1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{array}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: %\usepackage{amsmath}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{graphics,graphpap}
8:
9:
10: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0cm}
11: \setlength{\textwidth}{16.2cm}
12: \setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
13: \setlength{\textheight}{23.8cm}
14: \setlength{\unitlength}{1mm}
15:
16:
17: \addtolength{\jot}{10pt}
18: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
19: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
20: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
21: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.1}
22:
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: %%%%%%%%%% Title page
26: \begin{titlepage}
27: \begin{flushright}
28: \begin{tabular}{l}
29: IPPP/06/61\\
30: DCPT/06/122
31: \end{tabular}
32: \end{flushright}
33: \vskip1.5cm
34: \begin{center}
35: {\Large \bf\boldmath
36: Time-dependent CP Asymmetry in $B\to K^*\gamma$\\[7pt]
37: as a (Quasi) Null Test of the Standard Model}
38: \vskip1.3cm {\sc
39: Patricia Ball\footnote{Patricia.Ball@durham.ac.uk} and
40: Roman Zwicky\footnote{Roman.Zwicky@durham.ac.uk}}
41: \vskip0.5cm
42: {\em IPPP, Department of Physics,
43: University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, UK}
44:
45: \vskip2cm
46:
47: %{\em Version of \today}
48:
49: \vskip3cm
50:
51: {\large\bf Abstract:\\[10pt]} \parbox[t]{\textwidth}{
52: We calculate the dominant Standard Model contributions to the time-dependent CP
53: asymmetry in $B^0\to K^{*0}\gamma$, which is $O(1/m_b)$ in QCD
54: factorisation. We find that, including all relevant hadronic effects,
55: in particular from soft gluons,
56: the asymmetry $S$ is very small, $S=-0.022\pm 0.015^{+0}_{-0.01}$,
57: and smaller than suggested recently from
58: dimensional arguments in a $1/m_b$ expansion. Our result
59: implies that any significant deviation of the asymmetry from zero, and
60: in particular a confirmation of the current experimental central
61: value, $S_{\rm HFAG}=-0.28\pm 0.26$,
62: would constitute a clean signal for new
63: physics.
64: }
65:
66: \vfill
67:
68: \end{center}
69: \end{titlepage}
70:
71: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
72: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
73:
74: \section{Introduction}
75:
76: The radiative decay $b\to s\gamma$ has been extensively studied as a
77: probe of both the flavour structure of the Standard Model (SM) and
78: new physics beyond the SM (see Ref.~\cite{hurth} for a review). While
79: the vast majority of studies has focused on the prediction of the decay
80: rate for exclusive and both spectra and decay rate for inclusive $b\to
81: s\gamma$ decays, there is one rather peculiar feature of this
82: process which has attracted far less attention, namely that, in the
83: SM, the emitted photon is predominantly left-handed in $b$, and
84: right-handed in $\bar b$ decays. This is due to the fact
85: that, in the language of effective field theories, the dominant
86: contribution is from the chiral-odd
87: dipole operator $\bar s_{L(R)} \sigma_{\mu\nu} b_{R(L)}$.
88: As only left-handed quarks
89: participate in the weak interaction, an effective operator of this
90: type necessitates, in the SM, a
91: helicity flip on one of the external quark lines, which results in a factor
92: $m_b$ (and a left-handed photon) for $b_R\to s_L\gamma_L$
93: and a factor $m_s$ (and a right-handed photon)
94: for $b_L\to s_R\gamma_R$. Hence, the emission of
95: right-handed photons is suppressed by
96: roughly a factor $m_s/m_b$. This suppression
97: can easily be alleviated in a large number
98: of new physics scenarios where the helicity flip occurs on an
99: internal line, resulting in a factor $m_i/m_b$ instead of $m_s/m_b$.
100: A prime example are left-right symmetric models
101: \cite{LRS}, whose impact on the photon polarisation was discussed in
102: Ref.~\cite{gronau}. These models also come in a supersymmetric version
103: whose effect on $b\to s\gamma$ was investigated in Ref.~\cite{frank}.
104: Supersymmetry with no left-right symmetry can also provide large contributions
105: to $b\to s\gamma_R$, see Ref.~\cite{susy} for recent studies. Other
106: potential sources of large effects which have been studied
107: are warped extra dimensions
108: \cite{warped} or anomalous right-handed top
109: couplings \cite{anomalous}. Unless the amplitude for $b\to s \gamma_R$
110: is of the same order as the SM prediction for $b\to s \gamma_L$, or the
111: enhancement of $b\to s \gamma_R$ goes along with a suppression of
112: $b\to s \gamma_L$, the impact
113: on the branching ratio is small, as the two helicity
114: amplitudes add incoherently. This implies there can be a
115: substantial contribution of new physics to $b\to s\gamma$
116: escaping detection when only branching ratios are measured.
117:
118: Although the photon helicity is, in principle, an observable, it is
119: very difficult to measure directly. It can, however, be accessed
120: indirectly, for instance in the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B^0\to
121: K^{*0}\gamma$, which relies on the interference of both left and right
122: helicity amplitudes and vanishes if one of them is absent. This method
123: was first suggested in Ref.~\cite{gronau} and later discussed in more
124: detail in Refs.~\cite{grin04,grin05}. It is rather special in the
125: sense that usually new physics modifies the SM predictions for
126: time-dependent CP asymmetries by affecting the mixing phase (as in
127: $B_s\to J/\psi \phi$, see for instance Ref.~\cite{BF06}), introducing
128: new weak phases or moderately changing the size of the decay amplitudes which,
129: in the absence of precise calculational tools, makes it very hard to
130: trace its impact. In contrast, the time-dependent CP asymmetry in
131: $B^0\to K^{*0}\gamma$ is very small in the SM, irrespectively of
132: hadronic uncertainties, by virtue of the helicity suppression of one decay
133: amplitude, and new physics enters by relieving that
134: suppression. The smallness of the asymmetry in the SM, and the possibility of
135: large effects from new physics, makes it one of the prime candidates
136: for a so-called ``null test'' of the SM, as recently advertised in
137: Ref.~\cite{null}.
138:
139: Other channels and methods to
140: probe the photon helicity have been discussed in Refs.~\cite{other,soni}. In
141: this letter, however, we focus on the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B^0\to
142: K^{*0}\gamma$. It is given by
143: \begin{equation}\label{-1}
144: A_{CP} = \frac{\Gamma(\bar B^0(t)\to \bar K^{*0}\gamma) -
145: \Gamma( B^0(t)\to K^{*0}\gamma)}{
146: \Gamma(\bar B^0(t)\to \bar K^{*0}\gamma) +
147: \Gamma( B^0(t)\to K^{*0}\gamma)}
148: = S \sin(\Delta m_B t ) - C \cos(\Delta m_B t)\,,
149: \end{equation}
150: where $K^{*0}$ and $\bar K^{*0}$ are observed via their decay into the CP
151: eigenstate $K_S\pi^0$.
152: The term involving an interference of photons with different
153: polarisation is $S$, for which the following experimental results are
154: available from the $B$ factories:
155: \begin{equation}
156: \begin{array}[b]{lll@{\hspace*{15pt}}l}
157: S_{\rm BaBar} & = -0.21 \pm 0.40\,({\rm stat}) \pm 0.05\, ({\rm syst})
158: & \quad \mbox{BaBar \cite{BaBar}}
159: & \mbox{($232\cdot 10^6$ $B\bar B$ pairs),}
160: \\[5pt]
161: S_{\rm Belle} & = -0.32^{+ 0.36}_{-0.33}\,({\rm stat}) \pm 0.05\, ({\rm syst})
162: & \quad \mbox{Belle \cite{Belle}}
163: & \mbox{($535\cdot 10^6$ $B\bar B$ pairs),}
164: \end{array}
165: \end{equation}
166: with the HFAG average $S_{\rm HFAG} = -0.28\pm 0.26$ \cite{HFAG}. While these
167: results are compatible with zero at the 1$\sigma$ level, the
168: central values of both BaBar and Belle are in agreement and
169: interestingly large.
170: A drastic reduction of the
171: experimental uncertainty will probably be difficult at the LHC, but
172: can be achieved at a Super $B$ factory, with
173: an anticipated statistical uncertainty of $S$ of 0.07 with 10~ab$^{-1}$
174: of data \cite{superB} and 0.04 with 50~ab$^{-1}$ \cite{superKEK}.
175:
176: In order to clearly distinguish any new physics signal from the SM
177: background, one needs to know the latter as precisely as possible. As
178: discussed above, one
179: contribution comes from $b_L\to s_R\gamma_R$, with
180: a helicity flip on the $s$ quark line; it generates the
181: contribution
182: \begin{equation}\label{0}
183: S^{{\rm SM},s_R} = - \sin(2\beta)\,\frac{m_s}{m_b}\left(2 + O(\alpha_s)\right)
184: \end{equation}
185: to the CP asymmetry, with $\beta$ being one of the angles of the CKM unitarity
186: triangle. At leading order in $\alpha_s$, $S^{{\rm SM},s_R}$ is free from
187: hadronic uncertainties. As pointed out in Ref.~\cite{grin04},
188: another mechanism to remove the helicity suppression of $b\to s \gamma_R$ is
189: to emit an additional gluon. The dominant
190: contribution to this mechanism
191: is via a $c$-quark loop and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
192: \begin{figure}
193: $$\epsfxsize=0.2\textwidth\epsffile{fig1.eps}$$
194: \caption[]{\small Dominant contribution to $b\to s\gamma g$. A second diagram
195: with photon and gluon vertices exchanged is implied.}\label{fig1}
196: \end{figure}
197: In inclusive decays this is a bremsstrahlung correction and
198: can be calculated in perturbation theory \cite{grin04}.
199: In exclusive decays, on the
200: other hand, the gluon can be either hard or soft. If it is hard,
201: it attaches to the spectator quark, which
202: induces $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections to (\ref{0}). If it is soft, it
203: has to be interpreted as a parton in one of the external
204: hadrons. Stated differently, if the gluon is soft, the amplitude
205: involves higher Fock states of the
206: $B$ and $K^*$.
207: %%%%%%%%% new
208: A data-driven method to distinguish this contribution from that of the
209: dipole operator $\bar s_{L(R)} \sigma_{\mu\nu} b_{R(L)}$ was discussed
210: in Ref.~\cite{soni} and relies on the Dalitz-plot analysis of decays
211: of type $B^0\to \gamma K_S+\,$neutrals, where neutrals stands for
212: $\pi^0$, $\eta^{(')}$, $K_S$, light vector mesons or any combination
213: of these particles.
214: %%%%%%%% new
215: In Ref.~\cite{grin04} it was shown, in the framework of
216: soft-collinear effective theory (SCET), that contributions from $b\to
217: s\gamma g$ are suppressed by
218: one power of $m_b$ with respect to the left-handed photon emission,
219: which confirms the results obtained in QCD factorisation
220: \cite{QCDfac,BoBu}, where an explicit $O(\alpha_s)$ calculation
221: demonstrated, to leading order in $1/m_b$, the absence of
222: right-handed photons in $\bar B^0\to \bar K^{*0}\gamma$. A SCET
223: analysis of the CP asymmetry in Ref.~\cite{grin05} estimated the
224: size of the $1/m_b$ corrections to $S^{\rm SM}$ induced
225: by $b\to s\gamma g$ as $\sim \pm 0.1$, but is based on
226: dimensional counting of the operators involved rather than a
227: calculation of the relevant matrix elements. Another
228: calculation, in perturbative QCD, gives $S^{\rm SM}_{\rm pQCD}
229: = -(3.5\pm 1.7)\%$
230: \cite{sanda}, including effects mainly from hard gluons;
231: the contribution of soft gluons is treated in a model-dependent way.
232:
233: The purpose of this letter is to provide a calculation of the
234: soft-gluon contribution to the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B\to
235: K^*\gamma$ induced by the $c$-quark loop shown in
236: Fig.~\ref{fig1}. The method we use are QCD sum rules on the
237: light-cone. It turns out that the relevant hadronic parameters were
238: calculated already previously, in 1997, in Ref.~\cite{alex},
239: using the method of local QCD sum rules. The motivation at the time
240: was to estimate long-distance corrections to the branching ratio of
241: $B\to K^*\gamma$. In fact those corrections were first discovered
242: for the inclusive process \cite{misha}.
243: In this letter, we show that the same parameters
244: also enter the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B\to
245: K^*\gamma$ and present a new calculation of their values.
246:
247: \section{The CP Asymmetry}
248:
249: Let us define the amplitudes of the decay of $B$ mesons into $K^*$ and
250: left- or right-handed photons in the following way:
251: \begin{equation}
252: \bar{\cal A}_{L(R)} = {\cal A}(\bar B^0\to \bar K^{*0}
253: \gamma_{L(R)})\,, \qquad
254: {\cal A}_{L(R)} = {\cal A}(B^0\to K^{*0}
255: \gamma_{L(R)})\,.
256: \end{equation}
257: Neglecting, as usual, the small width difference between $B^0$ and
258: $\bar B^0$, the time-dependent CP asymmetry is then given by (\ref{-1})
259: with
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: S & = & \frac{2 \,{\rm Im}\,\left(\frac{q}{p}({\cal A}_L^* \bar{\cal A}_L +
262: {\cal A}_R^* \bar{\cal A}_R)\right)}{
263: |{\cal A}_L|^2 + |{\cal A}_R|^2 + |\bar{\cal A}_L|^2 + |\bar{\cal
264: A}_R|^2}\,,
265: %\nonumber\\
266: \qquad
267: C = \frac{|{\cal A}_L|^2 + |{\cal A}_R|^2 - |\bar{\cal A}_L|^2 -
268: |\bar{\cal A}_R|^2}{
269: |{\cal A}_L|^2 + |{\cal A}_R|^2 + |\bar{\cal A}_L|^2 + |\bar{\cal
270: A}_R|^2}\,.\label{5}
271: \end{eqnarray}
272: Here $q/p$ is given in terms of the $B^0$-$\bar B^0$
273: mixing matrix $M_{12}$, in
274: the standard convention for the parametrisation of the CKM matrix, by
275: $$
276: \frac{q}{p} = \sqrt{\frac{M_{12}^{*}}{M_{12}}} = e^{-2 i \beta}\,.
277: $$
278:
279: Extending in an obvious way
280: the notations introduced in Ref.~\cite{BoBu} in the context
281: of QCD factorisation, the
282: decay amplitudes can be written as
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: \bar{\cal A}_{L(R)} &=& \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\,\left( \lambda_u
285: a_{7}^u(\bar K^*\gamma_{L(R)}) +
286: \lambda_c a_{7}^c(\bar K^*\gamma_{L(R)})\right) \langle \bar K^*
287: \gamma_{L(R)} | Q_7^{L(R)} | \bar
288: B\rangle
289: \nonumber\\
290: &\equiv& \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\,\left( \lambda_u
291: a_{7L(R)}^u + \lambda_c a_{7L(R)}^c\right) \langle \bar K^*
292: \gamma_{L(R)} | Q_7^{L(R)} | \bar B\rangle\,.\label{ME}
293: \end{eqnarray}
294: In QCD factorisation, $a_{7L}^{c,u}$ are of order 1 in a $1/m_b$
295: expansion \cite{BoBu},\footnote{The
296: $a_7^{c,u}$ calculated in Ref.~\cite{BoBu}, to leading order in
297: $1/m_b$, coincide with our
298: $a_{7L}^{c,u}$, whereas $a_{7R}^{c,u}$ are set zero in \cite{BoBu}. Our
299: expression (\ref{ME}) is purely formal and does not imply that
300: $a_{7R(L)}^{c,u}$ factorise at order $1/m_b$. As a matter of fact,
301: they don't.}
302: \begin{equation}
303: a_{7L}^{c,u} = C_7 + O(\alpha_s,1/m_b)\,,
304: \end{equation}
305: with $C_7$ being the Wilson coefficient of the operator $Q_7$. The
306: complete set of operators and formulas for the Wilson coefficients can
307: be found in Ref.~\cite{misiak}.
308: $a_{7R}^{c,u}$, on the other hand, are of order $1/m_b$ \cite{grin04,grin05}.
309: $\lambda_p = V_{ps}^* V_{pb}$ and the operators $Q_7^{L(R)}$ are given by
310: $$
311: Q_7^{L(R)} = \frac{e}{8\pi^2}\, m_b \bar s \sigma_{\mu\nu}
312: \left(1 \pm \gamma_5\right)b F^{\mu\nu}\,;
313: $$
314: $Q_7^{L(R)}$ generates left- (right-) handed photons in the decay
315: $b\to s\gamma$.
316: The matrix element in (\ref{ME}) can be expressed in terms of the
317: form factor $T_1^{B\to K^*}$ as
318: \begin{eqnarray}
319: \lefteqn{\langle \bar K^*(p,\eta) \gamma_{L(R)}(q,e) | Q_7^{L(R)} | \bar
320: B \rangle =}\hspace*{1cm}\nonumber\\
321: &=& -\frac{e}{2\pi^2}\, m_b T_1^{B\to K^*}(0) \left[
322: \epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} e_\mu^* \eta_\nu^* p_\rho q_\sigma \pm i
323: \{ (e^* \eta^*) (pq) - (e^*p)(\eta^* q)\}\right]
324: \nonumber\\
325: &\equiv& -\frac{e}{2\pi^2}\, m_b T_1^{B\to K^*}(0) S_{L(R)}\,,\label{6}
326: \end{eqnarray}
327: where $S_{L,R}$ are the helicity amplitudes corresponding to left- and
328: right-handed photons, respectively, and $e_\mu(\eta_\mu)$ is the polarisation
329: four-vector of the photon $(K^*)$. The definition of $T_1^{B\to K^*}$
330: can be found in Ref.~\cite{BZ04}, and an updated value in Ref.~\cite{proc}.
331: In the Wolfenstein parametrisation of the CKM matrix, $\lambda_u\sim
332: \lambda^4$ and is doubly Cabibbo suppressed with respect to $\lambda_c\sim
333: \lambda^2$, so we drop this contribution from now on. With
334: $\lambda_u$ set to zero, the direct CP asymmetry $C$
335: in (\ref{5}) vanishes.
336: %As both $\bar{\cal A}_R$ and ${\cal A}_L$ are
337: %$O(1/m_b)$ suppressed with respect to $\bar{\cal A}_L$ and ${\cal
338: % A}_R$, the direct CP asymmetry $C$ is $O(1/m_b^2)$.
339: %In this letter, we focus on $S$,
340: %which is $O(1/m_b)$ in the SM.
341:
342: \section{\boldmath Calculation of $a_{7R}^c$ in the SM}
343:
344: One contribution to $\bar{\cal A}_R$ is very well known and comes from
345: the $m_s$ dependent part of the full electromagnetic dipole operator
346: $Q_7$,
347: \begin{equation}\label{Q7}
348: Q_7 = \frac{e}{8\pi^2} \left[ m_b \bar s \sigma_{\mu\nu} (1+\gamma_5)
349: b + m_s \bar s \sigma_{\mu\nu} (1-\gamma_5) b\right] F^{\mu\nu} \equiv Q_7^L
350: + \frac{m_s}{m_b}\, Q_7^R\,.
351: \end{equation}
352: Hence, $a_{7R}^c$ is given by
353: \begin{equation}
354: a_{7R}^c = \frac{m_s}{m_b}\, C_7 +
355: O\left(\frac{1}{m_b}\,,\frac{\alpha_s}{m_b}\right).
356: \end{equation}
357: As discussed above, all contributions to $\bar{\cal A}_R$ must include
358: a helicity flip of the
359: $s$ quark, which in the above is done by including the effects from a
360: non-vanishing $s$ quark mass. Another possibility to relieve the
361: helicity suppression of right-handed photons is by considering, at
362: parton level, a three-particle final state with an additional
363: gluon. The dominant contribution (with the largest Wilson coefficient)
364: to this process comes from the
365: operator
366: $$Q_2^c = [\bar s\gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) c][\bar
367: c\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)b]
368: $$
369: and is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}. As the $c$ quark has sufficiently
370: large virtuality in the loop (the photon is
371: on-shell and the gluon nearly so),
372: the diagram is dominated by short distances and
373: can be expanded in inverse powers of $m_c$. To do so, we follow
374: Ref.~\cite{alex} and rewrite
375: $Q_2^c$ as
376: \begin{equation}\label{10}
377: Q_2^c = \frac{1}{3}\,[\bar c \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5) c][\bar
378: s\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)b] + 2 [\bar s\gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5)\,
379: \frac{\lambda^a}{2}\,c][\bar
380: c\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)\,\frac{\lambda^a}{2}\,b]\,.
381: \end{equation}
382: Confirming the result of Ref.~\cite{alex}, we find that
383: the short-distance expansion of the diagram in Fig.~\ref{fig1}
384: yields
385: \begin{eqnarray}
386: Q_F &=& i e^{*\mu} \int\, d^4 x e^{iqx}\, {\rm T}
387: \left\{[\bar c(x) \gamma_\mu c(x)]\, Q_2^c(0)\right\}\nonumber\\
388: &=& -\frac{1}{48\pi^2 m_c^2} (D^\rho F^{\alpha\beta}) [\bar s
389: \gamma_\rho (1-\gamma_5) g\widetilde G^a_{\alpha\beta}
390: \frac{\lambda^a}{2}\, b] + \dots\label{sd}
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: where $F^{\alpha\beta} = i (q^\alpha e^{*\beta} - q^\beta
393: e^{*\alpha})$ corresponds to an outgoing photon and the dots denote
394: terms of higher order in $1/m_c$. Note that the contribution of the
395: first term in (\ref{10}) vanishes for an on-shell photon. The
396: contribution of $Q_F$ to the decay amplitude is
397: $$
398: {\cal A}_{Q_F}(\bar B\to \bar K^{*} \gamma) =
399: -\frac{2e}{3}\,\langle \bar K^{*}\gamma | Q_F | \bar B\rangle\,,
400: $$
401: where $2/3$ is the electric charge of the $c$ quark and the minus sign
402: comes from the EM interaction operator.
403: At this point we
404: would also like to make explicit our conventions for the strong and
405: electromagnetic couplings. We use the covariant derivative
406: $$D_\mu = \partial_\mu + i e Q_f B_\mu - i g A_\mu^a
407: \,\frac{\lambda^a}{2}$$
408: for a fermion with electric charge $Q_f$. Here
409: $e=+\sqrt{4\pi\alpha}$ which is consistent with the sign-convention for $Q_7$,
410: Eq.~(\ref{Q7}).\footnote{The sign of the strong coupling $g$ differs
411: with respect to Ref.~\cite{BoBu}, which however does not matter
412: as all final expressions contain only factors $g^2$.}
413: The contribution of $Q_2^c$ to $a_{7R}^c$ is hence governed by the
414: matrix element $\langle K^*\gamma | (D^\rho F^{\alpha\beta}) [\bar s
415: \gamma_\rho (1-\gamma_5) g\widetilde G^a_{\alpha\beta}
416: \frac{\lambda^a}{2}\, b] | B\rangle$, which, again following
417: Ref.~\cite{alex}, can be parametrised as
418: \begin{eqnarray}
419: \lefteqn{\langle \bar K^*(p,\eta)\gamma(q,e) | (D^\rho F^{\alpha\beta}) [\bar s
420: \gamma_\rho (1-\gamma_5) g\widetilde G^a_{\alpha\beta}
421: \frac{\lambda^a}{2}\, b] | \bar B(p+q)\rangle=}\hspace*{1.5cm}
422: \nonumber\\
423: &=& 2 \langle \bar K^*(p,\eta) | \bar s \gamma_\mu q^\mu (1-\gamma_5) g
424: \widetilde G_{\alpha\beta} b | \bar B(p+q)\rangle e^{*\alpha} q^\beta
425: \nonumber\\
426: &=&2 \left\{L \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} e^{*\mu} \eta^{*\nu} p^\rho q^\sigma
427: + i \widetilde L [ (e^{*} \eta^*)(pq) - (e^* p)(\eta^*
428: q)]\right\}\nonumber\\
429: & = & (L+\widetilde L) S_L + (L-\widetilde L) S_R\,,
430: \end{eqnarray}
431: where $S_{L,R}$ are the photon helicity structures defined in
432: (\ref{6}). The operator $Q_2^c$ thus induces power corrections of type
433: $(L\pm \widetilde L)/(m_c^2 m_b)$ to $a_{7L}^c$ and $a_{7R}^c$, respectively.
434: As already mentioned before, these power corrections have previously
435: been considered in Ref.~\cite{alex}. Before we
436: present a new calculation of $L$ and $\widetilde L$, let us
437: finally give their contribution to
438: $a_{7R}^c$:
439: \begin{equation}\label{comp}
440: a_{7R}^c = C_7 \,\frac{m_s}{m_b} - C_2\, \frac{L-\widetilde L}{36
441: m_c^2 m_b T_1^{B\to K^*}(0)}\,.
442: \end{equation}
443: Corrections to this expression are of order $\alpha_s/m_b$, come with
444: smaller (penguin) Wilson coefficients or are of higher order in $1/m_{b,c}$.
445: What about the convergence of the $1/m_c$ expansion? For the
446: inclusive decay $b\to s\gamma$ this question was studied in Ref.~\cite{add}.
447: Higher terms in the short-distance expansion of (\ref{sd}) generate
448: operators with higher order derivatives acting on $F^{\alpha\beta}$,
449: generating powers of the photon momentum $q$,
450: and on $\widetilde{G}_{\alpha\beta}$, generating new hadronic matrix
451: elements. A complete calculation of these additional
452: contributions to (\ref{comp}) is not possible with the presently
453: available methods, but we can try to give an estimate.
454: As found in Ref.~\cite{add},
455: the expansion parameter of the $1/m_c$ expansion is
456: $t=(q\cdot D)/(2m_c^2)$ with $D$ acting on the gluon field strength
457: tensor. The hadronic matrix elements with additional powers of $D$
458: can be estimated as
459: \begin{equation}\label{est}
460: \langle K^* | \bar s\, D^n \widetilde G\, b| B\rangle \sim (\Lambda_{\rm
461: QCD})^n \langle K^* | \bar s\, \widetilde G\, b| B\rangle\,,
462: \end{equation}
463: and hence $t\sim (m_B/2) \Lambda_{\rm
464: QCD}/(2m_c^2) \approx 0.2$. Using (\ref{est}), the $1/m_c$ series
465: can be resummed and enhances the term in (\ref{sd}) by a factor 1.1
466: for $t=0.2$, and 1.3 for $t=0.4$.\footnote{The enhancement factor is
467: given by
468: the function $\overline F(t,t)$ defined in the last reference of
469: \cite{add}.}
470: Although (\ref{est})
471: is only a crude estimate of the true value of these matrix elements,
472: this result suggests that the $1/m_c$ expansion converges well.
473: We also would like to mention, as noted in \cite{add}, that besides
474: the derivative expansion in the gluon field there are further
475: higher-twist contributions from e.g.\ two gluon fields.
476: These contributions, however, are suppressed by additional powers of
477: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2/(m_c^2)$ \cite{add}.
478: We shall
479: include the effect of truncating the $1/m_c$ expansion by
480: doubling the theoretical error of our final result for the CP asymmetry.
481:
482: \section{\boldmath Non-factorisable Soft Gluon Effects: $L$ and $\widetilde L$}
483:
484: The following results for $L$ and $\widetilde L$
485: were obtained in 1997,
486: in Ref.~\cite{alex}, using the method of local QCD sum rules and
487: neglecting the effects of $SU(3)$ breaking:
488: \begin{equation}\label{alex}
489: L = (0.55\pm 0.1)\,{\rm GeV}^3,\qquad
490: \widetilde L = (0.70\pm 0.1)\,{\rm GeV}^3\,.
491: \end{equation}
492: Since then, a number of
493: studies \cite{studies} have demonstrated that the appropriate method to
494: calculate $B$ decay form factors from QCD sum rules is to use QCD
495: sum rules on the light-cone \cite{BBK,LCSR}. In this paper, we cannot
496: give any account of the method itself, but refer to the relevant
497: literature. Suffice it to say that one of the main ingredients in the
498: method are light-cone distribution amplitudes (DAs)
499: of two- and three-particle Fock
500: states of the final-state meson. These have
501: been known for some time for $\rho$ mesons \cite{BBKT,rho}, but
502: complete expressions for $K^*$ mesons will become available
503: only later in 2006 \cite{prep} (see
504: also \cite{BZ05,BZ06_1}). In this paper, we include the first
505: (preliminary) results of this ongoing study in our calculation of
506: $L$ and $\widetilde L$. The light-cone sum rules read:
507: \begin{eqnarray}
508: \lefteqn{\frac{f_B m_B^2}{m_b}\, L e^{-m_B^2/M^2} = m_b^4
509: \int_0^{1-m_b^2/s_0} d\alpha_2 e^{-m_b^2/(\bar \alpha_2
510: M^2)}}
511: \nonumber\\
512: &&\times \left\{
513: \frac{1}{2\bar\alpha_2^2} \int_0^{1-\alpha_2}d\alpha_1 \left[
514: \left(\frac{m_{K^*}}{m_b} \right) f_{K^*}^\parallel
515: \Phi^\parallel_{3;K^*}(\underline{\alpha}) +
516: \left(\frac{m_{K^*}}{m_b}\right)^2 f_{K^*}^\perp \bar\alpha_2 \left(
517: \Psi^\perp_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha}) +
518: \Phi^{\perp(1)}_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha}) \right)\right]\right.
519: \nonumber\\
520: &&{}\hspace*{0pt}\left.- \left(\frac{m_{K^*}}{m_b}\right)^2\!
521: f_{K^*}^\perp\! \left[
522: \frac{1}{4\bar\alpha_2^2} \, {\rm I}\,[\Phi^\perp_{3;K^*}+
523: 2 (\Phi^{\perp(3)}_{4;K^*} + \Phi^{\perp(4)}_{4;K^*})] +
524: \frac{d}{d\alpha_2}\! \left(\frac{1}{2\bar\alpha_2}\,
525: {\rm I}\,[\Phi^{\perp(1)}_{4;K^*} +
526: \Phi^{\perp(4)}_{4;K^*}]\right)\! \right] \!\right\}\!,\label{1}
527: \\
528: \lefteqn{\frac{f_B m_B^2}{m_b}\, \widetilde{L} e^{-m_B^2/M^2} = m_b^4
529: \int_0^{1-m_b^2/s_0} d\alpha_2 e^{-m_b^2/(\bar \alpha_2
530: M^2)}}
531: \nonumber\\
532: &&\times \left\{
533: \frac{1}{2\bar\alpha_2^2} \int_0^{1-\alpha_2}d\alpha_1 \left[
534: \left(\frac{m_{K^*}}{m_b} \right) f_{K^*}^\parallel
535: \widetilde\Phi^\parallel_{3;K^*}(\underline{\alpha}) -
536: \left(\frac{m_{K^*}}{m_b}\right)^2 f_{K^*}^\perp \bar\alpha_2 \left(
537: \widetilde\Psi^\perp_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha}) +
538: \Phi^{\perp(2)}_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha}) \right)\right]\right.
539: \nonumber\\
540: &&{}\hspace*{15pt}\left.+ \left(\frac{m_{K^*}}{m_b}\right)^2
541: f_{K^*}^\perp
542: \frac{1}{4\bar\alpha_2^2} \, {\rm I}\,[\Phi^\perp_{3;K^*}-
543: 2 (\Phi^{\perp(1)}_{4;K^*} + 2\Phi^{\perp(2)}_{4;K^*} +
544: \Phi^{\perp(3)}_{4;K^*})]\right\}.\label{2}
545: \end{eqnarray}
546: The above expressions are accurate up to terms of order
547: $(m_{K^*}/m_b)^3$, which are of higher twist, and $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections.
548: Here $\Phi(\underline{\alpha})=\Phi(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$ are
549: three-particle DAs of the $K^*$
550: of twist 3 or 4 (as indicated by the index). The (rather lengthy)
551: definition of these DAs is given in Ref.~\cite{prep}. The variable
552: $\alpha_1$ can
553: be interpreted as the longitudinal momentum fraction carried by the
554: quark in the meson, whereas $\alpha_2$ is the momentum fraction
555: carried by the antiquark.
556: ${\rm I}\,[\Phi]$ is a functional acting on the DA
557: $\Phi(\underline{\alpha})$, which is
558: defined as
559: $${\rm I}\,[\Phi] = \int_0^{\alpha_2} dx \int_0^{1-x} d\alpha_1
560: \Phi(\alpha_1,x).$$
561: %${\rm I}\,[\Phi]$ is a function of $\alpha_2$ and for all the
562: %combinations of DAs featuring in (\ref{1}) and (\ref{2}) one has ${\rm
563: % I}\,[\Phi](\alpha_2=1) = 0$.
564: %The DAs themselves are defined as in Ref.~\cite{prep}, to wit
565: %\begin{eqnarray}
566: %\langle 0 | \bar q(z)\gamma_\mu\gamma_5
567: %g\widetilde G_{\alpha\beta}(vz)s(-z)|K^*(p,\lambda)\rangle
568: %& = & p_\mu \left(e^{(\lambda)}_{\alpha} p_\beta -
569: %e^{(\lambda)}_{\beta}
570: %p_\alpha\right) f_{K^*}^\parallel m_{K^*}
571: %\widetilde\Phi_{3;K^*}^\parallel(v,pz) + \dots,
572: %\nonumber\\
573: %\langle 0 | \bar q(z)i\gamma_\mu
574: %g G_{\alpha\beta}(vz)s(-z)|K^*(p,\lambda)\rangle
575: %& = & p_\mu \left(e^{(\lambda)}_{\alpha} p_\beta -
576: %e^{(\lambda)}_{\beta}
577: %p_\alpha\right) f_{K^*}^\parallel m_{K^*}\Phi_{3;K^*}^\parallel(v,pz)
578: %+ \dots,
579: %\nonumber\\
580: %\langle 0|\bar q(z)
581: % gG_{\mu\nu}(vz)
582: % s(-z)|K^*(p,\lambda)\rangle
583: %&=&i f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2
584: % [e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}p_\nu-e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}p_\mu]
585: %\Psi^\perp_{4;K^*}(v,pz)+\dots\,,
586: %\nonumber\\
587: %\langle 0|\bar q(z)
588: % ig\widetilde G_{\mu\nu}(vz)\gamma_5
589: % s(-z)|K^*(p,\lambda)\rangle
590: %& =& i f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2
591: % [e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}p_\nu-e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}p_\mu]
592: % \widetilde\Psi^\perp_{4;K^*}(v,pz)+\dots,
593: %\nonumber\\[-37pt]\nonumber
594: %\end{eqnarray}
595: %\begin{eqnarray}
596: %\lefteqn{\langle 0|\bar q(z) \sigma_{\alpha\beta}
597: % gG_{\mu\nu}(vz)
598: % s(-z)|K^*(p,\lambda)\rangle}\hspace*{2cm}
599: %\nonumber\\
600: %&=& f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2
601: % [ p_\alpha e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}g_{\beta\nu}
602: % -p_\beta e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}g_{\alpha\nu}
603: % -p_\alpha e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}g_{\beta\mu}
604: % +p_\beta e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}g_{\alpha\mu} ]
605: % \Phi^{\perp(1)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)
606: %\nonumber\\
607: %&&{}+ f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2
608: % [ p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\alpha}g_{\beta\nu}
609: % -p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\beta}g_{\alpha\nu}
610: % -p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\alpha}g_{\beta\mu}
611: % +p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\beta}g_{\alpha\mu} ]
612: % \Phi^{\perp(2)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)
613: %\nonumber\\
614: %&&{}+ f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2 \frac{e^{(\lambda)} z }{2 (p z)}
615: % [ p_\alpha p_\mu g_{\beta\nu}
616: % -p_\beta p_\mu g_{\alpha\nu}
617: % -p_\alpha p_\nu g_{\beta\mu}
618: % +p_\beta p_\nu g_{\alpha\mu} ]
619: %\nonumber\\
620: %&&\hspace*{1.5cm}\times\left(\Phi^\perp_{3;K^*}(v,pz)- 2
621: % \left(\Phi^{\perp(1)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)+
622: % \Phi^{\perp(2)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)\right)\right)
623: %\nonumber\\
624: %&&{}+ \frac{f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2}{pz}
625: % [ p_\alpha p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\beta}z_\nu
626: % -p_\beta p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\alpha}z_\nu
627: % -p_\alpha p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\beta}z_\mu
628: % +p_\beta p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\alpha}z_\mu ]
629: %\nonumber\\
630: %&&\hspace*{1.5cm}\times
631: % \left(\Phi^{\perp(2)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)+\Phi^{\perp(3)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)\right)
632: %\nonumber\\
633: %&&{}+ \frac{f_{K^*}^\perp m_{K^*}^2}{pz}
634: % [ p_\alpha p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}z_\beta
635: % -p_\beta p_\mu e^{(\lambda)}_{\nu}z_\alpha
636: % -p_\alpha p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}z_\beta
637: % +p_\beta p_\nu e^{(\lambda)}_{\mu}z_\alpha ]
638: %\nonumber\\
639: %&&\hspace*{1.5cm}\times
640: % \left(\Phi^{\perp(1)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)+\Phi^{\perp(4)}_{4;K^*}(v,pz)
641: % \right)+\dots\,,
642: %%\hspace*{0.6cm}
643: %\label{eq:T3}
644: %\end{eqnarray}
645: %Here the dots denote terms that would contribute to (\ref{1}) and
646: %(\ref{2}) at order $(m_{K^*}/m_B)^3$ or higher. $\Phi(v,pz)$ is
647: %related to the DAs as
648: %$$\Phi(v,pz) = \int d\alpha_1 d\alpha_2 d\alpha_3
649: %\delta(1-\alpha_1-\alpha_2-\alpha_3) e^{-ipz(-\alpha_1+\alpha_2 + v
650: % \alpha_3)} \Phi(\underline{\alpha})
651: %$$
652: %with $(\underline{\alpha}) = (\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$.
653:
654: The DAs can be described in a systematic way using conformal expansion
655: \cite{BBKT};
656: here, we restrict ourselves to the leading terms in that expansion and
657: use the expressions \cite{prep} ($\alpha_3=1-\alpha_1-\alpha_2$)
658: \begin{eqnarray}
659: \Phi_{3;K^*}^\parallel(\underline{\alpha})
660: & = & 360\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3^2 \left\{
661: \kappa_{3K}^\parallel + \omega_{3K}^\parallel (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) +
662: \lambda_{3K}^\parallel \frac{1}{2}\,(7\alpha_3 -
663: 3)\right\},
664: \nonumber\\
665: \widetilde\Phi_{3;K^*}^\parallel(\underline{\alpha})
666: & = & 360\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3^2 \left\{
667: \zeta_{3K}^\parallel + \widetilde\lambda_{3K}^\parallel
668: (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) + \widetilde\omega_{3K}^\parallel
669: \frac{1}{2}\,(7\alpha_3 - 3)\right\},
670: \nonumber\\
671: \Phi_{3;K^*}^\perp(\underline{\alpha})
672: & = & 360\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3^2 \left\{
673: \kappa_{3K}^\perp + \omega_{3K}^\perp (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) +
674: \lambda_{3K}^\perp \frac{1}{2}\,(7\alpha_3 -
675: 3)\right\}\,,
676: \nonumber\\
677: \Phi_{4;K^*}^{\perp(1)}(\underline{\alpha})
678: & = &
679: 120\alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3 \left(\frac{1}{4}\,\kappa_{3K}^\perp +
680: \frac{1}{2}\, \kappa_{4K}^\perp\right),
681: \nonumber\\
682: {\Phi}^{\perp(2)}_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha})
683: &=& -30 \alpha_3^2\left\{(1-\alpha_3)\left(-\frac{1}{4}\,\kappa_{3K}^\perp +
684: \frac{1}{2}\, \kappa_{4K}^\perp\right) - (\alpha_1-\alpha_2)
685: \widetilde\zeta^\perp_{4K} \right\},
686: \nonumber\\
687: \Phi^{\perp(3)}_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha})
688: & = &
689: -120 \alpha_1\alpha_2\alpha_3 \left(\frac{1}{4}\,\kappa_{3K}^\perp -
690: \frac{1}{2}\, \kappa_{4K}^\perp\right),
691: \nonumber\\
692: {\Phi}^{\perp(4)}_{4;K^*}(\underline{\alpha})
693: &=& 30 \alpha_3^2\left\{(1-\alpha_3)\left(-\frac{1}{4}\,\kappa_{3K}^\perp -
694: \frac{1}{2}\, \kappa_{4K}^\perp\right) - (\alpha_1-\alpha_2)
695: \zeta^\perp_{4K} \right\},
696: \nonumber\\
697: {\Psi}_{4;K^*}^\perp(\underline{\alpha})
698: &=& 30 \alpha_3^2 \left\{(1-\alpha_3) \zeta^\perp_{4K}+
699: (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) \left( \frac{1}{4} \kappa_{3K}^\perp +
700: \frac{1}{2}\kappa_{4K}^\perp\right)\right\},
701: \nonumber\\
702: \widetilde{\Psi}_{4;K^*}^\perp(\underline{\alpha})
703: &= &
704: 30 \alpha_3^2 \left\{(1-\alpha_3)\widetilde\zeta^\perp_{4K}-
705: (\alpha_1-\alpha_2) \left(- \frac{1}{4} \kappa_{3K}^\perp +
706: \frac{1}{2}\kappa_{4K}^\perp\right)\right\}.
707: \end{eqnarray}
708: Preliminary numerical results for the various hadronic parameters
709: $\zeta$, $\kappa$, $\omega$ and $\lambda$ are
710: collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:kappas}; they will be discussed in more
711: detail in Ref.~\cite{prep}.
712: \begin{table}[tb]
713: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.3}
714: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{3pt}
715: $$
716: \begin{array}{l||c|l}
717: & \mu= 1\,{\rm GeV} & \mbox{Remarks}\\\hline
718: \zeta_{3K}^\parallel & 0.033 \pm 0.007 & \mbox{new; $\zeta_{3\rho}^\parallel$
719: determined in \cite{ZZC}}\\
720: \widetilde\lambda_{3K}^\parallel & 0.06\pm 0.03 & \mbox{G-odd, new}\\
721: \widetilde\omega_{3K}^\parallel & -0.06\pm 0.02 &
722: \mbox{new; $\widetilde\omega_{3\rho}^\parallel$ determined in \cite{ZZC}}\\
723: \kappa_{3K}^\parallel & 0.001\pm 0.001 & \mbox{G-odd; previously determined
724: in \cite{BZ06_2}}\\
725: \omega_{3K}^\parallel & 0.14\pm 0.03 &
726: \mbox{new; $\omega_{3\rho}^\parallel$ determined in
727: \cite{ZZC}}\\
728: \lambda_{3K}^\parallel & -0.02\pm 0.01 & \mbox{G-odd, new}\\
729: \kappa_{3K}^\perp & 0.006\pm 0.003 & \mbox{G-odd, new}\\
730: \omega_{3K}^\perp & 0.4\pm 0.1 & \mbox{new;
731: $\omega_{3\rho}^\perp$ determined in
732: \cite{BBKT}}\\
733: \lambda_{3K}^\perp & -0.05\pm 0.02 & \mbox{G-odd, new}\\
734: \zeta_{4K}^\perp & 0.10\pm 0.05 & \mbox{quoted from \cite{BBK};
735: no SU(3) breaking; to be updated in \cite{prep}}\\
736: \widetilde\zeta_{4K}^\perp & =-\zeta_{4K}^\perp & \mbox{quoted
737: from \cite{BBK};
738: no SU(3) breaking; to be updated in \cite{prep}}\\
739: \kappa_{4K}^\perp & 0.012\pm 0.004 & \mbox{G-odd; quoted from \cite{BZ06_1}}
740: \end{array}
741: $$
742: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1}
743: \addtolength{\arraycolsep}{-3pt}
744: \vspace*{-20pt}
745: \caption[]{\small Three-particle twist-3 and 4 hadronic parameters. All
746: results labelled ``new'' are preliminary and will be finalised
747: in Ref.~\cite{prep}. Note that the absolute sign of all these parameters
748: depends on the sign convention chosen for the strong coupling
749: $g$. The above results correspond to the choice $D_\mu =
750: \partial_\mu - i g A^a_{\mu} (\lambda^a/2)$ of the covariant
751: derivative.}\label{tab:kappas}
752: \end{table}
753: The DAs defined above are related to those introduced in
754: Ref.~\cite{BBKT,rho} as
755: \begin{equation}
756: \begin{array}[b]{l@{\quad}l@{\quad}l}
757: \Phi^{\parallel}_{3;K^*} = {\cal V}\,,&
758: \widetilde\Phi^{\parallel}_{3;K^*} = {\cal A}\,,&
759: \Phi^\perp_{3;K^*} = {\cal T}\,,\\[5pt]
760: \Phi^{\perp(i)}_{4;K^*} = T^{(i)}\,,&
761: \Psi^\perp_{4;K^*} = S\,,&
762: \widetilde\Psi^\perp_{4;K^*} = \widetilde S\,.
763: \end{array}
764: \end{equation}
765: Although the introduction of new notations may, at first, look
766: unmotivated, it actually extends the labelling scheme
767: introduced, in Ref.~\cite{BBL06}, for pseudoscalar mesons, to vector
768: mesons and aims to provide a systematic
769: way to label the multitude of two- and three-particle
770: pseudoscalar and vector meson DAs, replacing
771: the slightly ad-hoc notations introduced in our previous papers on
772: the subject \cite{BBKT,rho}.
773: As for the other hadronic parameters entering (\ref{1}) and (\ref{2}), we use
774: $m_b = (4.7\pm 0.1)\,{\rm GeV}$, $f_B = (200\pm 30)\,$MeV,
775: $f_{K^*}^\parallel = (217\pm 5)\,$MeV \cite{PDG} and
776: $f_{K^*}^\perp(1\,{\rm GeV}) = (185\pm 10)\,$MeV \cite{BZ05}. All
777: scale-dependent parameters are evaluated at the scale $\mu^2 =
778: m_B^2-m_b^2\pm 1\,{\rm GeV}^2$, see Ref.~\cite{BZ04}. $s_0$
779: and $M^2$ are sum rule specific parameters which do not acquire sharp
780: values, but have to be varied in a certain range. Based on our
781: experience with $B$ decay form factors \cite{BZ04} we choose
782: $s_0 = (35\pm 2)\,{\rm GeV}^2$ and $M^2=(10\pm 3)\,{\rm GeV}^2$.
783: We then obtain
784: \begin{equation}
785: L = (0.2\pm 0.1)\,{\rm GeV}^3\,, \quad \widetilde L = (0.3\pm 0.2)
786: \,{\rm GeV}^3\,,%\nonumber\\
787: \quad L-\widetilde L = -(0.1\pm 0.1)\,{\rm GeV}^3\,.\label{21}
788: \end{equation}
789: It turns out that the contribution of the $(m_{K^*}/m_b)^2$ terms to
790: the sum rules is tiny, so that the result and its uncertainty is
791: entirely dominated by $m_b$, $f_B$ and
792: the twist-3 DAs $\Phi^\parallel_{3;K^*}$ and
793: $\widetilde\Phi^\parallel_{3;K^*}$. We repeat that the parameters
794: describing these DAs, collected in Tab.~\ref{tab:kappas}, are preliminary.
795:
796: The results in (\ref{21}) refer to the renormalisation scale
797: $\mu^2=m_B^2-m_b^2\approx(2.2\,{\rm GeV})^2$.
798: Unfortunately, the dependence of $L$ and
799: $\widetilde L$ on $\mu$ is unknown. We can, however, estimate the
800: potential impact of a change of scale by evaluating the light-cone sum
801: rules at the higher scale $\mu=m_b$, although this is, strictly
802: speaking, incorrect
803: in that framework. Nonetheless, $L$ and
804: $\tilde L$ itself decrease by about 20\% by this procedure, whereas
805: $L-\widetilde L$ decreases by 10\%, which is well within the
806: quoted errors.
807:
808: Comparing with the results obtained in Ref.~\cite{alex}, Eq.~(\ref{alex}),
809: we find that our central values are considerably smaller. As mentioned
810: before, the authors of \cite{alex} used local sum rules, which are of
811: only limited value for determining $B$ decay form factors at maximum
812: recoil, i.e.\ for maximum energy of the final state meson, see the
813: discussion in the first two references in \cite{studies}. On the other
814: hand, in 1997 not much was known about three-particle twist-3 DAs of
815: vector mesons, so local QCD sum rules were the best tool at hand at
816: the time. We also find
817: that our errors are larger than those in (\ref{alex}),
818: which is due to the fact that the
819: uncertainties quoted in (\ref{alex}) are obtained by varying only the sum
820: rule parameters $s_0$ and $M^2$, but not the hadronic input parameters.
821:
822: \section{Results and Conclusions}
823:
824: We are now finally ready to present results for the CP asymmetry $S$
825: in (\ref{-1}). The $m_s$-dependent terms in (\ref{0}) yield
826: \begin{equation}\label{res1}
827: S^{{\rm SM},s_R} = -0.027 \pm 0.006(m_{s,b}) \pm 0.001
828: (\sin(2\beta))\,,
829: \end{equation}
830: where we use $m_s(2\,{\rm GeV}) = (100\pm 20)\,$MeV \cite{ms},
831: $m_b(m_b) = (4.20\pm 0.04)\,$GeV \cite{mb} and $\sin(2\beta) =
832: 0.685\pm 0.032$ \cite{HFAG}. One can estimate the impact of radiative
833: corrections on that result by comparing it with the perturbative QCD
834: calculation of Ref.~\cite{sanda}. The authors of \cite{sanda}
835: obtain the same central value
836: for $S^{{\rm SM},s_R}$ and also quote, very helpfully, results obtained for
837: neglecting various sources of corrections, in particular $
838: -0.034\pm 0.013$ if all long-distance contributions are
839: neglected. From this we conclude that the impact of radiative
840: corrections on (\ref{res1}) is likely to slightly increase the
841: asymmetry, but not by more than 0.01. As for the contribution of
842: $L-\tilde L$, it is given, to leading order in $\alpha_s$, by
843: \begin{equation}\label{res2}
844: S^{\rm SM, soft~gluons} = -2 \sin(2\beta) \left( - \frac{C_2}{C_7}
845: \,\frac{L-\tilde L}{36m_b m_c^2 T_1^{B\to K^*}(0)}\right) = 0.005\pm 0.01\,.
846: \end{equation}
847: Here we use $C_2(m_b) =1.02$, $C_7(m_b)= -0.31$, which are the
848: leading-order values, $m_c=1.3\,$GeV
849: and $T_1^{B\to K^*}(0)=0.31\pm0.04$ \cite{proc},
850: and have doubled the error to account for
851: neglected higher-order terms in the $1/m_c$ expansion.
852: That is: the contribution of soft gluons to $S$ is much smaller numerically
853: than that in $m_s/m_b$, Eq.~(\ref{res1}). This
854: result has to be compared with the dimensional estimate presented in
855: Ref.~\cite{grin05}, from a SCET-based analysis,
856: \begin{equation}\label{res3}
857: |S^{\rm SM, soft~gluons}_{\mbox{\scriptsize
858: \cite{grin05}}}| = 2 \sin(2\beta)\,
859: \left|\frac{C_2}{3C_7}\right|\frac{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}}{m_b}\approx 0.06\,.
860: \end{equation}
861: Our result (\ref{res2}) suggests that the true value of the soft gluon
862: contributions is much smaller. Comparing (\ref{res2}) and (\ref{res3}),
863: it becomes obvious that this is mainly due to the factor $1/36$ in
864: (\ref{res2}) resulting from the short-distance expansion of the charm loop
865: in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
866:
867: While the aim of our letter was to calculate the soft gluon
868: contributions to $S^{\rm SM}$ induced by the
869: operator $Q_2$ and to check the estimate of
870: Ref.~\cite{grin05} that it could induce a 10\% effect, our result for
871: $S^{\rm SM, soft~gluons}$ has now become, due to the suppression
872: factor $1/36$, that small that one may start to wonder about the size
873: of other corrections. One source of such corrections, and actually
874: probably the dominant one, are radiative corrections to the term in
875: $m_s/m_b$ which we estimate using the results of
876: Ref.~\cite{sanda} in the way discussed above. Another class of (soft gluon) corrections are
877: diagrams with the same topology as Fig.~1, but a different
878: operator. As long as there is a charm quark in the loop, these
879: contributions are controlled by the matrix element $L-\tilde L$, but
880: suppressed by small penguin Wilson-coefficients $C_{\rm peng}< 0.1$ and
881: hence can be neglected. For light quarks in the loop, one cannot apply
882: the short-distance expansion as done in this letter, but has to follow
883: a different approach. We will discuss this approach in a forthcoming
884: paper on power-corrections to $B\to\rho\gamma$ \cite{prep2}; the result is that
885: the contribution of light quark loops is of approximately the
886: same size as that of charm loops, so again these contributions are
887: suppressed by small Wilson coefficients. A second, different topology
888: is given by annihilation diagrams induced by the penguin operators $(\bar s
889: b)_{V-A}(\bar d d)_{V\pm A}$. This contribution is enhanced by the
890: fact that it is a tree diagram; it can be
891: calculated using the results obtained in Ref.~\cite{emi} for
892: $B\to\gamma e\nu$ transitions. For the contribution with the largest
893: Wilson-coefficient from the penguin operator $Q_4$, one has
894: $$
895: a_{7R}^c\to a_{7R}^c + C_4 \,\frac{Q_d}{Q_u} \,\frac{2\pi^2
896: f_{K^*}m_{K^*}}{ m_B^2 T_1^{B\to K^*}(0)}\, (F_V(0)-F_A(0))\,,
897: $$
898: where $Q_{u,d}$ are the electric charges of the corresponding quarks and
899: $F_{V,A}$ are the form factors determining the $B\to \gamma$ transition.
900: Using $F_V(0)-F_A(0) \approx 0.016$ \cite{emi} and $C_4(m_b) = 0.08$,
901: the shift of $a_{7R}^c$ turns out to be $\approx 0.3\cdot 10^{-3}$
902: which is to be compared with the (dominant) $m_s/m_b$ term $\approx
903: 6\cdot 10^{-3}$ and the term in $C_2$: $\approx 1\cdot 10^{-3}$. Let
904: us note in passing that $F_V(0)-F_A(0)$ is induced by long-distance
905: photon emission and given in terms of
906: three-particle Fock states of the photon \cite{photon}, so also for
907: this contribution the necessary spin-flip in the parton-level process
908: $b\to s\gamma$ is induced by a higher Fock state, this time of the
909: photon.
910: One more possible topology are hard-spectator scattering diagrams
911: involving the chromomagnetic dipole operator $Q_8$. Although we cannot
912: give a firm estimate of this contribution to $a_{7R}^c$, we expect it
913: to come mainly from long-distance photon emission governed by the same
914: three-particle Fock state of the photon mentioned before and to
915: contribute at the same level as the other terms discussed above.
916: Although we were not able to identify a further sizable contribution
917: we will add an uncertainty of $0.01$ to the asymmetry.
918:
919:
920: Our final result for the CP asymmetry is the sum of (\ref{res1}) and
921: (\ref{res2}) with uncertainties added in quadrature:
922: \begin{equation}\label{res4}
923: S^{\rm SM} = S^{{\rm SM},s_R} +
924: S^{\rm SM, soft~gluons} = -0.022\pm 0.015 ^{+0}_{-0.01}\,,
925: \end{equation}
926: where the second uncertainty accounts for neglected contributions
927: induced by penguin operators and the chromomagnetic dipole operator,
928: and the third, asymmetric uncertainty is to account for neglected
929: $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections to (\ref{res1}), which, based on the results of
930: Ref.~\cite{sanda}, we estimate to be negative and not to exceed 0.01.
931: In principle these corrections can also be calculated in
932: QCD factorisation,
933: but this goes beyond the scope of this letter.
934:
935: To summarize, we have calculated the dominant contributions to
936: the SM prediction for the time-dependent CP asymmetry $S$ in
937: $B^0\to K^{*0}\gamma$. These come, on the one hand, from terms in
938: $m_s/m_b$, and on the other hand from short-distance processes
939: involving an additional gluon, see Fig.~\ref{fig1}. We find that in
940: contrast to recent suggestions that the latter be large, they are
941: actually substantially smaller than the former. Additional hadronic corrections
942: to our result are expected to be even smaller and due to radiative
943: corrections, small Wilson coefficients and higher order terms in the
944: heavy quark expansion. The most dominant correction is likely to be
945: radiative corrections to (\ref{res1}), which have already been
946: calculated in perturbative QCD and found to be $\approx -0.01$. A
947: confirmation of this result in QCD factorisation, if possible, would
948: be welcome. Our result (\ref{res4}) confirms that the CP asymmetry is
949: an excellent quasi
950: null test of the SM in the sense of Ref.~\cite{null} and that any
951: significant deviation of the experimental result from zero will
952: provide a clean signal for new physics.
953:
954: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
955:
956: \bibitem{hurth}
957: T.~Hurth
958: %``Present status of inclusive rare B decays,''
959: Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 75} (2003) 1159
960: [arXiv:hep-ph/0212304].
961: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212304;%%
962:
963: \bibitem{LRS}
964: R.~N.~Mohapatra and J.~C.~Pati,
965: %``Left-Right Gauge Symmetry And An 'Isoconjugate' Model Of CP Violation,''
966: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11} (1975) 566 and
967: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,566;%%
968: %``A 'Natural' Left-Right Symmetry,''
969: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11} (1975) 2558;\\
970: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,2558;%%
971: G.~Senjanovic and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
972: %``Exact Left-Right Symmetry And Spontaneous Violation Of Parity,''
973: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 12} (1975) 1502;\\
974: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D12,1502;%%
975: G.~Senjanovic,
976: %``Spontaneous Breakdown Of Parity In A Class Of Gauge Theories,''
977: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 153} (1979) 334.
978: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B153,334;%%
979:
980: \bibitem{gronau} D.~Atwood, M.~Gronau and A.~Soni,
981: %``Mixing-induced CP asymmetries in radiative B decays in and beyond the
982: %standard model,''
983: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79} (1997) 185
984: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704272].
985: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9704272;%%
986:
987: \bibitem{frank}
988: M.~Frank and S.~Nie,
989: %``b --> s gamma in the left-right supersymmetric model,''
990: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 114006
991: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202154].
992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202154;%%
993:
994: \bibitem{susy}
995: E.~J.~Chun, K.~Hwang and J.~S.~Lee,
996: %``CP asymmetries in radiative B decays with R-parity violation,''
997: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 076006
998: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005013];\\
999: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005013;%%
1000: L.~L.~Everett {\it et al.},
1001: %``Alternative approach to b --> s gamma in the uMSSM,''
1002: JHEP {\bf 0201} (2002) 022
1003: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112126];\\
1004: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112126;%%
1005: T.~Goto {\it et al.},
1006: %``Exploring flavor structure of supersymmetry breaking from rare B decays
1007: %and unitarity triangle,''
1008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 035012
1009: [arXiv:hep-ph/0306093];\\
1010: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306093;%%
1011: C.~K.~Chua, W.~S.~Hou and M.~Nagashima,
1012: %``Supersymmetrizing right-handed flavor mixing: Synergies with
1013: % comprehensive
1014: %impact beyond B --> Phi K(S) CP asymmetry,''
1015: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 201803
1016: [arXiv:hep-ph/0308298];\\
1017: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0308298;%%
1018: W.~S.~Hou and M.~Nagashima,
1019: %``Impact of right-handed strange-beauty squark on b <--> s transitions,''
1020: arXiv:hep-ph/0602124.
1021: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0602124;%%
1022:
1023: \bibitem{warped}
1024: K.~Agashe, G.~Perez and A.~Soni,
1025: %``B-factory signals for a warped extra dimension,''
1026: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} (2004) 201804
1027: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406101]
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406101;%%
1029: and
1030: %``Flavor structure of warped extra dimension models,''
1031: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 016002
1032: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408134].
1033: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408134;%%
1034:
1035: \bibitem{anomalous}
1036: J.~P.~Lee,
1037: %``Photon polarization with anomalous right-handed top couplings in B -->
1038: %K(res) gamma,''
1039: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 014017
1040: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309018].
1041: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309018;%%
1042:
1043: \bibitem{grin04}
1044: B.~Grinstein, Y.~Grossman, Z.~Ligeti and D.~Pirjol,
1045: %``The photon polarization in B --> X gamma in the standard model,''
1046: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 011504
1047: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412019].
1048: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412019;%%
1049:
1050: \bibitem{grin05}
1051: B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol,
1052: %``The CP asymmetry in B0(t) --> K(S) pi0 gamma in the standard model,''
1053: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 014013
1054: [arXiv:hep-ph/0510104].
1055: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510104;%%
1056:
1057: \bibitem{BF06}
1058: P.~Ball and R.~Fleischer,
1059: %``Probing new physics through B mixing: Status, benchmarks and prospects,''
1060: arXiv:hep-ph/0604249.
1061: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0604249;%%
1062:
1063: \bibitem{null}
1064: T.~Gershon and A.~Soni,
1065: %``Null tests of the standard model at an international super B factory,''
1066: arXiv:hep-ph/0607230.
1067: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0607230;%%
1068:
1069: \bibitem{other}
1070: Y.~Grossman and D.~Pirjol,
1071: %``Extracting and using photon polarization information in radiative B
1072: %decays,''
1073: JHEP {\bf 0006} (2000) 029
1074: [arXiv:hep-ph/0005069];\\
1075: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005069;%%
1076: M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman, D.~Pirjol and A.~Ryd,
1077: %``Measuring the photon helicity in radiative B decays,''
1078: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88} (2002) 051802
1079: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107254];\\
1080: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107254;%%
1081: G.~Hiller and A.~Kagan,
1082: %``Probing for new physics in polarized Lambda/b decays at the Z,''
1083: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 074038
1084: [arXiv:hep-ph/0108074];\\
1085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108074;%%
1086: M.~Gronau and D.~Pirjol,
1087: %``Photon polarization in radiative B decays,''
1088: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 054008
1089: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205065];\\
1090: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205065;%%
1091: M.~Knecht and T.~Schietinger,
1092: %``Probing photon helicity in radiative B decays via charmonium resonance
1093: %interference,''
1094: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 634} (2006) 403
1095: [arXiv:hep-ph/0509030];\\
1096: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0509030;%%
1097: F.~Legger and T.~Schietinger,
1098: %``Photon helicity in Lambda/b --> p K gamma decays,''
1099: arXiv:hep-ph/0605245.
1100: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0605245;%%
1101:
1102: \bibitem{soni}
1103: D.~Atwood, T.~Gershon, M.~Hazumi and A.~Soni,
1104: %``Mixing-induced CP violation in B --> P(1) P(2) gamma in search of clean
1105: %new physics signals,''
1106: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 076003
1107: [arXiv:hep-ph/0410036].
1108: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0410036;%%
1109:
1110: \bibitem{BaBar}
1111: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BaBar Collaboration],
1112: %``Measurement of the time-dependent CP-violating asymmetry in $B^0 \to K^0_S
1113: %\pi^0 \gamma$ decays,''
1114: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 051103
1115: [arXiv:hep-ex/0507038].
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0507038;%%
1117:
1118: \bibitem{Belle}
1119: % Y.~Ushiroda {\it et al.} [Belle Collaoration],
1120: % %``New measurement of time-dependent CP-violating asymmetry in B0 --> K0(S)
1121: % %pi0 gamma decay,''
1122: % Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94} (2005) 231601
1123: % [arXiv:hep-ex/0503008];\\
1124: % %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0503008;%%
1125: K.~Abe [Belle Collaboration],
1126: %``Time-dependent CP asymmetries in B0 --> K0(S) pi0 gamma transitions,''
1127: arXiv:hep-ex/0608017.
1128: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0608017;%%
1129:
1130: \bibitem{HFAG}
1131: E. Barberio {\it et al.} [HFAG],
1132: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2005,''
1133: arXiv:hep-ex/0603003; updated results available at {\tt
1134: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/}.
1135: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0603003;%%
1136:
1137: \bibitem{superB}
1138: J.~Hewett {\it et al.},
1139: %``The discovery potential of a Super B Factory. Proceedings,
1140: % SLAC Workshops,
1141: %Stanford, USA, 2003,''
1142: arXiv:hep-ph/0503261.
1143: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503261;%%
1144:
1145: \bibitem{superKEK}
1146: A.~G.~Akeroyd {\it et al.} [SuperKEKB Physics Working Group],
1147: %``Physics at super B factory,''
1148: arXiv:hep-ex/0406071.
1149: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0406071;%%
1150:
1151: \bibitem{QCDfac}
1152: A.~Ali and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko,
1153: %``Branching ratios for B $\to$ rho gamma decays in next-to-leading order in
1154: %alpha(s) including hard spectator corrections,''
1155: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23} (2002) 89
1156: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105302];\\
1157: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105302;%%
1158: M.~Beneke, T.~Feldmann and D.~Seidel,
1159: %``Exclusive radiative and electroweak b $\to$ d and b $\to$ s penguin
1160: %decays at NLO,''
1161: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 41} (2005) 173
1162: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412400];\\
1163: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412400;%%
1164: T.~Becher, R.~J.~Hill and M.~Neubert,
1165: %``Factorization in B $\to$ V gamma decays,''
1166: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 094017
1167: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503263].
1168: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0503263;%%
1169:
1170: \bibitem{BoBu}
1171: S.~W.~Bosch and G.~Buchalla,
1172: %``The radiative decays B $\to$ V gamma at next-to-leading order in QCD,''
1173: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621} (2002) 459
1174: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106081] and
1175: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106081;%%
1176: %``Constraining the unitarity triangle with B $\to$ V gamma,''
1177: JHEP {\bf 0501} (2005) 035
1178: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408231].
1179: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408231;%%
1180:
1181: \bibitem{sanda}
1182: M.~Matsumori and A.~I.~Sanda,
1183: %``The mixing-induced CP asymmetry in B --> K* gamma decays with perturbative
1184: %QCD approach,''
1185: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 114022
1186: [arXiv:hep-ph/0512175].
1187: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512175;%%
1188:
1189: \bibitem{alex}
1190: A.~Khodjamirian, R.~R\"uckl, G.~Stoll and D.~Wyler,
1191: %``QCD estimate of the long-distance effect in B $\to$ K* gamma,''
1192: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 402} (1997) 167
1193: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702318].
1194: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702318;%%
1195:
1196: \bibitem{misha}
1197: M.~B.~Voloshin,
1198: % ``Large O(m(c)**-2) nonperturbative correction to the inclusive rate of the
1199: %decay B --> X/s gamma,''
1200: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 397} (1997) 275
1201: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612483].
1202: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612483;%%
1203:
1204: \bibitem{misiak}
1205: K.~G.~Chetyrkin, M.~Misiak and M.~M\"unz,
1206: %``Weak radiative B-meson decay beyond leading logarithms,''
1207: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 400} (1997) 206
1208: [Erratum: ibid.\ B {\bf 425} (1998) 414]
1209: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612313].
1210: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612313;%%
1211:
1212: \bibitem{BZ04}
1213: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1214: %``B/(d,s) $\to$ rho, omega, K*, Phi decay form factors from light-cone sum
1215: %rules revisited,''
1216: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 014029
1217: [arXiv:hep-ph/0412079].
1218: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412079;%%
1219:
1220: \bibitem{proc}
1221: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1222: %``B --> K* gamma vs B --> rho gamma and |V(td)/V(ts)|,''
1223: arXiv:hep-ph/0608009.
1224: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608009;%%
1225:
1226: \bibitem{add}
1227: Z.~Ligeti, L.~Randall and M.~B.~Wise,
1228: %``Comment on nonperturbative effects in anti-B --> X/s gamma,''
1229: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 402} (1997) 178
1230: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702322];\\
1231: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702322;%%
1232: A.~K.~Grant, A.~G.~Morgan, S.~Nussinov and R.~D.~Peccei,
1233: % ``Comment on nonperturbative O(1/m(c)**2) corrections to Gamma(anti-B -->
1234: %X/s gamma),''
1235: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56} (1997) 3151
1236: [arXiv:hep-ph/9702380];\\
1237: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9702380;%%
1238: G.~Buchalla, G.~Isidori and S.~J.~Rey,
1239: %``Corrections of order Lambda(QCD)**2/m(c)**2 to inclusive rare B decays,''
1240: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 511} (1998) 594
1241: [arXiv:hep-ph/9705253].
1242: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705253;%%
1243:
1244: \bibitem{studies}
1245: V.~M.~Belyaev, V.~M.~Braun, A.~Khodjamirian and R.~R\"uckl,
1246: %``D* D pi and B* B pi couplings in QCD,''
1247: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 51} (1995) 6177
1248: [arXiv:hep-ph/9410280];\\
1249: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9410280;%%
1250: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
1251: %``Use and misuse of QCD sum rules in heavy-to-light transitions: The decay B
1252: %--> rho e nu reexamined,''
1253: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 5561
1254: [arXiv:hep-ph/9701238];\\
1255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9701238;%%
1256: E.~Bagan, P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
1257: %``Radiative corrections to the decay B --> pi e nu and the heavy quark
1258: %limit,''
1259: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417} (1998) 154
1260: [arXiv:hep-ph/9709243];\\
1261: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709243;%%
1262: P.~Ball,
1263: %``Testing QCD sum rules on the light-cone in D --> (pi, K) l nu decays,''
1264: arXiv:hep-ph/0608116.
1265: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0608116;%%
1266: \bibitem{BBK}
1267: I.~I.~Balitsky, V.~M.~Braun and A.~V.~Kolesnichenko,
1268: %``Radiative Decay Sigma+ $\to$ P Gamma In Quantum Chromodynamics,''
1269: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 312} (1989) 509.
1270: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B312,509;%%
1271:
1272: \bibitem{LCSR}
1273: V.L.\ Chernyak and I.R.\ Zhitnitsky,
1274: %``B Meson Exclusive Decays Into Baryons,''
1275: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 345} (1990) 137;\\
1276: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B345,137;%%
1277: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and H.~G.~Dosch,
1278: %``Form-Factors Of Semileptonic D Decays From QCD Sum Rules,''
1279: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44} (1991) 3567.
1280: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,3567;%%
1281:
1282: \bibitem{BBKT}
1283: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun, Y.~Koike and K.~Tanaka,
1284: %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in {QCD}: Formalism
1285: %and twist three distributions,''
1286: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 529} (1998) 323
1287: [arXiv:hep-ph/9802299].
1288: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802299;%%
1289:
1290: \bibitem{rho}
1291: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun,
1292: %``The $\rho$ Meson Light-Cone Distribution Amplitudes of Leading Twist
1293: %Revisited,''
1294: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54} (1996) 2182
1295: [arXiv:hep-ph/9602323]
1296: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602323;%%
1297: and
1298: %``Higher twist distribution amplitudes of vector mesons in {QCD}: Twist-4
1299: %distributions and meson mass corrections,''
1300: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 543} (1999) 201
1301: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810475].
1302: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810475;%%
1303:
1304: \bibitem{prep}
1305: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun, G.~W.~Jones and A.~Lenz, preprint IPPP/06/62
1306: (in preparation).
1307:
1308: \bibitem{BZ05}
1309: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1310: %``SU(3) breaking of leading-twist K and K* distribution amplitudes: A
1311: %reprise,''
1312: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 633} (2006) 289
1313: [arXiv:hep-ph/0510338].
1314: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510338;%%
1315:
1316: \bibitem{BZ06_1}
1317: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1318: %``Operator relations for SU(3) breaking contributions to K and K*
1319: %distribution amplitudes,''
1320: JHEP {\bf 0602} (2006) 034
1321: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601086].
1322: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0601086;%%
1323:
1324: \bibitem{BBL06}
1325: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and A.~Lenz,
1326: %``Higher-twist distribution amplitudes of the K meson in QCD,''
1327: JHEP {\bf 0605} (2006) 004
1328: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603063].
1329: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603063;%%
1330:
1331: \bibitem{ZZC}
1332: A.~R.~Zhitnitsky, I.~R.~Zhitnitsky and V.~L.~Chernyak,
1333: %``Two Particle Decays Of Psi Meson. Qualitative Discussion And Calculations
1334: %For Some Processes. (In Russian),''
1335: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 41} (1985) 127
1336: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 41} (1985) 199].
1337: %%CITATION = YAFIA,41,199;%%
1338:
1339: \bibitem{BZ06_2}
1340: P.~Ball and R.~Zwicky,
1341: %``|V(td)/V(ts)| from B --> V gamma,''
1342: JHEP {\bf 0604} (2006) 046
1343: [arXiv:hep-ph/0603232].
1344: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0603232;%%
1345:
1346: \bibitem{PDG}
1347: W.~M.~Yao {\it et al.} [Particle Data Group],
1348: %``Review of particle physics,''
1349: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 33} (2006) 1.
1350: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G33,1;%%
1351:
1352: \bibitem{ms}
1353: E.~Gamiz {\it et al.},
1354: %``V(us) and m(s) from hadronic tau decays,''
1355: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 94} (2005) 011803
1356: [arXiv:hep-ph/0408044];\\
1357: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0408044;%%
1358: S.~Narison,
1359: %``Strange quark mass from e+ e- revisited and present status of light quark
1360: %masses,''
1361: arXiv:hep-ph/0510108;\\
1362: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0510108;%%
1363: F.~Knechtli,
1364: %``Lattice computation of the strange quark mass in QCD,''
1365: Acta Phys.\ Polon.\ B {\bf 36} (2005) 3377
1366: [arXiv:hep-ph/0511033];\\
1367: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0511033;%%
1368: K.~G.~Chetyrkin and A.~Khodjamirian,
1369: %``Strange quark mass from pseudoscalar sum rule with O(alpha(s)**4)
1370: %accuracy,''
1371: arXiv:hep-ph/0512295;\\
1372: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0512295;%%
1373: M.~G\"ockeler {\it et al.},
1374: %``Determining the strange quark mass for 2-flavour QCD,''
1375: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 153} (2006) 154
1376: [arXiv:hep-lat/0602028].
1377: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0602028;%%
1378:
1379: \bibitem{mb}
1380: O.~Buchm\"uller and H.~Fl\"acher,
1381: %``Fits to moment measurementsfrom B --> X/c l nu and B --> X/s gamma decays
1382: %using heavy quark expansions in the kinetic scheme,''
1383: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73} (2006) 073008\\
1384: {}[arXiv:hep-ph/0507253].
1385: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0507253;%%
1386:
1387: \bibitem{prep2}
1388: P.~Ball, G.~W.~Jones and R.~Zwicky, preprint in preparation.
1389:
1390: \bibitem{emi}
1391: P.~Ball and E.~Kou,
1392: %``B --> gamma e nu transitions from QCD sum rules on the light-cone,''
1393: JHEP {\bf 0304} (2003) 029
1394: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301135].
1395: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301135;%%
1396:
1397: \bibitem{photon}
1398: P.~Ball, V.~M.~Braun and N.~Kivel,
1399: %``Photon distribution amplitudes in QCD,''
1400: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 649} (2003) 263
1401: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207307].
1402: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207307;%%
1403:
1404: \end{thebibliography}
1405:
1406: \end{document}
1407: