1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{array,dsfont} 

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \usepackage{amssymb}

6: \usepackage{graphics,graphpap}

7: 

8: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}

9: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.2cm}

10: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.6in}

11: \setlength{\textheight}{24cm}

12: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}

13: 

14: \addtolength{\jot}{10pt} 

15: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}

16: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}

17: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

18: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}

19: 

20: \begin{document}

21: 

22: %%%%%%%%%% Title page

23: \begin{titlepage}

24: \begin{flushright}\begin{tabular}{l}

25: IPPP/06/16\\

26: DCPT/06/32\\

27: CERN--PH--TH/2006--050

28: \end{tabular}

29: \end{flushright}

30: \vskip1.5cm

31: \begin{center}

32:    {\Large \bf \boldmath $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ from $B\to V\gamma$}

33:     \vskip1.3cm {\sc

34: Patricia Ball$^{1,2}$\footnote{Patricia.Ball@durham.ac.uk} and Roman

35: Zwicky$^{1}$\footnote{Roman.Zwicky@durham.ac.uk}}

36:   \vskip0.5cm

37: {\em        $^1$ IPPP, Department of Physics,

38: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK \\

39: \vskip0.4cm

40: $^2$ CERN, CH--1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland}\\

41: \vskip2.5cm 

42: 

43: \vskip3cm

44: 

45: {\large\bf Abstract\\[10pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{

46: The dominant theoretical uncertainty in extracting $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$

47: from the ratio of branching ratios $R\equiv{\cal B}(B\to

48: (\rho,\omega)\gamma)/{\cal B}(B\to

49: K^* \gamma)$ is given by the ratio of form factors $\xi\equiv T_1^{B\to

50:   K^*}(0)/T_1^{B\to \rho}(0)$. We re-examine $\xi$ in

51: the framework of QCD sum rules on the light-cone, taking into account

52: hitherto neglected SU(3)-breaking effects. We find $\xi 

53: = 1.17\pm 0.09$. Using QCD factorisation for the branching ratios, 

54: and the current experimental average for $R$ quoted by HFAG, 

55: this translates into  

56: $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^{\rm HFAG}_{B \to V \gamma} = 0.192\pm 0.014 ({\rm th})

57: \pm 0.016({\rm exp})$. 

58: This result agrees, within errors, with that obtained from the Standard Model 

59: unitarity triangle, $\left| V_{td}/ V_{ts} \right|_{\rm SM}= 0.216\pm  0.029$,

60: based on tree-level-only processes, and with $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|_{\Delta m} = 

61: 0.2060^{+0.0081}_{-0.0060}({\rm th})\pm 0.0007({\rm exp})$, 

62: from the CDF measurement of $B_s$ oscillations.  \\[0.5cm]

63: {\bf This version differs from the original version of the paper, 

64: published as JHEP 04 (2006) 046, by the inclusion of 

65: the new BaBar measurement of \boldmath $ 

66: B \to \rho(\omega) \gamma$ presented at ICHEP 2006, which significantly

67: shifts the results for $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$.}

68: }

69: 

70: \vfill

71: 

72: \end{center}

73: \end{titlepage}

74: 

75: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

76: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}

77: 

78: \newpage

79: 

80: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:1}

81: 

82: Recently, the Belle collaboration measured the $b\to d$

83: penguin-dominated decay $B\to(\rho\,,\omega)\gamma$ \cite{Belle},

84: whereas BaBar obtained an upper bound in 2004 \cite{BaBar} and 

85: presented a measurement at ICHEP 2006 \cite{BaBar2}. Assuming the Standard

86: Model (SM) to be valid, this process offers the possibility to extract the

87: CKM matrix element $|V_{td}|$, in complementarity to the

88: determination from $B_d$ mixing and the SM unitarity triangle

89: based on $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ and the angle $\gamma$. 

90: In order to extract $|V_{td}|$ from

91: the measured rate, one needs to know both short-distance weak and strong

92: interaction effects and long-distance QCD effects. Whereas the former

93: can, at least in principle, 

94: be calculated to any desired precision in the framework of

95: effective field theories, and actually  are currently known to

96: next-to-leading order in

97: QCD \cite{SD}, the assessment of long-distance QCD effects is

98: notoriously difficult. After a long history of phenomenologically or

99: $1/N_c$-motivated factorisation formulas, QCD factorisation

100: \cite{BVga,BoBu} has provided a consistent framework allowing one to

101: write the relevant hadronic matrix elements as

102: \begin{equation}\label{1}

103: \langle V\gamma|Q_i| B\rangle =

104: \left[ T_1^{B\to V}(0)\, T^I_{i} +

105: \int^1_0 d\xi\, du\, T^{II}_i(\xi,u)\, \phi_B(\xi)\, \phi_{V;\perp}(v)\right]

106: \cdot\epsilon\,.

107: \end{equation}

108: Here $\epsilon$ is the photon polarisation 4-vector, $Q_i$ is one of

109: the operators in the  effective Hamiltonian,

110: $T_1^{B\to V}$ is a $B\to V$ transition form factor,

111: and $\phi_B$, $\phi_{V;\perp}$ 

112: are leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitudes

113: of the $B$ meson and the vector meson $V$, respectively.

114: These quantities are universal non-perturbative objects and

115: describe the long-distance dynamics of the matrix elements, which

116: is factorised from the perturbative short-distance interactions

117: included in the hard-scattering kernels $T^I_{i}$ and $T^{II}_i$.

118: The above QCD factorisation formula is valid in the heavy-quark limit

119: $m_b\to\infty$ and is subject to 

120: corrections of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_b$. Although it is possible

121: to determine $|V_{td}|$ from the branching ratio of

122: $B\to(\rho,\omega)\gamma$ itself, the associated theoretical

123: uncertainties get greatly reduced when one considers the ratio of

124: branching ratios for $B\to K^*\gamma$ and $B\to (\rho,\omega)\gamma$

125: instead. One then can extract $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ from

126: \begin{equation}\label{Brat}

127: \frac{{\cal B}(B\to(\rho,\omega)\gamma)}{{\cal B}(B\to K^*\gamma)} =

128: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2

129: \left(\frac{1-m_{\rho,\omega}^2/m_B^2}{1-m_{K^*}^2/m_B^2}\right)^3

130: \left( \frac{T_1^{\rho,\omega}(0)}{T_1^{K^*}(0)}\right)^2 \left [ 1 +

131:   \Delta R\right],

132: \end{equation}

133: where the estimates of $\Delta R$ available in the literature lie

134: between, approximately, 0 and 0.2 \cite{BVga,BoBu}. $\Delta R$ 

135: contains all non-factorisable effects

136: induced by $T_i^{I,II}$ in (\ref{1}). As $|V_{ts}|=|V_{cb}|$ in the

137: SM, up to a small correction $\sim 2\%$, and

138: $|V_{cb}|$ is known with a precision of 2\% \cite{Vcb}, 

139: $|V_{td}|$ follows immediately from $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$. 

140: The theoretical uncertainty of

141: this determination is governed by both the ratio of form factors

142: $T_1^{K^*}(0)/T_1^{\rho,\omega}(0)$ and the value of $\Delta R$, which

143: parametrises not only SU(3)-breaking effects, but also power-suppressed

144: corrections to the QCD factorisation formula. The aim of the present

145: paper is to re-examine the size of SU(3)-breaking corrections to

146: $T_1^{K^*}(0)/T_1^{\rho,\omega}(0)$ from QCD sum rules on the

147: light-cone and to determine a value of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ from

148: (\ref{Brat}), evaluating $\Delta R$ in QCD factorisation; 

149: we will address the issue of

150: power-suppressed corrections to $\Delta R$ 

151: in a separate publication \cite{prep2}.

152: 

153: Our paper is organised as follows: in Section~\ref{sec:2} we discuss

154: the QCD sum rule for the ratio of form factors

155: $T_1^{K^*}(0)/T_1^{\rho,\omega}(0)$ and its dependence on

156: SU(3)-breaking parameters. In Section~\ref{sec:3} we extract a value

157: of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ from the experimental branching ratio, using QCD

158: factorisation for the calculation of $\Delta R$. We summarise in

159: Section~\ref{sec:4}. The appendix contains some formulas  relevant to

160: the calculation of NLO evolution of twist-2 vector-meson light-cone 

161: distribution amplitudes.

162: 

163: \section{\boldmath The Form-factor Ratio $T_1^{B\to K^*}/T_1^{B\to

164:     \rho}$}\label{sec:2}

165: 

166: In this section, we present a concise formula for the form factor

167: $T_1^{B\to V}(0)$, as obtained from QCD sum rules on the light-cone, and

168: discuss the hadronic quantities that enter this expression. We do not

169: discuss the technique of QCD sum rules itself, or that of QCD sum

170: rules on the light-cone, for which we refer to the literature

171: \cite{reviews}. Suffice it to say  that the light-cone sum rule for $T_1$

172: is based on the light-cone expansion of the 

173: correlation function of the chromomagnetic dipole 

174: operator $Q_7$ and the interpolating field $\bar q

175: i\gamma_5 b$ of the $B$ meson. The expansion is in terms of the

176: convolution of 

177: process-specific perturbative

178: kernels  and universal meson light-cone distribution amplitudes (DAs)

179: of the final-state vector meson, which are ordered in terms of

180: increasing twist. These DAs have been studied in

181: Refs.~\cite{BBKT,BB98_2}, mostly for the $\rho$ meson, including two-

182: and three-particle Fock states up to twist 4. An extension to the

183: $K^*$ meson is in preparation \cite{prep}. The light-cone expansion is

184: matched to the description of the correlation function in terms of hadrons

185: by analytic continuation

186: into the physical regime and the application of a Borel

187: transformation, introducing the Borel parameter $M^2$ and

188: exponentially suppressing contributions from higher-mass states.

189: In order to extract the contribution

190: of the $B$ meson, one describes that of other hadron states by

191: a continuum model, which introduces a second model parameter, 

192: the continuum threshold $s_0$. The sum rule then yields 

193: the form factor in question, $T_1$, multiplied by the coupling of the

194:  $B$ meson to

195: its interpolating field, i.e.\ the $B$ meson's leptonic decay constant $f_B$.  

196: At tree level, the sum rule for $T_1^{B\to V}(0)$ then

197: reads, to twist-4 accuracy:

198: \begin{eqnarray}

199: \lefteqn{\frac{m_B^2 f_B}{m_b}\, T_1^{B\to V}(0) e^{-m_B^2/M^2} = 

200: f_V^\perp m_b \int_{u_0}^1 du e^{-m_b^2/(uM^2)}

201: \,\frac{\phi_\perp(u)}{2u}} \nonumber\\

202: &&{}+ f_V^\parallel m_V \int_{u_0}^1 du e^{-m_b^2/(uM^2)}\left[

203:   \frac{\Phi(u)}{2u} + \frac{1}{2}\,g_\perp^{(v)}(u) +

204:   \frac{1}{8u}\left( 1 - u \frac{d}{du}\right)

205:   g_\perp^{(a)}(u)\right.\nonumber\\

206: &&\hspace*{1.3cm}{}

207: \left. -\frac{1}{u}\frac{d}{du} \int_0^u d\alpha_1 \int_0^{\bar

208:     u}d\alpha_2 \,\frac{u-\alpha_1}{2\alpha_3^2}\,

209: \left({\cal A}(\underline{\alpha})\vphantom{\frac{1}{2}} +

210:   {\cal V}(\underline{\alpha})\right)\right]\nonumber\\

211: &&{}+ f_V^\perp m_b \frac{m_V^2}{m_b^2}  \int_{u_0}^1 du

212: e^{-m_b^2/(uM^2)}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{du}\left\{

213:   \vphantom{\frac{1}{2}} u\bar u

214:   \phi_\perp(u) + 2 I_L(u) + u H_3(u)

215:   \right.\right.\nonumber\\

216: &&\hspace*{1.3cm}\left.{}-\int_0^u d\alpha_1 \int_0^{\bar u}

217:   d\alpha_2 \,\frac{1}{\alpha_3} \left(

218:   S(\underline{\alpha}) - \tilde S(\underline{\alpha}) +

219:   T_1^{(4)}(\underline{\alpha}) - T_2^{(4)}(\underline{\alpha}) + 

220: T_3^{(4)}(\underline{\alpha}) - 

221: T_4^{(4)}(\underline{\alpha})\right)\right\}\nonumber\\

222: &&{}\hspace*{1.3cm}\left. -

223:   \frac{1}{8}\, u \frac{d^2}{du^2}\,{\mathbb A}_\perp(u)\right],\\

224: &\equiv & m_b \int_{u_0}^1 du e^{-m_b^2/(uM^2)}\left[ f_V^\perp  R_1(u)

225:   + f_V^\parallel\,\frac{m_V}{m_b} \,R_2(u) + f_V^\perp

226:   \left(\frac{m_V}{m_b}\right)^2 R_3(u)\right],\label{SR}

227: \end{eqnarray}

228: where $u_0$ is given by $m_b^2/s_0$. $f_V^\parallel$ 

229: and $f_V^\perp$ are the decay constants of, respectively,

230: longitudinally and transversely polarised vector mesons.

231: $\phi_\perp$, $\Phi$, $g_\perp^{(v,a)}$,

232: $I_L$ and $H_3$ are two-particle distribution amplitudes and integrals

233: thereof, as defined in Ref.~\cite{BZ04}. 

234: $\cal A$, $\cal V$, $S$, $\tilde S$ and $T_i^{(4)}$

235: are three-particle DAs. $u$ is the longitudinal momentum fraction of

236: the quark in a two-particle Fock state of the final-state vector

237: meson, whereas $\alpha_{1,2,3}$, with $\sum \alpha_i=1$, are the

238: momentum fractions of the partons in a three-particle state. The

239: light-cone expansion is accurate up to terms of order $(m_V/m_b)^3$. Although

240: we only write down the tree-level expression for the form factor, radiative

241: corrections are known for $R_1$ \cite{BB98} and the two-particle

242: contributions to $R_2$ \cite{BZ04}, and will be included in the

243: numerical analysis. All scale-dependent quantities are calculated at

244: the (infra-red) 

245: factorisation scale $\mu^2_F = m_B^2-m_b^2$. The form factor itself

246: carries an ultra-violet scale dependence, which however cancels in the

247: ratio.

248: 

249: It is clearly visible from the above formula that the respective

250: weight of various contributions is controlled by the parameter

251: $m_V/m_b$; the next term in the light-cone expansion contains 

252: twist-3, -4 and -5 DAs and is 

253: of order $(m_V/m_b)^3$. Nonetheless, (\ref{SR}) cannot be

254: interpreted as $1/m_b$ expansion: for $m_b\to\infty$, the support

255: of the integrals in $u$ also becomes of ${\cal O}(1/m_b)$, as $1-u_0\sim

256: 1 - m_b^2/s_0 \sim \omega_0/m_b$, with $\omega_0\sim 1\,$GeV 

257: a hadronic quantity \cite{emili}. 

258: In this case, the scaling of the various terms in

259: $m_b$ is controlled by the behaviour of the DAs near the end-point

260: $u\to 1$. For finite $m_b$, however, the sum rules are not sensitive

261: to the details of the end-point behaviour, as we shall see

262: below. Numerically, the expansion in terms of $m_V/m_b$ works very

263: well and is a reformulation of the ordering of contributions in terms

264: of the parameter $\delta$ introduced in Ref.~\cite{BZ04}.

265: 

266: We have already discussed $T_1$ in Refs.~\cite{BB98,BZ04};

267: in the present paper we focus on the ratio

268: \begin{equation}\label{xi}

269: \xi \equiv \frac{T_1^{B\to K^*}(0)}{T_1^{B\to \rho}(0)}\,,

270: \end{equation}

271: which governs the extraction of $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ from $B\to V\gamma$

272: decays.

273: Our sum rules can of course be used to determine each form factor

274: separately, but we expect the ratio to be more accurate, because 

275: $\xi$ is independent of the $B$-meson decay constant $f_B$

276: and also, to very good accuracy, of $m_b$ and the sum rule parameters 

277: $M^2$ and $s_0$; we shall come back to that point below.

278: Hence, in this paper, we will not re-analyse the absolute

279: values of $T_1^{B\to (\rho,K^*)}(0)$

280: nor, consequently, the branching ratios themselves. However, $\xi$ is

281: very sensitive to SU(3)-breaking effects in the DAs, and 

282: it is precisely these effects we shall focus on in this paper. A

283: similar analysis for the ratio of the $D\to K$ and $D\to\pi$ form

284: factors was carried

285: out in Ref.~\cite{0608}.

286: 

287: Compared with our previous results of Refs.~\cite{BB98,BZ04}, 

288: in this paper we implement the 

289: following improvements:

290: \begin{itemize}

291: \item updated values of SU(3)-breaking in twist-2 parameters;

292: \item complete account of SU(3)-breaking in twist-3 and -4 DAs;

293: \item estimate of higher-order conformal contributions to twist-4 DAs,

294:   using the renormalon model of Ref.~\cite{renormalon};

295: \item NLO evolution for twist-2 parameters.

296: \end{itemize}

297: Before presenting numerical results for $\xi$,

298: let us first discuss the values of the hadronic input parameters

299: collected in Table~\ref{tab:1}. First of all, we would like to 

300: mention that we will not distinguish between

301: the form factors of $\rho$ and $\omega$. 

302: Their difference is mainly caused by different values of the decay

303: constants, $f^{\parallel(\perp)}_\rho\neq

304: f^{\parallel(\perp)}_\omega$, whose precise determination, e.g\ from

305: experimental data for $\omega\to e^+ e^-$, is complicated by 

306: mixing with the $\phi$ meson.

307: In the present paper we take the view that the uncertainty 

308: induced by letting $T_1^{B\to\rho} = T_1^{B\to\omega}$ 

309: is negligible compared to 

310: other uncertainties.

311: 

312: \begin{table}[tbp]

313: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}\addtolength{\arraycolsep}{0pt}

314: $$

315: \begin{array}{l|l|l|l||l|l|l||l|l}

316:    & \rho & \mu = 1\,{\rm GeV} & {\rm Ref.} & K^* & \mu = 1\,{\rm

317:   GeV} & {\rm Ref.} & {\rm Order} & {\rm Remarks}\\\hline\hline

318: R_1 & f_\rho^\perp & 0.165\pm0.009 & \mbox{TP}

319: & f_{K^*}^\perp & 0.185\pm 0.010

320:   & \cite{BZa1} & \mbox{twist-2} & \mbox{in units of GeV}\\

321: & a_1^\perp(\rho) & 0 & & a_1^\perp(K^*) & 0.04\pm 0.03 & \cite{BZa1} & 

322:   \mbox{twist-2} & \mbox{G-odd}\\

323: & a_2^\perp(\rho) & 0.15\pm 0.07 & \mbox{TP} & a_2^\perp(K^*) &

324:   0.11\pm 0.09 & \mbox{TP} & \mbox{twist-2} &

325:   a_2^\perp(K^*)-a_2^\perp(\rho)\\

326: &&&&&&&& \mbox{constrained}\\

327: & \Delta_\rho^\perp & 1.24\pm 0.11 & \mbox{TP} & 

328: \Delta_{K^*}^\perp & 1.18\pm 0.14 & \mbox{TP}

329: & \mbox{twist-2} & \mbox{BT model  \cite{angi}}\\

330: & p^\perp_\rho & 3 & & p^\perp_{K^*} & 3 &

331:    & \mbox{twist-2} & \mbox{for $\phi_\perp$}\\

332: \hline

333: R_2 & f_\rho^\parallel & 0.209\pm 0.002

334: & {\rm exp.} & f_{K^*}^\parallel & 0.217\pm

335:   0.005 & {\rm exp.} & \mbox{twist-2} &

336:   \mbox{in units of GeV}\\

337: & a_1^\parallel(\rho) & 0 & & a_1^\parallel(K^*) & 0.03\pm 0.02 &

338:   \cite{BZa1} &  \mbox{twist-2} & \mbox{G-odd}\\

339: & a_2^\parallel(\rho) & = a_2^\perp(\rho) & \mbox{TP} & a_2^\parallel(K^*) &

340:   = a_2^\perp(K^*) & \mbox{TP} & \mbox{twist-2} &

341:   a_2^\parallel(K^*)-a_2^\parallel(\rho)\\

342: &&&&&&&& \mbox{constrained}\\

343: & \Delta_\rho^\parallel & =\Delta_\rho^\perp & 

344: & \Delta_{K^*}^\parallel &

345:   =\Delta_{K^*}^\perp & & \mbox{twist-2} &\mbox{BT model \cite{angi}}\\

346: & p^\parallel_\rho & =p^\perp_\rho &  & p^\parallel_{K^*} &

347:   =p^\perp_{K^*} & & \mbox{twist-2} &\mbox{for

348:   $\phi_\parallel$} \\

349: & \zeta^A_{3\rho} & 0.032\pm 0.010 & \cite{ZZC} & \zeta^A_{3K^*} & 

350: (1.0\pm 0.1)\zeta^A_{3\rho} & \mbox{TP} & \mbox{LO twist-3} & \mbox{UR}\\

351: & \kappa_{3\rho}^\parallel & 0 & &  \kappa_{3K^*}^\parallel & 0.001\pm

352:   0.001 & \mbox{TP} & \mbox{LO twist-3} & \mbox{G-odd, UR}\\

353: & \omega^A_{3\rho} & -2\pm 2 & \cite{ZZC} & 

354: \omega^A_{3K^*} & =\omega^A_{3\rho} & & 

355: \mbox{NLO twist-3} &  \mbox{UR}\\

356:  & \omega^V_{3\rho} & \phantom{-}4\pm 2 

357: & \cite{ZZC} &  \omega^V_{3K^*} & =\omega^V_{3\rho} & & 

358: \mbox{NLO twist-3} &  \mbox{UR}\\

359:  & \lambda^A_{3\rho} & 0 & &  \lambda^A_{3K^*} & 0\pm 2 & \mbox{TP} & 

360: \mbox{NLO twist-3} &  \mbox{G-odd, UR}\\

361:  & \lambda^V_{3\rho} & 0 & &  \lambda^V_{3K^*} & 0\pm 2 & \mbox{TP} & 

362: \mbox{NLO twist-3} &  \mbox{G-odd, UR}\\\hline

363: R_3 & \kappa_{3\rho}^\perp & 0 & & \kappa_{3K^*}^\perp & 0\pm 0.01

364:   &  \mbox{TP} & \mbox{LO twist-3} & \mbox{G-odd, UR}\\

365: & \omega^T_{3\rho} & 7\pm 7 & \cite{BBKT} &  

366: \omega^T_{3K^*} & =\omega^T_{3\rho} & & 

367: \mbox{NLO twist-3} &  \mbox{UR}\\

368:  & \lambda^T_{3\rho} & 0 & &  \lambda^T_{3K^*} & 0\pm 2 & \mbox{TP} &

369:   \mbox{NLO twist-3} &  \mbox{G-odd, UR}\\

370: & \zeta^T_{4\rho} & 0.10\pm 0.05 & \cite{BBK} 

371: & \zeta^T_{4K^*} & =\zeta^T_{4\rho}

372: & & \mbox{LO twist-4} & \mbox{UR}

373: \end{array}

374: $$

375: \caption[]{Hadronic parameters entering $R_{1,2,3}$ in the sum rule

376:   for $T_1$, Eq.~(\ref{SR}). For twist-2 DAs, we use both the conformal

377:   expansion Eq.~(\ref{eq:confexp}), truncated after $n=2$, and the

378:   model of Ball and Talbot (BT) \cite{angi} given

379:   in terms of two parameters, $\Delta$ and $p$.

380:   The values of $a_2(\rho)$ and $a_2(K^*)$ are highly correlated; we

381:   fix $a_2(K^*)-a_2(\rho)=-0.04\pm 0.02$ for both longitudinal and

382:   transverse DAs. The twist-3 and -4 G-odd parameters

383:   have never been considered before; all twist-3 and -4

384:   parameters are under revision (UR) and will be considered in full

385:   detail in Ref.~\cite{prep}. In this paper (TP), twist-3 SU(3)-breaking 

386:   effects are only taken into account at LO in the conformal expansion.

387:   Higher-orders in the conformal expansion of twist-4

388:   DAs are calculated in the renormalon model of

389:   Ref.~\cite{renormalon}, see text.}\label{tab:1}

390: \end{table}

391: 

392: The longitudinal decay constants $f_{\rho,K^*}^\parallel$ 

393: can be extracted from

394: the experimental decay rates 

395: $\tau^-\to (\rho^-,K^{*-}) \nu_\tau$ as \cite{PDG}

396: $$f_\rho^\parallel = (0.209\pm 0.002)\,{\rm GeV},\qquad

397:  f_{K^*}^\parallel = (0.217\pm

398: 0.005)\, {\rm GeV}.$$

399: There is no direct experimental measurement of the tensor decay

400: constants $f_{\rho,K^*}^\perp$, 

401: which instead have to be determined from non-perturbative

402: methods such as lattice calculations \cite{fperplatt1,fperplatt2} 

403: or QCD sum rules

404: \cite{elena,BZa1}. Lattice results are available in the quenched

405: approximation with a chirally improved lattice Dirac operator, which

406: allows one to reach small quark masses, and for the ratio of decay constants

407: $f_V^\perp/f_V^\parallel$ \cite{fperplatt2}; 

408: a first study for the $\rho$ with dynamical fermions

409: was reported in Ref.~\cite{unquenched}. 

410: One result of these calculations is that the

411: ratio of decay constants

412: only weakly depends on the quark masses. For the $\rho$,

413: Ref.~\cite{fperplatt2} quotes

414: $$

415: \left( \frac{f_{\rho}^\perp}{f_\rho^\parallel}\right)_{\rm latt} 

416: (2\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.72\pm 0.02\,,

417: $$

418: obtained for the lattice spacing $a=0.15\,$fm. 

419: As for QCD sum rules, the value

420: $f_\rho^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV}) = (0.160\pm 0.010)\,{\rm GeV}$

421: was obtained in Ref.~\cite{BB96}. For the present paper, we have re-analysed

422: the corresponding sum rules, using updated values of $\alpha_s$ and

423: NLO evolution of $f_\rho^\perp$, and find

424: \begin{equation}\label{x1}

425: f_\rho^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV}) = (0.165\pm 0.009)\,{\rm GeV}.

426: \end{equation}

427: Also $f_\rho^\parallel$ can be calculated from sum rules, yielding

428: $(0.206\pm 0.007)\,$GeV. If one calculates the ratio directly from QCD

429: sum rules, one finds\footnote{The NLO scaling factor

430:   $f^\perp(2\,{\rm GeV})/f^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV})$ is $0.876$.}

431: $$

432: \left( \frac{f_{\rho}^\perp}{f_\rho^\parallel}\right)_{\rm SR} 

433: (2\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.69\pm

434: 0.04\,,

435: $$

436: in agreement with the lattice result.

437: 

438: The determination of $f_{K^*}^\perp$

439: is less straightforward, see Ref.~\cite{BZa1}, where

440: \begin{equation}\label{x2}

441: f_{K^*}^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV}) = (0.185\pm 0.010)\,{\rm GeV}

442: \end{equation}

443: was obtained. Evaluating the ratio $f_{K^*}^\perp/f_{K^*}^\parallel$

444: directly from sum rules, we find

445: $$

446: \left( \frac{f_{K^*}^\perp}{f_{K^*}^\parallel}\right)_{\rm SR} 

447: (2\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.73\pm 0.04\,,

448: $$

449: which agrees with the interpolation between the corresponding results

450: for $\rho$ and $\phi$ obtained from lattice \cite{fperplatt2}. 

451: 

452: Summarising, it is probably fair to say that the present status of

453: $f_V^\perp$ decay constants is not entirely satisfactory. The

454: accuracy of the QCD sum rule estimates is unlikely to improve, so any

455: significant reduction of uncertainty has to come from

456: lattice. For the moment, however, all existing lattice results still come

457: with considerable uncertainty (no continuum limit, no results for

458: $K^*$ with chirally improved Dirac operator), so that in the numerical

459: analysis of $\xi$ we will use

460: the experimental results for $f_{\rho,K^*}^\parallel$

461: and the QCD sum rule results (\ref{x1}) and (\ref{x2}) for

462: $f_{\rho,K^*}^\perp$.

463: 

464: As for twist-2 DAs, the standard approach is to parametrise them in

465: terms of a few parameters which are the leading-order terms in

466: the conformal expansion

467: \begin{equation}\label{eq:confexp}

468: \phi(u,\mu^2) = 6 u (1-u) \left( 1 + \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty

469:   a_{n}(\mu^2) C_{n}^{3/2}(2u-1)\right).

470: \end{equation}

471: To leading-logarithmic accuracy the (non-perturbative)

472: Gegenbauer moments $a_n$ renormalize multiplicatively. This feature is

473: due to the conformal symmetry of massless QCD at one-loop, 

474: the $a_n$ start to mix at next-to-leading order, see

475: appendix. Although (\ref{eq:confexp}) is not an expansion in any

476: obvious small parameter, the contribution of terms with large $n$ to

477: physical amplitudes is suppressed by the fact that the Gegenbauer

478: polynomials  oscillate rapidly and hence are ``washed out'' upon

479: integration over $u$ with a ``smooth'' (i.e.\ not too singular) 

480: perturbative hard-scattering

481: kernel. For vector mesons, one usually takes into account the terms

482: with $n=1,2$; the $a_n$ are estimated from QCD sum rules which are

483: known to become less reliable for larger $n$. As an alternative, one

484: can build models for $\phi$ based on an assumed fall-off behaviour of

485: $a_n$ for large $n$.  The model of Ball and Talbot (BT)

486: \cite{angi}, for instance, 

487: assumes that, at a certain reference

488: scale, e.g.\ $\mu=1\,$GeV, the $a_n$ fall off

489: as powers of $n$:

490: $$

491: a_{2n} \propto \frac{1}{(n + 1)^p}.

492: $$

493: BT fix the 

494: absolute normalisation of the Gegenbauer moments  by the first

495: inverse moment:

496: $$\int_0^1 \frac{du}{2u}\,\left(\phi(u)+\phi(1-u)\right) 

497: \equiv 3 \Delta = 3 \left(1 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_{2n}\right),$$

498: which can be viewed as a convolution with the singular hard-scattering 

499: kernel $1/u$ and gives all $a_n$ the same (maximum) weight $1$.

500: The rationale of this model is that the DA is given in terms of only

501: two parameters, $p$ and $\Delta$, and allows one to estimate the

502: effect of higher order terms in the conformal expansion on

503: observables. In this paper, we calculate the form factor using both

504: conformal expansion, truncated after $n=2$, and the BT model, 

505: normalised by $a_2$ and taking into account terms up to $n=8$. We

506: shall see below that the effect of terms with $n>2$ is very small.

507: 

508: For the $\rho$, $a_2^{\perp,\parallel}$ have been determined in

509: Ref.~\cite{BB96}. In the present study we have re-examined the corresponding

510: sum rules and find, at the scale $\mu=1\,$GeV,

511: $a_2^\perp(\rho) = 0.15\pm 0.07$ and  $a_2^\parallel(\rho) = 0.14\pm 0.06$,

512: which is slightly smaller than the results quoted in

513: Ref.~\cite{BB96}. As both values are nearly equal, we shall use a

514: common value

515: \begin{equation}

516: a_2^\perp(\rho) = 0.15\pm 0.07 = a_2^\parallel(\rho)\,.

517: \end{equation}

518: The corresponding value of $\Delta$ is

519: $$\Delta_\rho^\perp = 1.24\pm 0.11 = \Delta_\rho^\parallel\,,$$

520: with a central value slightly larger than that used in

521: Ref.~\cite{BZ04}. The value of $a_2(K^*)$ has been determined in

522: Ref.~\cite{elena}. Again, we re-examine these sum rules for the present

523: paper. We find $a_2^\perp(K^*) = 0.11\pm 0.09$ and $a_2^\parallel(K^*) =

524: 0.10\pm 0.08$, which is more

525: conveniently presented by

526: the difference between $a_2(K^*)$ and $a_2(\rho)$:

527: \begin{eqnarray*}

528: a_2^\perp(K^*) -a_2^\perp(\rho) & = & -0.04 \pm 0.02\,,\\

529: a_2^\parallel(K^*) -a_2^\parallel(\rho) & = & -0.03 \pm 0.02.

530: \end{eqnarray*}

531: As both differences are nearly equal, we shall use 

532: \begin{equation}

533: a_2(K^*) - a_2(\rho) = -0.04\pm 0.03

534: \end{equation}

535: for both polarisations. This translates into

536: $\Delta_{K^*}^\perp=1.18\pm 0.14$, with errors largely correlated with

537: those of $\Delta_\rho^\perp$. 

538: 

539: The value of $a_1(\rho)$ vanishes by G-parity.

540: The values of $a_1^{\parallel,\perp}(K^*)$ have been subject to some

541: controversy over the recent years, which was settled only very

542: recently; in this work, we use the values obtained in

543: Ref.~\cite{BZa1}: 

544: \begin{equation}

545: a_1^\perp(K^*) = 0.04\pm 0.03,\qquad a_1^\parallel(K^*) = 0.03\pm

546: 0.02\,.

547: \end{equation}

548: All odd Gegenbauer moments, i.e.\ the antisymmetric contribution to

549: $\phi(u)$, can be resummed using the same power-like behaviour of

550: large moments as in the BT model. 

551: This model is also discussed in

552: Ref.~\cite{angi} and normalised to $a_1$; we include terms up to $n=9$.

553: 

554: Twist-3 and -4 DAs of vector mesons have been studied in

555: Refs.~\cite{BBKT,BB98_2}. The results are complete for 

556: mesons with definite G-parity

557: (with equal-mass quarks), but miss certain G-parity-breaking

558: corrections. A complete analysis of all these corrections is in

559: preparation \cite{prep}; here, we include those

560: results that are already available \cite{0609}. In Ref.~\cite{BBKT}, the

561: two-particle twist-3 DAs $g_\perp^{(v,a)}$ and $h_\parallel^{(s,t)}$

562: have been expressed in terms of integrals over the twist-2 DAs

563: $\phi_{\perp,\parallel}$ and the three-particle twist-3 DAs $\cal

564: A,V,T$. These integral relations are complete, but the explicit 

565: expressions for the three-particle twist-3 DAs given in \cite{BBKT} have to be

566: extended to include G-parity-breaking corrections as follows:

567: \begin{eqnarray}

568: {\cal A}(\underline{\alpha}) & = & 360 \alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3^2

569: \zeta_3^A \left\{ 1 + \lambda_3^A (\alpha_1 - \alpha_2) + \omega_3^A

570:   \left(\frac{7}{2} \alpha_3 - \frac{3}{2}\right)\right\},\nonumber\\

571: {\cal V}(\underline{\alpha}) & = & 360 \alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3^2

572: \left\{ \kappa_3^\parallel + \frac{3}{2}\,\zeta_3^A  \omega_3^V 

573:  (\alpha_1 - \alpha_2) + \kappa_3^\parallel \lambda_3^V  

574: \left(\frac{7}{2} \alpha_3 - \frac{3}{2}\right)\right\},\nonumber\\

575: {\cal T}(\underline{\alpha}) & = & 360 \alpha_1 \alpha_2 \alpha_3^2

576: \left\{ \kappa_3^\perp + \frac{3}{2}\,\zeta_3^A  \omega_3^T 

577:  (\alpha_1 - \alpha_2) + \kappa_3^\perp \lambda_3^T  

578: \left(\frac{7}{2} \alpha_3 - \frac{3}{2}\right)\right\}.

579: \end{eqnarray}

580: Here $\zeta_3^A$ and $\omega_3$ are G-parity conserving quantities,

581: whereas $\kappa_3$ and $\lambda_3$ are G-parity breaking.

582: As $\kappa_3^\perp$ contributes to the form factor only 

583: at ${\cal O}(m_V^2/m_b^2)$, and the $\lambda_3$ parameters are of

584: non-leading conformal spin, we set, in the

585: present analysis, the central values of 

586: all these parameters to zero and only take into account $\kappa_3^\parallel$.

587: A QCD sum rule estimate of this parameter yields \cite{prep,0609}

588: \begin{equation}

589: \kappa_3^\parallel(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 0.001\pm 0.001.

590: \end{equation}

591: The effect of non-zero values of $\kappa_3^\perp$ and $\lambda_3$ is

592: taken into account by the variation of these parameters around zero

593: within the range given in Table~\ref{tab:1}; the dependence of

594: $T_1^{K^*}$ on NLO G-parity breaking parameters is very small, as expected.

595: 

596: The two-particle twist-4 DAs $h_3$ and ${\mathbb A}_\perp$ 

597: have been discussed in

598: Ref.~\cite{BB98_2}; they are given by integrals over chiral-odd twist-4

599: three-particle DAs. The determination of the conformal-expansion coefficients 

600: of the latter is complicated by the fact that they contain ``kinetic''

601: mass-correction terms given by twist-2 matrix elements, which, 

602: to date, have not been obtained in a

603: closed form, but have to be unravelled order by

604: order in the conformal expansion. In addition, the direct

605: determination of the ``genuine'' twist-4 corrections from QCD sum

606: rules becomes

607: increasingly complicated at higher-order conformal spin. For that

608: reason, we invoke an alternative estimate of these corrections based on

609: the renormalon-model developed in Ref.~\cite{renormalon}. The general 

610: idea of this technique is to estimate matrix elements of ``genuine'' 

611: twist-4 operators by the quadratically divergent

612: contributions that appear when the matrix elements are defined using a

613: hard UV cut-off. In this way, three-particle twist-4 DAs

614: can be expressed in terms of the leading-twist DA $\phi_\perp$ 

615: \cite{renormalon}:

616: \begin{eqnarray}

617: T_1(\underline{\alpha}) = - T_3(\underline{\alpha}) & = & \zeta_4^T

618: \left[ \frac{\alpha_2\phi_\perp(\alpha_1)}{(1-\alpha_1)^2} -

619:   \frac{\alpha_1

620:     \phi_\perp(1-\alpha_2)}{(1-\alpha_2)^2}\right],\nonumber\\

621: T_2(\underline{\alpha}) = \phantom{-} T_4(\underline{\alpha}) & = &

622: -\frac{1}{2} \zeta_4^T

623: \left[ \frac{\phi_\perp(\alpha_1)}{1-\alpha_1} -

624:   \frac{\phi_\perp(1-\alpha_2)}{1-\alpha_2}\right],\nonumber\\

625: S(\underline{\alpha}) = - \tilde{S}(\underline{\alpha}) & = &

626: \frac{1}{2} \zeta_4^T

627: \left[ \frac{\phi_\perp(\alpha_1)}{1-\alpha_1} +

628:   \frac{\phi_\perp(1-\alpha_2)}{1-\alpha_2}\right].\label{ren}

629: \end{eqnarray}

630: The above formulas differ from those given in Ref.~\cite{renormalon}

631: by the change of argument $\alpha_2\to 1-\alpha_2$ in the second terms

632: on the right-hand side; this is to properly account for G-parity-breaking

633: effects \cite{lenz}. One prediction of the renormalon model is that

634: the two independent LO twist-4 couplings $\zeta_4^T$ and

635: $\tilde{\zeta}_4^T$ add up to 0, which is consistent with the direct

636: calculation from QCD sum rules \cite{BBK}. The above formulas also

637: allow one to estimate the ``genuine'' twist-4 G-parity breaking contributions 

638: to $T_i$ and $S$, $\tilde S$; we refrain from giving explicit formulas

639: in this paper, but refer to Ref.~\cite{prep}. For the calculation of the

640: contribution of twist-4 terms to $\xi$, we use two methods: firstly the

641: full renormalon model (\ref{ren}), and the corresponding

642: expression for ${\mathbb A}_\perp$ as given by the equations of motion

643: \cite{BB98_2} ($h_3=0$ in this model). This accounts for the genuine

644: twist-4 corrections; the ``kinetic''

645: corrections, as far as they are known, are added using truncated conformal

646: expansion. Secondly, we use truncated expansion for all twist-4 DAs,

647: describing G-parity-breaking terms by the values they assume in the

648: renormalon model, see Refs.~\cite{lenz,prep} for more details. The

649: predictions of both methods for the end-point behaviour of the DAs

650: near $u=0,1$ differ quite drastically; nonetheless, both prescriptions

651: given nearly the same result after integration

652: over $u$.

653: 

654: One more parameter that enters the kinetic mass corrections to twist-3

655: and -4 DAs, induced by the equations of motion, are the quark masses

656: $m_{s,u,d}$. We choose $\overline{m}_s(2\,{\rm GeV}) =

657: (0.10\pm 0.02)\,$GeV, which is in accordance with both lattice

658: \cite{lattms} and QCD sum rule calculations \cite{SRms}, and let

659: $m_{u,d}=0$.

660: 

661: With all DAs available, we can now assess the respective size of

662: the contributions of the various $R_i$ to the sum rule (\ref{SR}). To

663: this end, we plot, in Fig.~\ref{fig:0}, the functions $R_i$ for the

664: $\rho$ meson, multiplied by the corresponding weight factors, for

665: $u>0.5$ which is about the smallest value of $u_0$. The plot

666: clearly shows  that $R_1$ is dominant. It also shows that $R_{2,3}$

667: exhibit (integrable) end-point singularities for $u\to 1$. Based on

668: these results, we expect the impact of the first neglected 

669: term in the light-cone

670: expansion, which is ${\cal O}(m_V^3/m_b^3)$, to be very small.

671: \begin{figure}[tb]

672: $$\epsfsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figR123L.eps}$$

673: \vspace*{-30pt}

674: \caption[]{Contribution of $R_i$ to the convolution integral in

675:   (\ref{SR}) as a

676:   function of $u$. Solid line: $f^\perp_\rho R_1(u)$, long dashes:

677:   $f^\parallel_\rho (m_\rho/m_b) R_2(u)$, short dashes: $f^\perp_\rho

678:   (m_\rho/m_b)^2  R_3(u)$.}\label{fig:0}

679: \end{figure}

680: 

681: \begin{figure}[p]

682: $$

683: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig1aL.eps}\qquad

684: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig1bL.eps}$$

685: \vspace*{-30pt}

686: \caption[]{Left panel: $\xi$ as a function of the Borel parameter $M^2$

687:   for $s_0 = 35\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and central values of the input

688:   parameters. Right panel: $\xi$ as a function of the continuum

689:   threshold $s_0$ 

690:   for $M^2 = 8\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and central values of the input

691:   parameters. Solid lines: DAs in conformal expansion; long dashes: BT

692:   model \cite{angi} for twist-2 DAs; short dashes: BT model for

693:   twist-2 DAs and 

694: renormalon model for twist-4 DAs \cite{renormalon}.}\label{fig:1}

695: $$

696: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig2L.eps}

697: $$

698: \vspace*{-30pt}

699: \caption[]{$\xi$ as a function of $f_{K^*}^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV})$. Solid

700:   line: $f_{\rho}^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV})=0.165\,{\rm GeV}$, dashed lines:

701:   $f_{\rho}^\perp$ shifted by $\pm 0.009\,$GeV.}\label{fig:2}

702: $$

703: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig3aL.eps}\qquad

704: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{fig3bL.eps}$$

705: \vspace*{-30pt}

706: \caption[]{Left panel: $\xi$ as a function of $a_1(K^*)$ at

707:   1~GeV. Right panel: $\xi$ as a function of $a_2(\rho)$ at 1~GeV. 

708:   Solid line: $a_2(K^*) = a_2(\rho)-0.04$; dashed lines: $a_2(K^*)$

709:   shifted by $\pm 0.02$. Longitudinal and transverse parameters

710:   $a_i^\parallel$ and $a_i^\perp$ are

711:   set equal.}\label{fig:3}

712: \end{figure}

713: 

714: Before we can evaluate the sum rule for $\xi$, we also have to discuss

715: the choice of $m_b$ and the sum-rule-specific parameters $M^2$ and

716: $s_0$. The good news is that, although numerator and denominator of

717: (\ref{xi}) both depend on $m_b$, $s_0$ and $M^2$, this dependence

718: cancels to a large extent in the ratio. The reason hereof is quite

719: evident from (\ref{SR}): $M^2$ controls the respective weights of

720: contributions of different $u$; as these contributions are nearly

721: equal in numerator and denominator of (\ref{xi}), except for

722: moderately sized SU(3) breaking, it follows that one can choose $M^2$

723: equal in $T_1^{B\to (\rho,K^*)}$ and  that the resulting dependence on

724: $M^2$ should be very small. This is borne out by the left panel of

725: Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, where we plot $\xi$ as function of $M^2$ for

726: central values of the input parameters and $s_0=35\,{\rm GeV}^2$. For

727: comparison, we also show $\xi$ calculated using the BT model

728: for the twist-2 DAs (long dashes) and, in addition, the renormalon-model

729: for twist-4 DAs (short dashes). All three calculations agree with one another

730: very well. The fact that the impact of the BT model is only minor

731: shows that the sum rules are sensitive only to a few gross

732: characteristics of the twist-2 DAs, but not to the details of their

733: behaviour near the end-point $u=1$. As for the renormalon-model DAs,

734: the difference to the truncated conformal expansion is most marked for 

735: small values of $M^2$,

736: which can be easily understood from the fact that for smaller $M^2$ the

737: weight of contributions from $u$ close to 1 gets enhanced

738: and hence the difference between the end-point behaviour of conformally

739: expanded DAs and renormalon-modelled DAs becomes more visible. The

740: right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:1} illustrates the effect of a

741: variation of $s_0$ for fixed $M^2$, which is also small. The value of

742: $s_0$ sets the lower limit of the integral over $u$, and again the

743: dependence on $s_0$ largely cancels in the ratio as the integrands are equal

744: up to SU(3)-breaking effects. As $s_0$ itself is nearly independent of the

745: final-state meson, it is natural to choose the same value in both

746: numerator and denominator. As for $m_b$, it only enters in the ratio

747: $m_V/m_b$, which controls the respective contributions of $R_{1,2,3}$,

748: the lower limit of integration

749: $u_0=m_b^2/s_0$ and the Borel exponential $\exp(-m_b^2/(u

750: M^2))$. In the latter two parameters, a change of $m_b$ is effectively

751: compensated by a change of $s_0$ or $M^2$, which, as we have just

752: discussed, induces only very small variations of the sum-rule

753: result. The ratio $m_V/m_b$ changes from $0.185$ for $K^*$ and

754: $m_b=4.8\,$GeV to $0.193$ for $m_b = 4.6\,$GeV, which also has only 

755: very minor impact.

756: Based on these observations, we choose to evaluate $\xi$ for fixed $m_b =

757: 4.8\,$GeV, 

758: $M^2=8\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and $s_0 = 35\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and attach to $\xi$ 

759: a corresponding uncertainty of $\pm 0.005$. 

760: 

761: 

762: We are now in a position to obtain a result for $\xi$ and

763: estimate its uncertainty. The dominant uncertainty is due to the

764: dependence of $\xi$ on the chiral-odd twist-2 parameters. In

765: Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we plot $\xi$ as a function of

766: $f_{K^*}^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV})$, for various values of

767: $f_{\rho}^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV})$. The uncertainty in both parameters

768: causes an uncertainty in $\xi$ of $\pm 0.08$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:3},

769: left panel, we show the dependence of $\xi$ on $a_1(K^*)$, which

770: induces a change in $\xi$ by $\pm 0.03$; the variation of

771: $a_1^\perp(K^*)$ and $a_1^\parallel(K^*)$ as separate quantities

772: induces the same change. The right panel shows the dependence on $a_2$

773: which is rather mild and causes $\xi$ to change by $\pm 0.02$. The

774: variation of the remaining parameters within the limits specified in

775: Table~\ref{tab:1} causes another $\pm 0.02$ shift in $\xi$, so that we

776: arrive at the following result:

777: \begin{eqnarray}

778: \xi = \frac{T_1^{B\to K^*}(0)}{T_1^{B\to \rho}(0)} &=& 1.17 \pm

779: 0.08(f^\perp_{\rho,K^*}) \pm 0.03(a_1)

780: \pm 0.02(a_2) \pm 0.02(\mbox{twist-3 and -4})\nonumber\\

781: &&{} \pm 0.01 (\mbox{sum-rule

782:   parameters, $m_b$ and twist-2 and -4 models})\nonumber\\

783: &= &1.17\pm 0.09\,.\label{resxi}

784: \end{eqnarray}

785: The total uncertainty of $\pm 0.09$ is

786: obtained by adding the individual terms in quadrature. Let us stress

787: again that the error of this result is dominated by far by parameter

788: uncertainties, and is nearly independent of the sum rule specific

789: parameters; it is also independent of $f_B$.

790: 

791: \section{\boldmath Determination of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$}\label{sec:3}

792: 

793: Let us now turn to the calculation of the ratio of branching ratios

794: and the determination of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$. The Belle collaboration

795: has measured the quantity 

796: $$

797: R_{\rm exp} \equiv 

798: \frac{\overline{\cal B}(B\to (\rho,\omega)\gamma)}{\overline{\cal B}(B\to

799:   K^*\gamma)}\,,

800: $$

801: where $\overline{\cal B}(B\to (\rho,\omega)\gamma)$ is defined as the

802: CP-average $\frac{1}{2}[{\cal B}(B\to (\rho,\omega)\gamma)+{\cal

803:   B}(\bar B\to (\bar\rho,\omega)\gamma)]$ of 

804: $${\cal B}(B\to (\rho,\omega)\gamma) = \frac{1}{2}\left\{ {\cal B}(B^+\to

805: \rho^+\gamma) + \frac{\tau_{B^+}}{\tau_{B^0}}\left[ {\cal B}(B^0\to

806: \rho^0\gamma) + {\cal B}(B^0\to\omega\gamma)\right]\right\},

807: $$

808: and $\overline{\cal B}(B\to K^*\gamma)$ is the isospin- and

809:   CP-averaged branching ratio of the $B\to K^*\gamma$ channels. 

810: In 2005, Belle  reported a $5.1\sigma$ measurement \cite{Belle},

811: \begin{equation}\label{RexBelle}

812: R_{\rm exp}^{\rm Belle}= 

813: 0.032\pm 0.008({\rm stat}) \pm 0.002({\rm syst})\,,

814: \end{equation}

815: followed by a $5.2\sigma$ measurement by BaBar in 2006 \cite{BaBar2}:

816: \begin{equation}\label{RexBaBar}

817: R_{\rm exp}^{\rm BaBar} = 0.024  \pm 0.005\,,

818: \end{equation}

819: where the statistical and systematical uncertainty are added in quadrature.

820: HFAG combines both results into the average \cite{HFAG}

821: \begin{equation}\label{RexHFAG}

822: R_{\rm exp}^{\rm HFAG}= 0.028\pm 0.005\,.

823: \end{equation}

824: %Clearly the present experimental situation is not fully conclusive,

825: %but will improve, hopefully in summer 2006, when BaBar is expected to report

826: % its first measurement of $R$. For the time being, we will give values

827: % for $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ obtained from each of the above $R_{\rm exp}$

828: % individually.

829: 

830: Within QCD factorisation, and using the notations of Ref.~\cite{BoBu},

831: the amplitude for $B\to V\gamma$ can be written as

832: $$A(\bar B\to V\gamma) = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ \lambda_u a_7^u(V\gamma) +

833:   \lambda_c a_7^c(V\gamma)\right] \langle V\gamma | Q_7 | \bar B\rangle\,,$$

834: where $\lambda_q$ are products of CKM matrix elements and the

835:   factorisation coefficients $a_7^{u,c}$ consist of Wilson

836:   coefficients and non-factorisable corrections from hard scattering

837:   and annihilation; explicit expressions can be found in

838:   Ref.~\cite{BoBu}. $a_7^{u,c}$ depends in particular on the form factor

839:   $T_1$ and the twist-2 DA $\phi_{V;\perp}$. The theoretical expression

840:   for $R$ is then given by

841: \begin{eqnarray}

842: R_{\rm th} &=& \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2 \frac{1}{\xi^2}

843:   \left(\frac{1-m_\rho^2/m_B^2}{1-m_{K^*}^2/m_B^2}\right)^3 \left|

844:   \frac{a_7^c(\rho\gamma)}{a_7^c(K^*\gamma)}\right|^2 \left( 1 +

845:   {\rm Re}\,(\delta a_\pm + \delta a_0) \left[\frac{R_b^2 - R_b

846:   \cos\gamma}{1-2 R_b \cos\gamma + R_b^2}\right]\right.\nonumber\\

847: & & \left. + \frac{1}{2}\left( |\delta a_\pm|^2 + |\delta a_0|^2\right)

848:   \left\{ \frac{R_b^2}{1-2 R_b \cos\gamma + R_b^2}\right\} \right)\label{Rth}

849: \end{eqnarray}

850: with $\delta a_{0,\pm}=

851: a_7^u(\rho^{0,\pm}\gamma)/a_7^c(\rho^{0,\pm}\gamma)-1$. Here, $\gamma$ is

852: one angle of the CKM unitarity triangle and $R_b$ one of its sides:

853: $$

854: R_b =

855: \left(1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2}\right)\frac{1}{\lambda}

856: \left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right|.

857: $$

858: Equation~(\ref{Rth}) differs from the expression given in Ref.~\cite{BoBu}

859: by the terms in $|\delta a|^2$ which were neglected in that paper. 

860: It is obtained in the SM, assuming that $\bar{\cal B}(B^0\to

861: \rho^0\gamma)\equiv\bar{\cal B}(B^0\to\omega\gamma)$, which

862: indeed should be the case up to a small difference in the decay

863: constants, a tiny difference in phase space and 

864: the sign of the contribution of weak annihilation (WA) diagrams,

865: which is also  small numerically. Equation~(\ref{Rth}) 

866: is also valid in extensions of the SM where the

867: CKM matrix is still unitary and the 

868: $a_7$ do not carry a new weak phase, for instance Minimal Flavour

869: Violation; in this case new physics could change the values of

870: $\delta a_{0,\pm}$. 

871: 

872: Let us first discuss the dependence of (\ref{Rth}) on CKM parameters,

873: described by the terms in square and curly brackets. The up-to-date value of 

874: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$, as provided by the heavy flavour averaging group

875: HFAG in March 2006, is, adding errors in quadrature \cite{HFAG}:

876: $$

877: \left|\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\right| = 0.106 \pm 0.008.

878: $$

879: In Fig.~\ref{fig:f} we plot the CKM factors

880: $$

881: f_{\rm CKM} = \frac{R_b^2-R_b\cos\gamma}{1-2 R_b\cos\gamma +

882:   R_b^2}\,,\qquad

883: g_{\rm CKM} = \frac{R_b^2}{1-2 R_b\cos\gamma + R_b^2}

884: $$

885: as functions of $\gamma$; the uncertainty induced by $R_b$ is

886: small. What is the currently preferred value of $\gamma$? HFAG is yet

887: to provide averages of the individual results obtained by BaBar and

888: Belle, so we use the value quoted 

889: by the UTfit collaboration in March 2006 \cite{UTfit}:

890: \begin{equation}

891: \label{gUTfit}

892: \gamma_{\rm UTfit} = (71\pm 16)^\circ\,,

893: \end{equation}

894: which is obtained from tree processes only and hence can be assumed to

895: be free of new physics. We then obtain

896: \begin{equation}

897: f_{\rm CKM} = 0.07\pm 0.12\,,\qquad g_{\rm CKM} = 0.23\pm 0.07\,.

898: \end{equation}

899: As $f_{\rm CKM}$ is rather small for the angle $\gamma_{\rm UTfit}$, 

900: Eq.~(\ref{gUTfit}),

901: the contribution of the corresponding non-factorisable contributions 

902: to (\ref{Rth}),

903: collected in Re\,$\delta a_{0,\pm}$, is heavily

904: suppressed.

905: %\footnote{If one uses the value of $\gamma$ obtained in the

906: %full CKM fit, $\gamma=(58.7\pm5.5)^\circ$ \cite{UTfit}, $f_{\rm CKM}$

907: %becomes even smaller, $f_{\rm CKM}\approx -0.03$.} 

908: %This is a

909: %very welcome feature, as, as we shall see below, at least Re\,$\delta

910: %a_\pm$ comes with considerable theoretical uncertainties. Stated

911: %differently: it is precisely the smallness of $f_{\rm CKM}$ that

912: %renders the application of QCD factorisation to $B\to V\gamma$ decays

913: %phenomenologically viable and keeps the theoretical uncertainty due to

914: %uncalculated (and uncalculable) power-suppressed corrections to QCD

915: %factorisation under control.

916: \begin{figure}[tb]

917: $$\epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figfL.eps}\qquad

918: \epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figgL.eps}$$

919: \vspace*{-30pt}

920: \caption[]{Left panel: the CKM factor $f_{\rm CKM}$ 

921: in Eq.~(\ref{Rth}) (square brackets) as a

922:   function of $\gamma$ for $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.106$ (solid line) and 

923: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| =  0.106\pm 0.008$ (dashed lines). Right panel: ditto

924: for $g_{\rm CKM}$ (curly brackets).}\label{fig:f}

925: \end{figure}

926: 

927: The parameters

928: $|a_7^c(\rho\gamma)|$ and $|a_7^c(K^*\gamma)|$ are almost exactly

929: equal, so we set $|a_7^c(\rho\gamma)/$ $a_7^c(K^*\gamma)|=1$. Is that

930: value likely to be changed by non-factorisable corrections? One type of

931: such corrections, soft-gluon emission from charm loops, has been

932: calculated in Refs.~\cite{power2,0609}; it amounts to a contribution to

933: $|a_7^c|$ of ${\cal O}(1/(m_b m_c^2))$ and is small by

934: itself ($\sim 2\%$), and even smaller is its SU(3)-breaking that

935: changes $|a_7^c(\rho\gamma)/a_7^c(K^*\gamma)|$ by less than 1\%. 

936: Another source of

937: corrections comes from terms in

938: $(a_7^u(K^*\gamma)-a_7^c(K^*\gamma))/a_7^c(K^*\gamma)$, multiplied

939: by the CKM factor $\sim \lambda^2 f_{\rm CKM}$,  which is tiny indeed.

940: Hence, we do not see any obvious source of significant corrections to

941: $|a_7^c(\rho\gamma)/a_7^c(K^*\gamma)|=1$.

942: 

943: The value of 

944: $\delta a_{0,\pm}$ is calculated in QCD

945: factorisation, which is accurate to ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, 

946: but misses, in general,

947: terms that are suppressed by inverse powers of $m_{b,c}$. The most

948: important of these power-suppressed corrections is weak annihilation, 

949: which can actually  be calculated in QCD

950: factorisation, at least at tree level. WA is CKM suppressed in $B\to

951: K^*\gamma$ and mainly affects

952: $a_7^u(\rho^\pm\gamma)$, but it is small for

953: $a_7^u((\rho^0,\omega)\gamma)$ because of a

954: suppression by Wilson coefficients and the fact that WA is

955: proportional to the electric charge of the quark involved, namely the

956: $u$ quark for $a_7^u(\rho^\pm\gamma)$ and the $d$ quark for

957: $a_7^u((\rho^0,\omega)\gamma)$. Although WA is formally

958: power-suppressed, it gets 

959: enhanced in $a_7^u(\rho^\pm\gamma)$ by large Wilson coefficients

960: and the absence of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$ suppression that affects other

961: non-factorisable corrections. Numerically, WA is actually as

962: large as the leading (in $1/m_b$) non-factorisable terms. 

963: In view of the importance of this

964: contribution, we treat WA in two

965: different ways: firstly, by using the QCD-factorised expression given

966: in Ref.~\cite{BoBu}; and secondly, by using the results obtained from QCD

967: sum rules on the light-cone \cite{power1,emi,prep2}.

968: %Estimates of other power-suppressed

969: %contributions are available in the literature \cite{power2}, but

970: %will be neglected in this paper; instead, we include a 20\% variation

971: %of leading (in $1/m_b$) non-factorisable corrections to $a_7^{u,c}$ to

972: %account for such effects. We plan to come back to the question

973: %of the size of power-suppressed contributions in a separate

974: %publication \cite{prep2}.

975: 

976: The WA contribution to the amplitude of e.g.\ $B^-\to\rho^-\gamma$ can be 

977: written in the following way:

978: $$

979: A(B^-\to\rho^-\gamma)_{\rm WA} = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\,\lambda_u

980: \left( C_1 + \frac{1}{3}\,C_2\right) \langle \rho^-\gamma | (\bar d u)_{V-A}

981: (\bar u b)_{V-A}| B^-\rangle\,.$$

982: In naive factorisation, the matrix element on the r.h.s.\ can be

983: written as

984: \begin{eqnarray*}

985: \langle \rho^-\gamma | (\bar d u)_{V-A} (\bar u b)_{V-A}| B^-\rangle

986: & = & \langle \rho^-| (\bar d u)_{V-A}|0\rangle \langle\gamma | 

987: (\bar u b)_{V-A}| B^-\rangle\\

988: &&{} + \langle \rho^-\gamma | (\bar d

989: u)_{V-A}|0\rangle \langle 0 | (\bar u b)_{V-A}| B^-\rangle\,.

990: \end{eqnarray*}

991: The second term on the r.h.s.\ has been shown to vanish in the chiral

992: limit, see Ref.~\cite{contact} for more details, 

993: so we will focus on the first term. Corrections

994: to naive factorisation are of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, which may also

995: relax the chiral suppression of the second term. Neglecting the latter, 

996: we have, in the notations of Ref.~\cite{emi}:\footnote{Equation

997:   (\ref{BV}) differs from the definition given in Ref.~\cite{emi} by

998:   an overall sign. The reason is that in \cite{emi} the covariant 

999: derivative $D_\mu = \partial_\mu -

1000: i e A_\mu$ was used, corresponding to a negative value of $e$. In

1001: order to keep $F_{V,A}$ positive, we change the sign of the definition.}

1002: \begin{eqnarray}

1003: \langle \rho^-(p)\gamma(q) | (\bar d u)_{V-A} (\bar u b)_{V-A}|

1004: B^-(p_B)\rangle &=&

1005: \sqrt{4\pi\alpha}\,\frac{m_\rho f_\rho^\parallel}{m_B} \epsilon_\mu^{(\rho)}

1006: \left\{F_V \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} \epsilon_\nu^{(\gamma)}p_{B\rho}

1007:   q_\sigma\right.\nonumber\\

1008: &&\left. - i F_A [\epsilon^{\mu(\gamma)} (p_B\cdot q) - q^\mu

1009:     (\epsilon^{(\gamma)}\cdot p_B)]\right\}.\label{BV}

1010: \end{eqnarray}

1011: The form factors $F_{A,V}$ can be calculated in QCD factorisation

1012: themselves; both $F_{A,V}$ are then equal, and to LO accuracy one has

1013: \begin{equation}\label{hard}

1014: F^{\rm QCDF}_{\rm WA} \equiv F_{A,V}^{\rm QCDF} = \frac{Q_u f_B}{\lambda_B}

1015: \end{equation}

1016: with $Q_u = 2/3$ the electric charge of the $u$ quark and $\lambda_B$

1017: the first inverse moment of the $B$-meson DA $\phi_B$:

1018: $$

1019: \int_0^1 d\xi \,\frac{\phi_B(\xi)}{\xi} = \frac{m_B}{\lambda_B}\,.

1020: $$

1021: Equation (\ref{hard}) 

1022: agrees with the result  obtained in Ref.~\cite{BoBu} by

1023: direct calculation of the WA diagram. Corrections are

1024: either of ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, and have been calculated in Ref.~\cite{chris},

1025: or they are suppressed by powers of $1/m_b$. The dominant source of the

1026: latter comes from photon-emission from a soft $u$

1027: quark and has been calculated in Refs.~\cite{power1,emi}, together

1028: with the perturbative photon emission giving rise to (\ref{hard}). The

1029: emission of photons from a soft quark line is

1030: governed by the parameter $\chi$, the so-called magnetic

1031: susceptibility of the quark condensate, $\langle 0 | \bar q

1032: \sigma_{\alpha \beta} q | 0\rangle_F = \sqrt{4\pi\alpha}\,Q_q \chi

1033: \langle \bar q q \rangle F_{\alpha\beta}$, which has been discussed in

1034: detail in Refs.~\cite{BBK,kivel}, together with higher-twist DAs of the

1035: photon. Its contribution is, in the heavy quark limit, suppressed by

1036: one power of $1/m_b$ with respect to (\ref{hard}), but at finite quark

1037: mass its size is set by the dimensionless parameter $\chi\langle

1038: \bar u u\rangle/f_B \approx 0.2$, with $\chi(1\,{\rm GeV}) = (3.15\pm

1039: 0.3)\,{\rm GeV}^{-2}$ \cite{kivel}, which is not really small. In

1040: calculating the WA contribution to $\delta a_\pm$, we will

1041: use both expressions for $F_{V,A}$: $F^{\rm QCDF}_{\rm WA}$, 

1042: Eq.~(\ref{hard}), and $F^{\rm QCDSR}_{\rm WA}$

1043: from the QCD sum rule calculation, see Ref.~\cite{prep2} for details.

1044: 

1045: Let us first discuss $\delta a_0$, where WA is suppressed and can be

1046: neglected. Its dependence 

1047: on hadronic parameters is controlled by

1048: the factor $f_B/(T_1^{B\to\rho} \lambda_B)$;

1049: it also depends, to a lesser extent,

1050: on $f^\perp_\rho$ and the twist-2 DA $\phi_{\rho;\perp}$. 

1051: To estimate the uncertainty of Re$\,\delta a_0$ and $|\delta a_0|^2$, 

1052: we set $f_B = (0.205\pm 0.025)\,{\rm GeV}$, which is an average of quenched and

1053: unquenched lattice calculations \cite{fBlatt1,fBlatt2} and QCD sum

1054: rule determinations \cite{fBSR}. We also use $T_1^\rho = 0.27\pm

1055: 0.03$ from light-cone sum rules,\footnote{This value, and in

1056:   particular its error, is quoted from

1057:   our previous paper in Ref.~\cite{BZ04}, but is in agreement with the

1058:   evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{SR}).} and $\lambda_B(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 

1059: (0.46\pm 0.11)\,$GeV, obtained in Ref.~\cite{lambdaB}. This value

1060: supersedes the guesstimate 

1061: $\lambda_B = (0.35\pm 0.15)\,$GeV \cite{BBNS} used in

1062: previous calculations and agrees with the value $(0.46\pm 0.16)\,{\rm GeV}$

1063: found in Ref.~\cite{offen}. We evaluate all spectator-interaction

1064: contributions, that is those involving $\lambda_B$, at the scale

1065: $\mu^2_h = m_B^2-m_b^2$, which is of order $\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD} m_b$ as

1066: advocated in Ref.~\cite{BoBu}, but by a factor 2 larger; this is

1067: motivated, in part,

1068: by the fact that the anomalous dimensions governing the

1069: renormalisation-group running of the Wilson coefficients are

1070: given for 5 flavours only in Ref.~\cite{SD} and hence should not be

1071: used at scales as small as $(\Lambda_{\rm QCD} m_b)^{1/2}\sim 1.5\,$GeV. 

1072: We then need to evolve

1073: $\lambda_B$ from 1~GeV to $\mu_h$, which can be done using the

1074: following evolution relation \cite{Lange}:

1075: \begin{equation}

1076: \lambda_B^{-1}(\mu) = \lambda_B^{-1}(\mu_0)\left\{ 1 +

1077: \frac{\alpha_s}{3\pi}\,\ln \frac{\mu^2}{\mu_0^2}\left( 1 - 2

1078: \sigma_B(\mu_0)\right)\right\},

1079: \end{equation}

1080: where $\sigma_B(1\,{\rm GeV}) = 1.4\pm 0.4$ is given by an integral

1081: over the $B$-meson DA $\phi_B$ and was estimated in

1082: Ref.~\cite{lambdaB}. We then have

1083: $$

1084: \lambda_B(\mu_h) = (0.51\pm 0.12)\,{\rm GeV}.

1085: $$

1086: We can now cast most of the

1087: dependence of $\delta a_0$ on hadronic input parameters into a

1088: dependence on $\lambda_B(\mu_h)$ only, varying it in the interval $\lambda_B =

1089: (0.51^{+0.20}_{-0.11})\,$GeV. 

1090: %In Fig.~\ref{fig:da}, left panel, we plot Re$\,\delta a_0$ as a function of

1091: %$\lambda_B(\mu_h)$, in QCD factorisation (solid line) and allowing for $\pm

1092: %20\%$ power-suppressed corrections (dashed lines). 

1093: We also allow for 20\% power-suppressed corrections to the leading (in

1094: $1/m_b$) non-factorisable corrections and find

1095: \begin{eqnarray}

1096: {\rm Re}\,\delta a_0 &=& 0.06\pm 0.02(\lambda_B,f_B,T_1)\pm 0.06({\cal

1097:   O}(1/m_b))\,, \nonumber\\

1098: |\delta a_0|^2 & = & 0.014\pm

1099:   0.004(\lambda_B,f_B,T_1)^{+0.017}_{-0.009}({\cal

1100:   O}(1/m_b))\,.\label{resa0}

1101: \end{eqnarray}

1102: %\begin{figure}[tb]

1103: %$$\epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figda0lB.eps}\qquad

1104: %\epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figdaplB.eps}$$

1105: %\vspace*{-30pt}

1106: %\caption[]{Left panel: Re$\,\delta a_0$ as a function of $\lambda_B$ in QCD

1107: %  factorisation (solid line) and allowing for $\pm 20\%$

1108: %  power-suppressed corrections (dashed lines). Right panel:

1109: %  ditto for Re$\,\delta a_\pm$; short dashes: $\pm 50\%$

1110: %  corrections to the WA contribution.}\label{fig:da}

1111: %$$\epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figd20.eps}\qquad

1112: %\epsfxsize=0.45\textwidth\epsffile{figd2pl.eps}$$

1113: %\vspace*{-30pt}

1114: %\caption[]{Left panel: $|\delta a_0|^2$ as a function of $\lambda_B$ in QCD

1115: %  factorisation (solid line) and allowing for $\pm 20\%$

1116: %  power-suppressed corrections (long dashes) and $\pm 50\%$

1117: %  corrections to the WA contribution (short dashes). Right panel:

1118: %  ditto for $|\delta a_\pm|^2$.}\label{fig:da2}

1119: %\end{figure}

1120: Let us now turn to $\delta a_\pm$.

1121: Neglecting the effect of WA, one has $\delta a_\pm =

1122: \delta a_0$. 

1123: %The size of the WA contribution is

1124: %actually rather large, but not very well known, because factorisation

1125: %could be violated at ${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$, as  happens with other

1126: %power-suppressed

1127: %QCD factorised amplitudes. For this reason we assign a 50\%

1128: %uncertainty to this contribution, and vary $\lambda_B$, $f_B$ and

1129: %$T_1$ as before. We plot the resulting values of Re$\,\delta a_\pm$ in

1130: %the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:da}, from which we read off:

1131: Varying $\lambda_B$, $f_B$ and $T_1$ as before, and allowing for 20\%

1132: power-suppressed corrections to leading non-factorisable contributions, we find

1133: \begin{eqnarray}

1134: {\rm Re}\,\delta a^{\rm QCDF}_\pm &=& 

1135: -0.19\pm 0.09(\lambda_B,f_B,T_1)\pm 0.06({\cal

1136:   O}(1/m_b))\,,\nonumber\\

1137: |\delta a^{\rm QCDF}_\pm|^2 &=& 

1138: \phantom{-}0.05^{+0.04}_{-0.03}(\lambda_B,f_B,T_1)^{+0.02}_{-0.01}({\cal

1139:   O}(1/m_b))\,,\label{resapQCDF}

1140: \end{eqnarray}

1141: in QCD factorisation and

1142: \begin{eqnarray}

1143: {\rm Re}\,\delta a^{\rm QCDSR}_\pm &=& 

1144: -0.06\pm 0.04({\rm SR})\pm 0.06({\cal

1145:   O}(1/m_b))\,,\nonumber\\

1146: |\delta a^{\rm QCDSR}_\pm|^2 &=& 

1147: \phantom{-}0.02\pm 0.01({\rm SR})^{+0.03}_{-0.02}({\cal

1148:   O}(1/m_b))\,,\label{resapQCDSR}

1149: \end{eqnarray}

1150: using QCD sum rules for the WA contribution. The SR error

1151: reflects the dependence of the result on the QCD sum rule specific

1152: parameters $M^2$ and $s_0$ and the value of $\chi$.

1153: %whose central value agrees with the result obtained in

1154: %Ref.~\cite{BoBu}, although we quote a larger uncertainty coming from WA.

1155: %The errors on Re$\,\delta a_0$ and Re$\,\delta a_\pm$ do,

1156: %unfortunately, add up, so that we find

1157: %\begin{eqnarray}

1158: %{\rm Re}\,(\delta_0+\delta_\pm) & = & -0.33 \pm 0.32

1159: %(\lambda_B,f_B,T_1)\pm 

1160: %0.10({\cal  O}(1/m_b)) \pm 0.21({\rm WA})\pm 0.02 

1161: %(f_\rho^\perp,a_2^\perp(\rho))\nonumber\\

1162: %& = & -0.33\pm 0.39\,,\label{add}

1163: %\end{eqnarray}

1164: %when adding them up in quadrature.

1165: 

1166: Taking everything together, we have

1167: \begin{eqnarray}

1168: R_{\rm th}^{\rm QCDF} &=& 

1169: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2 \left[0.75\pm 0.11(\xi)\pm

1170: 0.03(a_7^{u,c},\gamma,R_b)\right],\nonumber\\

1171: R_{\rm th}^{\rm QCDSR} &=& 

1172: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|^2 \left[0.75\pm 0.11(\xi)\pm

1173: 0.02(a_7^{u,c},\gamma,R_b)\right].\label{resRth}

1174: \end{eqnarray}

1175: This result makes it clear that the theoretical uncertainty associated

1176: with $\delta a$ is small and that the error is dominated by that of

1177: $\xi$ --- the reduction of which is mostly a matter of more accurate

1178: (lattice and QCD sum rule) calculations, but is not affected by

1179: uncalculable $1/m_b$ corrections. 

1180: Within the quoted accuracy, the two different methods

1181: to calculate the WA contribution agree. We would like to stress here that

1182: it is precisely the CKM suppression of $\delta a_{0,\pm}$ 

1183: which also suppresses their uncertainties and 

1184: renders the application of QCD factorisation to $B\to V\gamma$

1185: viable.

1186: 

1187: We are now in a position to obtain values for $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$. 

1188: Comparing (\ref{resRth}) with the

1189: experimental results (\ref{RexBelle}), (\ref{RexBaBar}) and

1190: (\ref{RexHFAG}), we get  

1191: \begin{eqnarray}

1192: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{B\to V\gamma}^{\rm Belle} & =&  

1193: 0.207 \pm 0.016({\rm th}) \pm 0.027 ({\rm exp})  

1194: \,,  \nonumber\\

1195: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{B\to V\gamma}^{\rm BaBar} & = &  

1196: 0.179 \pm 0.014({\rm th})\pm 0.020 ({\rm exp}) 

1197:  \,,\nonumber\\

1198: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{B\to V\gamma}^{\rm HFAG} & =&  

1199: 0.192   \pm 0.014({\rm th})\pm 0.016 ({\rm exp})\,.\label{Rtrad} 

1200: \end{eqnarray} 

1201: These values can be compared with  that following from $R_b$,

1202: $\gamma$ and the unitarity of the CKM matrix:

1203: \begin{eqnarray}

1204: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{\rm SM} & = &

1205: \lambda (1+ R_b^2 - 2 R_b\cos\gamma)^{1/2}

1206: = 0.216\pm 0.029\,.\label{RtSM}

1207: \end{eqnarray}

1208: Both results agree well within errors. As (\ref{RtSM}) is obtained from

1209: tree-level processes only, it represents the ``true'' value of

1210: $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ in the SM. 

1211: %(\ref{Rtrad}), on the other hand,

1212: % potentially  receives contribution from new physics which would 

1213: %  affect the size of non-factorisable corrections. In minimal flavour

1214: %  violation, it is the values of $\delta\alpha$ that would

1215: %  change. We cannot exclude the presence of such effects, but they are

1216: %  damped by the CKM factor $f_{\rm CKM}$ and would affect the

1217: %  determination of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ only very mildy. In non-minimal

1218: %    flavour violation one can expect new weak phases, but, again,

1219: %    their effect on $R$ would be only very mild. These phases could be

1220: %    detected in the CP-violating asymmetries in $B\to V\gamma$.

1221: %As for the branching ratios themselves, they are controlled by the

1222: %Wilson coefficient $C_7^{\rm eff}$. The measured inclusive decay rate

1223: %$B\to X_s\gamma$ does not point at any non-standard value of $C_7^{\rm

1224: %  eff}$, although there is still a discrepancy between measured and predicted

1225: %branching fractions for exclusive decays. Although it is too early to

1226: %draw definite conclusions, we would like to recall that, in light-cone

1227: %sum rules, the absolute

1228: %normalisation of the form factors is given in terms of $f_B$ and that

1229: %subsequent improvements in the treatment of this quantity in the sum

1230: %rule approach may lead to a reduction of the values of the form

1231: %factors.

1232: 

1233: A third determination of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$ can be obtained from $B$ mixing.

1234: In the SM, we have

1235: \begin{equation}\label{latt}

1236: \frac{\Delta m_s}{\Delta m_d} = \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}\,

1237: \frac{f_{B_s}^2 B_{B_s}}{f_{B_d}^2 B_{B_d}}

1238: \left|\frac{V_{ts}}{V_{td}}\right|^2.

1239: \end{equation}

1240: The current world average for $\Delta m_d$ is

1241: $\Delta m_d = (0.507\pm 0.005)\,{\rm ps}^{-1}$  \cite{PDG}.

1242: $\Delta m_s$ has recently been measured by the CDF collaboration \cite{CDF},

1243: \begin{equation}

1244: \Delta m_s = 17.77\pm 0.10({\rm stat}) \pm 0.07({\rm syst})

1245: {\rm ps}^{-1}\,,

1246: \end{equation}

1247: with an accuracy that exceeds 5$\sigma$ significance.

1248: D0 provided a two-sided bound at 90\% CL\ \cite{D0}:

1249: \begin{equation}

1250: 17\,{\rm ps}^{-1} < \Delta m_s < 21\,{\rm ps}^{-1}\,.

1251: \end{equation}

1252: The hadronic matrix elements in (\ref{latt}) are obtained from lattice

1253: simulations. The most up-to-date results for the decay constants have

1254: been obtained by the HPQCD group, using unquenched $n_f = (2+1)$ 

1255: configurations \cite{HPQCD}:

1256: $$

1257: f_{B_s}/f_{B_d} = 1.20(3)(1)\,,

1258: $$

1259: where the first error is statistical and from chiral extrapolation and

1260: the second comes from ``other uncertainties'' \cite{HPQCD}. The

1261: particular strength of this calculation is that light quark masses as

1262: small as $m_s/8$ could be reached, which implies that only a moderate

1263: extrapolation to the physical chiral limit is required. As for the

1264: ratio of $B_{B_{d,s}}$, the currently best result is obtained from

1265: unquenched $n_f = 2$ calculations (JLQCD collaboration \cite{JLQCD}):

1266: $$

1267: B_{B_s}/B_{B_d}  = 1.017(16)(^{+56}_{-17})\,,

1268: $$

1269: where the first error is statistical and the second systematic. In

1270: this calculation, the minimal light quark mass was $m_q = 0.5 m_s$,

1271: which requires a more substantial  extrapolation to the physical

1272: limit and is responsible for the large systematic

1273: uncertainty. A combination of both results yields \cite{fBlatt2}:

1274: \begin{equation} 

1275: \frac{f_{B_s}B_{B_s}^{1/2}}{f_{B_d}B_{B_d}^{1/2}} =

1276: 1.210\left(^{+47}_{-35}\right), 

1277: \end{equation}

1278: where the errors have been added in quadrature. This procedure may be

1279: problematic as it combines results with different systematic

1280: effects, but yields the most reliable unquenched result to 

1281: date.\footnote{A critical discussion of these lattice results, and their

1282: impact on the constraints on new physics from $B$ mixing, can be found

1283: in Ref.~\cite{rf}.} 

1284: {}From this, one finds

1285: \begin{equation}

1286: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{\Delta m} = 

1287: 0.2060^{+0.0081}_{-0.0060}({\rm th})\pm0.0007({\rm exp})\,,

1288: \end{equation}

1289: which is the result obtained by the CDF collaboration \cite{CDF}.

1290: %where we put the ``experimental error'' in curly brackets, because

1291: %there is no true measurement yet. Nonetheless,  

1292: This value, too, 

1293: agrees with the two previous determinations.  Finally, one can compare

1294: our result also to the results of global fits of the unitarity

1295: triangle. The UTfit collaboration quotes, in September 2006, \cite{UTfit}

1296: $$

1297: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{\rm UTfit} = 0.202 \pm 0.008\,,

1298: $$

1299: whereas CKMfitter gets \cite{CKMfitter}

1300: $$

1301: \left|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\right|_{\rm CKMfitter} = 0.201^{+0.008}_{-0.007}\,.

1302: $$

1303: Again, all values agree within errors.

1304: 

1305: \section{Summary and Conclusions}\label{sec:4}

1306: 

1307: In this paper we have presented a new analysis of the form-factor

1308: ratio $\xi\equiv

1309: T_1^{B\to K^*}/T_1^{B\to\rho}$ from QCD sum rules on the light-cone,

1310: paying particular attention to the size of SU(3)-breaking effects. We

1311: have obtained

1312: $$\xi = 1.17\pm 0.09\,;$$

1313: this value is nearly independent of QCD sum-rule-specific

1314: parameters and the error is dominated by that of the tensor decay

1315: constants $f_{\rho,K^*}^\perp$. A reduction of these errors by a

1316: factor of two would reduce the total uncertainty to $\pm 0.06$. 

1317: The numerical values of these

1318: constants come mainly from QCD sum rules, partly from quenched lattice

1319: calculations. A determination from unquenched lattice calculations

1320: with reduced errors would be very desirable indeed.

1321: 

1322: We then have analysed the

1323: non-factorisable corrections to $R\equiv\bar{\cal B}(B\to

1324: (\rho,\omega)\gamma)/\bar {\cal B}(B\to K^*\gamma)$ in the framework of QCD

1325: factorisation. The dominant power-suppressed correction comes from

1326: weak annihilation diagrams that mostly affect $B^\pm\to

1327: \rho^\pm\gamma$. We have estimated these corrections both in QCD

1328: factorisation and using QCD sum rules, and find that the results agree

1329: within errors; we will present a more detailed discussion of

1330: power-suppressed corrections in a separate publication

1331: \cite{prep2}. Our present best estimate of $R_{\rm th}$ is given in

1332: Eq.~(\ref{resRth}). 

1333: We then extracted the ratio of CKM matrix elements

1334: $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|_{B\to V\gamma}$

1335: from $R_{\rm exp}$ obtained by

1336: BaBar and Belle, respectively, and averaged by HFAG, and 

1337: find the values given in Eq.~(\ref{Rtrad}). 

1338: %The difference of the 

1339: %results reflects

1340: %the current experimental situation with the central value of $R$

1341: %obtained by Belle being excluded by BaBar at 90\% CL. It is expected

1342: %that BaBar will publish

1343: %results for $B\to\rho\gamma$, probably in the summer of 2006, which

1344: %should help to clarify this situation and

1345: %reduce the total uncertainty of $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|_{B\to V\gamma}$.

1346: Our  results for this parameter agree

1347: well with all other  determinations available from various

1348: sources as summarised in the previous section.

1349: They also agree with the value extracted from $B$

1350: mixing, using the new measurement of $\Delta m_s$ reported by the CDF

1351: collaboration. Presently, there is no indication for new physics to be inferred

1352: from these results.

1353: 

1354: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1355: We would like to thank Sinead Ryan for a discussion of the current

1356: status of lattice calculations of $B$ mixing parameters.

1357: 

1358: \section*{Addendum to v3}

1359: 

1360: Please note that in the arXiv version v2 of this paper, which  

1361: is identical with the published version JHEP 04 (2006) 046,  

1362: we used the BaBar bound  quoted in Ref.~\cite{BaBar}, $R_{\rm exp}^{\rm BaBar} 

1363: < 0.029 \,\, {\rm

1364:   at}\,\, 90\% \,\, {\rm CL}$,  

1365: which was combined, by HFAG, with the Belle measurement to 

1366: $R_{\rm exp}^{\rm HFAG}= 0.024\pm 0.006$ and resulted in $

1367: \left| V_{td}/ V_{ts} \right|_{B\to V\gamma}^{\rm HFAG}  =  

1368: 0.179 \pm 0.014({\rm th}) \pm 0.022 ({\rm exp})$. These values have

1369: changed with the BaBar measurement of $B(B\to (\rho,\omega)\gamma)$

1370: reported in Ref.~\cite{BaBar2}; the corresponding 

1371: new result for $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|$

1372: is given in (29).

1373: 

1374: \appendix

1375: 

1376: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\Alph{section}.\arabic{equation}}

1377: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Alph{table}}

1378: \setcounter{section}{1}

1379: \setcounter{table}{0}

1380: 

1381: \section*{\boldmath Appendix: NLO Evolution of Twist-2 DAs}

1382: \setcounter{equation}{0}

1383: 

1384: To leading-logarithmic accuracy, the (non-perturbative)

1385: Gegenbauer moments 

1386: $a_n$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:confexp}) renormalize multiplicatively as

1387: \begin{equation}

1388: a^{\rm LO}_n(\mu^2) = L^{\gamma^{(0)}_n/(2\beta_0)}\, a_n(\mu_0^2),

1389: \end{equation}

1390: where $L = \alpha_s(\mu^2)/\alpha_s(\mu_0^2)$,

1391: $\beta_0=(33-2N_f)/3$, and

1392: the anomalous dimensions $\gamma^{(0)}_n$ are given by

1393: \begin{eqnarray*}

1394: \gamma^{\parallel(0)}_n &=&  8C_F \left(\psi(n+2) + \gamma_E - \frac{3}{4} -

1395:   \frac{1}{2(n+1)(n+2)} \right),\\

1396: \gamma^{\perp(0)}_n &=&  8C_F \left(\psi(n+2) + \gamma_E -

1397:   \frac{3}{4} \right).

1398: \end{eqnarray*}

1399: To next-to-leading order accuracy, the scale dependence of the

1400: Gegenbauer moments is more complicated and reads 

1401: \cite{Mueller}

1402: \begin{equation}

1403:  a^{\rm NLO}_n(\mu^2) =  a_n(\mu_0^2) E_n^{\rm NLO} 

1404: +\frac{\alpha_s(\mu^2)}{4\pi}\sum_{k=0}^{n-2} a_k(\mu_0^2)\,  

1405: L^{\gamma_k^{(0)}/(2\beta_0)}\, d^{(1)}_{nk},  

1406: \end{equation} 

1407: where 

1408: $$

1409: E_n^{\rm NLO} =  L^{\gamma^{(0)}_n/(2\beta_0)}\left\{1+ 

1410:             \frac{\gamma^{(1)}_n \beta_0 -\gamma_n^{(0)}\beta_1}{8\pi\beta_0^2}

1411:                  \Big[\alpha_s(\mu^2)-\alpha_s(\mu_0^2)\Big]\right\}

1412: $$

1413: with $L=\alpha_s(\mu)/\alpha_s(\mu_0)$, $\beta_1 = 102-(38/3)N_f$; 

1414: $\gamma^{(1)}_n$ are the diagonal two-loop anomalous dimensions, which

1415: have been calculated, for the vector current, in Ref.~\cite{Floratos},

1416: and, for the tensor current, in Ref.~\cite{Haya}.

1417: The mixing coefficients $d^{(1)}_{nk}$, $k\le n-2$, 

1418: are given in closed form in Ref.~\cite{Mueller}; these formulas are valid for

1419: arbitrary currents upon substitution of the corresponding one-loop

1420: anomalous dimension.\footnote{We thank D. Mueller for correspondence on 

1421: this point.}

1422: 

1423: For the lowest moments $n=0,1,2$ one has, explicitly:

1424: $$

1425: \gamma_0^{\parallel(1)} =0\,, \qquad 

1426: \gamma_1^{\parallel(1)} = \frac{23110}{243} - \frac{512}{81}\, N_f\,,

1427:    \qquad  

1428: \gamma_2^{\parallel(1)} =  \frac{34072}{243}-\frac{830}{81}\, N_f\,,

1429: $$

1430: \begin{equation}

1431: \gamma_0^{\perp(1)} =\frac{724}{9} - \frac{104}{27}\,N_f\,, \qquad 

1432: \gamma_1^{\perp(1)} = 124 - 8 N_f\,,\qquad  

1433: \gamma_2^{\perp(1)} =  \frac{38044}{243}-\frac{904}{81}\, N_f\,,

1434: \end{equation}  

1435: and

1436: \begin{eqnarray}

1437:   d^{\parallel(1)}_{20} & = &

1438:   \frac{35}{9}\,\frac{20-3\beta_0}{50-9\beta_0}

1439:   \left(1-L^{50/(9\beta_0)-1}\right), \nonumber\\

1440:   d^{\perp(1)}_{20} & = &

1441:   \frac{28}{9}\,\frac{16-3\beta_0}{40-9\beta_0}

1442:   \left(1-L^{40/(9\beta_0)-1}\right).

1443: \end{eqnarray}

1444: 

1445: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{Belle}

1448:   K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle coll.],

1449:   %``Observation of b $\to$ d gamma and determination of $|$V(td)/V(ts)$|$,''

1450:  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 96} (2006) 221601

1451:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0506079].

1452:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0506079;%%

1453: 

1454: \bibitem{BaBar}

1455:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BaBar coll.],

1456:   %``Search for the radiative penguin decays B+ $\to$ rho+ gamma, B0 $\to$ rho0

1457:   %gamma, and B0 $\to$ omega gamma,''

1458:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94} (2005) 011801

1459:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0408034].

1460:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0408034;%%

1461:   

1462:   \bibitem{BaBar2}

1463:   B.~Aubert {\it et al.}  [BaBar coll.],

1464:  %  ``Measurement of the Branching Fractions for the Decays 

1465: % B+ -> rho+ gamma, B0

1466:   %-> rho0 gamma, and B0 -> omega gamma,''

1467:   arXiv:hep-ex/0607099.

1468:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0607099;%%

1469: 

1470: \bibitem{SD}

1471:   K.~G.~Chetyrkin, M.~Misiak and M.~M\"unz,

1472:   %``Weak radiative B-meson decay beyond leading logarithms,''

1473:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 400} (1997) 206

1474:   [Erratum, ibid.\ B {\bf 425} (1998) 414]

1475:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9612313].

1476:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612313;%%

1477: 

1478: \bibitem{BVga}

1479:  A.~Ali and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko,

1480:   %``Branching ratios for B $\to$ rho gamma decays in next-to-leading order in

1481:   %alpha(s) including hard spectator corrections,''

1482:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 89

1483:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0105302];\\

1484:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105302;%%

1485: A.~Ali, E.~Lunghi and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko,

1486: %``Implication of the B $\to$ (rho, omega) gamma branching ratios for the  CKM

1487: %phenomenology,''

1488: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 595} (2004) 323

1489: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405075];\\

1490: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405075;%%

1491: M.~Beneke, T.~Feldmann and D.~Seidel,

1492: %``Exclusive radiative and electroweak b $\to$ d and b $\to$ s penguin

1493: %decays at NLO,''

1494: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41} (2005) 173

1495: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412400];\\

1496: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412400;%%

1497: T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,

1498: %``Factorization in B $\to$ V gamma decays,''

1499: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 094017

1500: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503263].

1501: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503263;%%

1502: 

1503: \bibitem{BoBu}

1504: S.~W.~Bosch and G.~Buchalla,

1505: %``The radiative decays B $\to$ V gamma at next-to-leading order in QCD,''

1506: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621} (2002) 459

1507: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106081] and

1508: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106081;%%

1509: %``Constraining the unitarity triangle with B $\to$ V gamma,''

1510: JHEP {\bf 0501} (2005) 035

1511: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408231].

1512: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408231;%%

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{Vcb} Result from inclusive semileptonic decays as obtained at

1515:   CKM 05,\\ {\tt http://ckm2005.ucsd.edu/}; see also  

1516: O.~Buchm\"uller and H.~Fl\"acher,

1517:   %``Fits to moment measurements from B $\to$ X/c l nu and B $\to$ X/s gamma

1518:   %decays using heavy quark expansions in the kinetic scheme,''

1519: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 073008

1520:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0507253].

1521:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507253;%%

1522: 

1523: 

1524: \bibitem{prep2} 

1525:  P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky, in preparation.

1526:    

1527: \bibitem{reviews}

1528: See  P.~Colangelo and A.~Khodjamirian,

1529:   %``QCD sum rules: A modern perspective,''

1530:   arXiv:hep-ph/0010175,

1531:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010175;%%

1532: and references therein.

1533: 

1534: \bibitem{BBKT}

1535: P. Ball {\it et al.},

1536: %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in {QCD}: Formalism

1537: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 529} (1998) 323

1538: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802299].

1539: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802299;%%

1540: 

1541: \bibitem{BB98_2}

1542: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,

1543: %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in {QCD}: Twist-4

1544: %distributions and meson mass corrections,''

1545: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 543} (1999) 201

1546: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810475].

1547: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810475;%%

1548: 

1549: \bibitem{prep}

1550: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun, G.~W.~Jones and A.~Lenz, preprint IPPP/06/62 

1551: (in preparation).

1552: 

1553: \bibitem{BZ04}

1554:   P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,

1555:   %``B/(d,s) $\to$ rho, omega, K*, Phi decay form factors from light-cone sum

1556:   %rules revisited,''

1557:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 014029

1558:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0412079].

1559:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412079;%%

1560: 

1561: \bibitem{BB98}

1562:   P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,

1563:   %``Exclusive semileptonic and rare B meson decays in {QCD},''

1564:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 094016

1565:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9805422].

1566:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805422;%%

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{emili}

1569:  E.~Bagan, P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,

1570:   %``Radiative corrections to the decay B $\to$ pi e nu and the heavy quark

1571:   %limit,''

1572:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417} (1998) 154

1573:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9709243].

1574:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709243;%%

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{0608}

1577: P.~Ball,

1578:   %``Testing QCD sum rules on the light-cone in D --> (pi, K) l nu decays,''

1579:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 641} (2006) 50

1580:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0608116].

1581:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608116;%%

1582: 

1583: \bibitem{renormalon}

1584:   V.~M.~Braun, E.~Gardi and S.~Gottwald,

1585:   %``Renormalon approach to higher-twist distribution amplitudes and the

1586:   %convergence of the conformal expansion,''

1587:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 685} (2004) 171

1588:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0401158].

1589:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0401158;%%

1590: 

1591: \bibitem{BZa1}

1592:   P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,

1593:   %``SU(3) breaking of leading-twist K and K* distribution amplitudes: A

1594:   %reprise,''

1595: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 289 [arXiv:hep-ph/0510338] and

1596:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510338;%%

1597: %``Operator relations for SU(3) breaking contributions to K and K* distribution

1598: %amplitudes,''

1599: JHEP {\bf 0206} (2006) 034

1600: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601086].

1601: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601086;%%

1602: 

1603: \bibitem{angi}

1604: P.~Ball and A.~N.~Talbot,

1605:   %``Models for light-cone meson distribution amplitudes,''

1606:   JHEP {\bf 0506} (2005) 063

1607:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0502115].

1608:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0502115;%%

1609: 

1610: 

1611: \bibitem{ZZC}

1612:   A.~R.~Zhitnitsky, I.~R.~Zhitnitsky and V.~L.~Chernyak,

1613:   %``Two Particle Decays Of Psi Meson. Qualitative Discussion And Calculations

1614:   %For Some Processes. (In Russian),''

1615:   Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41} (1985) 127 

1616:   [Yad.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 41} (1985) 199].

1617:   %%CITATION = YAFIA,41,199;%%

1618: 

1619: \bibitem{BBK}

1620:   I.~I.~Balitsky, V.~M.~Braun and A.~V.~Kolesnichenko,

1621:   %``Radiative Decay Sigma+ $\to$ P Gamma In Quantum Chromodynamics,''

1622:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 312} (1989) 509.

1623:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B312,509;%%

1624: 

1625: \bibitem{PDG}

1626: W.~M.~N.~Yao {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group],

1627:   %``Review of particle physics,''

1628:   J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).

1629:   %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{fperplatt1}

1632:  D.~Becirevic {\it et al.},

1633:   %``Coupling of the light vector meson to the vector and to the tensor

1634:   %current,''

1635:   JHEP {\bf 0305} (2003) 007

1636:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0301020].

1637:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0301020;%%

1638: 

1639: \bibitem{fperplatt2}

1640:   V.~M.~Braun {\it et al.}, 

1641:   %``A lattice calculation of vector meson couplings to the vector and  tensor

1642:   %currents using chirally improved fermions,''

1643:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 054501

1644:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0306006].

1645:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0306006;%%

1646: 

1647: \bibitem{elena}

1648:   P.~Ball and M.~Boglione,

1649:   %``SU(3) breaking in K and K* distribution amplitudes,''

1650:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68} (2003) 094006

1651:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0307337].

1652:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307337;%%

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{unquenched}

1655:   M.~G\"ockeler {\it et al.},

1656:   %``Meson decay constants from N(f) = 2 clover fermions,''

1657:   PoS {\bf LAT2005} (2005) 063

1658:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0509196].

1659:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0509196;%%

1660: 

1661: \bibitem{BB96}

1662:   P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,

1663:   %``The $\rho$ Meson Light-Cone Distribution Amplitudes of Leading Twist

1664:   %Revisited,''

1665:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 2182

1666:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9602323].

1667:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602323;%%

1668: 

1669: \bibitem{0609}

1670: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,

1671:  %``Time-dependent CP asymmetry in B --> K* gamma as a (quasi) null test of the

1672:   %standard model,''

1673:   arXiv:hep-ph/0609037.

1674:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0609037;%%

1675: 

1676: \bibitem{lenz}

1677:  P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and A.~Lenz,

1678:   %``Higher-twist distribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD,''

1679:  JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 004

1680:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0603063].

1681:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603063;%%

1682: 

1683: \bibitem{lattms}

1684: F.~Knechtli,

1685: %``Lattice computation of the strange quark mass in QCD,''

1686: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36} (2005) 3377

1687: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511033];\\

1688: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511033;%%

1689: M.~G\"ockeler {\it et al.},

1690:   %``Determining the strange quark mass for 2-flavour QCD,''

1691:  Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 153} (2006) 154

1692:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0602028].

1693:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0602028;%%

1694: 

1695: \bibitem{SRms}

1696: E.~Gamiz {\it et al.},

1697: %``V(us) and m(s) from hadronic tau decays,''

1698: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94} (2005) 011803

1699: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408044];\\

1700: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408044;%%

1701:   S.~Narison,

1702:   %``Strange quark mass from e+ e- revisited and present status of light quark

1703:   %masses,''

1704:   arXiv:hep-ph/0510108;\\

1705:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510108;%%

1706:  K.~G.~Chetyrkin and A.~Khodjamirian,

1707:   %``Strange quark mass from pseudoscalar sum rule with O(alpha(s)**4)

1708:   %accuracy,''

1709:   arXiv:hep-ph/0512295.

1710:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512295;%%

1711: 

1712: \bibitem{HFAG}

1713:   E. Barberio {\it et al.} [HFAG],

1714:   %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''

1715:   arXiv:hep-ex/0603003; updated results available at {\tt

1716:   http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}.

1717:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603003;%%

1718: 

1719: \bibitem{UTfit}

1720: M. Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit coll.], 

1721:  %``The 2004 UTfit collaboration report on the status of the unitarity triangle

1722:   %in the standard model,''

1723:   JHEP {\bf 0507} (2005) 028

1724:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0501199]; updated results available at {\tt 

1725: http://www.utfit.org/}.

1726:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0501199;%%

1727: 

1728: \bibitem{power2}

1729: A.~Khodjamirian {\it et al.},

1730: %``QCD estimate of the long-distance effect in B $\to$ K* gamma,''

1731: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 402} (1997) 167

1732: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702318].

1733: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702318;%%

1734: 

1735: \bibitem{power1}

1736: A.~Khodjamirian, G.~Stoll and D.~Wyler,

1737: %``Calculation of long distance effects in exclusive weak radiative decays of B

1738: %meson,''

1739: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 358} (1995) 129

1740: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506242];\\

1741: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506242;%%

1742: A.~Ali and V.~M.~Braun,

1743: %``Estimates of the weak annihilation contributions to the decays B $\to$ rho +

1744: %gamma and B $\to$ omega + gamma,''

1745: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 359} (1995) 223

1746: [arXiv:hep-ph/9506248].

1747: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506248;%%

1748: 

1749: \bibitem{emi}

1750: P.~Ball and E.~Kou,

1751: %``B $\to$ gamma e nu transitions from QCD sum rules on the light-cone,''

1752: JHEP {\bf 0304} (2003) 029

1753: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301135].

1754: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301135;%%

1755: 

1756: \bibitem{contact}

1757:  B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,

1758:   %``Long-distance effects in B $\to$ V gamma radiative weak decays,''

1759:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 093002

1760:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0002216];\\

1761:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002216;%%

1762:   A.~Khodjamirian and D.~Wyler,

1763:   %``Counting contact terms in B $\to$ V gamma decays,''

1764:   arXiv:hep-ph/0111249.

1765:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111249;%%

1766: 

1767: \bibitem{chris}

1768:   S.~Descotes-Genon and C.~T.~Sachrajda,

1769:  %``Factorization, the light-cone distribution amplitude of the B-meson and the

1770:   %radiative decay B $\to$ gamma l nu/l. ((V)),''

1771:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 650} (2003) 356

1772:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0209216];\\

1773:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209216;%%

1774:  E.~Lunghi, D.~Pirjol and D.~Wyler,

1775:   %``Factorization in leptonic radiative B $\to$ gamma e nu decays. ((U)),''

1776:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 649} (2003) 349

1777:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0210091].

1778:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210091;%%

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{kivel}

1781:   P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and N.~Kivel,

1782:   %``Photon distribution amplitudes in QCD,''

1783:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 649} (2003) 263

1784:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0207307].

1785:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207307;%%

1786: 

1787: \bibitem{fBlatt1}

1788:   S.~Hashimoto,

1789:   %``Recent results from lattice calculations,''

1790:   Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20} (2005) 5133

1791:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0411126].

1792:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0411126;%%

1793: 

1794: \bibitem{fBlatt2}

1795:   M.~Okamoto,

1796:   %``Full determination of the CKM matrix using recent results from lattice

1797:   %QCD,''

1798:   PoS {\bf LAT2005} (2005) 013

1799:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0510113].

1800:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0510113;%%

1801: 

1802: \bibitem{fBSR}

1803: A.~A.~Penin and M.~Steinhauser,

1804: %``Heavy-light meson decay constant from QCD sum rules in three-loop

1805: %approximation,''

1806: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 054006

1807: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108110];\\

1808: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108110;%%

1809: M.~Jamin and B.~O.~Lange,

1810: %``f(B) and f(B/s) from QCD sum rules,''

1811: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 056005

1812: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108135].

1813: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108135;%%

1814: 

1815: \bibitem{lambdaB}

1816: V.~M.~Braun, D.~Y.~Ivanov and G.~P.~Korchemsky,

1817: %``The B-meson distribution amplitude in QCD,''

1818: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 034014

1819: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309330].

1820: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309330;%%

1821: 

1822: \bibitem{BBNS}

1823:   M.~Beneke {\it et al.},

1824:   %``{QCD} factorization for B $\to$ pi pi decays: Strong phases and CP

1825:   %violation in the heavy quark limit,''

1826:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83} (1999) 1914

1827:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9905312].

1828:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905312;%%

1829: 

1830: \bibitem{offen}

1831:   A.~Khodjamirian, T.~Mannel and N.~Offen,

1832:   %``B-meson distribution amplitude from the B $\to$ pi form factor,''

1833:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620} (2005) 52

1834:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0504091].

1835:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0504091;%%

1836: 

1837: \bibitem{Lange}

1838:   B.~O.~Lange and M.~Neubert,

1839:   %``Renormalization-group evolution of the B-meson light-cone distribution

1840:   %amplitude,''

1841:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91} (2003) 102001

1842:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0303082];\\

1843:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303082;%%

1844:   P.~Ball,

1845:   %``QCD sum rules on the light-cone, factorisation and SCET,''

1846:   arXiv:hep-ph/0308249.

1847:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308249;%%

1848: 

1849: \bibitem{CDF}

1850:   A.~Abulencia {\it et al.} [CDF Coll.],

1851:   %``Measurement of the B/s0 anti-B/s0 oscillation frequency,''

1852:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97} (2006) 062003

1853:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0606027];

1854:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0606027;%%

1855:   %``Observation of Bs-Bsbar Oscillations,''

1856:   arXiv:hep-ex/0609040.

1857:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0609040;%%

1858: 

1859: \bibitem{D0}

1860:   V.~Abazov  {\it et al.} [D0 coll.],

1861:   %``First direct two-sided bound on the B/s0 oscillation frequency,''

1862:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 97} (2006) 021802

1863:   [arXiv:hep-ex/0603029].

1864:   %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603029;%%

1865:   

1866: \bibitem{HPQCD}

1867:   A.~Gray {\it et al.}  [HPQCD coll.],

1868:   %``The B meson decay constant from unquenched lattice QCD,''

1869:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 95} (2005) 212001

1870:   [arXiv:hep-lat/0507015].

1871:   %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0507015;%%

1872: 

1873: \bibitem{JLQCD}

1874:   S.~Aoki {\it et al.}  [JLQCD coll.],

1875:   %``B0 anti-B0 mixing in unquenched lattice QCD,''

1876:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 91} (2003) 212001

1877:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0307039].

1878:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307039;%%

1879: 

1880: \bibitem{rf}

1881: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,

1882:   %``Probing new physics through B mixing: Status, benchmarks and prospects,''

1883:   arXiv:hep-ph/0604249.

1884:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604249;%%

1885: 

1886: \bibitem{CKMfitter}

1887:   J.~Charles {\it et al.}  [CKMfitter group],

1888:   %``CP violation and the CKM matrix: Assessing the impact of the asymmetric  B

1889:   %factories,''

1890:   Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41} (2005) 1

1891:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0406184];

1892:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406184;%%

1893: updated results and plots available at {\tt http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr}.

1894: 

1895: \bibitem{Mueller}

1896:   D.~Mueller,

1897:   %``Conformal constraints and the evolution of the nonsinglet meson

1898:   %distribution amplitude,''

1899:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 49} (1994) 2525 and

1900:   %%CITATION = PHRVA,D49,2525;%%

1901:   %``The Evolution of the pion distribution amplitude in

1902:   %next-to-leading-order,''

1903: %  Phys.\ Rev.\ 

1904: D {\bf 51} (1995) 3855.

1905:   %[arXiv:hep-ph/9411338].

1906:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9411338;%%

1907: 

1908: \bibitem{Floratos}

1909:   E.~G.~Floratos, D.~A.~Ross and C.~T.~Sachrajda,

1910:   %``Higher Order Effects In Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories: The Anomalous

1911:   %Dimensions Of Wilson Operators,''

1912:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 129} (1977) 66

1913:   [Erratum, ibid.\ B {\bf 139} (1978) 545];\\

1914:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B129,66;%%

1915:   A.~Gonzalez-Arroyo, C.~Lopez and F.~J.~Yndurain,

1916:   %``Second Order Contributions To The Structure Functions In Deep Inelastic

1917:   %Scattering. I. Theoretical Calculations,''

1918:   Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153} (1979) 161.

1919:   %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,161;%%

1920: 

1921: \bibitem{Haya}

1922:   W.~Vogelsang,

1923:  %``Next-to-leading order evolution of transversity distributions and  Soffer's

1924:   %inequality,''

1925:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 1886

1926:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9706511];\\

1927:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9706511;%%

1928:   A.~Hayashigaki, Y.~Kanazawa and Y.~Koike,

1929:   %``Next-to-leading order Q**2-evolution of the transversity distribution

1930:   %h1(x,Q**2),''

1931:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 7350

1932:   [arXiv:hep-ph/9707208].

1933:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9707208;%%

1934: 

1935: \end{thebibliography}

1936: 

1937: \end{document}

1938: 

1939: