1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\usepackage{a4wide,axodraw}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \voffset0cm
6: \hoffset0cm
7: \oddsidemargin0cm
8: \evensidemargin0cm
9: \topmargin0cm
10: \textwidth16.cm
11: \textheight22cm
12: \setlength{\arraycolsep}{0.5mm}
13:
14: \usepackage{slashed}
15: \newcommand{\notp}{{\slashed{p}}}
16: \newcommand{\notk}{{\slashed{k}}}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \title{
21: \vskip-3cm{\baselineskip14pt
22: \centerline{\normalsize DESY 06-141\hfill ISSN 0418-9833}
23: \centerline{\normalsize MPP-2006-108\hfill}
24: \centerline{\normalsize NYU-TH/06/08/29\hfill}
25: \centerline{\normalsize hep-ph/0608306\hfill}
26: \centerline{\normalsize August 2006\hfill}}
27: \vskip1.5cm
28: \bf Simple Approach to Renormalize the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa Matrix}
29:
30: \author{Bernd A. Kniehl\thanks{Electronic address: {\tt bernd.kniehl@desy.de};
31: permanent address:
32: II. Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hamburg,
33: Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany.}
34: \ and Alberto Sirlin\thanks{Electronic address: {\tt alberto.sirlin@nyu.edu};
35: permanent address: Department of Physics, New York University,
36: 4 Washington Place, New York, New York 10003, USA.}\\
37: \\
38: {\normalsize\it Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik
39: (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut),}\\
40: {\normalsize\it F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany}}
41:
42: \date{}
43:
44: \maketitle
45:
46: \begin{abstract}
47: We present an on-shell scheme to renormalize the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
48: (CKM) matrix.
49: It is based on a novel procedure to separate the external-leg mixing
50: corrections into gauge-independent self-mass and gauge-dependent wave-function
51: renormalization contributions, and to implement the on-shell renormalization
52: of the former with non-diagonal mass counterterm matrices.
53: Diagonalization of the complete mass matrix leads to an explicit CKM
54: counterterm matrix, which automatically satisfies all the following important
55: properties: it is gauge independent, preserves unitarity, and leads to
56: renormalized amplitudes that are non-singular in the limit in which any two
57: fermions become mass degenerate.
58:
59: \medskip
60:
61: \noindent
62: PACS: 11.10.Gh, 12.15.Ff, 12.15.Lk, 13.38.Be
63: \end{abstract}
64:
65: \newpage
66:
67: The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) \cite{cab} flavor mixing matrix, which
68: rules the charged-current interactions of the quark mass eigenstates and
69: describes how the heavier ones decay to the lighter ones, is one of the
70: fundamental cornerstones of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics
71: and, in particular, it is the key to our understanding why the weak
72: interactions are not invariant under simultaneous charge-conjugation and
73: parity transformations.
74: In fact, the detailed determination of this matrix is one of the major aims of
75: recent experiments carried out at the $B$ factories \cite{pdg}, as well as the
76: objective of a wide range of theoretical studies \cite{pdg,Czarnecki:2004cw}.
77: An important theoretical problem associated with the CKM matrix is its
78: renormalization.
79: An early discussion, in the two-generation framework, was given in
80: Ref.~\cite{Marciano:1975cn}, focusing mostly on the cancellation of ultraviolet
81: divergences.
82: More recently, there have been a number of interesting papers that address the
83: renormalization of both the divergent and finite contributions at various
84: levels of generality and complexity \cite{Denner:1990yz}.
85:
86: \begin{figure}[ht]
87: \begin{center}
88: \includegraphics[bb=112 626 524 779,width=0.49\textwidth]{fig1ab.ps}
89: \end{center}
90: \caption{\label{fig:one}%
91: Fermion mixing self-energy diagrams.
92: $H$ and $\phi^\pm$ denote Higgs and charged Goldstone bosons, respectively.
93: Diagram~(b) is included to cancel the gauge dependence in the diagonal
94: contribution of diagrams~(a).}
95: \end{figure}
96:
97: %In this Letter we propose an explicit on-shell framework to renormalize the
98: %CKM matrix at the one-loop level, based on a simple generalization of
99: %Feynman's approach in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) \cite{Feynman:1949zx}.
100: In this Letter we propose an explicit on-shell framework to renormalize the
101: CKM matrix at the one-loop level, based on a novel procedure to separate the
102: external-leg mixing corrections into gauge-independent ``self-mass'' (sm) and
103: gauge-dependent ``wave-function renormalization'' (wfr) contributions, and to
104: implement the on-shell renormalization of the former with non-diagonal mass
105: counterterm matrices.
106: This procedure may be regarded as a simple generalization of Feynman's
107: approach in Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) \cite{Feynman:1949zx}.
108: We recall that, in QED, the self-energy contribution to an outgoing fermion is
109: given by
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: \Delta{\cal M}^{\rm leg}&=&\overline{u}(p)\Sigma(\notp)\frac{1}{\notp-m},
112: \label{eq:dm}\\
113: \Sigma(\notp)&=&A+B(\notp-m)+\Sigma_{\rm fin}(\notp),
114: \label{eq:sig}
115: \end{eqnarray}
116: where $\Sigma(\notp)$ is the self-energy, $A$ and $B$ are divergent constants,
117: and $\Sigma_{\rm fin}(\notp)$ is a finite part which is proportional to
118: $(\notp-m)^2$ in the vicinity of $\notp=m$ and, therefore, vanishes when
119: inserted in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dm}).
120: The contribution of $A$ to Eq.~(\ref{eq:dm}) exhibits a pole at $\notp=m$ and
121: is gauge independent, while that of $B$ is regular at this point, but gauge
122: dependent.
123: They are referred to as sm and wfr contributions, respectively.
124: $A$ is canceled by the mass counterterm.
125: On the other hand, since the factor $(\notp-m)$ cancels the propagator's
126: singularity, in Feynman's approach $B$ is combined with the proper vertex
127: diagrams leading to a gauge-independent result.
128:
129: %\begin{figure*}[ht]
130: %\begin{center}
131: %\includegraphics[bb=112 626 524 779,width=\textwidth]{fig1ab.ps}
132: %\end{center}
133: %\caption{\label{fig:one}%
134: %Fermion mixing self-energy diagrams.
135: %$H$ and $\phi^\pm$ denote Higgs and charged Goldstone bosons, respectively.
136: %Diagram~(b) is included to cancel the gauge dependence in the diagonal
137: %contribution of diagrams~(a).}
138: %\end{figure*}
139: In the case of the CKM matrix, one encounters not only diagonal terms as in
140: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dm}), but also off-diagonal external-leg contributions generated
141: by the Feynman diagrams of Fig.~\ref{fig:one}(a).
142: As a consequence, the self-energy corrections to an external leg are of the
143: form
144: \begin{equation}
145: \Delta{\cal M}_{ii^\prime}^{\rm leg}=\overline{u}_i(p)\Sigma_{ii^\prime}(\notp)
146: \frac{1}{\notp-m_{i^\prime}},
147: \label{eq:dmii}
148: \end{equation}
149: where $i$ denotes the external quark of momentum $p$ and mass $m_i$, and
150: $i^\prime$ the virtual quark of mass $m_{i^\prime}$.
151:
152: We evaluate the contributions of Fig.~\ref{fig:one} in $R_\xi$ gauge, treating
153: the $i$ and $i^\prime$ quarks on an equal footing.
154: (A detailed account of our analytical work will be presented in a later, longer
155: manuscript \cite{long}.)
156: For example, we write
157: \begin{eqnarray}
158: 2\notp a_-&=&\notp a_-+a_+\notp
159: \\
160: &=&(\notp-m_i)a_-+a_+(\notp-m_{i^\prime})+m_ia_-+m_{i^\prime}a_+,
161: \nonumber
162: \end{eqnarray}
163: where $a_\pm=(1\pm\gamma_5)/2$ are the chiral projectors.
164: Using this approach, we find that the contributions of Fig.~\ref{fig:one} can
165: be classified in four classes:
166: (i) terms with a left factor $(\notp-m_i)$;
167: (ii) terms with a right factor $(\notp-m_{i^\prime})$;
168: (iii) terms with a left factor $(\notp-m_i)$ and a right factor
169: $(\notp-m_{i^\prime})$; and
170: (iv) constant terms not involving $\notp$.
171: When inserted in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmii}), the terms of class (iii) obviously
172: vanish, in analogy with $\Sigma_{\rm fin}(\notp)$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dm}) and
173: (\ref{eq:sig}).
174: The terms of classes (i) and (ii) contain gauge-dependent parts but, when
175: inserted in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmii}), they combine to cancel the propagator
176: $(\notp-m_{i^\prime})^{-1}$ in both the diagonal ($i=i^\prime$) and
177: off-diagonal ($i\ne i^\prime$) contributions.
178: Thus, they lead to expressions suitable for combination with the proper vertex
179: diagrams.
180: In analogy with $B$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dm}) and (\ref{eq:sig}), such expressions
181: are identified as wfr contributions.
182: They satisfy the following important property:
183: all the gauge-dependent and all the divergent wfr contributions to the basic
184: $W\to q_i+\overline{q}_j$ amplitude are independent of $i^\prime$.
185: Using the unitarity relation
186: $V_{il}V_{li^\prime}^\dagger V_{i^\prime j}=V_{il}\delta_{lj}$ (since the
187: cofactor of this expression depends on $m_l$, the summation over $l$ is
188: performed later), one then finds that the gauge-dependent and the divergent
189: wfr contributions to the $W\to q_i+\overline{q}_j$ amplitude are independent
190: of CKM matrix elements, except for an overall factor $V_{ij}$, and depend only
191: on the external-quark masses $m_i$ and $m_j$.
192: Since the one-loop proper vertex diagrams also only depend on $m_i$, $m_j$,
193: and an overall factor $V_{ij}$, this observation implies that the proof of
194: gauge independence and finiteness of the remaining one-loop corrections to the
195: $W\to q_i+\overline{q}_j$ amplitude is the same as in the unmixed,
196: single-generation case!
197:
198: In contrast to the contributions of classes (i) and (ii) to
199: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dmii}), those of class (iv) lead to a multiple of
200: $(\notp-m_{i^\prime})^{-1}$ with a cofactor that involves $a_\pm$, but is
201: independent of $\notp$.
202: Thus, they are unsuitable to be combined with the proper vertex diagrams and
203: are expected to be separately gauge independent, as we indeed find.
204: In analogy with $A$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dm}) and (\ref{eq:sig}), they are
205: identified with sm contributions.
206: Specifically, in the case of an outgoing up-type quark, the sm contributions
207: from Fig.~\ref{fig:one} are given by the gauge-independent expression
208: \begin{eqnarray}
209: \Delta{\cal M}_{ii^\prime}^{\rm sm}&=&
210: \frac{g^2}{32\pi^2}V_{il}V_{li^\prime}^\dagger
211: \overline{u}_i(p)\left\{m_i\left(1+\frac{m_i^2}{2m_W^2}\Delta\right)
212: \right.
213: \nonumber\\
214: &&{}+\left[m_ia_-+m_{i^\prime}a_+
215: +\frac{m_im_{i^\prime}}{2m_W^2}(m_ia_++m_{i^\prime}a_-)\right]
216: \nonumber\\
217: &&{}\times
218: \left[I\left(m_i^2,m_l\right)-J\left(m_i^2,m_l\right)\right]
219: \nonumber\\
220: &&{}-\frac{m_l^2}{2m_W^2}(m_ia_-+m_{i^\prime}a_+)
221: \left[3\Delta+I\left(m_i^2,m_l\right)
222: \right.
223: \nonumber\\
224: &&{}+\left.\left.J\left(m_i^2,m_l\right)\right]
225: \vphantom{\frac{m_i^2}{2m_W^2}}
226: \right\}
227: \frac{1}{\notp-m_{i^\prime}},
228: \label{eq:legsm}
229: \end{eqnarray}
230: where $g$ is the SU(2) gauge coupling,
231: $\Delta=1/(n-4)+[\gamma_E-\ln(4\pi)]/2+\ln(m_W/\mu)$,
232: $n$ is the space-time dimension,
233: $\mu$ is the 't~Hooft mass,
234: $\gamma_E$ is Euler's constant,
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: \lefteqn{\{I(p^2,m_l);J(p^2,m_l)\}
237: =\int_0^1dx\,\{1;x\}}
238: \nonumber\\
239: &&{}\times
240: \ln\frac{m_l^2x+m_W^2(1-x)-p^2x(1-x)-i\varepsilon}{m_W^2},
241: \end{eqnarray}
242: and $m_l$ are the masses of the virtual down-type quarks in
243: Fig.~\ref{fig:one}(a).
244: Terms independent of $m_l$ within the curly brackets of Eq.~(\ref{eq:legsm})
245: lead to diagonal contributions on account of
246: $V_{il}V_{li^\prime}^\dagger=\delta_{ii^\prime}$.
247: There are other sm contributions involving virtual $Z^0$, $\phi^0$, $\gamma$,
248: and $H$ bosons, as well as additional tadpole diagrams, but these are again
249: diagonal expressions of the usual kind.
250:
251: In order to generate mass counterterms, we proceed as follows.
252: In the weak-eigenstate basis, the bare mass terms are of the form
253: $-\overline{\psi}_R^{\prime Q}m_0^{\prime Q}\psi_L^{\prime Q}+\mbox{h.c.}$,
254: where $\psi_L^{\prime Q}$ and $\psi_R^{\prime Q}$ are left- and right-handed
255: column spinors involving the three up-type ($Q=U$) and down-type ($Q=D$)
256: quarks, and $m_0^{\prime Q}$ are non-diagonal matrices.
257: Writing $m_0^{\prime Q}=m^{\prime Q}-\delta m^{\prime Q}$, where
258: $m^{\prime Q}$ and $\delta m^{\prime Q}$ are the renormalized and counterterm
259: mass matrices, we consider a biunitary transformation of the quark fields that
260: diagonalizes $m^{\prime Q}$ leading to diagonal and real renormalized mass
261: matrices $m^Q$ and to new non-diagonal mass counterterm matrices $\delta m^Q$.
262: In the new framework, the mass term is given by
263: \begin{eqnarray}
264: \lefteqn{-\overline{\psi}\left(m-\delta m^{(-)}a_--\delta m^{(+)}a_+\right)
265: \psi}
266: \nonumber\\
267: &=&-\overline{\psi}_R\left(m-\delta m^{(-)}\right)\psi_L
268: -\overline{\psi}_L\left(m-\delta m^{(+)}\right)\psi_R,\quad
269: \label{eq:mass}
270: \end{eqnarray}
271: where $m$ is real, diagonal, and positive, and $\delta m^{(-)}$ and
272: $\delta m^{(+)}$ are arbitrary non-diagonal matrices subject to the
273: hermiticity constraint
274: \begin{equation}
275: \delta m^{(+)}=\delta m^{(-)\dagger}.
276: \label{eq:her}
277: \end{equation}
278: Here we have not exhibited the superscript $Q$, but it is understood that $m$
279: and $\delta m^{(\pm)}$ stand for two different sets of matrices involving the
280: up- and down-type quarks.
281: As usual, the mass counterterms are included in the interaction Lagrangian.
282: Their contribution to the external-leg corrections is given by
283: $-\overline{u}_i(p)\left(\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{(-)}a_-
284: +\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{(+)}a_+\right)/$\break $(\notp-m_{i^\prime})$.
285: Next we adjust $\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{(\pm)}$ to cancel, as much as possible,
286: the sm contributions given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:legsm}).
287: The cancellation of the divergent parts is achieved by choosing
288: \begin{eqnarray}
289: \left(\delta m_{\rm div}^{(-)}\right)_{ii^\prime}&=&
290: \frac{g^2m_i}{64\pi^2m_W^2}\Delta
291: \left(\delta_{ii^\prime}m_i^2-3V_{il}V_{li^\prime}^\dagger m_l^2\right),
292: \nonumber\\
293: \left(\delta m_{\rm div}^{(+)}\right)_{ii^\prime}&=&
294: \frac{g^2m_{i^\prime}}{64\pi^2m_W^2}\Delta
295: \left(\delta_{ii^\prime}m_i^2-3V_{il}V_{li^\prime}^\dagger m_l^2\right),\quad
296: \label{eq:div}
297: \end{eqnarray}
298: which satisfies the hermiticity constraint of Eq.~(\ref{eq:her}).
299: Because the functions $I(p^2,m_l)$ and $J(p^2,m_l)$ are evaluated at
300: $p^2=m_i^2$ in the $ii^\prime$ channel (where $i$ and $i^\prime$ are the
301: external and virtual quarks, respectively) and at $p^2=m_{i^\prime}^2$ in the
302: $i^\prime i$ channel (where $i^\prime$ and $i$ are the external and virtual
303: quarks, respectively), it is easy to see that it is not possible to cancel all
304: the finite pieces of Eq.~(\ref{eq:legsm}) in all channels without
305: contradicting Eq.~(\ref{eq:her}).
306: In particular, we note that once the $\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{(\pm)}$ are chosen,
307: the $\delta m_{i^\prime i}^{(\pm)}$ are fixed by Eq.~(\ref{eq:her}).
308: For this reason, we employ the following renormalization prescription:
309: the mass counterterms are chosen to exactly cancel all the contributions to
310: Eq.~(\ref{eq:legsm}) in the $i^\prime=i$, $uc$, $ut$, and $ct$ channels, and
311: all the sm contributions in the $j^\prime=j$, $sd$, $bd$, and $bs$ channels in
312: the corresponding down-type-quark expression.
313: (Here $j$ and $j^\prime$ are the incoming and virtual down-type quarks,
314: respectively.)
315: This implies that, after mass renormalization, there are residual sm
316: contributions in the $cu$, $tu$, $tc$, $ds$, $db$, and $sb$ channels.
317: However, these residual contributions are finite, gauge independent, and
318: numerically very small.
319: In fact, the fractional corrections they induce in the real parts of $V_{ij}$
320: reach a maximum value of ${\cal O}(4\times10^{-6})$ for $V_{ts}$, and they are
321: much smaller in the case of several other CKM matrix elements.
322: Since they are regular in the limits $m_{i^\prime}\to m_i$ or
323: $m_{j^\prime}\to m_j$, they may be regarded as additional finite and
324: gauge-independent contributions to wave-function renormalization that
325: happen to be very small.
326:
327: We emphasize that with this renormalization prescription the sm corrections
328: are fully canceled in all channels in which the external particle is a $u$,
329: $\overline{u}$, $d$, or $\overline{d}$ quark.
330: This is of particular interest since $V_{ud}$, the parameter associated with
331: $W\to u+\overline{d}$, is by far the most precisely determined CKM matrix
332: element \cite{Czarnecki:2004cw}.
333:
334: It is also interesting to note that, since Eq.~(\ref{eq:div}) satisfies
335: Eq.~(\ref{eq:her}), the modified minimal-subtraction
336: ($\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$) renormalization, in which only the
337: $1/(n-4)+[\gamma_E-\ln(4\pi)]/2$ terms are subtracted, can be implemented in
338: all non-diagonal channels.
339: More generally, one can consider a renormalization prescription that satisfies
340: the hermiticity condition in all channels by choosing the mass counterterms to
341: cancel the off-diagonal terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:legsm}) and the corresponding
342: down-type-quark expression with the functions $I(p^2,m_l)$ and $J(p^2,m_l)$
343: evaluated at the same fixed $p^2$ value for all flavors.
344: Since Eq.~(\ref{eq:legsm}) is explicitly gauge independent, in our formulation
345: there is no restriction in the choice of $p^2$ other than that it should not
346: generate imaginary parts in the integrals $I(p^2,m_l)$ and $J(p^2,m_l)$.
347: In particular, $p^2$ can have any value $p^2\le m_W^2$.
348: Of course, since it is desirable to cancel the sm contributions as much as
349: possible, it is convenient to choose $0\le p^2\ll m_W^2$.
350: It should be pointed out, however, that the $\overline{\mathrm{MS}}$ and
351: fixed-$p^2$ subtraction prescriptions of mass renormalization are not on-shell
352: schemes and lead to residual sm contributions in all off-diagonal channels,
353: which diverge in the limits $m_{i^\prime}\to m_i$ or $m_{j^\prime}\to m_j$.
354:
355: An alternative formulation, equivalent to the one discussed so far, is
356: obtained by diagonalizing the complete mass matrix
357: $m-\delta m^{(-)}a_--\delta m^{(+)}a_+$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:mass}).
358: This is achieved by a biunitary transformation
359: \begin{equation}
360: \psi_L=U_L\hat\psi_L,\qquad\psi_R=U_R\hat\psi_R.
361: \end{equation}
362: At the one-loop level, it is sufficient to approximate
363: \begin{equation}
364: U_L=1+ih_L,\qquad U_R=1+ih_R,
365: \end{equation}
366: where $h_L$ and $h_R$ are hermitian matrices of ${\cal O}(g^2)$.
367: The diagonalization is implemented by choosing
368: \begin{equation}
369: i(h_L)_{ii^\prime}=\frac{m_i\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{(-)}
370: +\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{(+)}m_{i^\prime}}{m_i^2-m_{i^\prime}^2}
371: \qquad (i\ne i^\prime),
372: \label{eq:hlii}
373: \end{equation}
374: while $i(h_R)_{ii^\prime}$ is obtained by exchanging
375: $\delta m^{(-)}\leftrightarrow\delta m^{(+)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:hlii}).
376: Since the only effect of the diagonal terms of $h_L$ and $h_R$ on the
377: $Wq_i\overline{q}_j$ interaction is to introduce phases that can be absorbed
378: in a redefinition of the quark fields, it is convenient to set
379: $(h_L)_{ii}=(h_R)_{ii}=0$.
380: This analysis is carried out separately to diagonalize the mass matrices
381: of the up- and down-type quarks.
382: Thus, we obtain two pairs of matrices: $h_L^U$ and $h_R^U$ for
383: the up-type quarks and $h_L^D$ and $h_R^D$ for the down-type quarks.
384: Next we consider the effect of this biunitary transformation on the
385: $Wq_i\overline{q}_j$ interaction
386: \begin{equation}
387: {\cal L}_{Wq_i\overline{q}_j}=-\frac{g_0}{\sqrt2}
388: \overline{\psi}_L^UV\gamma^\lambda\psi_L^DW_\lambda+\mbox{h.c.}.
389: \end{equation}
390: We readily find that
391: \begin{equation}
392: {\cal L}_{Wq_i\overline{q}_j}=-\frac{g_0}{\sqrt2}\overline{\hat\psi}_L^U
393: (V-\delta V)\gamma^\lambda\hat\psi_L^DW_\lambda+\mbox{h.c.},
394: \label{eq:hc}
395: \end{equation}
396: where
397: \begin{equation}
398: \delta V=i\left(h_L^UV-Vh_L^D\right).
399: \label{eq:dv}
400: \end{equation}
401: It is important to note that $V-\delta V$ satisfies the unitarity condition
402: through ${\cal O}(g^2)$:
403: \begin{equation}
404: (V-\delta V)^\dagger(V-\delta V)=1+{\cal O}(g^4).
405: \end{equation}
406: In the $(\hat\psi_L,\hat\psi_R)$ basis, in which the complete quark mass
407: matrices are diagonal, $\delta V$ and $V_0=V-\delta V$ represent the
408: counterterm and bare CKM matrices, respectively.
409: One readily verifies that the term $ih_L^UV$ in $\delta V$ leads to the same
410: off-diagonal contribution to the $W\to q_i+\overline{q}_j$ amplitude as
411: $\delta m^{U(-)}$ and $\delta m^{U(+)}$ in our previous discussion in the
412: $(\psi_L,\psi_R)$ basis.
413: Similarly, the term $-iVh_L^D$ leads to the same contributions as
414: $\delta m^{D(-)}$ and $\delta m^{D(+)}$.
415: It is important to emphasize that this formulation is consistent with the
416: unitarity and gauge independence of both the renormalized and bare CKM
417: matrices, $V$ and $V_0$, respectively.
418:
419: For completeness, we exhibit the CKM counterterm matrix in component form:
420: \begin{eqnarray}
421: \delta V_{ij}&=&i\left[\left(h_L^U\right)_{ii^\prime}V_{i^\prime j}
422: -V_{ij^\prime}\left(h_L^D\right)_{j^\prime j}\right]
423: \nonumber\\
424: &=&\frac{m_i^U\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{U(-)}
425: +\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{U(+)}m_{i^\prime}^U}{\left(m_i^U\right)^2
426: -\left(m_{i^\prime}^U\right)^2}V_{i^\prime j}
427: \nonumber\\
428: &&{}-V_{ij^\prime}\frac{m_{j^\prime}^D\delta m_{j^\prime j}^{D(-)}
429: +\delta m_{j^\prime j}^{D(+)}m_j^D}{\left(m_{j^\prime}^D\right)^2
430: -\left(m_j^D\right)^2},
431: \label{eq:dvii}
432: \end{eqnarray}
433: where it is understood that $i^\prime\ne i$ in the first term on the
434: r.h.s.\ and $j^\prime\ne j$ in the second, and $\delta m_{ii^\prime}^{U(\pm)}$
435: and $\delta m_{j^\prime j}^{D(\pm)}$ are the off-diagonal mass counterterms
436: determined by the on-shell renormalization prescriptions proposed in our first
437: formulation.
438: The coefficient of $1/(n-4)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:dvii}) is, of course, common to
439: all renormalization prescriptions for the CKM matrix \cite{Denner:1990yz} and
440: also appears in its renormalization group equation \cite{Babu:1987im}.
441:
442: In summary, after introducing a novel procedure to separate the external-leg
443: mixing corrections into gauge-independent sm and gauge-dependent wfr
444: contributions, in analogy with Feynman's treatment in QED, we have implemented
445: their renormalization in two equivalent frameworks.
446: The first one is carried out in a basis in which the renormalized quark
447: matrices are diagonal and the non-diagonal mass counterterm matrices are
448: employed to cancel all the divergent sm contributions, and also their finite
449: parts up to hermiticity constraints.
450: In particular, the sm corrections are fully canceled in the
451: $W\to u+\overline{d}$ amplitude, associated with $V_{ud}$, the most accurately
452: measured CKM parameter.
453: Residual finite contributions in other channels are very small.
454: We have also pointed out that the proof of gauge independence and finiteness
455: of the remaining one-loop corrections to the $W\to q_i+\overline{q}_j$
456: amplitude reduces to that in the unmixed, single-generation case.
457: Alternative renormalization prescriptions that are ``democratic,'' in the sense
458: that they do not single out particular off-diagonal channels, were briefly
459: outlined.
460: However, strictly speaking, they are not on-shell schemes and lead to residual
461: sm contributions in all off-diagonal channels, which diverge in the limits
462: $m_{i^\prime}\to m_i$ or $m_{j^\prime}\to m_j$.
463:
464: The second formulation was obtained by diagonalizing the complete mass
465: matrices, namely the renormalized plus counterterm mass matrices derived in
466: the first approach.
467: In the second framework a CKM counterterm matrix $\delta V$ was generated which
468: again cancels the divergent and, to the extent allowed by the hermiticity
469: constraints, also the finite parts of the off-diagonal sm contributions.
470: As usual, the diagonal sm contributions are canceled by the mass counterterms,
471: which in this approach are also diagonal.
472: An important feature is that this formulation is consistent with the unitarity
473: and gauge independence of both the renormalized and bare CKM matrices, $V$ and
474: $V_0=V-\delta V$, respectively.
475:
476: As is well known, an enduring difficulty, thirty years old, in a satisfactory
477: treatment of the one-loop electroweak corrections to all charged-current
478: processes involving fermions is due to the external off-diagonal self-energy
479: effects depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:one}(a).
480: Since the mass renormalization of the usual, diagonal effects must necessarily
481: involve a complete subtraction of the sm contributions to avoid the
482: propagator's singularity [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:dm})], it is natural to follow the
483: same strategy in the off-diagonal contributions.
484: Thus, an on-shell renormalization procedure to treat all these effects is
485: highly desirable and strongly motivated.
486: Such an objective has been achieved for the first time in this Letter in a way
487: that the following important properties are manifestly satisfied:
488: the CKM counterterm matrix is gauge independent, preserves unitarity, and leads
489: to renormalized amplitudes that are non-singular in the limit in which any two
490: fermions become mass degenerate.
491: Because of the close analogy with QED and the fact that our decomposition
492: procedure is algebraic in nature, it is likely that this approach can be
493: naturally generalized to higher orders.
494:
495: We are grateful to the Max Planck Institute for Physics in Munich for the
496: hospitality during a visit when this manuscript was prepared.
497: The work of B.A.K. was supported in part by the German Research Foundation
498: through the Collaborative Research Center No.\ 676 {\it Particles, Strings and
499: the Early Universe---the Structure of Matter and Space-Time}.
500: The work of A.S. was supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt
501: Foundation through the Humboldt Research Award No.\ IV~USA~1051120~USS and by
502: the National Science Foundation Grant No.\ PHY-0245068.
503:
504: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
505:
506: \bibitem{cab} N. Cabibbo,
507: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf10}, 531 (1963);
508: M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa,
509: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf49}, 652 (1973).
510:
511: \bibitem{pdg}
512: W.-M. Yao {\it et al.}\ (Particle Data Group),
513: J. Phys.\ G {\bf33}, 1 (2006), and references cited therein.
514:
515: \bibitem{Czarnecki:2004cw}
516: A. Czarnecki, W.J. Marciano, and A. Sirlin,
517: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf70}, 093006 (2004), and references cited therein;
518: W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin,
519: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf96}, 032002 (2006).
520:
521: \bibitem{Marciano:1975cn}
522: W.J. Marciano and A. Sirlin,
523: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B93}, 303 (1975).
524:
525: \bibitem{Denner:1990yz}
526: A.~Denner and T.~Sack,
527: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B347}, 203 (1990);
528: B.A. Kniehl and A. Pilaftsis,
529: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf B474}, 286 (1996);
530: P. Gambino, P.A. Grassi, and F. Madricardo,
531: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 454}, 98 (1999);
532: B.A. Kniehl, F. Madricardo, and M. Steinhauser,
533: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf62}, 073010 (2000);
534: A. Barroso, L. Br\"ucher, and R. Santos,
535: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf62}, 096003 (2000);
536: Y. Yamada,
537: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf 64}, 036008 (2001);
538: K.-P.O. Diener and B.A. Kniehl,
539: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B617}, 291 (2001);
540: A. Pilaftsis,
541: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf65}, 115013 (2002);
542: D. Espriu, J. Manzano, and P. Talavera,
543: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf66}, 076002 (2002);
544: Y. Zhou,
545: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf577}, 67 (2003);
546: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf30}, 491 (2004);
547: Y. Liao,
548: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf69}, 016001 (2004);
549: A. Denner, E. Kraus, and M. Roth,
550: {\it ibid.}\ {\bf70}, 033002 (2004).
551:
552: \bibitem{Feynman:1949zx}
553: R.P. Feynman,
554: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf76}, 769 (1949) (see especially Section~6);
555: Quantum Electrodynamics: A Lecture Note and Reprint Volume,
556: (W.A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1962), p.~145 {\it et seqq.}.
557:
558: \bibitem{long}
559: B.A. Kniehl and A. Sirlin (in preparation).
560:
561: \bibitem{Babu:1987im}
562: K.S. Babu,
563: Z. Phys.\ C {\bf35}, 69 (1987).
564:
565: \end{thebibliography}
566:
567: \end{document}
568: