

88: \def\sdu{\tilde{d}_1}

89: \def\sdd{\tilde{d}_2}

90: \def\sdt{\tilde{d}_3}

91: \def\sdq{\tilde{d}_4}

92: \def\sdic{\tilde{d}^*_i}

93: \def\sduc{\tilde{d}^*_1}

94: \def\sddc{\tilde{d}^*_2}

95: \def\sdtc{\tilde{d}^*_3}

96: \def\sdqc{\tilde{d}^*_4}

97: \def\dul{d_{1\,L}}

98: \def\ddl{d_{2\,L}}

99: \def\dulc{\bar{d}_{1\,L}}

100: \def\ddlc{\bar{d}_{2\,L}}

101: \def\dur{d_{1\,R}}

102: \def\ddr{d_{2\,R}}

103: \def\durc{\bar{d}_{1\,R}}

104: \def\ddrc{\bar{d}_{2\,R}}

105: 

106: \begin{document}

107: \thispagestyle{empty}

108: \vspace*{-15mm}

109:  

110: \begin{flushright}

111: RM3-TH/06-1\\

112: DFTT-03/2006\\

113: LAPTH-1136/06\\

114: %\today

115: 

116: \vspace*{2mm}

117: \end{flushright}

118: \vspace*{20mm}

119:  

120: \boldmath

121: \begin{center}

122: {\LARGE{\bf

123: QCD Corrections to Radiative $B$ Decays in \\

124: \vspace*{3mm}  the MSSM with Minimal Flavor Violation

125: }}

126: \vspace*{5mm}

127: 

128: \end{center}

129: \unboldmath

130: \smallskip

131: \begin{center}

132: {\Large{G.~Degrassi$^a$, P.~Gambino$^b$, and P.~Slavich$^c$}} \vspace*{8mm} \\

133: {\sl ${}^a$

134:     Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma Tre and  INFN, Sezione di

135:     Roma III, \\

136:     Via della Vasca Navale~84, I-00146 Rome, Italy}\\

137: \vspace*{2.5mm}

138: {\sl  ${}^b$ INFN, Sezione di Torino and Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, 

139: Universit\`a di Torino,\\ Via P.~Giuria 1,  I-10125 Torino, Italy}  

140: \vspace*{2.5mm}\\

141: {\sl ${}^c$  LAPTH, 9, Chemin de Bellevue, F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux,  France}

142: \vspace*{18mm}

143: 

144: {\bf Abstract}\vspace*{-.9mm}\\

145: \end{center}

146: \noindent

147: 

148: We compute the complete supersymmetric QCD corrections to the Wilson

149: coefficients of the magnetic and chromomagnetic operators, relevant in

150: the calculation of $b\to s \gamma$ decays, in the MSSM with Minimal

151: Flavor Violation. We investigate the numerical impact of the new

152: results for different choices of the MSSM parameters and of the scale

153: where the quark and squark mass matrices are assumed to be aligned. We

154: find that the corrections can be important when the superpartners are

155: relatively light, and that they depend sizeably on the scale of

156: alignment.  Finally, we discuss how our calculation can be employed

157: when the scale of alignment is far from the weak scale.

158: 

159: \setcounter{page}{0}

160: \vfill

161: 

162: \newpage

163: \section{Introduction}

164: More than a decade after their first direct observation, radiative $B$

165: decays have become a key element in the program of precision tests of

166: the Standard Model (SM) and its extensions.  The inclusive decay

167: $\bsg$ is particularly well suited to this precision program thanks to

168: its low sensitivity to non-perturbative effects.  The present

169: experimental world average \cite{hfag} for the branching ratio of

170: $\bsg$ has a total error of less than 10\% and agrees well with the SM

171: prediction, that is subject to a similar uncertainty \cite{GM}.  In

172: view of the final accuracy expected at the $B$ factories, about 5\%,

173: the SM calculation needs to be improved. It presently includes

174: next-to-leading order (NLO) perturbative QCD corrections as well as

175: the leading non-perturbative and electroweak effects (see

176: \cite{beauty} and \cite{Buras:2002er} for a concise discussion and a

177: complete list of references).  The calculation of

178: next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD effects is currently under

179: way \cite{nnlo} and is expected to bring the theoretical accuracy to

180: the required level.

181: 

182: The theoretical accuracy of the predictions in the context of new

183: physics models may have important consequences on model building. This

184: is particularly true for radiative $B$ decays, where higher order

185: corrections can be enhanced by large factors: in this case the current

186: status of theoretical calculations is not always satisfactory. While

187: the NLO corrections have been extensively studied in the context of

188: Two Higgs Doublet Models \cite{CDGG1,2HDM,GM}, in the Minimal

189: Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) the complete leading order (LO)

190: result is known \cite{LO,Borzumati:1999qt} but the NLO analysis is

191: still incomplete to date.  The main reason is that new sources of

192: flavor violation generally arise in the MSSM, making a general

193: analysis quite complicated even at the leading order

194: \cite{Borzumati:1999qt}.  Experimental constraints on generic $b\to s$

195: flavor violation have been recently studied in \cite{GFV}: radiative

196: decays play a central role in these analyses, and the constraints are

197: strong only for some of the flavor violating parameters.

198: 

199: 

200: A simplifying assumption frequently employed in supersymmetric

201: analyses is that of {\it Minimal Flavor Violation} (MFV), according to

202: which the only source of flavor (and possibly of CP) violation in the

203: MSSM is the CKM matrix \cite{DGIS,MFV}.  It can be implemented by

204: assuming that the squark and quark mass matrices can be simultaneously

205: diagonalized and, as a consequence, it implies the absence of

206: tree-level flavor-changing gluino (FCG) interactions.  The MFV

207: hypothesis certainly represents a useful and predictive approximation

208: scheme and seems to be favored by the present absence of deviations

209: from the SM. However, because the weak interactions affect the squark

210: and quark mass matrices in a different way \cite{wyler}, their

211: simultaneous diagonalization is not preserved by higher order

212: corrections and can be consistently imposed only at a certain scale

213: $\mumfv$, complicating the study of higher order contributions in this

214: framework.  The NLO study of radiative decays in the MFV scenario has

215: been pioneered in \cite{CDGG2} (see also \cite{bobeth}), where the

216: gluonic corrections to chargino contributions have been computed,

217: while those involving a gluino were computed in the heavy gluino

218: limit, in which case FCG effects can be consistently neglected.

219: 

220: An alternative possibility is to include only the potentially 

221: large contributions beyond the leading order: they originate from terms

222: enhanced by $\tan\beta$ factors, when the ratio between the two Higgs

223: vacuum expectation values is large, or by logarithms of $\msusy/M_W$,

224: when the supersymmetric particles are considerably heavier than the

225: $W$ boson.  Compact formulae that include both kinds of higher-order

226: effects within MFV are given in ref.~\cite{DGG}.  Indeed,

227: $\tan\beta$-enhanced terms at the next-to-leading order do not only

228: appear from the Hall-Rattazzi-Sarid effect (the modified relation

229: between the bottom mass and Yukawa coupling) \cite{HRS}, but also from

230: an analogous effect in the top-quark Yukawa coupling \cite{DGG,carena,

231: DGIS} and in effective flavor-changing $\bar{s}_L b_R$ neutral heavy

232: Higgs vertices \cite {DGIS}.  In the effective theory approach first

233: employed in \cite{carena1} the dominant terms enhanced by $\tan\beta$

234: can be taken into account at all orders. A generalization beyond MFV has 

235: been proposed in \cite{rosz2}.

236: 

237: In the limit of heavy superpartners, in particular, the Higgs sector

238: of the MSSM is modified by non-decoupling effects and can differ

239: substantially from the type-II Two Higgs Doublet Model.  The charged

240: Higgs contribution therefore receives two-loop contributions enhanced

241: by $\tan\beta$ that have been computed in \cite{DGG,carena,DGIS} in

242: the limit of heavy gluino. Interestingly, the explicit calculation of

243: the relevant two-loop diagrams presented in \cite{borzu} has

244: demonstrated the validity of this approximation even when the charged

245: Higgs is not much lighter than the gluino. However, there is a priori

246: no reason why the results derived in the heavy gluino limit should be

247: a good approximation of the true result for generic values of the

248: relevant mass parameters or in the case of other two-loop

249: contributions.

250: 

251: In this letter we present the results of the full NLO calculation of

252: the supersymmetric QCD corrections to the Wilson coefficients of the

253: two operators that are relevant in the MFV scenario, extending and

254: completing the work of ref.\cite{CDGG2}. In particular, we compute all

255: two-loop diagrams that contain a gluino, under the assumption that the

256: gluino couplings to quarks and squarks are flavor conserving at the

257: scale $\mumfv$.  Our results allow for a consistent and complete NLO

258: analysis of radiative $B$ decays in the MFV framework.

259: 

260: The paper is organized in the following way: in section 2 we describe

261: the calculation, the renormalization procedure, and the checks; in

262: section 3 the numerical impact of our results is discussed; section 4

263: explains how our results can be employed in the context of realistic

264: models of SUSY breaking and contains our conclusions.

265: 

266: \section{Gluino contribution to the Wilson coefficients}

267: As we focus here on short-distance contributions with MFV, we can

268: restrict our discussion to the form of the Wilson coefficients of the

269: $\Delta B=1$ magnetic and chromo-magnetic operators\footnote{ There

270: are one-loop gluino contributions to the Wilson coefficients of the

271: four-quark operators, but we will not consider them here.}

272: $Q_7=(e/16\pi^2)m_b {\bar s}_L \sigma^{\mu \nu}b_RF_{\mu\nu}$ and

273: $Q_8=(g_s/16\pi^2)\,m_b {\bar s}_L \sigma^{\mu \nu}T^ab_RG^a_{\mu\nu}$

274: evaluated at the matching scale $\muw$ in the effective Hamiltonian:

275: %

276: \be

277: \label{effH}

278: {\cal H}= -\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^*V_{tb} \sum_i C_i(\muw) Q_i(\muw)

279: \ee

280: %

281: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant and $V_{ts},\,V_{tb}$ are elements

282: of the CKM matrix.  We can organize the Wilson coefficients of the

283: operators $Q_{7,8}$ in the following way:

284: %

285: \bea

286: C_{7,8}(\muw)& = &C^{(0){\,\rm SM}}_{7,8}(\muw) + 

287:  C_{7,8}^{(0){\,H^\pm}}(\muw)

288:  + C_{7,8}^{(0){\,\susy}}(\muw)  \non\\ &+&

289: \frac{\as(\muw)}{4 \pi} \left[ C^{(1){\,\rm SM}}_{7,8}(\muw) +

290:  C_{7,8}^{(1){\,H^\pm}}(\muw)

291:  +  C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}}(\muw) \right],

292: \label{wc1}

293: \eea

294: %

295: where the various LO contributions are classified according to whether

296: the corresponding one-loop diagrams contain only SM fields

297: ($C_{7,8}^{(0)\,\rm SM}$), a physical charged Higgs boson and an up-type quark

298: ($C_{7,8}^{(0)\,H^\pm}$), or a chargino and an up-type squark

299: ($C_{7,8}^{{(0)\,\susy}}$).  The expressions for $C_{7,8}^{(0){\,\rm

300: SM}}$ and $C_{7,8}^{(0){\,H^\pm}}$ can be found, e.g., in

301: ref.~\cite{CDGG1}, while those for $C_{7,8}^{(0){\,\susy}}$ can be

302: found, e.g., in eq.~(4) of ref.~\cite{CDGG2}. Neutralino and gluino

303: exchange diagrams will be neglected under our MFV assumption.  The

304: relation between the LO and NLO Wilson coefficients at $\muw$ and the

305: branching ratio for $\bsg$ is well known (see for example

306: refs.~\cite{GM,CDGG1}).

307: 

308: \begin{figure}[p]

309: \begin{center}

310: \mbox{\epsfig{file=bsgamma.eps,width=13.5cm}}

311: \end{center}

312: \vspace{-2mm}

313: \caption{\sf Feynman diagrams containing a gluino and a $W$ or a Higgs

314: boson ($\phi = H^\pm,G^\pm$).  A photon or gluon is assumed to attach

315: in all possible ways to the particles in the loops.} 

316: \label{diag1}

317: \end{figure}

318: \begin{figure}[p]

319: \begin{center}

320: \mbox{\epsfig{file=bsgchar.eps,width=13.5cm}}

321: \end{center}

322: \vspace{-2mm}

323: \caption{\sf Same as fig.~1 for diagrams containing a chargino and a

324: gluino or a quartic squark coupling. The index $i$ labels the three

325: generations of up-type quarks and squarks.} 

326: \label{diag2}

327: \end{figure}

328: 

329: The NLO coefficients $C^{(1){\,\rm SM}}_{7,8}$ and

330: $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,H^\pm}}$ contain the gluonic two-loop corrections to

331: the SM and charged Higgs loops, respectively, and can be found for

332: instance in ref.~\cite{CDGG1}.  At NLO the supersymmetric contribution

333: $ C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}}$ can be further decomposed,

334: %

335: \be

336: \label{decom}

337: C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}} = C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\tilde{g}}} +

338: C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\chi^\pm}}, 

339: \ee 

340: %

341: where $C_{7,8}^{(1)\,\tilde{g}}$ contains two-loop diagrams with a

342: gluino together with a Higgs or W boson, while

343: $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\chi^\pm}}$ corresponds to two-loop diagrams with a

344: chargino together with a gluon or a gluino or a quartic squark

345: coupling.  It should be recalled that, unlike $C^{(1){\,\rm

346: SM}}_{7,8}$ and $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,H^\pm}}$, the two-loop gluonic

347: corrections to the chargino loops are not UV finite: as shown in

348: \cite{CDGG2}, in order to obtain a finite result one has to combine

349: them with the chargino-gluino diagrams.  The chargino-gluon two-loop

350: contributions have been fully computed in refs.~\cite{CDGG2,bobeth}.

351: On the other hand, two-loop contributions involving gluinos (in both

352: $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\tilde{g}}}$ and $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\chi^\pm}}$) have

353: been considered in ref.~\cite{CDGG2} only in the heavy gluino

354: limit\footnote{In ref.~\cite{CDGG2} one of the top squarks was also

355: decoupled, but it is straightforward to generalize the formulae for

356: the light stop to the heavy stop.  }.  We are now going to relax this

357: approximation and to compute $ C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}}$ for arbitrary

358: gluino mass in the MFV framework, assuming vanishing flavor-changing

359: gluino couplings.

360: 

361: The two-loop diagrams containing a gluino or a quartic squark coupling

362: that contribute to $C_{7,8}^{(1)\,\tilde{g}}$ and

363: $C_{7,8}^{(1)\,\chi^\pm}$ are shown in figs.~\ref{diag1} and

364: \ref{diag2}, respectively. Together with the diagrams with gluons,

365: they complete the QCD contribution to the Wilson coefficients of

366: $Q_{7,8}$ in the MSSM under the MFV assumption. The effective theory

367: is trivial, and the Wilson coefficients are directly given by the

368: result of the Feynman diagrams. We follow the same methods employed in

369: \cite{CDGG1}, in particular we perform our calculation in the

370: background-field gauge \cite{bground}, regularize the ultraviolet

371: divergences using naive dimensional regularization (NDR), and neglect

372: terms suppressed by powers of $m_b/M_W$ or $m_b/\msusy$ (after

373: factoring out a bottom mass in the definition of the operators $Q_7$

374: and $Q_8$). The result for each diagram depends on a number of mass

375: and coupling parameters; it can be simplified assuming the up-type

376: squarks of the first two generations to be degenerate in mass, and

377: neglecting the masses of all quarks of the first two generations. This

378: set of assumptions allows us to exploit the unitarity of the CKM

379: matrix and to factor out the combination $V_{ts}^*V_{tb}$ in the

380: effective Hamiltonian of eq.~(\ref{effH}).

381: 

382: The complete calculation of the two-loop gluino contribution presents

383: a novel feature with respect to heavy gluino analysis of \cite{CDGG2},

384: namely the need for flavor-changing counterterms.  Indeed, there are

385: two-loop gluino diagrams that contain the effective FCG interactions

386: $\tilde{b} \tilde{g} s$ or $b \tilde{s} \tilde{g}$ (see, e.g.,

387: diagrams ({\it a}) and ({\it b}) in fig.~\ref{diag1} and \ref{diag2},

388: respectively). These one-loop electroweak vertices are divergent and

389: need to be renormalized. The corresponding contributions were

390: irrelevant in \cite{CDGG2} because they are suppressed by inverse

391: powers of the gluino mass. We therefore distinguish between

392: flavor-conserving counterterms, already considered in \cite{CDGG2},

393: and flavor-changing counterterms of electroweak origin.

394: 

395: {\it Flavor-conserving} counterterms are of ${\cal O}(\as)$ and

396: originate from the masses of the bottom and top quarks, from the

397: masses and left-right mixing of the up-type squarks that enter the

398: one-loop diagrams with charginos, and from the flavor diagonal part of

399: the external leg corrections. The finite parts of these counterterms

400: depend on our choice of renormalization scheme for the masses and

401: mixing angles that enter the one-loop results.  In order to facilitate

402: the inclusion and resummation of some large higher order effects, one

403: can also distinguish between the top and bottom masses that originate

404: from the loops or from the use of equations of motion, and those

405: arising from Yukawa couplings or their supersymmetric equivalent.

406: 

407: In the MFV framework, the remaining {\it flavor-changing} counterterms

408: are of electroweak origin and arise from the renormalization of the

409: flavor mixing of quarks and squarks and from the flavor changing part

410: of the external leg corrections.  To discuss them, we start from the

411: gluino-quark-squark interaction Lagrangian in the super-CKM basis,

412: where the matrices of Yukawa couplings are diagonal and the squarks

413: are rotated parallel to their fermionic superpartners:

414: %

415: \be

416: \label{largorig}

417: {\cal L} \supset -  g_s \,T^a\, \sq2\,\left(

418: \bar{g^a}\, b_L \,\sblc - \bar{g^a}\, b_R \,\sbrc

419: + \bar{g^a}\, s_L \,\sslc - \bar{g^a}\, s_R \,\ssrc 

420: \right) \,+ {\rm h.c.}

421: \ee

422: %

423: where $g_s$ is the strong coupling constant and $T^a$ are SU(3)

424: generators. We can restrict to the mixing between second and third

425: generations, and since we are neglecting $m_s$, we need not consider

426: the terms involving $s_R$ or $\ssr$.  Upon renormalization of the

427: mixing matrices, the {\em bare} quark and squark fields are rotated as

428: follows:

429: %

430: \be

431: \label{rotq}

432: \left(\begin{array}{c}\sdu\\ \sdd\\ \sdt\end{array}\right)

433: = \;(U^r + \delta U)\;

434: \left(\begin{array}{c}\sbl\\ \sbr\\ \ssl\end{array}\right)\,,

435: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

436: \left(\begin{array}{c}\dul\\ \ddl \end{array}\right)

437: = \;(u^{L\,r} + \delta u^L)\,

438: \left(\begin{array}{c} b_L \\ s_L \end{array}\right)\,.

439: \ee 

440: %

441: The MFV assumption translates into the requirement that the

442: renormalized mixing matrices be flavor diagonal:

443: %

444: \be

445: \label{rotsq}

446: U^r = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 

447: B&0\\0&1\end{array}\right)

448: = \left(\begin{array}{ccc} 

449: \;\;\;\cos\theta_{\tilde{b}}&\sin\theta_{\tilde{b}}&0\\

450: -\sin\theta_{\tilde{b}}&\cos\theta_{\tilde{b}}&0\\0&0&1\end{array}\right)\,,

451: \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

452: u^{L\,r} = \left(\begin{array}{cc} 

453: 1&0\\0&1\end{array}\right)\,,

454: \ee

455: %

456: where $B$ is a $2\times2$ mixing matrix in the sbottom sector and

457: $\theta_{\tilde{b}}$ is the sbottom mixing angle. Under this

458: requirement, the mass eigenstates for the down-type squarks relevant

459: to our calculation can be identified with the usual sbottoms $\sbu$

460: and $\sbd$ and the left super-strange $\ssl$.  However, even if we

461: assume that the renormalized mixing matrices for quarks and squarks

462: are flavor-diagonal, this is not the case for the corresponding

463: counterterms $\delta u^{L}$ and $\delta U$. They generate the FCG

464: interactions:

465: %

466: \be

467: \label{lagrot}

468: {\cal L} \supset - g_s \,T^a\, \sq2\,\left[\;

469: (\delta U^{\dagger}_{3i}+B^{\dagger}_{1i}\,\delta u^{L}_{21}) 

470: \,\overline{s_L}\, g^a\,\sbi 

471: +(\delta U_{31}-\delta u^{L}_{21}) \,\bar{g^a}\, b_L\,\sslc

472: -\delta U_{32} \,\bar{g^a}\, b_R\,\sslc 

473: \right] \,+ {\rm h.c.}

474: \ee

475: %

476: Additional flavor changing renormalization effects are due to the

477: (on-shell) wave function renormalization (WFR) of external quarks (see

478: diagrams ({\it f}) and ({\it g}) in figs.~1 and 2).  The divergent

479: parts of the mixing counterterms $\delta u^{L}$ and $\delta U$ are

480: determined in a gauge-invariant way by the requirement that they

481: cancel the divergence of the antihermitian part of the corresponding

482: WFR matrix \cite{mixing}.  Using $ m_s\to 0$ and neglecting terms

483: suppressed by $m_b/M_W$, we obtain:

484: %

485: \be

486: \label{countq}

487: \delta u^{L}_{21} = -\frac{1}{2}\,\left[ \,\Sigma^{L}_{sb}(0) + 2

488:  \,\Sigma^{S}_{sb}(0)\right]\,, \ee

489: %

490: where we have decomposed the generic quark self-energy as 

491: %

492: \be

493: \Sigma_{ij}(p) \;\equiv\; \Sigma^L_{ij}(p^2)\not{\!p}\,P_L 

494: + \Sigma^R_{ij}(p^2)\not{\!p}\,P_R +  \Sigma^{S}_{ij}(p^2) (m_i P_L

495: + m_j P_R)\,,

496: \ee

497: %

498: $P_L$ and $P_R$ being chiral projectors.  The counterterm for the

499: squark mixing matrix is instead 

500: %

501: \be

502: \label{defcountsq}

503: \delta U_{ik} = \hlf\,\Sigma_{j\neq i} \, 

504: \frac{ \Pi_{ij}(m_j^2)+\Pi^*_{ji}(m_i^2)}{m_i^2-m_j^2}\,U_{jk}\,,

505: \ee

506: %

507: which, for the terms that appear in eq.~(\ref{lagrot}), specializes to:

508: %

509: \be

510: \label{countsq}

511: \delta U^{\dagger}_{3i} =  \hlf\,

512: \frac{ \Pi_{\ssl\sbi}(\mssl)+\Pi_{\ssl\sbi}(\msbi)}{\msbi-\mssl}

513: \,,\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

514: \delta U_{3j} = -\hlf\,\Sigma_i \, 

515: \frac{ \Pi_{\ssl\sbi}(\mssl)+\Pi_{\ssl\sbi}(\msbi)}{\msbi-\mssl}\,B_{ij}\,.

516: \ee

517: %

518: We therefore see that the counterterms of the gluino flavor changing

519: couplings are determined by quark and squark flavor-changing two-point

520: functions only.  We have checked that the counterterms in

521: eqs.~(\ref{countq}) and (\ref{countsq}) renormalize correctly the

522: $\tilde{d}\,\bar{d'}\,g^a$ vertex (see \cite{Hikasa}) and agree with

523: the known one-loop RGE equations of the MSSM \cite{RGE}.

524: 

525: The finite part of the counterterms in eqs.~(\ref{countq}) and

526: (\ref{countsq}) is related to the way we interpret the MFV requirement

527: in eq.~(\ref{rotsq}).  In particular, if we perform a minimal

528: subtraction we are imposing the MFV condition on the

529: $\msbar$-renormalized parameters of the Lagrangian evaluated at the

530: scale $\mumfv$. An alternative option consists in absorbing also the

531: finite part of the antihermitian WFR: this results in a conventional

532: and gauge-dependent\footnote{ For the quark mixing matrix a

533: simplification occurs when the external quark masses can be neglected,

534: as in our case, and the gauge dependence drops out.} on-shell

535: renormalization scheme \cite{mixing}. In the following, we will assume

536: the first option and therefore our result will depend on the mass

537: scale $\mumfv$, that we identify with the scale where the quark and

538: squark mass matrices are assumed to be aligned.

539: 

540: Once the flavor-changing vertices of eq.~(\ref{lagrot}) are inserted

541: into one-loop diagrams with a gluino and a down-type squark, the

542: resulting counterterm contributions cancel the UV poles arising from

543: i) the diagrams in figs.~1$d$, 1$e$ and 2$e$, ii) the diagrams in

544: figs.~2$a$ and 2$b$ with the photon or gluon attached to the down-type

545: squark or to the gluino and iii) the flavor-changing WFR diagrams in

546: figs.~1$f$, 1$g$, 2$f$ and 2$g$. The remaining UV poles of the

547: diagrams in figs.~1 and 2 are canceled by the flavor-conserving

548: counterterms, but for a residual pole in the diagrams with gluino and

549: chargino of fig.~2. This is the pole that was found in \cite{CDGG2} in

550: the limit of heavy gluino; it is compensated by a corresponding pole

551: in the diagrams with gluon and chargino. In the gluonic corrections to

552: the chargino diagrams reported in \cite{CDGG2,bobeth} the residual UV

553: divergence has been subtracted either by the heavy gluino effective

554: chargino-quark-squark vertex or in a minimal way. The finite parts

555: related to this subtraction must be taken into account before

556: combining with the gluino contributions. A shift in the $\chi

557: \bar{b}\tilde{t}$ coupling is also necessary to restore supersymmetric

558: Ward identities that are not respected by NDR (see \cite{CDGG2}).

559: 

560: The analytic expressions of $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}}$ we derived are

561: too long to be reported. However, in view of our choice for the flavor

562: changing counterterms, we can split our result into two pieces

563: %

564: \be 

565: \label{peppe}

566: C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}}(\muw) =

567: C_{7,8}^{(1a){\,\susy}}(\dots,\muw) + 

568: C_{7,8}^{(1b){\,\susy}}(\dots,\mumfv), 

569: \ee 

570: %

571: where the dots represent the relevant combination of couplings, masses

572: and mixing angles and the $(1a)$ piece can be identified with the

573: contribution that, in the heavy gluino limit, reduces to the result of

574: ref.\cite{CDGG2}. The interesting point is that $

575: C_{7,8}^{(1b){\,\susy}}$ contains logarithms of the ratio

576: $\msusy/\mumfv$, i.e. of a supersymmetric mass over a mass scale 

577: related to the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking. For example, in

578: supergravity models one identifies $\mumfv$ with the Planck mass and

579: therefore the Wilson coefficients contain very large logarithms that

580: need to be resummed.  If we were to employ an on-shell definition for

581: the flavor changing counterterms, $ C_{7,8}^{(1b){\,\susy}}$ would be

582: independent of $\mumfv$ and our result would have no large

583: logarithm. In practice, the use of on-shell mixing counterterms is

584: equivalent to assuming that MFV is valid at the scale of the

585: supersymmetric masses entering the loops.

586: 

587: We performed several checks of our calculation. Ref.~\cite{borzu}

588: presented a calculation of the $\tan\beta$-enhanced part of the

589: contribution to the Wilson coefficients coming from the diagrams in

590: fig.~1$b$ that involve a charged Higgs boson. We have verified that,

591: if we restrict our calculation to the same subset of diagrams and

592: adopt the same input parameters as in ref.~\cite{borzu}, we can

593: reproduce exactly fig.~8 of that paper. Also, a calculation of the QCD

594: contributions to the Wilson coefficients from the diagrams in

595: fig.~2$d$, involving a chargino and a quartic squark coupling, has

596: been presented in ref.~\cite{bobeth}. We have checked that, if we

597: assume MFV in the up squark sector and perform an $\msbar$

598: renormalization, we find complete agreement with the analytical

599: formulae of \cite{bobeth}. On the other hand, the contribution of the

600: diagrams in fig.~2$d$ is removed by the corresponding counterterm

601: contribution if the squark masses and mixing are defined on-shell.  As

602: already mentioned, the results for $C_{7,8}$ depend on the

603: renormalization scheme for a number of parameters. In the case all

604: parameters are renormalized in the on-shell scheme, the QCD

605: corrections to the Wilson coefficients still depend on the matching

606: scale $\muw$ at which the effective operators $Q_{7,8}$ are

607: renormalized (see eq.(\ref{effH})). This dependence can be expressed

608: in terms of the LO anomalous dimension matrix \cite{CDGG2} and we

609: reproduce it correctly.

610: 

611: \section{Numerical Results}

612: 

613: We start the discussion of our numerical results by defining the set

614: of input parameters relevant to the calculation of the Wilson

615: coefficients.  For the SM parameters we take $M_Z$ = 91.2 GeV,

616: $\sin^2\theta_W = 0.23$ and $\as(M_W) = 0.12$ and for the top mass we

617: use the SM value in the $\msbar$ scheme i.e.  $\overline{m}_t(M_W)$ =

618: 176.5 GeV (corresponding to a physical top mass of 175 GeV).  The soft

619: SUSY-breaking terms that enter the squark mass matrices in the MFV

620: scenario and are relevant to our calculation are: the masses for the

621: SU(2) doublets, $m_{Q_i}$, where $i$ is a generation index; the masses

622: for the third-generation singlets, $m_T$ and $m_B$; the trilinear

623: interaction terms for the third-generation squarks, $A_t$ and

624: $A_b$. We take all of them as running parameters, computed in a

625: minimal subtraction scheme at the renormalization scale $\mususy =

626: 500$ GeV.

627: %

628: We recall that, in the super-CKM basis, the $3\times3$ mass matrices

629: for the up-type and down-type left squarks are related by

630: $(M_U^2)_{LL} = V (M_D^2)_{LL} V^{\dagger}$, where $V$ is the CKM

631: matrix, therefore the two matrices can be both flavor-diagonal at

632: $\mu=\mumfv$ only if they are flavor-degenerate. This means that in

633: the MFV scenario we must introduce a common mass parameter for the

634: three generations of SU(2) squark doublets, i.e.~$m_{Q_i} \equiv m_Q$

635: at $\mu=\mumfv$.

636: %

637: The other MSSM parameters relevant to our calculation, for which we

638: need not specify a renormalization prescription, are: the charged

639: Higgs boson mass $\mhc$; the gluino mass $\mgl$; the SU(2) gaugino

640: mass parameter $M_2$; the higgsino mass parameter $\mu$, with the same

641: sign convention as in ref.~\cite{DGG}; the ratio of Higgs vacuum

642: expectation values $\tan\beta$.

643: 

644: Some potentially large higher-order corrections can be absorbed in the

645: one-loop results. Following ref.~\cite{DGG}, we absorb in the one-loop

646: coefficients the $\tan\beta$-enhanced corrections to the bottom Yukawa

647: coupling \cite{HRS}.  As explained in \cite{DGG}, large logarithms of

648: the ratio $\msusy/\muw$, induced by gluonic corrections to the

649: one-loop chargino-stop diagrams, could also be resummed to all orders

650: by expressing the higgsino couplings in terms of

651: $\overline{m}_t(\mususy)$. In what follows, however, we will use

652: $\overline{m}_t(M_W)$ for the couplings of charginos (or Higgs bosons)

653: to top quarks and squarks, as well as for the mass of the virtual top

654: quarks in the loops. For consistency with our choice of the SUSY

655: parameters, we will use in the stop mass matrix the

656: $\drbar$-renormalized top quark mass, computed at the scale $\mususy$

657: with the field content of the MSSM.

658: 

659: Leaving a systematic study of the constraints imposed on the MSSM

660: parameters by the $\bsg$ branching ratio to a future publication, we

661: restrict our analysis to two different choices of MSSM parameters:

662: %

663: \begin{itemize}

664: 

665: \item[(I)] $m_Q = 230$ GeV, $m_T = 210$ GeV,

666: $m_B = 260$ GeV, $A_t = -70$ GeV, $A_b = 0$, $\mhc= 350$ GeV,  $\mgl = M_2 =

667: 200$ GeV, $\mu = 250$ GeV,  $\tan\beta = 30$;

668: 

669: \item[(II)] $m_Q = 480$ GeV, $m_T = 390$ GeV,

670: $m_B = 510$ GeV, $A_t = -560$ GeV, $A_b = -960$, 

671: $\mhc= 430$ GeV,  $\mgl = 600$ GeV, $M_2 = 190$ GeV, 

672: $\mu = 390$ GeV,  $\tan\beta = 10$.

673: 

674: \end{itemize}

675: 

676: The first set is analogous to ``spectrum II'' in ref.~\cite{borzu} and

677: is characterized by moderately large $\tan\beta$ and fairly light

678: superpartners. The second set of parameters corresponds broadly to the

679: so-called Snowmass Point SPS1a$^\prime$ \cite{snowmass}, obtained

680: through RG evolution from a set of universal high-energy boundary

681: conditions imposed by the mechanism of gravity-mediated supersymmetry

682: breaking. It is characterized by a smaller value of $\tan\beta$ and

683: somewhat heavier superpartners (well within the reach of future

684: collider experiments). In both cases we impose the MFV relation

685: $m_{Q_i} \equiv m_Q$.

686: 

687: 

688: \begin{figure}[p]

689: \begin{center}

690: \mbox{

691: \epsfig{figure=c7vsmg_I.eps,width=7.8cm}

692: \epsfig{figure=c8vsmg_I.eps,width=7.8cm}}

693: \end{center}

694: \caption{\sf Wilson coefficients $C_7(M_W)$, left, and $C_8(M_W)$, right,

695: as a function of the gluino mass for a choice of MSSM input parameters

696: modeled on set I (see text).  

697: }

698: \label{plot-I}

699: \end{figure}

700: \begin{figure}[p]

701: \begin{center}

702: \mbox{

703: \epsfig{figure=c7vsmg_IIp.eps,width=7.8cm}

704: \epsfig{figure=c8vsmg_IIp.eps,width=7.8cm}}

705: \end{center}

706: \caption{\sf Same as fig.~\ref{plot-I} for the MSSM input parameters

707: of set II.}

708: \label{plot-II}

709: \end{figure}

710: 

711: We can now discuss our numerical results for the Wilson coefficients

712: $C_7(M_W)$ and $C_8(M_W)$. To start with, we assume MFV at the level

713: of the running parameters of the MSSM Lagrangian, at the

714: renormalization scale $\mumfv=500$ GeV.  In figs.~\ref{plot-I} and

715: \ref{plot-II}, the left end of each curve corresponds to the choice of

716: MSSM input parameters defined above in the sets I and II,

717: respectively.  To study the decoupling behaviour of the corrections,

718: we rescale all the supersymmetric mass parameters -- but for the

719: charged Higgs boson mass -- by an increasing common factor, and show

720: $C_7(M_W)$ and $C_8(M_W)$ as a function of the resulting value of the

721: gluino mass (i.e.\ in figs.~\ref{plot-I} and \ref{plot-II} all the

722: squark and chargino masses increase together with $\mgl$). In each

723: plot, the dashed line corresponds to the pure one-loop result

724: (i.e. without resummation of the $\tan\beta$-enhanced corrections to

725: the bottom Yukawa coupling), supplemented with the two-loop gluonic

726: corrections to the diagrams with SM particles or charged Higgs boson;

727: the dot-dashed line contains in addition the $\tan\beta$-enhanced

728: gluino contributions as computed in the effective theory approach in

729: refs.~\cite{DGG,carena}; finally, the solid line corresponds to our

730: complete two-loop diagrammatic calculation.

731: %

732: Comparing the solid and dot-dashed curves in figs.~\ref{plot-I} and

733: \ref{plot-II}, it can be seen that for low values of the superparticle

734: masses the $\tan\beta$-enhanced gluino contributions of

735: refs.~\cite{DGG,carena} do not provide a good approximation of our

736: full two-loop result, especially in the case of $C_7(M_W)$. As the

737: superpartners get heavier, however, the effective theory approach

738: becomes more reliable, and the corresponding results get closer to

739: those of the complete calculation. Indeed, for large values of the

740: superparticle masses the difference between the two-loop results

741: (solid and dot-dashed lines) and the one-loop results (dashed lines)

742: is mainly due to the non-decoupling charged Higgs contributions

743: discussed in refs.~\cite{DGG,carena}.

744: 

745: As mentioned above, in figs.~\ref{plot-I} and \ref{plot-II} we assume

746: that MFV is valid at the level of the running parameters of the

747: Lagrangian, at a renormalization scale of the order of the

748: superparticle masses. The plots in fig.~\ref{plot-mfv}, obtained with

749: the MSSM parameters of set II, allow us to appreciate the implications

750: of this assumption. In each plot, the solid line represents our

751: two-loop results for the Wilson coefficients as a function of

752: $\mumfv$, when the latter is varied between 100 GeV and $10^{16}$

753: GeV. For comparison, we also plot the one-loop results (dashed lines),

754: defined as in the previous figures, and the scale-independent two-loop

755: results that we obtain by employing an on-shell definition of the

756: flavor changing counterterms (dot-dashed lines).

757: %

758: It can be seen that, for values of $\mumfv$ of the order of the

759: superparticle masses, the results obtained with the minimal definition

760: of the flavor changing counterterms are very similar to those obtained

761: with the on-shell definition. However, when $\mumfv$ is increased up

762: to the GUT scale, the logarithm of the ratio $\msusy/\mumfv$ becomes

763: very large, and the corresponding contribution modifies sensibly the

764: two-loop part of the correction.  Of course, in this case a

765: fixed-order calculation does not provide a good approximation to the

766: correct result, and the large logarithmic corrections have to be

767: resummed.

768: 

769: 

770: \begin{figure}[t]

771: \begin{center}

772: \mbox{

773: \epsfig{figure=c7vsqmfv_IIp.eps,width=7.8cm}

774: \epsfig{figure=c8vsqmfv_IIp.eps,width=7.8cm}}

775: \end{center}

776: \vspace{-2mm}

777: \caption{\sf Wilson coefficients $C_7(M_W)$, left, and $C_8(M_W)$,

778: right, as a function of the scale $\mumfv$ at which the MFV condition

779: is imposed (see text).  }

780: \label{plot-mfv}

781: \end{figure}

782: 

783: \section{Discussion and summary}

784: We have presented a complete calculation of the ${\cal O}(\as)$

785: supersymmetric corrections to the Wilson coefficients relevant for

786: radiative $B$ decays, assuming MFV (i.e.\ the vanishing of

787: flavor-changing gluino couplings) at a scale $\mumfv$.  The magnitude

788: of $\mumfv$ depends on the specific model of supersymmetry breaking,

789: but can be much larger than that of all other mass scales entering the

790: calculation, giving rise to large logarithms that must be resummed. It

791: is important to realize that the logs of $\mumfv$ are directly related

792: to the running of the flavor-changing gluino-quark-squark couplings

793: that we have required to vanish at that scale.  In other words, even

794: if we impose MFV at $\mumfv$, the MSSM lagrangian at a scale $\mu \neq

795: \mumfv$ will contain the interactions

796: %

797: \be

798: \label{lagrot2}

799:  - g_s \,T^a\, \sq2\,\left[\; g^i_{s_L}(\mu)

800: \,\overline{s_L}\, g^a\,\sdi + g^i_{b_L}(\mu)\,\bar{g^a}\,

801: b_L\,\sdic +g^i_{b_R}(\mu) \,\bar{g^a}\, b_R\,\sdic \right] \,+ {\rm

802: h.c.}, 

803: \ee 

804: %

805: where $\sdi$ are the down-type squark mass eigenstates (no longer

806: identified with flavor eigenstates). The couplings $g^i_{s_L}$ and

807: $g^i_{b_{R,L}}$ induce $b\to s$ transitions mediated by one-loop

808: gluino diagrams and their evolution follows from the standard RGE of

809: the MSSM (see \cite{wyler,RGE}). In particular, the resummation of the

810: large logs of $\mumfv$ is accomplished by solving the one-loop RGE for

811: the quark and squark mass matrices, which are then diagonalized at the

812: scale $\mu$. Indeed, the coefficient of $\log\mumfv$ in

813: eq.~(\ref{peppe}) can be easily reproduced by expanding the RGE

814: solution for the above couplings in powers of $\alpha_W$.

815: 

816: Even in the case of very large $\mumfv$, a natural and consistent

817: approximation scheme can be adopted if the $b\to s$ flavor violation

818: generated radiatively at the low scale $\mususy$, though not vanishing, is

819: {\em small} (as is generally the case for $\tan\beta$ not too large

820: \cite{borz}) or the gluino mass is large.  The one-loop gluino

821: diagrams can then be computed using the interactions in eq.~(13)

822: at the scale $\mususy$, and it is safe to neglect all QCD corrections

823: to this contribution. The same applies to one-loop diagrams with

824: flavor-changing neutralino-quark-squark couplings (whose contribution

825: gets also suppressed in the $Q_7\,$--$\,Q_8$ mixing \cite{DFMS}). In

826: addition to these two contributions, we are now able to include all

827: other supersymmetric contributions at ${\cal O}(\as)$. The QCD

828: correction $C_{7,8}^{(1){\,\susy}}(\muw)$, in particular, should be

829: computed using $\mumfv=\mususy$, because the radiative effects that

830: generate FCG interactions are already taken into account and resummed

831: by the one-loop gluino diagrams.  This strategy allows for a precise

832: calculation of radiative decays in the scenarios characterized by MFV

833: at a high scale. A detailed numerical implementation for the main SUSY

834: breaking scenarios will be presented elsewhere.

835: 

836: In summary, we have completed the calculation of the QCD corrections

837: to radiative $B$ decays in supersymmetric models characterized by

838: Minimal Flavor Violation at a scale $\mumfv$. In the case $\mumfv$ is

839: much larger than the electroweak scale, we have explained how to resum

840: the ensuing large logs. We have seen that the numerical results based

841: on the new calculation differ significantly from existing partial

842: calculations for relatively light superpartners, though they agree

843: well with \cite{DGG} in the case of a heavy SUSY spectrum.  We believe

844: the new results, soon to be made available as a public computer code,

845: will prove essential for an accurate calculation of radiative $B$

846: decays in most supersymmetric scenarios.

847: 

848: 

849: \section*{Acknowledgements}

850: We are grateful to Gian Giudice for collaboration at the early stage

851: of this project and for many useful discussions.  P.~S.\ carried out

852: part of this work at Durham IPPP, and is grateful to INFN, Torino for

853: hospitality. The work of P.~G.\ was supported in part by the EU grant

854: MERG-CT-2004-511156 and by MIUR under contract 2004021808-009. The

855: Feynman diagrams in figs.~1 and 2 were drawn with {\tt JaxoDraw}

856: \cite{jaxodraw}, and {\tt FormCalc} \cite{formcalc} was used to

857: convert our results into fortran routines.

858: 

859: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

860: \bibitem{hfag}Heavy Flavor Averaging Group, {\tt

861:  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}.

862: 

863: \bibitem{GM} P.~Gambino and M.~Misiak,

864: %``Quark mass effects in anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma,''

865: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 338

866: [hep-ph/0104034].

867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104034;%%

868: 

869: \bibitem{beauty}

870: P.~Gambino,

871: %``Semileptonic and radiative B decays circa 2005,''

872: hep-ph/0510085.

873: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510085;%%

874: 

875: \bibitem{Buras:2002er}

876: A.~J.~Buras and M.~Misiak,

877: %``Anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma after completion of the NLO QCD calculations,''

878: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 33}(2002) 2597 

879: [hep-ph/0207131].

880: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207131;%%

881: 

882: 

883: \bibitem{nnlo}

884: I.~Blokland {\it et al.},

885: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 033014  [hep-ph/0506055];

886: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0506055;%%

887: M.~Gorbahn, U.~Haisch and M.~Misiak,

888: %``Three-loop mixing of dipole operators,''

889: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 95} (2005) 102004  [hep-ph/0504194];

890: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504194;%%

891: M.~Gorbahn and U.~Haisch,

892: %``Effective Hamiltonian for non-leptonic $|$Delta(F)$|$ = 1 decays at NNLO in

893: %QCD,''

894: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 713} (2005) 291 [hep-ph/0411071];

895: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411071;%%

896: M.~Misiak and M.~Steinhauser,

897: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 683} (2004) 277  [hep-ph/0401041];

898: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401041;%%

899: K.~Bieri, C.~Greub and M.~Steinhauser,

900: %``Fermionic NNLL corrections to b $\to$ s gamma,''

901: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 114019  [hep-ph/0302051];

902: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302051;%%

903: H.~M.~Asatrian {\it et al.},

904: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 619} (2005) 322  [hep-ph/0505068].

905: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505068;%%

906: 

907: \bibitem{CDGG1}

908: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

909: %``Next-to-leading QCD corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma: Standard model and

910: %two-Higgs doublet model,''

911: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 527} (1998) 21

912: [hep-ph/9710335].

913: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710335;%%

914: 

915: \bibitem{2HDM}

916: F.~M.~Borzumati and C.~Greub,

917: %``2HDMs predictions for anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma in NLO {QCD},''

918: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 074004 

919: [hep-ph/9802391];

920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802391;%%

921: P.~Ciafaloni, A.~Romanino and A.~Strumia,

922: %``Two-loop QCD corrections to charged-Higgs-mediated b $\to$ s gamma  decay,''

923: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 524} (1998) 361 

924: [hep-ph/9710312].

925: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710312;%%

926: 

927: \bibitem{LO} 

928:  S.~Bertolini, F.~Borzumati, A.~Masiero and G.~Ridolfi,

929:   %``Effects Of Supergravity Induced Electroweak Breaking On Rare B Decays And

930:   %Mixings,''

931:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 353} (1991) 591;

932:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B353,591;%%

933:   R.~Barbieri and G.~F.~Giudice,

934:   %``b $\to$ s gamma decay and supersymmetry,''

935:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 309} (1993) 86

936:   [hep-ph/9303270];

937:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303270;%%

938:   N.~Oshimo,

939:   %``Radiative B meson decay in supersymmetric models,''

940:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 404} (1993) 20;

941:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B404,20;%%

942:   M.~A.~Diaz,

943:   %``Constraints on supersymmetry due to b $\to$ s gamma: An Improved

944:   %calculation,''

945:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 304} (1993) 278

946:   [hep-ph/9303280];

947:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9303280;%%

948:   Y.~Okada,

949:   %``Light stop and the b $\to$ s gamma process,''

950:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315} (1993) 119

951:   [hep-ph/9307249];

952:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307249;%%

953:  R.~Garisto and J.~N.~Ng,

954:   %``Supersymmetric b $\to$ s gamma with large chargino contributions,''

955:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 315} (1993) 372

956:   [hep-ph/9307301];

957:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9307301;%%

958:   V.~D.~Barger, M.~S.~Berger, P.~Ohmann and R.~J.~N.~Phillips,

959:   %``Constraints on SUSY GUT unification from b $\to$ s gamma decay,''

960:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 2438

961:   [hep-ph/9407273].

962:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9407273;%%

963: 

964: \bibitem{Borzumati:1999qt}

965: F.~Borzumati {\it et al.},

966: %, C.~Greub, T.~Hurth and D.~Wyler,

967: %``Gluino contribution to radiative B decays: Organization of QCD  corrections

968: %and leading order results,''

969: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 075005 

970: [hep-ph/9911245].

971: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911245;%%

972: 

973: 

974: \bibitem{GFV}

975: T.~Besmer, C.~Greub and T.~Hurth,

976: %``Bounds on flavor violating parameters in supersymmetry,''

977: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 609} (2001) 359

978: [hep-ph/0105292];

979: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105292;%%

980: M.~Ciuchini {\it et al.},

981: %, E.~Franco, A.~Masiero and L.~Silvestrini,

982: %``b $\to$ s transitions: A new frontier for indirect SUSY searches,''

983: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 075016

984: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 079901]

985: [hep-ph/0212397];

986: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212397;%%

987: J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,

988: %``Current and future limits on general flavour violation in b $\to$ s

989: %transitions in minimal supersymmetry,''

990: hep-ph/0510422.

991: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510422;%%

992: 

993: \bibitem{DGIS}

994: G.~D'Ambrosio {\it et al.},

995: %, G.~F.~Giudice, G.~Isidori and A.~Strumia,

996: %``Minimal flavour violation: An effective field theory approach,''

997: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 645} (2002) 155

998: [hep-ph/0207036].

999: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207036;%%

1000: 

1001: \bibitem{MFV}

1002: A.~J.~Buras {\it et al.},

1003: %, P.~Gambino, M.~Gorbahn, S.~Jager and L.~Silvestrini,

1004: %``Universal unitarity triangle and physics beyond the standard model,''

1005: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 500} (2001) 161 

1006: [hep-ph/0007085];

1007: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007085;%%

1008: C.~Bobeth {\it et al.},

1009: % M.~Bona, A.~J.~Buras, T.~Ewerth, M.~Pierini, L.~Silvestrini and A.~Weiler,

1010: %``Upper bounds on rare K and B decays from minimal flavor violation,''

1011: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 726} (2005) 252

1012: [hep-ph/0505110].

1013: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0505110;%%

1014: 

1015: \bibitem{wyler}

1016: J.~F.~Donoghue, H.~P.~Nilles and D.~Wyler,

1017: %``Flavor Changes In Locally Supersymmetric Theories,''

1018: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 128} (1983) 55.

1019: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B128,55;%%

1020: 

1021: \bibitem{CDGG2}

1022: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1023: %``Next-to-leading {QCD} corrections to B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry,''

1024: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534} (1998) 3

1025: [hep-ph/9806308].

1026: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806308;%%

1027: 

1028: 

1029: \bibitem{bobeth}

1030: C.~Bobeth, M.~Misiak and J.~Urban,

1031: %``Matching conditions for b $\to$ s gamma and b $\to$ s gluon in extensions of

1032: %the standard model,''

1033: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 567} (2000) 153 

1034: [hep-ph/9904413].

1035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904413;%%

1036: 

1037: 

1038: \bibitem{DGG}

1039: G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice,

1040: %``B $\to$ X/s gamma in supersymmetry: Large contributions beyond the  leading

1041: %order,''

1042: JHEP {\bf 0012} (2000) 009

1043: [hep-ph/0009337].

1044: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0009337;%%

1045: 

1046: 

1047: \bibitem{carena}

1048: M.~Carena {\it et al.},

1049: %, D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1050: %``b $\to$ s gamma and supersymmetry with large tan(beta),''

1051: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 499} (2001) 141

1052: [hep-ph/0010003].

1053: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010003;%%

1054: 

1055: 

1056: \bibitem{HRS} 

1057:   L.~J.~Hall, R.~Rattazzi and U.~Sarid,

1058:   %``The Top quark mass in supersymmetric SO(10) unification,''

1059:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}  (1994) 7048

1060:   [hep-ph/9306309].

1061:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9306309;%%

1062: 

1063: \bibitem{carena1}

1064:   M.~Carena {\it et al.},

1065: %D.~Garcia, U.~Nierste and C.~E.~M.~Wagner,

1066:   %``Effective Lagrangian for the anti-t b H+ interaction in the MSSM and

1067:   %charged Higgs phenomenology,''

1068:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 577} (2000) 88

1069:   [hep-ph/9912516].

1070:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912516;%%

1071: 

1072: \bibitem{rosz2}

1073: J.~Foster, K.~i.~Okumura and L.~Roszkowski,

1074: %``Probing the flavour structure of supersymmetry breaking with rare

1075: %B-processes: A beyond leading order analysis,''

1076: JHEP {\bf 0508} (2005) 094 [hep-ph/0506146].

1077: 

1078: 

1079: \bibitem{borzu}

1080: F.~Borzumati, C.~Greub and Y.~Yamada,

1081: %``Beyond leading-order corrections to anti-B $\to$ X/s gamma at large

1082: %tan(beta): The charged-Higgs contribution,''

1083: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 055005 

1084: [hep-ph/0311151].

1085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311151;%%

1086: 

1087: \bibitem{bground}

1088:   L.~F.~Abbott,

1089:   %``The Background Field Method Beyond One Loop,''

1090:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 185} (1981) 189;

1091:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B185,189;%%

1092:   A.~Denner, G.~Weiglein and S.~Dittmaier,

1093:   %``Application of the background field method to the electroweak standard

1094:   %model,''

1095:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 440} (1995) 95

1096:   [hep-ph/9410338].

1097:    %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410338;%%

1098: 

1099: \bibitem{mixing}

1100:   A.~Denner and T.~Sack,

1101:   %``Renormalization Of The Quark Mixing Matrix,''

1102:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 347} (1990) 203;

1103:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B347,203;%%

1104:   B.~A.~Kniehl and A.~Pilaftsis,

1105:   %``Mixing Renormalization in Majorana Neutrino Theories,''

1106:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 474} (1996) 286

1107:   [hep-ph/9601390];

1108:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9601390;%%

1109:   P.~Gambino, P.~A.~Grassi and F.~Madricardo,

1110:   %``Fermion mixing renormalization and gauge invariance,''

1111:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 454} (1999) 98

1112:   [hep-ph/9811470];

1113:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9811470;%%

1114:   Y.~Yamada,

1115:   %``Gauge dependof the on-shell renormalized mixing matrices,''

1116:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 036008 

1117:   [hep-ph/0103046].

1118:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103046;%%

1119: 

1120: \bibitem{Hikasa}

1121: K.~i.~Hikasa and M.~Kobayashi,

1122: %``Light Scalar Top At E+ E- Colliders,''

1123: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 36} (1987) 724.

1124: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D36,724;%%

1125: 

1126: \bibitem{RGE}

1127: S.~P.~Martin and M.~T.~Vaughn,

1128: %``Two loop renormalization group equations for soft supersymmetry breaking

1129: %couplings,''

1130: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 2282

1131: [hep-ph/9311340]

1132: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9311340;%%

1133: and refs. therein.

1134: 

1135: 

1136: %\bibitem{nextpaper} Io preferisco non citare articoli futuri

1137: %G.~Degrassi {\em et al.}, in preparation.

1138: 

1139: \bibitem{snowmass}

1140:   B.~C.~Allanach {\it et al.},

1141:   %``The Snowmass points and slopes: Benchmarks for SUSY searches,''

1142: %in {\it Proc. of the APS/DPF/DPB Summer Study on the Future of Particle 

1143: %Physics (Snowmass 2001) } ed. N.~Graf,

1144:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25} (2002) 113

1145: %  [eConf {\bf C010630} (2001) P125]

1146:   [hep-ph/0202233];

1147:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202233;%%

1148:   J.~A.~Aguilar-Saavedra {\it et al.},

1149: %  %``Supersymmetry parameter analysis: SPA convention and project,''

1150:   hep-ph/0511344.

1151:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511344;%%

1152: 

1153: \bibitem{borz}

1154: F.~M.~Borzumati,

1155: %``The Decay b $\to$ s gamma in the MSSM revisited,''

1156: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63} (1994) 291

1157: [hep-ph/9310212].

1158: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9310212;%%

1159: 

1160: \bibitem{DFMS}

1161:   G.~Degrassi, E.~Franco, S.~Marchetti and L.~Silvestrini,

1162:   %``QCD corrections to the electric dipole moment of the neutron in the 

1163:   %MSSM,''

1164:   JHEP {\bf 0511} (2005) 044 [hep-ph/0510137].

1165:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510137;%%

1166: 

1167: \bibitem{jaxodraw}

1168:   D.~Binosi and L.~Theussl,

1169:   %``JaxoDraw: A graphical user interface for drawing Feynman diagrams,''

1170:   Comput.\ Phys.\ Commun.\  {\bf 161} (2004) 76

1171:   [hep-ph/0309015].

1172:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309015;%%

1173: 

1174: \bibitem{formcalc}

1175: T.~Hahn,

1176:   %``New features in FormCalc 4,''

1177:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 135} (2004) 333

1178:   [hep-ph/0406288].

1179:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406288;%%

1180: 

1181: \end{thebibliography}

1182: 

1183: \end{document}

1184: