text:
# The rare decay 𝒃→𝒔𝒈 beyond leading logarithms*footnote **footnote *Work partially supported by Schweizerischer Nationalfonds

## I Introduction

The theoretical predictions for inclusive decay rates of $`B`$-mesons rest on solid gounds due to the fact that these rates can be sytematically expanded in powers of $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)`$ , where the leading term corresponds to the decay width of the underlying $`b`$-quark decay. As the power corrections start at $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^2`$ only, they affect these rates by at most 5%. Thus the accuracy of the theoretical predictions is mainly controlled by our knowledge of the perturbative corrections to the free quark decay.

The charmless inclusive decays, $`BX_{c/}`$, where $`X_{c/}`$ denotes any hadronic charmless final state, are an interesting subclass of the decays mentioned above. At the quark level, there are decay modes with three-body final states, viz. $`bq^{}\overline{q}^{}q`$, ($`q^{}=u,d,s`$; $`q=d,s`$) and the modes $`bqg`$, with two-body final state topology, which contribute to the charmless decay width at leading logarithmic (LL) accuracy. Next-to-leading logarithmic (NLL) corrections to the three-body decay modes were started already some time ago in ref. , where radiative corrections to the current-current diagrams of the operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ were calculated, together with NLL corrections to the Wilson coefficients. Later, Lenz et al.  included the contributions of the penguin diagrams associated with the four-Fermi operators $`O_1,\mathrm{},O_6`$; the effects of the chromomagnetic operator $`O_8`$ were taken into account to the relevant precision needed for a NLL calculation. Up to contributions from current-current type corrections to the penguin operators, the NLL calculation for the three quark final states is complete.

In the numerical evaluations of the charmless decay rate, the two body decay modes $`bqg`$ were added in refs.  at the LL precision, as the full NLL predictions were missing. It is exactly this gap which we try to fill in the present letter. We will present the results of a calculation for the branching ratio $`(bsg)`$ where NLL corrections are systematically included. This implies that besides virtual corrections to $`bsg`$ also the process $`bsgg`$ has to be taken into account, as it gives contributions at the same order in perturbation theory. The LL prediction for the branching for $`bsg`$ is known to be $`(bsg)0.2\%`$ ; also the process $`bsgg`$ has been studied in the literature . In  a complete calculation was performed in regions of the phase space which are free of collinear an infrared singularities, leading to a branching ratio for $`bsgg`$ of the order of $`10^3`$. A complete NLL calculation requires, however, a regularized version for the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bsgg)`$ in which infrared and collinear singularities become manifest. Only after adding the virtually corrected decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bsg)`$ a meaningful physical result is obtained. In addition, as we will see later, also the tree-level contribution of the operator $`O_8`$ to the decays $`bsf\overline{f}`$, with $`f=u,d,s`$, has to be included.

The decay $`bsg`$ gained a lot of attention in the last years. For a long time the theoretical predictions for both, the inclusive semileptonic branching ratio and the charm multiplicity $`n_c`$ in $`B`$-meson decays were considerably higher than the experimental values . An attractive hypothesis, which would move the theoretical predicitions for both observables into the direction favored by the experiments, assumed the rare decay mode $`bsg`$ to be enhanced by new physics.

After the inclusion of the complete NLL corrections to the decay modes $`bc\overline{u}q`$ and $`bc\overline{c}q`$ ($`q=d,s`$) , both the CLEO- and the LEP-data  are now in agreement with theory , if one allows the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ to become as low as $`m_b/4`$. We would like to stress that there is still some room for enhanced $`bsg`$, in particular when using higher values for the renormalization scale. For theoretical motivations of enhanced $`bsg`$, see ref.  and references therein.

We also would like to mention that the component $`bsg`$ of the charmless hadronic decays is expected to manifest itself in kaons with high momenta (of order $`m_b/2`$), due to its two body nature . Some indications into this direction were reported by the SLD collaboration . For overviews on enhanced $`bsg`$, see e.g. refs. .

The remainder of this letter is organized as follows: In section II, we briefly review the theoretical framework. Section III is devoted to the calculation of the virtual corrections to the decay width for $`bsg`$, while section V deals with the calculation of the bremsstrahlung corrections to $`bsg`$. In the short section IV in between, the decay width for the tree level processes $`bsf\overline{f}`$ mentioned above, is given. In section VI we give the expressions for the NLL branching ratio $`^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$, which combines the processes $`bsg`$, $`bsgg`$ and $`bsf\overline{f}`$. Finally, in section VII the numerical results for $`^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$ are presented.

## II Theoretical framework

The analysis of the decays $`bsg`$ and $`bsgg`$ starts with introducing the effective Hamiltonian

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}C_i(\mu )O_i(\mu ).$$
(1)
where $`V_{ij}`$ are elements of the CKM matrix, $`O_i(\mu )`$ are the relevent operators and $`C_i(\mu )`$ are the corresponding Wilson coefficients. The full set of operators needed for our application, can be seen in ref. . As the Wilson coefficients of the gluonic penguin operators are small (see eq. (30) in ref. ), we neglect them when calculating radiative corrections; we therefore only list the explicit form of the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$ and $`O_8`$:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}O_1=\hfill & (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^Ac_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu T^Ab_L),\hfill & O_2=\hfill & (\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L),\hfill \\ O_8=\hfill & \frac{g_s}{16\pi ^2}\overline{m}_b(\mu )(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^Ab_R)G_{\mu \nu }^A.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(2)
Here $`T^A`$ stand for the $`SU(3)_{\mathrm{color}}`$ generators. The small CKM matrix element $`V_{ub}`$ as well as the $`s`$-quark mass are also neglected.

It is well-known that in this formalism the large QCD logarithms, present in the decay amplitude for $`bsg`$, are contained in resummed form in the Wilson coefficients when choosing the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ at the order of $`m_b`$. The LL (NLL) Wilson coefficients contain all terms of the form $`\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^n(m_b/M)`$ $`(\alpha _s\alpha _s^n\mathrm{ln}^n(m_b/M))`$, where $`M=m_t`$ or $`m_W`$ and $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

The LL prediction for the decay amplitude for $`bsg`$ is then obtained by calculating the matrix elements $`sg|O_i|b`$ at order $`g_s`$ and weighting them with the leading logarithmic Wilson coefficients. In the naive dimensional regularization (NDR) scheme which we use in this paper, there are one-loop contributions of order $`g_s`$ for $`i=3,4,5,6`$ and the tree-level contribution of $`O_8`$. The effect of the matrix elements for $`i=3,4,5,6`$ can be absorbed into the effective Wilson coefficient (see ) $`C_8^{\mathrm{eff}}=C_8+C_3\frac{1}{6}C_4+20C_5\frac{10}{3}C_6`$.

The NLL corrections for the decay amplitude for $`bsg`$ receives two contributions: The first one arises when combining the lowest order matrix elements (of order $`g_s`$) with the NLL Wilson coefficient, while the second one arises when calculating explicit order $`\alpha _s`$ corrections to the matrix elements of the operators which are then weighted with LL Wilson coefficients. As the operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ have vanishing matrix elements for $`bsg`$ at order $`g_s`$ and the NLL corrections connected with the operators $`O_3,\mathrm{},O_6`$ are neglected, the only Wilson coefficient needed to NLL precision is that of the operator $`O_8`$. The necessary ingredients, the anomalous dimension matrix to $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ and the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ matching condition for the operator $`O_8`$ were given in refs.  and , respectively. A practical parametrization for $`C_8^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )`$ will be given in ref. . A rather complete list of references on matching conditions, anomalous dimension matrices, and on the process $`bs\gamma `$, which is similar in many respects to $`bsg`$, is given e.g. in ref. .

## III Virtual corrections to $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟖}`$

### A Virtual corrections to $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}`$

As the one-loop matrix elements of the operators $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$ vanish, we immediately turn to the two-loop contributions. A complete list of Feynman diagrams for the matrix elements $`sg|O_i|b`$ ($`i=1,2`$) is shown in fig. 1.

The diagrams in fig. 1 a), b), c) and d), in which the emitted gluon is replaced by a photon are the relevant diagrams for $`bs\gamma `$; these were calculated in ref. . The three possible diagrams in fig. 1 g) cancel each other when considering the process $`bs\gamma `$; however, they give a non-vanishing contributionWe thank M. Neubert for making us aware of these diagrams. to $`bsg`$. There is also another difference: while each of the figures a), b), c) and d) forms a gauge invariant subset in $`bs\gamma `$, this is no longer true for $`bsg`$; a gauge invariant result is only obtained when all the diagrams in fig. 1 are summed.

The various two-loop integrals are calculated by the standard Feynman parameter technique. The heart of our procedure, which is explained in detail in ref.  for one of the diagrams in fig. 1 a), is to represent the rather complicated denominators in the Feynman parameter integrals as complex Mellin-Barnes integrals . After inserting this representation and interchanging the order of integration, the Feynman parameter integrals are reduced to well-known Euler Beta-functions. Finally, the residue theorem allows to represent the remaining complex integal as the sum over the residues taken at the pole positions of Beta- and Gamma-functions; for a generic diagram $`G`$, these steps naturally lead to an expansion in the ratio $`z=(m_c/m_b)^2`$ of the form

$$G=c_0+\underset{n,m}{}c_{nm}z^nL^m;z=\frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2};L=\mathrm{ln}z,$$
(3)
where the coefficients $`c_0`$ and $`c_{nm}`$ are independent of $`z`$. The power $`n`$ in eq. (3) is in general a natural multiple of $`1/2`$ and $`m`$ is a natural number including 0. In the explicit calculation, the lowest $`n`$ turns out to be $`n=1`$. This implies the important fact that the limit $`m_c0`$ exists. As was shown in , the power $`m`$ of the logarithm is bounded by $`4`$, independently of the value of $`n`$. In our results, which we will present below, all terms up to $`n=3`$ are retained.

We first present the final result for the dimensionally regularized matrix element $`M_2=sg|O_2|b`$ which represents the sum of all two-loop diagrams in fig. 1:

$$M_2=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}}\left[\frac{16}{27ϵ}\left(\frac{m_b}{\mu }\right)^{4ϵ}+r_2\right],$$
(4)
where the real- and imaginary part of $`r_2`$ read

$`\text{Re}(r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{648}}\{217054\pi ^2+z[48816252\pi ^2+(226801620\pi ^2)L`$ (9)
$`+2808L^2+612L^36480\zeta (3)]`$
$`12672\pi ^2z^{3/2}+z^2[66339+1872\pi ^2+(40446+1512\pi ^2)L`$
$`+6642L^21008L^3+7776\zeta (3)]`$
$`+z^3[342060\pi ^26456L+7884L^2]\}`$
$`\text{Im}(r_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{27}}\{28+z[54924\pi ^2+153L+72L^2]`$ (11)
$`+z^2[432+30\pi ^2+54L90L^2]+z^3[259+192L]\}.`$
The symbol $`\zeta `$ stands for the Riemann Zeta function, with $`\zeta (3)1.2021`$. Finally, the quantity $`sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}}`$ denotes the tree level matrix element of the operator $`O_8`$.

To obtain the renormalized matrix element $`M_2^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ associated with the operator $`O_2`$, the corresponding counterterms have to be included. This means that we have to take into account the one-loop matrix elements of the four Fermi operators $`\delta Z_{2j}O_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},6`$) and the tree level contribution of the magnetic operator $`\delta Z_{28}O_8`$. In the NDR scheme the only non-vanishing contributions to $`bsg`$ come from $`j=4,8`$. The operator renormalization constants $`Z_{ij}`$ can be extracted from the literature  in the context of the leading order anomalous dimension matrix. One obtains the counterterm contribution

$$M_2^{\mathrm{ct}}=sg|\delta Z_{24}O_4+\delta Z_{28}O_8|b=\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{36\pi }\frac{1}{ϵ}\left(\frac{m_b}{\mu }\right)^{2ϵ}+\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }\frac{19}{108}\frac{1}{ϵ}\right)sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}}.$$
(12)
We note that there are no one-loop contributions to the matrix element for $`bsg`$ from counterterms proportional to the evancesent operator $`P_{12}`$ given in appendix A of ref. . Adding the regularized two-loop result in eq. (4) and the counterterm in eq. (12), we find the renormalized result for $`M_2`$ in the NDR scheme:

$$M_2^{\mathrm{ren}}=sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}}\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left(\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{\mu }+r_2\right),$$
(13)
where $`r_2`$ is given in eq. (9) and $`\mathrm{}_2=70/27`$.

By doing analogous steps, we obtain the renormalized version of $`M_1=sg|O_1|b`$:

$$M_1^{\mathrm{ren}}=sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}}\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{\mu }+r_1\right),$$
(14)
with $`\mathrm{}_1=173/162`$ and

$`\text{Re}(r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3888}}\{487754\pi ^2+36z[1086+29\pi ^2+(360+36\pi ^2)L`$ (19)
$`+51L^2+8L^3+144\zeta (3)]`$
$`12672\pi ^2z^{3/2}+9z^2[661580\pi ^2+(4494+384\pi ^2)L`$
$`+864L^2148L^3+864\zeta (3)]`$
$`+12z^3[93+76\pi ^21186L+900L^2]\}`$
$`\text{Im}(r_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{324}}\{25+6z[75+\pi ^2+24L3L^2]`$ (21)
$`+6z^2[171+19\pi ^2+72L57L^2]+2z^3[421+192L]\}`$
For $`z1/4`$ the imaginary parts of $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ must vanish exactly; our results fulfill this property to high accuracy when retaining terms up to $`z^3`$ in the expansion.

### B Virtual corrections to $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟖}`$

We present now the results of the virtual corrections to the matrix element $`M_8=sg|O_8|b`$.

As the contributing Feynman graphs in fig. 2 are all one loop diagrams, the computation of $`M_8`$ is straightforward. We use dimensional regularization for both, the ultraviolet and the infrared singularities. Singularities which appear in the situation where the virtual gluon becomes almost real and collinear with the emitted gluon are also regulated dimensionally; on the other hand, those singularities where the almost real internal gluon is collinear with the $`s`$-quark, are regulated with a small strange quark mass $`m_s`$; the latter manifest themselves in logarithmic terms of the form $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho )`$, where $`\rho =(m_s/m_b)^2`$.

We were able to separate the ultraviolet $`1/ϵ`$ poles from those which are of infrared (and/or collinear) origin. For ultraviolet poles we use the symbol $`1/ϵ`$ in the following, while collinear and infrared poles are denoted by $`1/ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}`$.

As the results of the individual diagrams are not very instructive, we only give their sum:

$$M_8=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }f_8sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}},$$
(22)
with

$`f_8`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(4\mathrm{ln}(\rho )+9+9i\pi )}{3ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{3ϵ}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right)^{2ϵ}+`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{59\pi ^2}{12}}+18\mathrm{ln}(\rho )+2\mathrm{ln}^2(\rho )8i\pi \right].`$
An ultraviolet finite result is obtained by adding the contribution from the counterterm which is generated by expressing the bare quantities in the tree-level matrix element of $`O_8`$ by their renormalized counterparts. It has the structure

$$M_8^{\mathrm{ct}}=\delta Rsg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}},$$
(25)
where the factor $`\delta R`$ is given by $`\delta R=\sqrt{Z_2(m_b)}\sqrt{Z_2(m_s)}\sqrt{Z_3}Z_{g_s}Z_{m_b}Z_{88}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$.

$`Z_2(m_b)`$, $`Z_2(m_s)`$ and $`Z_3`$ denote the on-shell wave function renormalization factors of the $`b`$-quark, the $`s`$-quark and the gluon, respectively. $`Z_{g_s}`$ and $`Z_{m_b}`$ denote the $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ renormalization constants for the strong coupling constant $`g_s`$ and the $`b`$-quark mass, which appear explicitly in the definition of the operators (see eq. (2)). Finally, $`Z_{88}`$ is the renormalization factor of the operator $`O_8`$. The $`Z`$-factors of the fields, of the masses and of the strong coupling constant are given in text books, while $`Z_{88}`$ can be extracted from the anomalous dimension matrix in ref. ; we therefore immediately give the expression for $`\delta R`$:

$$\delta R=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left[\frac{11}{3ϵ}+\frac{31}{6ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}}8\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{\mu }\frac{2}{3}\underset{f}{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_f}{\mu }+\frac{16}{3}2\mathrm{ln}\rho \right].$$
(26)
The term $`_f`$ originates from fermion self-energy diagrams contributing to the on-shell renormalization constant $`Z_3`$ of the gluon field; $`f`$ runs over the five flavors $`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$, $`c`$ and $`b`$.

When adding the regularized matrix element of $`O_8`$ in eq. (22) and the counterterm contribution $`M_8^{\mathrm{ct}}`$ in eq. (25), we obtain the renormalized result

$$M_8^{\mathrm{ren}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }f_8^{\mathrm{ren}}sg|O_8|b_{\text{tree}},$$
(27)
with

$`f_8^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(8\mathrm{ln}(\rho )+49+18i\pi )}{6ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}}}\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right)^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{29}{3}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{f}{}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f}{\mu }}5+{\displaystyle \frac{59\pi ^2}{36}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}\rho +{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{ln}^2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}i\pi .`$
We anticipate that the singular terms of the form $`1/ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}^2`$, $`1/ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}\rho `$ in eq. (29) will cancel against the corresponding singularities in the result for the gluon bremsstrahlung corrections to $`bsg`$. On the other hand, the terms $`\mathrm{ln}(m_f/\mu )`$, which also represent some kind of singularities for the light flavor $`f=u,d,s`$ are not cancelled in this way. Keeping in mind that they originate from the fermionic contribution to the renormalization factor $`Z_3`$, it is expected that they will cancel against the logarithms present in the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(bsf\overline{f})`$ ($`f=u,d,s`$).

### C Virtual corrections to the decay width $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝒈)`$

We are now in the position to write down the renormalized version of the matrix $`M^{\mathrm{ren}}(bsg)`$ element for $`bsg`$, where the virtual order $`\alpha _s`$ corrections are included. We obtain:

$`M^{\mathrm{ren}}(bsg)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4G_Fi}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\{C_8^{\mathrm{eff}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}[C_1^0(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+r_1)+C_2^0(\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+r_2)+`$ (31)
$`C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}f_8^{\mathrm{ren}}]\}sg|O_8(\mu )|b_{\mathrm{tree}}.`$
The quantities $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$ and $`f_8^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ are given in eqs. (19), (9) and (29), respectively. As eq. (31) shows, $`C_8^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the only Wilson coefficient needed to NLL precision. For the following it is useful to decompose it as

$$C_8^{\mathrm{eff}}=C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}+\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }C_8^{1,\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(32)
The symbol $`sg|O_8(\mu )|b_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ in eq. (31) denotes the tree level matrix element of $`O_8(\mu )`$, which contains the running $`b`$-quark mass and the strong running coupling constant at the scale $`\mu `$. In order to get expressions where the $`b`$-quark mass enters as the pole mass, and the strong coupling constant enters as $`g_s(m_b)`$, we rewrite $`sg|O_8(\mu )|b_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ as

$$sg|O_8(\mu )|b_{\mathrm{tree}}=sg|O_8|b_{\mathrm{tree}}\left[1+\frac{2\alpha _s}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{\mu }\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }+\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\beta _0\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{\mu }\right];\beta _0=\frac{23}{3}.$$
(33)
The symbol $`sg|O_8|b_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ then stands for the tree level matrix element of $`O_8`$ in which $`\overline{m}_b(\mu )`$ and $`g_s`$ have to to be indentified with the pole mass $`m_b`$ and $`g_s(m_b)`$, respectively. After inserting eqs. (32) and (33) into eq. (31), the corresponding decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{virt}}`$ is obtained in the standard way. One gets:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{virt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s(m_b)m_b^5}{24\pi ^4}}|G_FV_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2\{\left(C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}[2C_8^{1,\mathrm{eff}}+2(8+\beta _0)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}+2C_1^0(\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+\text{Re}(r_1))+2C_2^0(\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+\text{Re}(r_2))`$
$`+2C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}\text{Re}(f_8^{\mathrm{ren}})(1ϵ)\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right)^{2ϵ}(1+2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\pi ^216)ϵ^2)]\}.`$
We note that due to the infrared poles present in $`f_8^{\mathrm{ren}}`$ the phase space integrations were done consistently in $`d=42ϵ`$ dimensions.

## IV $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟖}`$ contribution to the decay width $`𝚪\mathbf{(}𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝒇\overline{𝒇})`$

As discussed at the end of section III B, we should take into account the contribution of the operator $`O_8`$ to the process $`bsf\overline{f}`$ $`(f=u,d,s)`$, in order to cancel the unphysical logarithms of the form $`\mathrm{ln}(m_f/\mu )`$ in the virtual corrections to $`bsg`$. The $`O_8`$ contribution to the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8(bsf\overline{f})`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_8(bsf\overline{f})=\frac{m_b^5|G_FV_{ts}^{}V_{tb}C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}|^2}{72\pi ^5}\alpha _s^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_b}{2m_f}\frac{2}{3}\right].$$
(37)
## V Gluon bremsstrahlung contributions

In this section we discuss the gluon bremsstrahlung corrections to $`bsg`$, i.e. the process $`bsgg`$. As in the case of the virtual corrections, we neglect contributions from the gluonic penguin operators as their Wilson coefficients are rather small. In this approximation, the matrix element $`M^{\mathrm{brems}}(bsgg)`$ is of the form

$$M^{\mathrm{brems}}=\frac{4G_Fi}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\left[C_1^0M_1^{\mathrm{brems}}+C_2^0M_2^{\mathrm{brems}}+C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}M_8^{\mathrm{brems}}\right],$$
(38)
where the three terms on the r.h.s. correspond to the contributions of the operators $`O_1`$, $`O_2`$ and $`O_8`$, respectively. The corresponding Feynman diagrams are shown in fig. 3. We note that in eq. (38) only the leading order pieces of the Wilson coefficients are needed.

The decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{brems}}(bsgg)`$ is then obtained by squaring $`M^{\mathrm{brems}}`$, followed by phase space integrations. These integrals are plagued with infrared and collinear singularities. Configurations with one gluon flying collinear to the $`s`$-quark are regulated by a small strange quark mass $`m_s`$, while configurations with two collinear gluons, or one soft gluon are dimensionally regularized. As in the calculations of the virtual corrections, we write the dimension as $`d=42ϵ`$. (Note that $`ϵ`$ has to be negative in order to regulate the phase space integrals).

When squaring $`M^{\mathrm{brems}}`$ in eq. (38), nine terms are generated, which we denote for obvious reasons by $`(O_1,O_1^{})`$, $`(O_1,O_2^{})`$, $`(O_1,O_8^{})`$, $`(O_2,O_1^{})`$, …., $`(O_8,O_8^{})`$. We find that all these quantities are free of infrared and collinear singularities, except $`(O_8,O_8^{})`$. Hence, one can put $`m_s=0`$ in the finite terms and evaluate the phase space integrals in $`d=4`$ dimensions. In the following, we denote this finite contribution to the decay width by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fin}}^{\mathrm{brems}}`$. It turns out that only $`5\%`$ of the total NLL correction are due to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fin}}^{\mathrm{brems}}`$. As the analytical results for this finite piece, written in terms of two-dimensional integrals, are rather lengthy, we skip the explicit expressions in this letter; we stress, however, that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fin}}^{\mathrm{brems}}`$, although small, will be retained in the numerical evaluations.

We now turn to the $`(O_8,O_8^{})`$ contribution, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{88}^{\mathrm{brems}}`$. After a lengthy, but straightforward calculation, we obtain ($`\rho =(m_s/m_b)^2`$; $`V=\alpha _sm_b^5|G_FV_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2/(24\pi ^4)`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{88}^{\mathrm{brems}}=\frac{\alpha _s\left(C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}\right)^2V\left(\frac{m_b}{\mu }\right)^{4ϵ}}{12\pi }\left[\frac{18}{ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}^2}+\frac{67+8\mathrm{ln}\rho }{ϵ_{\mathrm{IR}}}4\mathrm{ln}^2\rho +12\mathrm{ln}\rho +240\frac{62\pi ^2}{3}\right].$$
(39)
The total decay with for $`bsgg`$ is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{brems}}(bsgg)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fin}}^{\mathrm{brems}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{88}^{\mathrm{brems}}.$$
(40)
## VI Combined NLL branching ratio for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝒈`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝒈𝒈`$

In this section we combine the decay widths for the virtually corrected process $`bsg`$ and the bremsstrahlung process $`bsgg`$ to the total NLL decay width decay $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$. We also absorbe in this quantity the $`O_8`$ induced contribution to the processes $`bsf\overline{f}`$ ($`f=u,d,s`$), as discussed in section IV. From the explicit formulas for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{virt}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{brems}}`$ one can see that the infrared and collinear singularities cancel in the sum. The terms containing logarithms of the light quark masses $`m_f`$, present in the result for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{virt}}`$, are cancelled when combined with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8(bsf\overline{f})`$. Putting together the individual pieces, the final result for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)=\frac{\alpha _s(m_b)m_b^5}{24\pi ^4}|G_FV_{ts}^{}V_{tb}|^2|\overline{D}|^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fin}}^{\mathrm{brems}},$$
(41)
with

$`\overline{D}`$ $`=`$ $`C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}[C_8^{1,\mathrm{eff}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}+C_1^0[\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+r_1]`$ (43)
$`+C_2^0[\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+r_2]+C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}[(\mathrm{}_8+8+\beta _0)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}+r_8]].`$
A remark concerning the modulus square of the function $`\overline{D}`$ is in order: By construction, this square is understood to be taken in the same way as the in the virtual contributions, i.e. by systematically discarding the $`O(\alpha _s^2)`$ term. In this sense, the quantity $`\overline{D}`$ can be viewed as an effective matrix element. We stress however that, besides the virtual corrections, also the informations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{88}^{\mathrm{brems}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8(bf\overline{f})`$ are contained in the function $`\overline{D}`$.

The quantities $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ appearing in eq. (43) are given in eqs. (19) and (9), respectively. The explicit expressions for $`\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}_2`$, $`\mathrm{}_8`$ and $`r_8`$, read

$$\mathrm{}_1=\frac{173}{162};\mathrm{}_2=\frac{70}{27};\mathrm{}_8=\frac{19}{3};r_8=\frac{1}{18}\left[35119\pi ^236\mathrm{ln}2+6\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_c^2}{m_b^2}\right].$$
(44)
Note that all scale dependent quantities in eqs. (41) and (43) are understood to be evaluated at the scale $`\mu `$, unless indicated explicitly in the notation.

We would like to point out that $`\mathrm{}_1`$, $`\mathrm{}_2`$ and $`(\mathrm{}_8+8+\beta _0)`$ are identical to the anomalous dimension matrix elements $`\gamma _{18}^{0,\mathrm{eff}}`$, $`\gamma _{28}^{0,\mathrm{eff}}`$, and $`\gamma _{88}^{0,\mathrm{eff}}`$, respectively, which are given in ref. . This is what has to happen: Only in this case the leading scale dependence of $`C_8^{0,\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )`$ gets compensated by the second term in eq. (43).

The NNL branching ratio $`^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$ is then obtained as

$$^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}}_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{exp}},$$
(45)
where $`_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{exp}}`$ denotes the experimental semileptonic branching ratio of the $`B`$-meson. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}`$ stands for the theoretical expression of the semileptonic decay width of the $`B`$-meson. Neglecting non-perturbative corrections of the order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}/m_b)^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}`$ reads (with $`x_c=(m_c/m_b)`$)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{sl}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(bce\overline{\nu }_e)=\frac{G_F^2m_b^5}{192\pi ^3}|V_{cb}|^2g(x_c)\left[1+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{2\pi }h_{\mathrm{sl}}(x_c)+O(\alpha _s^2)\right],$$
(46)
with the phase space function $`g(x_c)=18x_c^224x_c^4\mathrm{ln}x_c+8x_c^6x_c^8`$. The analytic expression for $`h_{\mathrm{sl}}(x_c)`$ can be found in ref. . The approximation (taken from ref. )

$$h_{\mathrm{sl}}(x_c)=3.341+4.05(x_c0.3)4.3(x_c0.3)^2,$$
(47)
which we use in the following, holds to an accuracy of one permille for $`0.2x_c0.4`$.

## VII Numerical results for the combined branching ratio

We first discuss the sizes of the various NLL corrections at the level of the function $`\overline{D}`$, defined in eq. (43). As already stated, the terms containing explicit logarithms of the ratio $`(m_b/\mu )`$ get compensated by the scale dependence of the first term on the r.h.s. of eq. (43). This feature can be observed in fig. 4, when comparing the two dashed lines. The long-dashed line represents only the first term $`C_8^0`$ of the function $`\overline{D}`$, while the short-dashed line shows $`\overline{D}`$, in which $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$ and $`r_8`$ are put to zero. As expected, the short-dashed line has a milder $`\mu `$-dependence. When switching on also $`r_1`$ and $`r_8`$ (but keeping $`r_2=0`$), the resulting curve, shown by the dotted line, stays close to the short-dashed curve and the scale dependence remains very mild. However, when switching on also $`r_2`$, the situation changes drastically. The resulting solid line, which represents the full NLL $`\overline{D}`$ function, implies that the term containing the two-loop quantity $`r_2`$, induces a large NLL correction. As this large correction term contains a factor $`\alpha _s(\mu )C_2(\mu )`$, it is of no surprise, that the NLL prediction for the function $`\overline{D}`$ suffers from a relatively large scale dependence, as illustrated by the solid line.

The NLL branching ratio $`^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$ is then obtained as described in section VI. The result is shown by the solid line in fig. 5. For the input values, we choose: $`m_b=(4.8\pm 0.2)`$ GeV, $`(m_c/m_b)=(0.29\pm 0.02)`$, $`\alpha _s(m_Z)=0.119\pm 0.003`$, $`|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}/V_{cb}|^2=0.95\pm 0.03`$, $`_{\mathrm{sl}}^{\mathrm{exp}}=(10.49\pm 0.0046)\%`$, and $`m_t^{\mathrm{pole}}=(175\pm 5)`$ GeV. As the scale dependence is rather large, we did not take into account the error due to the uncertainties in the input parameters. Based on fig. 5, we obtain the NLL branching ratio

$$^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)=(5.0\pm 1.0)\times 10^3,$$
(48)
which is more than a factor two larger than the LL value

$$^{\mathrm{LL}}(bsg)=(2.2\pm 0.8)\times 10^3,$$
(49)
extracted from the dashed line in fig. 5. As stressed in the discussion of the function $`\overline{D}`$, the main enhancement is due to the virtual- and bremsstrahlung corrections to $`bsg`$, calculated in this paper. At the level of the branching ratio, this fact is illustrated by the dotted line in fig. 5, which is obtained by discarding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{fin}}^{\mathrm{brems}}`$ and by switching off $`r_1`$, $`r_2`$ and $`r_8`$ in the expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{NLL}}(bsg)`$ (see eq. (41)).

The largest uncertainty due to the physical input parameters (other than $`\mu `$) on $`(bsg)`$ results from the charm quark mass. Varying $`x_c=m_c/m_b`$ between 0.27 and 0.31 and choosing $`\mu =m_b`$, the resulting uncertainty amounts to $`\pm 6\%`$.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank A. Ali, A. Kagan, A. Lenz, P. Minkowski, M. Neubert, and U. Nierste for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# ENERGY AND SYMMETRY OF ORDERED TWO-DIMENSIONAL DIPOLE CLUSTERS IN A PARABOLIC CONFINEMENT

## Figure captions

1. Experimental setup. Small rare-earth permanent magnets encapsulated within styrofoam discs are floating on the surface of the water and repel each other. They are confined within a nonuniform magnetic field produced by external coil. Container diameter is 100 cm, magnet size is 3 mm. Lower panel shows two cluster images with superimposed Delaunay triangulation. Gray circles stand for normal coordination number ($`Z=6`$), filled circles stand for $`Z=5`$ (positive disclination), and open circles stand for $`Z=7`$ (negative disclination). $`N`$=85 - a“magic” cluster. Note hexagonal structure and six topological disclinations at the boundary. $`N`$=70- an ordinary cluster. Note a dislocation (5-7 pair) attached to a disclination.
2. Single particle energy $`ϵ`$, the chemical potential $`\mu `$ and cluster area $`S`$ vs particle number $`N`$ (in dimensionless units). Continuous lines show experimental data (smoothed); dashed lines show asymptotic $`N^{3/5}`$dependence; dashed-dotted line shows results of numerical simulations of Ref. (multiplied by 0.8) for the energy of 2D dipole clusters in parabolic confinement. The inset shows bulk compression modulus $`K`$.
3. Fluctuations of the total cluster energy $`\delta E`$ and “charging energy” $`\frac{^2E}{N^2}`$ (note inverted scale) vs particle number $`N`$. The lowest curve shows number of nearest neighbors, $`N_{cm}`$, to the center of mass position. Note correlation between three curves. Big positive values of $`\frac{^2E}{N^2}`$ (dips in the figure) correspond to dips in $`\delta E`$. Deep dips occur when $`N_{cm}=6`$ and shallow dips correspond to $`N_{cm}=3`$. “Magic” numbers indicated on the Figure correspond to energy dips and almost perfect clusters.
4. Center of mass position. (a) Unit cell and the positions of high symmetry, (A),(B), and (C). (b) Distribution of the center of mass position in the unit cell. Each point corresponds to a cluster with a certain particle number $`N`$. Note sticking of the center of mass to positions (A),(B), and (C). Lower panel shows the distance between the center of mass and the nearest particle. Note $`N^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ periodicity.


text:
# Effect of Doping-induced Disorder on Transition Temperature in High 𝑇_𝑐 Cuprates

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank G. Sawatzky, Young S. Lee, Z. Wang, and M. Norman for helpful discussion, S. H. Simon for pointing out the angle dependence of the Fermi velocity, and C. M. Varma for motivating this investigation. I also thank Aspen Center for Physics where this work was mostly carried out, and ITP University of California, Santa Barbara for hospitality. The work was conducted under the auspices of the Department of Energy, supported (in part) by funds provided by the University of California for the conduct of discretionary research by Los Alamos National Laboratory.