2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2013.07.028
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The inclusive decay revisited

Abstract: The inclusive decay rate b → ccs is enhanced considerably due to perturbative QCD corrections. We recalculate the dominant part of the NLO-QCD corrections, because they cannot be reconstructed from the literature and we give the full expressions in this paper. Further we include some previously neglected corrections originating from penguin diagrams. Combined with the impressive progress in the accurate determination of input parameters like charm quark mass, bottom quark mass and CKM parameters, this enables … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
55
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

6
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 117 publications
(203 reference statements)
4
55
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…More recent suggestions for quark mass concepts are the kinetic mass from Bigi, Shifman, Uraltsev and Vainshtein [14,15] introduced in 1994, the potential subtracted mass from Beneke [16] and the Υ(1s)-scheme from Hoang, Ligeti and Manohar [17,18], both introduced in 1998. In [19] we compared the above quark mass schemes for inclusive non-leptonic decay rates and found similar numerical results for the different short distance masses. Thus we rely in this review -for simplicity -on predictions based on the MS-mass scheme and we discard the pole mass, even if we give several times predictions based on this mass scheme for comparison.…”
Section: Charm-quark Decaymentioning
confidence: 64%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…More recent suggestions for quark mass concepts are the kinetic mass from Bigi, Shifman, Uraltsev and Vainshtein [14,15] introduced in 1994, the potential subtracted mass from Beneke [16] and the Υ(1s)-scheme from Hoang, Ligeti and Manohar [17,18], both introduced in 1998. In [19] we compared the above quark mass schemes for inclusive non-leptonic decay rates and found similar numerical results for the different short distance masses. Thus we rely in this review -for simplicity -on predictions based on the MS-mass scheme and we discard the pole mass, even if we give several times predictions based on this mass scheme for comparison.…”
Section: Charm-quark Decaymentioning
confidence: 64%
“…Thus we rely in this review -for simplicity -on predictions based on the MS-mass scheme and we discard the pole mass, even if we give several times predictions based on this mass scheme for comparison. Concerning the concrete numerical values for the quark masses we also take the same numbers as in [19]. In that work relations between different quark mass schemes were strictly used at NLO-QCD accuracy (higher terms were discarded), therefore the num-bers differ slightly from the PDG [1] Since our final lifetime predictions are only known up to NLO accuracy and we expand every expression consistently up to order α s , we will stay with the parameters used in [19].…”
Section: Charm-quark Decaymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…a violation of the validity of the HQE, was also considered to solve this discrepancy, in particular in the decay b → ccs. This issue has now been resolved, by more precise data and improved theory predictions (see (Krinner et al, 2013)), leading to a nice agreement between experiment and theory within uncertainties.…”
Section: Heavy Quark Expansionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…For the inclusive decay b → ccs it was found (see e.g. (Bagan et al, 1995;Krinner et al, 2013;Lenz et al, 1997)) that Q P ≤ 0.05 Q T . Taking this value as an indication for the size ofà Peng f /à Tree f we get an estimate of r of about |r| ≈ 0.001.…”
Section: A Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For Γ SM tot we take the result from [16] that includes α s -corrections and terms that are subleading in the heavy-quark expansion; the experimental value is taken from [17]: Γ SM tot ¼ ð3.6 AE 0.8Þ · 10 −13 GeV and Γ tot ¼ ð4.20 AE 0.02Þ · 10 −13 GeV. (ii) For the channel b → ccs we take constraints from the branching ratio BðB → X s γÞ into account.…”
Section: New Physics In Tree-level Decaysmentioning
confidence: 99%