format: text

text:
# Tunneling and Traversal of Ultra-cold Atoms through Vacuum Induced Potentials

## I introduction

An important question of great interest in several disciplines of physics has been - what is the tunneling time or traversal time of a quantum mechanical particle through a potential. Various definitions have been proposed and the subject has been reviewed extensively . Although there exists no unique definition for the tunneling time, an important experiment by Steinberg et al  supports the belief that tunneling time is consistent with the Wigner’s phase time  defined as the frequency derivative of the transmission amplitude phase. Steinberg et al observed that tunneling velocity of a single photon wave packet passing through the forbidden midgap region of a photonic band-gap meterial is superluminal.

In this paper, we examine the passage of a cold atom through a high quality cavity. In particular, we enquire what is the passage time of the atom through the cavity. The question is a complicated one as we have here a coupling with three different types of the degrees of freedom - (a) atom’s center of mass motion, (b) atom’s electronic states and (c) photons. Besides in a high quality cavity, the resonant transitions are especially important. Thus in the passage through the cavity the atom can change its electronic state. We have found that the passage time can be defined through the complex transmission amplitude. The connection to potential problems is provided by the existing results in the context of micromazers . An analysis in the the dressed state basis reveals that the interaction of a moving atom with a single mode vacuum field in a high quality cavity is equivalent to a combination of a potential barrier and a well. These potentials belong to the category of vacuum induced potentials and should be distinguished from the optical potentials produced by a far off resonant field interacting with an atom . Having realized that the cavity field can act like a potential for an ultra-cold atom, one could calculate the time the atom takes to traverse the cavity using methods similar to those used say in the context of tunneling electrons through potential barriers.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II, we formulate the model describing the propagation of ultra-cold atoms through a high quality cavity. In Sec. III, we calculate the phase time for ultra-cold atoms. We find that the phase time could also be negative, which is reminiscent of superluminal propagation of electromagnetic fields. We explain this characteristic of phase time in terms of the dispersion of the phase of transmission amplitude. This is again very much analogous to the propagation of light which can be understood in terms of the dispersion of the medium. In Sec. IV, we present the numerical results for the time dependence of the wave packet. We show the correlation of the peaks of wave packets to the phase time of Sec. III. In Sec. V, we discuss aspects of phase time where the effects of the entanglement with the internal degrees of freedom is important. Finally, we summarize our results in Sec. VI.

## II model system and summary of atom - field interaction

We consider an ultra-cold, two-level atom in its excited state to be incident on a single mode cavity of length $`L`$ as shown in Fig. 1. The frequency of the cavity field has been tuned to the frequency of the atomic transition between the excited state $`|e`$ and the ground state $`|g`$. The Hamiltonian describing this resonant atom-field interaction including the quantized motion of center-of-mass (c.m.) of the atom, is given by

$$H=\frac{p_z^2}{2m}+\mathrm{}\omega _e|ee|+\mathrm{}\omega _g|gg|+\mathrm{}\omega a^{}a+\mathrm{}gu(z)(\sigma a^{}+a\sigma ^{}),$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the atom-field coupling constant and $`\omega =\omega _e\omega _g`$ is the resonance frequency of atom-field interaction. The operators $`a(a^{})`$ annihilate (create) a photon of frequency $`\omega `$ and $`\sigma (\sigma ^{})`$ are the lowering (raising) operator for the atomic transition. For simplicity, we approximate the mode function $`u(z)`$ of the cavity by a mesa function.

In a reference frame rotating with frequency $`\omega `$ the Hamiltonian of the atom-field interaction reads as

$$H_I=\frac{p_z^2}{2m}+\mathrm{}gu(z)(\sigma a^{}+a\sigma ^{}).$$
(2)
The operator $`(\sigma a^{}+a\sigma ^{})`$ is easily diagonalizable. It has eigenstates $`|\varphi ^0`$, $`|\varphi _{n+1}^\pm `$ with eigenvalues $`0`$, $`\pm \sqrt{n+1}`$, respectively. The dressed eigenstates can be expanded in terms of eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian as $`|\varphi ^0=|g,0`$ and $`|\varphi _{n+1}^\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|e,n\pm |g,n+1)`$. If we expand the combined state of atom-cavity system as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\chi _0(z,t)|\varphi ^0+\chi _+(z,t)|\varphi _{n+1}^++\chi _{}(z,t)|\varphi _{n+1}^{},$$
(3)
then the time dependent Schrodinger equation becomes

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\chi _\alpha }{t}=h_\alpha \chi _\alpha ,\alpha =\pm ,0.$$
(4)
Here $`h_o=p_z^2/2m`$, $`h_\pm =p_z^2/2m\pm \mathrm{}gu(z)\sqrt{n+1}`$ are operators acting in the space of the center of mass variables. Clearly the cavity with fixed number of photons creates a barrier and a well potential for the external motion of the atom corresponding to the dressed states $`|\varphi _{n+1}^\pm `$ respectively as discussed in Ref. . For the mesa mode function $`u(z)=\theta (z)\theta (Lz)`$, the cavity induced potentials are displayed in Fig. (2).

Since we need the transmission amplitude of the excited atom for further discussion we summarize the main results of Meyer et al . Consider the initial atom-field state to be $`|e,n`$, i.e., the atom is in the excited state and the cavity field contains $`n`$ photons. This initial atom-field state can be expanded in terms of dressed states as

$$|e,n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[|\varphi _{n+1}^++|\varphi _{n+1}^{}\right].$$
(5)
From the above discussions, it is clear that the external motion of the excited atom experiences a coherent addition of a potential barrier and a well with potential energy $`V=\mathrm{}g\sqrt{n+1}`$. We expand the initial wavepacket of the atom incident on the cavity as $`\psi (z,0)=𝑑kA(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)`$. The Heaviside’s step function $`\theta (z)`$ merely reflects the fact atomic wavepacket enters the cavity from the left side. The fourier amplitudes $`A(k)`$ are adjusted such that the center of the wave packet enters the cavity at time $`t=0`$. The initial wave function of the atom-field system is therefore

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,0)=\psi (z,0)|e,n.$$
(6)
The wave function of the atom-field system after the atom has left the cavity is given by using Eq. $`(\text{5})`$

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iH_It}{\mathrm{}}}\right)\psi (z,0)|e,n`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iH_It}{\mathrm{}}}\right)|\varphi _{n+1}^+\psi (z,0)+\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{iH_It}{\mathrm{}}}\right)|\varphi _{n+1}^{}\psi (z,0)\right].`$ (8)
It is to be noted that the first and second term in the above equation corresponds to the atom interacting with the potential barrier and well respectively. Denoting the reflection and transmission amplitudes as $`\rho _n^\pm `$, $`\tau _n^\pm `$ for the potential barrier (superscript +) and well (superscript -) respectively, we have

$$\rho _n^\pm =i\mathrm{\Delta }_n^\pm \mathrm{sin}(k_n^\pm L)\mathrm{exp}(ikL)\tau _n^\pm ,$$
(9)
$$\tau _n^\pm =\mathrm{exp}(ikL)\left[\mathrm{cos}(k_n^\pm L)i\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^\pm \mathrm{sin}(k_n^\pm L)\right]^1,$$
(10)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_n^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_n^\pm }{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_n^\pm }}\right),`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_n^\pm }{k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{k_n^\pm }}\right),`$ (12)
$`k_n^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(k^2{\displaystyle \frac{2mg}{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{n+1}\right)}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left(k^2k_o^2\sqrt{n+1}\right)}.`$ (14)
Here $`\mathrm{}k`$ is the atomic c.m. momentum and $`\mathrm{}^2k_o^2/2m=\mathrm{}g`$ is the vacuum coupling energy. Carrying out the time evolution for the dressed states, we get the following wave function after the atom - field interaction :

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dkA(k)e^{i\left(\mathrm{}k^2/2m\right)t}\{[R_{e,n}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)+T_{e,n}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)]|e,n`$ (15)
$`+`$ $`[R_{g,n+1}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (z)+T_{g,n+1}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)]|g,n+1\},`$ (16)
where

$$R_{e,n}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho _n^++\rho _n^{}),T_{e,n}=\frac{1}{2}(\tau _n^++\tau _n^{}),$$
(17)
are the reflection and transmission amplitudes for the excited state of the atom and

$$R_{g,n+1}=\frac{1}{2}(\rho _n^+\rho _n^{}),T_{g,n+1}=\frac{1}{2}(\tau _n^+\tau _n^{}).$$
(18)
are the reflection and transmission amplitudes for the ground state of the atom. Note that all the probability amplitudes for the excited or ground state of the atom depends on the coherent addition of amplitudes of the barrier and well. We have recently shown that transmission of an ultra-cold two-level atom in the excited state through two successive cavities depends strongly on this coherent addition of amplitudes. This leads to the splitting of the transmission resonances of the single cavity .

## III Phase time for ultra-cold atoms passing through a high quality cavity - analog of sub - superluminal propagation

In the previous section, we have seen that dynamics of an ultra-cold atom passing through the cavity is reduced to the problem of reflection and transmission of an atom incident on the cavity induced potentials. In this section, we study in detail the transmission of the atom in the initial excited state through the cavity initially in vacuum state. The transmitted part of the atom - field system is then given by using Eq. $`(\text{16})`$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑kA(k)e^{i\left(\mathrm{}k^2/2m\right)t}T_{e,0}(k)e^{ikz}\theta (zL)|e,0.$$
(19)
The transmission amplitude $`T_{e,0}|T_{e,0}|e^{i\varphi (k)}`$ given by Eq. $`(\text{17})`$ depends on the vacuum coupling energy $`\mathrm{}g`$. We consider a Guassian wave packet $`A(k)=\mathrm{exp}\left((k\overline{k})^2/\sigma ^2\right)`$ of width $`\sigma `$ and mean momentum $`\overline{k}`$ for the incident atom. With this substitution for $`A(k)`$, the wave function including the normalization factor, is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/4}}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑k\mathrm{exp}\left((k\overline{k})^2/\sigma ^2\right)e^{i\left(\mathrm{}k^2/2m\right)t}|T_{e,0}|e^{i\varphi (k)}e^{ikz}|e,0,zL.$$
(20)
For small width $`\sigma `$ the integrand in Eq. $`(\text{20})`$ has non vanishing value only in a small range of wave numbers $`k`$ centered about the mean $`\overline{k}`$. Then, the envelope of the transmitted wave packet $`|e,0|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|^2`$ will be maximum when the total phase $`\theta (k)`$ of the integrand exhibits extremum at the wave number $`k=\overline{k}`$. Since we have assumed that the center of incident wave packet enters the cavity at time $`t=0`$, this stationary phase condition gives the time at which the wave packet at the exit of the cavity $`z=L`$, is peaked as follows :

$$\frac{\theta (k)}{k}|_{k=\overline{k}}=\frac{}{k}\left[kL+\varphi (k)\left(\mathrm{}k^2/2m\right)t\right]|_{k=\overline{k}}=0,$$
(21)
which yields the phase tunneling time $`t_{ph}`$

$$t_{ph}=\left[\frac{m}{\mathrm{}k}\left(\frac{\varphi }{k}+L\right)\right]_{k=\overline{k}}.$$
(22)
The integral in Eq. $`(\text{20})`$ can be evaluated approximately by making Taylor expansion of the phase of transmission amplitude about the mean wave number $`k=\overline{k}`$. Keeping terms upto secend order in the expansion and assuming $`\sigma <<\overline{k}`$ to approximate $`|T_{e,0}(k)||T_{e,0}(\overline{k})|`$, the transmitted wave function is given at $`z=L`$ by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|_{z=L}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^{3/4}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sigma }}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i(\overline{k}L+\varphi (\overline{k})\overline{E}t/\mathrm{})\right)|T_{e,0}(\overline{k})|`$ (23)
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\left(\frac{2}{\sigma ^2}+i\alpha \right)}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}(tt_{ph})^2}{m\left(\frac{2}{\sigma ^2}+i\alpha \right)}}\right)|e,0,`$ (24)
where $`\overline{E}=\mathrm{}^2\overline{k}^2/2m`$ is the average energy of the incident atom and the parameter $`\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{}t}{m}\frac{^2\varphi }{k^2}|_{k=\overline{k}}`$ accounts for the spreading of the wave packet as it propagates. The maximum amplitude of the transmitted wave packet occurs at time $`t=t_{ph}`$ given by the stationary phase assumption. It is very important to note that the phase time has no significance when either the Taylor expansion of the phase does not converge or additional terms more than the second order term are important in the expansion. In this general case, the transmitted wave packet will be deformed from the Guassian shape and the concept of following the peak of the wave packet is meaningless. When there is no cavity $`|T_{e,0}(k)|=1`$$`\varphi (k)=0`$, then the phase time in Eq. $`(\text{22})`$ becomes $`t_{ph}=mL/\mathrm{}\overline{k}t_{cl}`$ which is the classical time needed for the center of a free atomic wave packet to traverse a distance of length $`L`$. The phase tunneling time which a particle takes to traverse a potential barrier, has been studied extensively by Hartmann . The tunneling time for a barrier is less than the time a free particle takes to traverse the same distance in free space. Here, we report such a superclassical traversal of the ultra-cold atom through the vacuum induced potentials. Note that the temperature of the atom will be in the range $`10^7`$ to $`10^8`$ K if the coupling constant $`g`$ is in the range of 100-10 kHz and if the mean momentum $`\overline{k}/k_o=0.1`$. It should be borne in mind that both barrier and well contribute to the traversal time of ultra-cold atoms. Using Eq. $`(\text{22})`$, we plot in Fig. 3 the phase time as a function of the mean wave number $`\overline{k}`$ for the length of the cavity $`k_oL=10\pi `$. The important result here is that the phase time exhibits the resonant behaviour of transmission probability and that the phase time is less than the classical time $`t_{cl}`$. In a different context viz. in the tunneling time of electrons passing through a finite superlattice, a similar resonant behaviour is found . Another remarkable behaviour of phase time is that it can even be negative. Negative phase time implies that the peak of the transmitted wave packet emerges out even before the peak of the incident wave packet enters the interaction region. This can be understood from the interference between the incident wave and the wave that is reflected at the end of the cavity. From Eq. $`(\text{22})`$, we see that when the derivative of the phase of transmission amplitude is negative and its absolute value is greater than the length $`L`$ of the cavity, the phase time becomes negative. Put in another way, when the phase function $`\varphi (k)+kL`$ has negative slope, the phase time takes negative values. In Fig. 4, we show the phase time for the parameter $`k_oL=\pi /2`$. It is seen from the graph that for ultra-cold atoms $`(\overline{k}/k_o<<1)`$ the phase time is negative. For fast atoms $`(\overline{k}/k_o>>1)`$, the phase time approaches the classical time as the transmission probability becomes closer to unity. The phase time being negative is very similar to the concept of negative group velocity in the case of electro-magnetic pulse propagation. Here, the variation of the refractive index of the medium with respect to the frequency has steep negative slope leading to superluminal propagation . To understand the negative phase time, we have also plotted in Fig. 5 the phase function $`\varphi (k)+kL`$. The graph shows the expected negative slope for ultra-cold atoms.

## IV time dependence of the wave packet for ultra-cold atoms

To study the behaviour of actual envelope of the wave function, we evaluate numerically the integral Eq. $`(\text{20})`$ which describes the propagation of a Guassian wave packet of an excited atom through the vacuum induced potentials. Garrett and McCumber  carried out a similar numerical integration for the electric field amplitude of a Guassian light pulse passing through an anamolous dispersive medium. In Fig. 6(a), we show the numerical results for the normalized probability density $`|e,0|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|^2/\sigma `$ at the exit of the cavity $`z=L`$ as function of the time for the parameters $`k_oL=\pi /2`$, $`\sigma /k_o=0.01`$, $`\overline{k}/k_o=0.1`$. The peak of the transmitted wave packet occurs at the time $`t/t_{cl}0.98`$ which matches with the phase time in the Fig. 4 for the parameter $`\overline{k}/k_o=0.1`$. Thus the wave packet appears to travel backwards in time in the sense of tracing the locus of maximum amplitude. The peak of the transmitted wave packet is formed even before the peak of the incident wave packet enters the cavity. For comparison, we have also plotted the envelope of the wave packet which travels through the same distance of length $`L`$ in free space. The peak of the free wave packet occurs at the expected classical time. From the graph, we see that for ultra-cold atoms $`(\overline{k}/k_o<<1)`$ the propagation of the atom through the cavity is faster than through the free space. In Fig. 6(b), we plot the envelope of the wave function for the parameters $`k_oL=\pi /2`$, $`\sigma /k_o=0.01`$, $`\overline{k}/k_o=10`$. For the case of fast atoms $`(\overline{k}/k_o>>1)`$ the transmitted wave packet has maximum amplitude at the classical time $`(t/t_{cl}1)`$ as expected from Fig. 4. Thus, the peak of the transmitted wave packet occurs at the instant given by the expression for phase time Eq. $`(\text{22})`$ even if that instant is earlier than the instant at which incident wave packet enters the cavity. While this is generally true for a narrow momentum distribution characterized by $`\sigma <<\overline{k}`$ of the incident atom, strong deformation of the incident wave packet sometimes makes the phase time meaningless.

## V splitting of the wave packet

We have so far considered only the propagation of the atomic wave packet in the initial excited state. But in a high quality the atom-field interaction leads to photon emission by the excited atom. We can also study the behaviour of the transmitted wave packet $`|g,1|\mathrm{\Psi }(z,t)|^2`$ for the ground state of the atom using Eq. $`(\text{16})`$. For the parameters of Fig. 6(a), the phase time for the ground state $`t_{ph}/t_{cl}0.45`$ is positive but still a superclassical time. Numerical integration also gives the same time delay for the transmitted wave packet. In Fig. 7, we show the behaviour of the phase time for the wave packet corresponding to transmitted atom in the ground state. This behaviour is to be compared with that of the phase time for the transmission in the excited state (Fig. 4). The two phase times differ considerably for cold atoms. Generally, the difference in phase times for the ground and excited states of the atom results in splitting of the incident wave packet into two in the total transmission. But for the parameters of Fig. 6(a), the total transmission is dominated by the contribution from the ground state and hence the splitting is not seen. In Fig. 8, we plot the transmitted wave packet for the ground and excited states together for comparison. The graph shows the time delay between the atoms exiting the cavity in excited and ground states.

The splitting of the incident wave packet can also occur for a different reason as shown in the Fig. 9 for the parameters $`k_oL=10\pi `$, $`\sigma /k_o=0.5`$, $`\overline{k}/k_o=10`$. It is seen that the probability density is zero at the classical time. This can be understood from the Rabi oscillations between the internal states of the fast atoms. For fast atoms $`(k/k_o>>1)`$, the transmission amplitude can be approximated as $`T_{e,o}(k)\mathrm{exp}(ikL)(\mathrm{exp}(ik_0^+L)+\mathrm{exp}(ik_0^{}L))/2`$ where $`k_0^\pm `$ are given by Eq. $`(\text{14})`$. The transmission probability $`|T_{e,0}|^2`$ exhibits oscillatory behaviour as a function of momentum $`k`$ of the incident atom. Moreover, at the mean wave number corresponding to the classical time, the transmission amplitude $`T_{e,0}(\overline{k})\mathrm{cos}(gt_{cl})=0`$. Thus the correlation with the internal dynamics (Rabi oscillations) of the atom leads to the splitting of the incident wave packet of the external motion. Obviously since the wave packet is deformed for these parameters, the phase time $`(t_{ph}/t_{cl}0.62)`$ loses its physical significance and does not represent the peak to peak traversal time.

## VI summary

We have considered the propagation of a Guassian wave packet of an excited two-level atom through a high quality cavity which is initially empty. The atom-field interaction is equivalent to the reflection and transmission of the wave packet through the potentials created by the dressed states. This is perhaps one of the rare examples in physics where the tunneling time would depend on the coherent addition of transmission amplitudes through a barrier and a well. The phase tunneling time can exhibit both super- and sub- classical traversal behaviour. For certain set of parameter, the phase tunneling time for cold atoms can even be negative. All this can be understood in terms of the dispersion characteristics of the phase of the transmission amplitude and is analogous to the dispersion of the refractive index which leads to super and subluminal propagation. Numerical integration is performed to calculate the time dependent wave packet at the exit of the cavity. In most cases the peak of the transmitted wave packet occurs at the instant given by the expression for the phase time even when it is negative. Thus the phase time can be considered as the approximate time required for the atom to traverse the cavity. Further, we demonstrate how the correlation between internal and external dynamics of the atom leads to the splitting of the wave packet, a feature which is unique to the traversal of atoms through a cavity. Finally, we note that the vacuum field for the initial state of the cavity does not limit the study of tunneling time of the atom. In a general Fock state, the potential energy of atom-field interaction with the cavity induced potentials will be different from that of vacuum field. Still, we can redefine the atom-field coupling constant of the interaction to include this change and the superclassical tunneling of ultra-cold atoms is a common feature for a general Fock state of the cavity field.

One of us (R. A) thanks Dr. Kulkarni for discussions on numerical integration techniques.


text:
# Lattice Diagram polynomials in one set of variables

## 1. Introduction

We are going to explicitly describe certain $`𝒮_n`$-modules of polynomials, in $`n`$ variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, that are closely related to classical harmonic polynomials for the symmetric group $`𝒮_n`$. These last polynomials can be characterized by the fact that they satisfy the conditions

(1.1)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_{x_i}^kP(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=0,k=1,2,3,\mathrm{}.$$

A classical result of Steinberg states that the set $`M_n`$, of all harmonic polynomials for the symmetric group, is

$$M_n:=_{}[\mathrm{\Delta }_n],$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=_{i<j}(x_ix_j)`$ is the Vandermonde determinant, and $`_{}[\mathrm{\Delta }_n]`$ denotes the linear span of all partial derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$. It is certainly striking to notice that the dimension of $`M_n`$ is $`n!`$, and there is a lot of other nice results related to $`M_n`$ and its generalization to reflection groups. The spaces studied here are natural generalizations of these spaces and spaces studied by DeConcini and Procesi in  and Garsia and Procesi .

The point of departure of this work consists in replacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ by natural generalizations of the Vandermonde determinant. To this end, let us define a general lattice diagram to be any finite subset of $`\times `$. The case corresponding to diagrams of partitions is of special interest. Recall that a partition $`\mu `$ of $`n`$ is a sequence $`\mu _1\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _k>0`$ of decreasing positive integers such that $`n=\mu _1+\mathrm{}+\mu _k`$. We denote $`\mu n`$ this fact. For $`\mu n`$, we set

$$\mu !:=\mu _1!\mu _2!\mathrm{}\mu _k!.$$

The lattice diagram associated to a partition $`\mu `$ is defined to be the set

$$\{(i,j):\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}ik1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}j\mu _{i+1}\},$$

and we use the symbol $`\mu `$ both for the partition and its diagram. Most definitions and conventions used in this text are those of . For example, the diagram of the partition $`(4,2,1)`$ is geometrically represented as

| $`2,0`$ |
| --- |
| $`1,0`$ | $`1,1`$ |
| $`0,0`$ | $`0,1`$ | $`0,2`$ | $`0,3`$ |

and it consists of the lattice cells

$$\{(0,0),(0,1),(0,2),(0,3),(1,0),(1,1),(2,0)\}.$$

Thus, the coordinates $`(r,c)`$ of a cell are such that $`r+1`$ (resp. $`c+1`$) is the row number (resp. column number) for the cell position, counting from bottom up (resp. left to right).

Given a lattice diagram $`D=\{(r_1,c_1),(r_2,c_2),\mathrm{},(r_n,c_n)\}`$ we define the lattice determinant

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X;Y):=detx_i^{r_j}y_i^{c_j}_{i,j=1}^n,$$

where $`X=x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ and $`Y=y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n`$. The polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X;Y)`$ is bihomogeneous of degree $`|r|=r_1+\mathrm{}+r_n`$ in $`X`$ and degree $`|c|=c_1+\mathrm{}+c_n`$ in $`Y`$. To insure that this definition associates a unique polynomial to $`D`$, we order lattice cells in increasing lexicographic order.

We will need a few more definitions regarding partitions and diagrams. For an $`n`$-cell diagram $`D`$, a tableau of shape $`D`$ is an injective map $`T:D\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. If $`T(r,c)=m`$, we say that $`h_T(m):=r`$ is the height of $`m`$ in $`T`$. We say that $`T`$ is row increasing if $`T(i,j)<T(k,j)`$ whenever $`i<k`$ (when this has a meaning). Similarly we define column increasing tableaux, and a standard tableau is one that is both row and column increasing. We denote by $`𝕊_D`$ the set of all standard tableau of shape $`D`$.

With these definitions out of the way, we come to our object of interest, namely the modules

$$M_D:=_{}[\mathrm{\Delta }_D],$$

where $`D`$ is some lattice diagram. The case where $`D=1^n`$ ($`1^n`$ is the partition of $`n`$ with all parts equal to 1) corresponds to the classical module of harmonic polynomials. This generalization was first considered by Garsia and Haiman , in the special case when $`D=\mu `$ is the lattice diagram of a partition. Since then, several other cases have been studied (see  and ). For any $`n`$-cell lattice diagram $`D`$, the space $`M_D`$ affords the structure of an $`𝒮_n`$-module, through the action of the symmetric group on polynomials consisting in permuting variables. More precisely, a permutation $`\sigma 𝒮_n`$ acts diagonally on a polynomial $`P(X;Y)`$, as follows

$$\sigma P(X;Y)=P(x_{\sigma _1},x_{\sigma _2},\mathrm{},x_{\sigma _n};y_{\sigma _1},y_{\sigma _2},\mathrm{},y_{\sigma _n}).$$

Under this action, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D=\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X;Y)`$ is clearly an alternant and the action commutes with partial derivatives, hence $`M_D`$ is an invariant subspace of $`[X,Y]`$.

Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D`$ is bihomogeneous, $`M_D`$ affords the following natural bigrading. Denoting by $`_{r,s}[M_D]`$ the subspace consisting of the bihomogeneous elements of degree $`r`$ in $`X`$ and degree $`s`$ in $`Y`$, we have the direct sum decomposition

$$M_D=\underset{r=0}{\overset{|p|}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{|q|}{}}_{r,s}[M_D].$$

The bigraded Hilbert series of $`M_D`$ is

$$F_D(q,t)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{|p|}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{|q|}{}}t^rq^sdim_{r,s}[M_D],$$

and the bigraded character of $`M_D`$ is encoded by the following symmetric function,

$$H_D(X;q,t)=\underset{r=0}{\overset{|p|}{}}\underset{s=0}{\overset{|q|}{}}t^rq^s\left(\text{ch}_{r,s}[M_D]\right),$$

where $`\text{ch}_{r,s}[M_D]`$ denotes the character of $`_{r,s}[M_D]`$ and $``$ is the Frobenius correspondence which maps the irreducible character $`\chi ^\lambda `$ to the Schur function $`s_\lambda `$. We say that this symmetric function is the Bigraded Frobenius Characteristic of $`M_D`$.

The $`n!`$-factorial conjecture of Garsia and Haiman states that for any partition diagram $`\mu `$, $`H_\mu (X;q,t)`$ is none other than a renormalized version of the Macdonald polynomial associated to $`\mu `$. This has recently been shown by Haiman  using an algebraic geometry approach. It develops that a very natural and combinatorial recursive approach to the $`n!`$-conjecture involves diagrams obtained by removing a single cell from a partition diagram. It is conjectured in  that, for such diagrams, the space $`M_D`$ is a direct sum of left regular representations of $`𝒮_n`$. More precisely, if $`\mu `$ is a partition of $`n+1`$, we denote by $`\mu /ij`$ the lattice diagram obtained by removing one of its cell $`(i,j)`$ from the diagram $`\mu `$. We refer to the cell $`(i,j)`$ as the hole of $`\mu /ij`$. The conjecture in question states that the number of copies of the left regular representations in $`M_{\mu /ij}`$ is equal to the cardinality of the $`(i,j)`$-shadow, that is the cardinality of $`\{(s,t)\mu :si,tj\}`$.

This, and more, is all encoded in the following four term recurrence for the bigraded Frobenius characteristic $`H_{\mu /ij}`$ of $`M_{\mu /ij}`$.

###### Conjecture 1.1 ().

For all $`(i,j)\mu `$, we have $`H_{\mu /ij}=C_{\mu /ij}`$.

Where, $`C_{\mu /ij}`$ is defined by the following the following “four term” recurrence

(1.2)
$$C_{\mu /ij}=\frac{t^{\mathrm{}}q^{a+1}}{t^{\mathrm{}}q^a}C_{\mu /i,j+1}+\frac{t^{\mathrm{}+1}q^a}{t^{\mathrm{}}q^a}C_{\mu /i+1,j}\frac{t^{\mathrm{}+1}q^{a+1}}{t^{\mathrm{}}q^a}C_{\mu /i+1,j+1},$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`a`$ give the number of cells that are respectively north and east of $`(i,j)`$ in $`\mu `$. As boundary conditions, we set $`C_{\mu /i,j+1}`$, $`C_{\mu /i,j+1}`$ or $`C_{\mu /i,j+1}`$ equal to zero when the corresponding cells $`(i,j+1),`$ $`(i+1,j)`$ or $`(i+1,j+1)`$ fall outside of $`\mu `$. Furthermore, if $`(i,j)`$ is a corner of $`\mu `$, then $`\mu /ij`$ is a partition diagram $`\nu `$, and we set

$$C_{\mu /ij}=H_\nu .$$

For any lattice diagram $`D`$, we consider $`M_D^0`$ the $`Y`$-free component of $`M_D`$, this is to say that

$$M_D^0=\underset{r=0}{\overset{|p|}{}}_{r,0}[M_D].$$

In this paper, we study the spaces $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$, and show that the $`Y`$-free specialization of the conjecture 1.1 hold for these spaces. In particular this implies that

(1.3)
$$dimM_{\mu /i,j}^0=\frac{n!}{\mu !}|\{(r,c)\mu |ir\mathrm{}\},$$

where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the largest integer for which the corresponding row of $`\mu `$ has at least $`j`$ cells. Moreover, we obtain a formula for $`H_{\mu /ij}^0`$, the graded Frobenius character of $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$.

## 2. A Basis for $`M_\mu ^0`$

In preparation for our description of the modules $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$, we need to recall and reformulate some results about the modules $`M_\mu ^0`$. Although a recursive description of a basis for $`M_\mu ^0`$ is given in , and a direct description is given in , we give here a new description directly in term of standard tableaux of shape $`\mu `$. One can immediately link this description to Tanisaki’s construction  of the defining ideal of $`M_\mu ^0`$. Moreover, we will see that it clearly generalizes the “Artin” basis for $`M_n=M_{1^n}^0`$:

$$_n:=\{_X^𝐚\mathrm{\Delta }_n(X)|𝐚=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n),a_i<i\},$$

where we use the vectorial notation $`_X^𝐚:=_{x_1}^{a_1}_{x_2}^{a_2}\mathrm{}_{x_n}^{a_n}`$.

First, let $`T`$ be a tableau of shape $`D`$ (any diagram), and define

$$Y_T:=\underset{(r,c)D}{}y_{_{T(r,c)}}^c,$$

so that, for $`1kn`$, the exponent of $`y_k`$ is $`c`$, if $`(r,c)`$ is the position of $`k`$ in $`T`$. For example, if

$$T=\begin{array}{cc}\text{  3  }\hfill & \text{  6  }\hfill \\ \text{  1  }\hfill & \text{  2  }\hfill & \text{  4  }\hfill & \text{  5  }\hfill & \text{  7  }\hfill \end{array}$$

then $`Y_T=y_2y_6y_4^2y_5^3y_7^4`$. Clearly, the monomial $`Y_T`$ encodes the columns in which the entries of $`T`$ appear. More precisely, let the column set of a diagram $`T`$ of shape $`D`$, be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(T):=\{(k,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(T)|0k\underset{(r,c)D}{\mathrm{max}}c\},$$

where for a given $`k`$, the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(T)`$ is the set of entries in column $`k`$, that is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_k(T):=\{T(j,k)|(j,k)D\}.$$

Then $`Y_T=Y_R`$, if and only if $`T`$ and $`R`$ have same column sets (up to the addition of pairs of the form $`(k,\{\})`$). Observe that $`T`$ and $`R`$ need not be of the same shape.

We will denote $`Y_T`$ the differential operator obtained by replacing each $`y_k`$ in $`Y_T`$ by $`_{y_k}`$. With the same conventions, define

$$X_T:=\underset{(r,c)D}{}x_{_{T(r,c)}}^r,\mathrm{and}Z_T:=X_TY_T.$$

It is easy to see that $`TZ_T`$ establishes is a bijection between injective tableaux of shape $`D`$ and monomials of the form

$$x_{\sigma _1}^{r_1}y_{\sigma _1}^{c_1}x_{\sigma _2}^{r_2}y_{\sigma _2}^{c_2}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma _n}^{r_n}y_{\sigma _n}^{c_n},$$

with $`\sigma `$ in $`𝒮_n`$ and $`D=\{(r_1,c_1),(r_2,c_2),\mathrm{},(r_n,c_n)\}`$ ordered lexicographically. If we set

$$\gamma _D:=\underset{(r,c)D}{}c!,$$

then we easily get the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.1.

For two tableaux $`T`$ and $`R`$, both of shape $`D`$, one has

$$Y_TZ_R=\gamma _DX_R$$

if $`R`$ can be obtained from $`T`$ by a column fixing permutation of its entries. Otherwise

$$Y_TZ_R=0.$$

Given a tableau $`T`$ of shape $`D`$, we define the Garnir polynomial

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }(T)}{}detx_m^{h_T(\mathrm{})}_{m,\mathrm{}\gamma }.$$

Recall that $`h_T(\mathrm{})`$ is the height of $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`T`$, this is to say that it is the first coordinate of the cell in which it appears in $`T`$. We have the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2.2.

For any tableau $`T`$ of shape $`D^{}`$, we either have

$$Y_T\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X,Y)=\pm \gamma _D\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X),$$

or $`Y_T\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X,Y)|_{Y=0}=0`$.

Clearly this last possibility can only occur if one of the column of $`D`$ has a different number of cells than the corresponding column of $`D^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We only give an outline of the proof, and restrict ourselves to the case when each column of $`D`$ has the same number of cells as the corresponding column of $`D^{}`$. In that case, $`Y_T`$ has the same total $`Y`$-degree as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X,Y)`$, so that $`Y_T\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X,Y)`$ is a polynomial in the $`X`$ variables only. Since the terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X,Y)`$ are

$$\mathrm{sign}(\sigma )x_{\sigma _1}^{r_1}y_{\sigma _1}^{c_1}x_{\sigma _2}^{r_2}y_{\sigma _2}^{c_2}\mathrm{}x_{\sigma _n}^{r_n}y_{\sigma _n}^{c_n},$$

in view of lemma 2.1, the terms of $`Y_T\mathrm{\Delta }_D(X,Y)`$ are forced to be of the form $`Y_TZ_R`$ for tableaux $`R`$ that have the same column set has $`T`$. On the other hand, since $`Y_T\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X,Y)`$ alternates in sign under the action of column fixing permutations, it has to be a multiple of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)`$. Hence, both polynomials having the same degree, we must have the equality stated. ∎

We now associate to each entry $`j`$, of a standard tableau $`T`$, a non negative integer in the following manner. Let $`(r_j,c_j)`$ be the position of $`j`$ in $`T`$, and let $`k`$ be the largest entry of $`T`$, such that $`c_k=c_j+1`$ and $`k<j`$. We set

$$\alpha (j)=\alpha _T(j):=r_jr_k.$$

If there is no such $`k`$, set $`\alpha (j):=r_j+1`$. For the example given below, the value of $`\alpha (k)`$ appears in the cell of the right tableau corresponding to the position of $`k`$ in the left tableau.

| 5 |
| --- |
| 4 | 8 |
| 3 | 6 |
| 1 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 10 |

| 3 |
| --- |
| 2 | 2 |
| 1 | 2 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |

Clearly, if $`T`$ is the unique standard tableau corresponding to a column:

| $`n`$ |
| --- |
| ⋮ |
| 2 |
| 1 |

then $`\alpha (j)=j1`$.

As shown in  the space $`_{}[\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X):T𝕊_\mu ]`$ (the span of all partial derivative of Garnir polynomials for tableaux of shape $`\mu `$) coincides with the space $`M_\mu ^0`$. Using this characterization, we will now construct a basis for $`M_\mu ^0`$. But first, let us introduce some further notation.

For $`\mu `$ partition of $`n`$, let $`\pi (\mu )`$ be the set of partitions of $`n1`$ that can be obtained from $`\mu `$ by removing one of its corner. For $`\nu \pi (\mu )`$, we denote $`\mu /\nu `$ the corner by which $`\nu `$ differs from $`\mu `$. Let us label $`\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _k`$, the partitions in the set $`\pi (\mu )`$, (for definition, see the proof of theorem 2.3) following the increasing order of the column number in which the corresponding corners, the $`\mu /\nu _i`$’s, appear. In other words, if $`(a_i,b_i)`$, $`1ik`$, are the respective coordinates of the corner cells $`\mu /\nu _i`$, then $`b_1<b_2<\mathrm{}<b_k`$. Any standard tableau $`T`$ of shape $`\mu `$ is such that $`n`$ sits in a corner $`(a_j,b_j)`$ of $`\mu `$. Moreover, the value of $`\alpha _T(n)`$ depends only on the position of this corner (and on the shape $`\mu `$), since all other entries of $`T`$ are smaller. Denoting $`\alpha _j`$ the value of $`\alpha _T(n)`$, if $`n`$ appears in position $`(a_j,b_j)`$ in $`T`$, it is clear that

(2.1)
$$\alpha _j=a_ja_{j+1}.$$

###### Theorem 2.3.

For any partition $`\mu `$ of n, the set of polynomials

$$_\mu :=\left\{_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)\right|T𝕊_\mu ,𝐦=(m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_n)\mathrm{and}0m_i<\alpha _T(i)\}$$

is a basis of $`M_\mu ^0`$.

###### Proof.

We first show recursively that $`_\mu `$ is independent, assuming that the statement holds for partitions with at most $`n1`$ cells. As before, for $`\nu _j\pi (\mu )`$, let $`(a_j,b_j)`$ be the corner $`\mu /\nu _j`$, with $`b_1<b_2<\mathrm{}<b_k`$, and define

$$𝐁_j:=\left\{X^𝐦\right|T𝕊_\mu ,0m_i<\alpha _T(i),T(a_j,b_j)=n\}.$$

In view of 2.1, for $`X^𝐦𝐁_j`$, the dominant monomial of $`_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)`$ (in reverse lexicographic order) is of the form

$$x_n^{a_jm_n}X^𝐩(\mathrm{where}p_n=0),$$

with $`0m_n<a_ja_{j+1}`$. For $`k`$ fixed with $`a_{j+1}<ka_j`$, our induction hypothesis gives that the set

$$_{j,k}:=\left\{_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)\right|T𝕊_\mu ,0m_i<\alpha _T(i),T(a_j,b_j)=n,m_n=a_jk\},$$

is independent, since (in reverse lexicographic order) we have the following expansion of $`_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)`$

$$_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)=x_n^k_X^𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_T^{}(X)+\underset{\mathrm{lower}\mathrm{terms}}{\underset{}{\mathrm{}}}$$

where $`T^{}`$ is the restriction of $`T`$ to $`\nu _j`$. Clearly, the sets $`_{j,k}`$ are mutually independent, so

(2.2)
$$_\mu =\underset{j,k}{}_{j,k}$$

is independent.

We will now show that the number of elements of $`_\mu `$ is

(2.3)
$$|_\mu |=\frac{n!}{\mu !},$$

using a recursive argument, assuming that the statement holds for $`\nu _j\pi (\mu )`$. By induction, it is clear that

$$|_{j,k}|=\frac{(n1)!}{\nu _j!}$$

so that (in view of 2.2)

$$|𝐁_\mu |=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _j\frac{(n1)!}{\nu _j!}.$$

The result follows from the easy observation that

$$n=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _j(a_j+1),$$

since

$$a_j+1=\frac{\mu !}{\nu _j!}$$

is the length of the row of $`\mu `$ in which sits the corner $`(a_j,b_j)`$. A ”geometric” argument, that can be found in , shows that the dimension of $`M_\mu ^0`$ is at most $`\frac{n!}{\mu !}`$. Thus $`_\mu `$ is a basis. ∎

It is shown in  that the graded Frobenius character of the $`M_\mu ^0`$’s are none other than the Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions.

## 3. A Basis for $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$

The central result of this paper is the following description of a basis for $`M_{\mu /i,j}^0`$, with $`\mu `$ any fixed partition of $`n+1`$, and $`(i,j)`$ any given cell of $`\mu `$. The proof that it is a generator set is postponed until the next section.

For a standard tableau $`T`$, let $`𝐁_T`$ simply denote the set

$$𝐁_T:=\left\{X^𝐦\right|0m_s\alpha _T(s)\}.$$

For $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ a partition of $`n`$ obtained from $`\mu `$ by removing the corner cell $`(a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}})`$, the basis of $`M_{\mathrm{}}:=M_\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, described in the previous section, is

$$_{\mathrm{}}=\left\{_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)\right|T𝕊_\nu _{\mathrm{}},X^𝐦𝐁_T\}.$$

If $`T`$ is a standard tableau of shape $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, and $`0ua_{\mathrm{}}`$ an integer, we denote $`T_{uv}`$ the tableau of shape $`\mu /uv`$ (with $`v=b_{\mathrm{}}`$), such that

$$T_{uv}(r,c)=\{\begin{array}{cc}T(r,c)& \text{if}cv\text{or}r<u,\hfill \\ & \\ T(r1,c)& \text{if}c=v\text{and}r>u.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`(u,v)`$ is not in $`\mu /uv`$, $`T_{uv}`$ need not be defined at $`(u,v)`$. In other words, the tableau $`T_{uv}`$ is obtained from $`T`$ by “sliding” upward by $`1`$ the cells in column $`v`$ that are on or above row $`u`$. For $`u`$ and $`v`$ as above, we set

(3.1)
$$𝒜_{uv}:=\left\{_X^𝐦\mathrm{\Delta }_{T_{u,v}}(X)\right|X^𝐦𝐁_T,T𝕊_\nu _{\mathrm{}}\}.$$

Observe that $`𝒜_{uv}`$ implicitly depends on the choice of corner $`(a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`\mu `$, since $`v`$ is equal to $`b_{\mathrm{}}`$. Moreover, $`𝒜_{a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is the basis of $`M_\nu _{\mathrm{}}^0`$ described in theorem 2.3, thus $`𝒜_{a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is independent.

Let $`(a_1,b_1)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ ,$`(a_m,b_m)`$ (with $`b_1<\mathrm{}<b_m`$) be the set of corners of $`\mu `$ that are in the “shadow” of $`(i,j)`$. This is to say that $`ia_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`jb_{\mathrm{}}`$, for all $`1\mathrm{}m`$. Once again, we denote $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ the value of $`\alpha _T(n+1)`$ for any standard tableau of shape $`\mu `$ having $`n+1`$ in position $`(a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}})`$. Defining

(3.2)
$$_{\mu /ij}:=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{u=i}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(i+\alpha _{\mathrm{}}1,a_{\mathrm{}})}{}}𝒜_{u,b_{\mathrm{}}},$$

we have

###### Theorem 3.1.

For $`\mu `$ a partition of $`n+1`$ and $`(i,j)\mu `$, $`_{\mu /ij}`$ is a basis of $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$.

###### Proof.

In the remainder of this section, we will prove that 3.2 is an independent set, using a downward recursive argument, and that the number of elements of $`_{\mu /ij}`$ is

(3.3)
$$d_{\mu /ij}:=\frac{n!}{\mu !}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i^{}>i}{\mu _i^{}>j}}{}\mu _i^{}.$$

To complete the proof of the theorem, we will show in section 4 that the dimension of $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$ is at most equal to $`d_{\mu /ij}`$, so that $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$ has to coincide with the span of $`_{\mu /ij}`$. ∎

The cardinality of $`𝒜_{u,b_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is clearly

$$\frac{n!}{\mu !}\mu _{a_{\mathrm{}}+1u+i}=\frac{n!}{\mu !}\mu _{a_{\mathrm{}}+1}$$

since this is the same as $`n!/\nu _{\mathrm{}}!`$. If 3.2 is a disjoint union (which would follow from it being independent) and since every $`i^{}`$ indexing the summation in 3.3 occur exactly once in $`\{a_{\mathrm{}}+1u+i|1\mathrm{}m,iu\mathrm{min}(i+\alpha _{\mathrm{}}1,a_{\mathrm{}})\}`$, then we must have

(3.4)
$$|_{\mu /ij}|=d_{\mu /ij}.$$

Let

$$D_X:=_{x_1}+_{x_2}+\mathrm{}+_{x_n}.$$

We recall the following special case of proposition (I.2) of .

###### Proposition 3.2.

If $`(i+1,j)`$ is in $`\mu `$, then

$$D_X\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu /i,j}(X,Y)=_{\mathrm{cte}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu /i+1,j}(X,Y).$$

Otherwise $`D_X\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu /ij}(X,Y)=0`$, and this corresponds to the case where $`(i,j)`$ is on the top border of $`\mu `$. The symbol “$`=_{\mathrm{cte}}`$” stands for equality up to a non zero constant.

It is easy to adapt the proof of this fact to show that, for $`T`$ a standard tableau of shape $`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ (with $`\mu /\nu _{\mathrm{}}=(a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}})`$) and $`0ua_{\mathrm{}}`$, we have

(3.5)
$$D_X\mathrm{\Delta }_{T_{u,v}}(X)=_{\mathrm{cte}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{T_{u+1,v}}(X)& \text{if}u<a_{\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ & \\ 0& \text{if}u=a_{\mathrm{}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`v=b_{\mathrm{}}`$. It follows from definition 3.1 that

###### Lemma 3.3.

Using the same convention as above, we have

(3.6)
$$D_X𝒜_{u,b_{\mathrm{}}}=_{\mathrm{cte}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒜_{u+1,b_{\mathrm{}}}& \text{if}u<a_{\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ & \\ \{0\}& \text{if}u=a_{\mathrm{}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since these two sets have the same cardinality we deduce, from the linear independence of $`𝒜_{a_{\mathrm{}},b_{\mathrm{}}}`$, that each $`𝒜_{u,b_{\mathrm{}}}`$ is independent. Applying $`D_X`$ in definition 3.2 we readily check that

(3.7)
$$_{\mu /i+1,j}=D_X_{\mu /i,j}.$$

But we know that $`D_X𝒜_{a_m,b_m}=\{0\}`$, and it is clear that $`𝒜_{a_m,b_m}`$ is a subset of $`_{\mu /ij}`$. A dimension count, together with the recursive assumption, forces $`_{\mu /i+1,j}`$ to be independent, since

$$d_{\mu /i+1,j}+|𝒜_{a_m,b_m}|=\frac{n!}{\mu !}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i^{}>i+1}{\mu _i^{}>j}}{}\mu _i^{}+\frac{n!}{\mu !}\mu _{i+1}=d_{\mu /ij}.$$

This ends the proof of theorem 3.1.

## 4. Upper bound for the dimension of $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$

We now give an upper bound for the dimension of $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$. Given a polynomial $`P(X,Y)`$, we denote by $`P()`$ the operator obtained from $`P`$ by replacing all the variables $`x_i`$ and $`y_j`$ by $`_{x_i}`$ and $`_{y_j}`$, respectively. If $`P(X,Y)=M`$ is a single monomial $`M`$ we will write $`P()=_M`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

For $`\mu `$ a partition of $`n+1`$,

$$dimM_{\mu /i,j}^0\frac{n!}{\mu !}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i^{}>i}{\mu _i^{}>j}}{}\mu _i^{}.$$

###### Proof.

In , the bigraded $`𝒮_n`$-modules $`M_{\mu /i,j}`$ and $`_{}[_{x_{n+1}}^i_{y_{n+1}}^j\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X;Y)]`$ are shown to be equivalent, hence their $`Y`$-free components

$$M_{\mu /i,j}^0\mathrm{and}_{}[_{x_{n+1}}^i_{y_{n+1}}^j\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X;Y)]^0,$$

are equivalent. For any injective tableau $`T`$ of shape $`\mu `$, with $`c_{n+1}j`$, we have $`Y_T=y_{n+1}^jY^𝐚`$ and

$$\pm \gamma _\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)=Y_T\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X,Y).$$

If $`r_{n+1}<i`$ then $`_{x_{n+1}}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)=0`$, so that $`_{}[_{x_{n+1}}^i_{y_{n+1}}^j\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X;Y)]^0`$ is equal to

(4.1)
$$_{}\left[_{x_{n+1}}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)\right|T:\mu \{1,2,\mathrm{},n+1\},c_{n+1}j,r_{n+1}i].$$

For $`\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\mathrm{},\zeta _{\mathrm{}(\mu )}`$ and $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _{\mathrm{}(\mu ^{})}`$ two families of pairwise distinct scalars, we construct a set of points $`[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}`$ in $`^{2(n+1)}`$ as follow. For every injective tableau $`T`$ of shape $`\mu `$, we define the point $`\rho __T=(\zeta _{r_1},\zeta _{r_2},\mathrm{},\zeta _{r_{n+1}},\omega _{c_1},\omega _{c_2},\mathrm{},\omega _{c_{n+1}})`$ in $`^{2(n+1)}`$, and set

$$[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}=\left\{\rho __T\right|T:\mu \{1,2,\mathrm{},n+1\},c_{n+1}j,r_{n+1}i\}.$$

That is $`\rho __T[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}`$ when $`n+1`$ lies in the shadow of $`(i,j)`$ in $`T`$. Note that $`\rho __T[\rho _\mu ]=\rho __T[\rho _\mu ]_{0,0}`$ contain $`n!`$ points in correspondance with every injective tableau of shape $`\mu `$.

We denote by $`[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0=\pi ([\rho _\mu ]_{i,j})`$, where $`\pi `$ is the projection on $`^{n+1}`$ that keeps only the first $`n+1`$ entries. We see that the set of tableaux with $`n+1`$ entries strictly increasing in rows and where $`n+1`$ lies in a row $`i^{}`$ such that $`i^{}=r_{n+1}+1>i`$ and $`\mu _i^{}=c_{n+1}+1>j`$ give all the points of $`[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0`$ exactly once. One then easily verifies that the cardinality of $`[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0`$ is precisely

$$d_{\mu /ij}=\frac{n!}{\mu !}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i^{}>i}{\mu _i^{}>j}}{}\mu _i^{}.$$

Following \[5, Section 4\] we associate to this set $`J_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0}`$, its annulator ideal and define $`H_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0}=(J_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0})^{}`$. The dimension of $`H_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0}`$ is then $`d_{\mu /ij}`$ as well.

Given a polynomial $`P`$, let $`h(P)`$ denotes its homogeneous component of highest degree. For any polynomial $`P`$ in $`J_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0}`$, let

$$Q(X,Y)=P(X)\underset{i^{}=1}{\overset{i}{}}(x_{n+1}\zeta _i^{})\underset{j^{}=1}{\overset{j}{}}(y_{n+1}\omega _i^{})$$

For any $`\rho __T[\rho _\mu ]`$, the two products in the definition of $`Q`$ vanish at $`\rho __T`$ unless $`n+1`$ lies in the shadow of $`(i,j)`$ in $`T`$. But if this is the case then $`P(X)`$ vanishes at $`\pi (\rho __T)`$. This shows that $`Q(X,Y)`$ is in $`J_{[\rho _\mu ]}`$, the annulator ideal of $`[\rho _\mu ]_{0,0}=[\rho _\mu ]`$. Hence $`h(Q)=h(P)x_{n+1}^iy_{n+1}^j`$ is in $`\mathrm{gr}(J_{[\rho _\mu ]})`$, its graded version and $`h(Q)()\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X,Y)=0`$. For any injective tableau $`T`$ of shape $`\mu `$ such that $`c_{n+1}j`$ and $`r_{n+1}i`$ we have $`Y_T=y_{n+1}^jY^𝐚`$ and

$`h(P)()_{x_{n+1}}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \gamma _\mu ^1h(P)()_{x_{n+1}}^iY_T\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X,Y)`$
$`=`$ $`\pm \gamma _\mu ^1h(P)()_{x_{n+1}}^i_{y_{n+1}}^j_Y^𝐚\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X,Y)`$
$`=`$ $`\pm \gamma _\mu ^1_Y^𝐚h(Q)()\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (X,Y)=0`$
Thus $`h(P)`$ is in $`I_{_{x_{n+1}}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)}`$. We obtain this way that gr$`J_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0}`$ is a subset of $`I_{_{x_{n+1}}^i\mathrm{\Delta }_T(X)}`$ for any $`T`$ with the prescribed conditions. The space in 4.1 is thus contained in $`H_{[\rho _\mu ]_{i,j}^0}`$, which proves the theorem. ∎

## 5. Four term recurrence

Specializing conjecture 1.1 to its $`Y`$-free component, corresponds to setting $`q=0`$ in the four term recurrence 1.2. We now show that this specialization of conjecture 1.1 holds, by giving an explicit interpretation of the resulting recurrence in term of the basis we have constructed for $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

If $`H_{\mu /i,j}^0`$ denotes the graded Frobenius characteristic of $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$ then:

* if $`a=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}>0`$, $`H_{\mu /i,j}^0={\displaystyle \frac{t^{\mathrm{}+1}1}{t^{\mathrm{}}1}}H_{\mu /i,j+1}^0`$;
* if $`a>0`$, $`H_{\mu /i,j}^0=H_{\mu /i,j+1}^0+tH_{\mu /i+1,j}^0tH_{\mu /i+1,j+1}^0`$.
* if $`a=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}=0`$, $`H_{\mu /ij}^0`$ is the graded Frobenius characteristic of $`M_\nu ^0`$, where $`\nu `$ is the partition $`\mu /ij`$.

Here (as before) $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`a`$ give the number of cells that are respectively north and east of $`(i,j)`$ in $`\mu `$. If any of the cells $`(i+1,j)`$, $`(i,j+1)`$ or $`(i+1,j+1)`$ falls out of $`\mu `$, then the corresponding term is considered to be 0.

###### Proof.

Each of these assertions can be shown using the basis we have constructed. The third one is just a direct observation. The first one corresponds to a case for which there is just one corner $`(a_m,b_m)`$ in the shadow of $`(i,j)`$, with $`b_m=j`$, and then 3.2 can be written as

$$_{\mu /ij}:=\underset{u=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒜_{i+u,j},$$

Since, as long as $`(k+1,j)`$ is in $`\mu `$, $`D_X`$ is an isomorphism of representations between the homogeneous $`𝒮_n`$-modules $`𝒜_{k,j}`$ and $`𝒜_{k+1,j}`$ that lowers the degree by 1, we must have

$$_t(𝒜_{k,j})=t_t(𝒜_{k+1,j})$$

where $`_t`$ stands for the graded Frobenius characteristic. We deduce that, in the first case,

$$_{\mu /ij}=(1+t+\mathrm{}+t^{\mathrm{}})H_\nu ^0$$

with $`\mu /\nu =(a_m,b_m)`$. This is clearly equivalent to the statement of the first case.

For the second case there are a few subcases, all similarly dealt with, the most interesting one being when $`j=b_1`$ and $`m>1`$ for which the basis can clearly be broken down as

$$_{\mu /ij}=_{\mu /i,j+1}\underset{u=i}{\overset{i+\alpha _11}{}}𝒜_{u,b_1}$$

and we only need to show that the graded Frobenius characteristic of the linear span of

$$\underset{u=i}{\overset{i+\alpha _11}{}}𝒜_{u,b_1}$$

is given by

(5.1)
$$t(H_{\mu /i+1,j}^0H_{\mu /i+1,j+1}^0).$$

Now we clearly have $`_{\mu /i+1,j+1}_{\mu /i+1,j}`$, with $`D_X_{u=i}^{i+\alpha _11}𝒜_{u,b_1}`$ being the complement of $`_{\mu /i+1,j+1}`$ in $`_{\mu /i+1,j}`$. Under the hypothesis of this subcase, the graded Frobenius characteristic of the span of $`_{u=i}^{i+\alpha _11}𝒜_{u,b_1}`$ is thus given by 5.1. All other subcases are simple to show. ∎

## 6. Remarks

###### Remark 6.1.

In  (proposition 2.2), N. Bergeron and Garsia show that the spaces $`M_\mu ^0`$ are nested into each other according to their partition indexing. That is

$$\mu \lambda M_\mu ^0M_\lambda ^0$$

where “$``$” denotes the dominance order. Moreover they show that

$$M_\mu ^0M_\lambda ^0=M_{\mu \lambda }^0.$$

Using our basis, it is easy to show that both these results extend to the situation studied in this paper. Namely,

###### Proposition 6.2.

For two partition $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ of $`n+1`$, we have

$$\mu \lambda M_{\mu /ij}^0M_{\lambda /ij}^0$$

and

$$M_{\mu /ij}^0M_{\lambda /ij}^0=M_{\mu \lambda /ij}^0,$$

whenever $`(i,j)`$ appears in both $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$.

###### Remark 6.3.

For $`\mu `$ a partition of $`n`$ (denoted $`\mu n`$), Macdonald has given an explicit description of the coefficients appearing in the Pieri formula for the $`H_\mu `$:

$$h_k^{}H_\mu (X;q,t)=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu nk}{\nu \rho }}{}c_{\mu \nu }^k(q,t)H_\nu (X;q,t)$$

where $`h_k^{}`$ is the operator dual to multiplication by $`h_k`$ (complete homogeneous) with respect to the usual scalar product on symmetric functions for which the Schur functions are orthonormal. These coefficients $`c_{\mu \nu }^k(q,t)`$ are rational functions in $`q`$ and $`t`$. Now, let $`\rho `$ be the partition of $`m`$ corresponding to the shadow of $`(i,j)`$ in $`\mu `$, with $`m`$ equal to the number of cells in this shadow. F. Bergeron has conjectured in  that the following symmetric function

(6.1)
$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu mk}{\nu \rho }}{}c_{\mu \nu }^k(q,t)H_{\mu \rho +\nu }(X;q,t),$$

where $`\mu \rho +\nu `$ stands for the partition obtained from $`\mu `$ by replacing $`\rho `$ (the shadow of $`(i,j)`$) by $`\nu `$, is the bigraded Frobenius characteristic of the module $`M_{\mu /ij}^k`$ obtained as the union of all modules $`M_D`$, for $`D`$ ranging in the set of diagrams obtained from $`\mu `$ by removing $`k`$ cells in the shadow of $`(i,j)`$. This would imply that the dimension of $`M_{\mu /ij}^k`$ be equal to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{k}\right)(nk)!`$. J.-C. Aval, in , has shown that this value is an upper bound, and has generalized the construction of this paper to obtain an explicit basis for the $`Y`$-free component of $`M_{\mu /ij}^k`$. One can show that the graded Frobenius characteristic of the resulting space is the symmetric function obtained by taking the limit as $`q0`$ of 6.1.

###### Remark 6.4.

One can explicitly characterize the defining ideal of the space $`M_{\mu /ij}^0`$. This will be the subject of a forthcoming paper .


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Radiative rare $`𝑩`$ decays have attracted considerable attention in the last few years. After the first observation in 1994, by the CLEO collaboration , data have become quite precise  so that even a measurement of the CP asymmetry in these decays  became possible. As far as data are concerned, the situation clearly will improve further, after the excellent start of both $`𝑩`$ factories at KEK and at SLAC.

$`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ tests the Standard Model (SM) in a particular way. Since there are no tree-level contributions to these processes in the SM, they can occur only at the one-loop level. The GIM cancellation, which is present in all the FCNC processes, is lifted in this case by the large top-quark mass; if the top quark were as light as the $`𝒃`$ quark, these decays would be too rare to be observable.

Since the SM contribution is small, these decays have a good sensitivity to “new physics”, e.g. to new (heavy) particles contributing to the loop. In fact, already the first CLEO data could constrain some models for “new physics” in a stringent way.

The most general effective Hamiltonian describing these decays is given by

$$𝑯_{𝒆𝒇𝒇}\mathbf{=}\underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}𝒄_𝒊𝑶_𝒊\mathbf{,}$$
(1)
where the $`𝑶_𝒊`$ are local operators

$`𝑶_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟔}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ four-fermion operators
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟕}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_𝒃\overline{𝒔}𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃𝑭^{𝝁𝝂}`$
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_𝒔\overline{𝒔}𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃𝑭^{𝝁𝝂}`$
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟖}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_𝒃\overline{𝒔}𝝈^{𝝁𝝂}𝑻^𝒂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃𝑮_{𝝁𝝂}^𝒂`$
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟖}^{\mathbf{}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝒎_𝒔\overline{𝒔}𝝈^{𝝁𝝂}𝑻^𝒂\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝒃𝑮_{𝝁𝝂}^𝒂`$ (2)
and $`𝒄_𝒊`$ are pertubatively calculable coefficients.

In any new physics analysis of $`𝑩`$ decays only the coefficients $`𝒄_𝒊`$ are tested . The decay $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ (and the corresponding exclusive decays) are practically determined by the two operators $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟕}`$ and $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$, and hence these decays are mainly testing $`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}`$ and $`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}`$. In the SM these two coefficients are

$`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{,}`$ (3)
$`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒆}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}\sqrt{\mathrm{𝟐}}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}^{\mathbf{}}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}𝒎_𝒔`$ (4)
where $`𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}`$ is a function of $`\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒕\mathbf{/}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which we shall discuss later.

Furthermore, the two operators differ by the handedness of the quarks; in order to disentangle these two contributions there has to be a handle on the polarization of the quarks or of the photon, which is impossile at a $`𝑩`$ factory. Consequently, from $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ alone only the combination $`\mathbf{|}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{|}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ can be determined in the near future.

Once the effective interaction for the quark transition is fixed, one has to calculate from this the actual hadronic process. This step is only for the inclusive decays under reasonable theoretical control; for exclusive decays, form factors are needed, which either need to be modelled or will finally come from the lattice.

For inclusive decays the machinery used is the heavy mass expansion111A non-exhaustive selection of revies is .. Using this framework for the total rate one can establish that (1) the leading term as $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}\mathbf{}`$ is the free quark decay, (2) there are no subleading corrections of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$, (2) the first non-vanising corrections are of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and are given in terms of two parameters. This will be discussed in section 3. Additional non-perturbative uncertainties are induced by a cut on the photon energy, which is necessary from the exprimental point of view to suppress backgrounds.

Part I deals with the perturbative corrections, part II with the non-perturbative ones. In part III, “new physics” in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ is considered.

## 2 PART I: Perturbative Corrections

The main perturbative corrections are the QCD corrections, which are substantial. These corrections are calculated using an effective field-theory framework. To set this up, we have to write down first the relevant effective Hamiltonian as in (1). The operators appearing in (1) mix under renormalization as we evolve down from the $`𝑴_𝑾`$ mass scale to the relevant scale, which is the mass of the $`𝒃`$ quark. The cofficient functions are calculated at the scale $`𝝁\mathbf{=}𝑴_𝑾`$ as a power series in the strong coupling

$$𝒄_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒄_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}}{𝝅}𝒄_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}$$
(5)
Changing the scale $`𝝁`$ results in a change of the coefficient functions and in the matrix elements, such that the matrix element of the effective Hamiltonian remains $`𝝁`$-independent. This change can be computed perturbatively for sufficiently large $`𝝁`$, using the standard machinery of renormalization group, which involves a calculation of the anomalous-dimension matrix that describes the mixing of the operators (1).

The solution of the renormalizaton group equation yields the coefficient functions at some lower scale $`𝝁`$, which take the form (schematically)

$`𝒄_𝒊\mathbf{(}𝝁\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒄_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathbf{}}}𝒃_𝒏^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏`$ (6)
$`\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}𝒄_𝒊^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒏\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}{\mathbf{}}}𝒃_𝒏^{\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}}\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑴_𝑾^\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝝁^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒏\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$
where the $`𝒃_𝒏`$ are obtained from the solution of the renormalization group equation.

The last step is to compute the matrix elements of the operators at a scale $`𝝁\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃`$. This can be done for the inclusive case using the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ expansion. For the exclusive case, one would need the form factor in the corresponding approximation, which cannot be done with present theoretical techniques.

At present, the leading and the subleading terms of the coefficients have been calculated , including electroweak contributions, the main part of which is due to the correct scale setting in $`𝜶_{𝒆𝒎}`$.

A complete and up-to-date compilation can be found in . Without going into any more detail we only quote the result from

$$𝑩𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.29}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.33}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{.}$$
(7)
where this result includes a cut on the photon energy at $`𝑬_{𝜸\mathbf{,}𝒎𝒊𝒏}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{0.05}𝒎_𝒃`$.

The QCD corrections are in fact dramatic; they increase the rate for $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ by about a factor of two. For example, already at the leading-log level we have $`𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒄_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{(}𝑴_𝑾\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{1.63}`$. Another indication of this fact is a substantial dependence of the leading-order result on the choice of the renormalization scale $`𝝁`$. This is usually estimated by varying the scale $`𝝁`$ between $`𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃`$. In this way one obtains a variation of $`𝜹_𝝁\mathbf{=}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{20.4}\mathbf{\%}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{27.4}\mathbf{\%}}`$ for the leading-order result.

Taking into account the subleading terms reduces the scale dependence substantially. In fact, one has at subleading order  $`𝜹_𝝁\mathbf{=}_{\mathbf{}\mathbf{3.2}\mathbf{\%}}^{\mathbf{+}\mathbf{0.1}\mathbf{\%}}`$, which is smaller than naively expected . It has been argued that the smallness of $`𝜹_𝝁`$ is accidental . However, arguments have been given recently  that these cancellations are not accidental. In fact, most of the large radiative corrections may be assigned to the running of the $`𝒃`$ quark mass appearing in the operator $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟕}`$.

## 3 PART II: Non-Perturbative Corrections

Non-perturbative corrections arise from different sources. We shall consider here

* Long-distance effects from intermediate vector mesons $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿𝑿_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$,
* Subleading terms in the heavy mass expansion: $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ corrections,
* Non-perturbative contributions to the photon spectrum (“shape function”).

### 3.1  $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿𝑿_𝒔\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$

One long-distance contribution comes from the process $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿`$ and the subsequent decay of the (off-shell) $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿`$ into a photon. The first process $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿`$ has a branching ratio of order 1%, at least for an on-shell $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿`$. Assuming that this is similar for the off-shell case, we have to multiply it with another factor $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ for the propagation of the $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿`$ and a factor $`𝒇_{𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, since the $`𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿`$ has to annihilate into a photon. This leads us to the conclusion that this contribution is indeed negligibly small. However, one has to keep in mind that some extrapolation from $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒎_{𝑱\mathbf{/}𝚿}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ to $`𝒒^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is involved, assuming that this will not lead to a strong enhancement.

### 3.2 $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ corrections

A set of “standard” non-perturbative corrections arises from the heavy mass expansion . As far as the total rate is concerned, we have the subleading corrections of order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$, which are parametrized in terms of the kinetic energy $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and the chromomagnetic moment $`𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ defined by the matrix elements

$`\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑯𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{|}𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{𝟔}𝑴_𝑯𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`\mathbf{}𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}\overline{𝒉}_𝒗𝝈_{𝝁𝝂}𝒊𝑫^𝝁𝒊𝑫^𝝂𝒉_𝒗\mathbf{|}𝑯\mathbf{(}𝒗\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}`$ (9)
In terms of these two matrix elements the total rate reads at tree level up to order $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

$$𝚪\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{\left(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟗}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right)}\mathbf{.}$$
(10)
This result is fully integrated over the photon energy spectrum. One can also compute the energy spectrum of the photon within the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ expansion, which is given, again at tree level, by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝒙}}\mathbf{=}{\displaystyle \frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟒}}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}`$ (11)
$`\mathbf{\left(}𝜹\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟑}𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝜹^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}𝜹^{\mathbf{\prime \prime }}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}\mathbf{\right)}`$
which can only be interpreted in terms of moments of the spectrum. We shall return to this point in the next subsection.

If the charm quark is also assumed to be heavy, one may discuss the charm-mass dependence in terms of a $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ expansion . The relevant contribution originates from the four-fermion operators (e.g. the operator $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}`$) involving the charm quark, see fig. 1. Expanding the matrix element of $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}`$ in powers of $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄`$ we obtain a local operator of the form

$$𝑶_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}\overline{𝒔}𝜸_𝝁\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝜸_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{)}𝑻^𝒂𝒃𝑮_{𝝂𝝀}^𝒂\mathit{ϵ}^{𝝁𝝂𝝆𝝈}\mathbf{}^𝝀𝑭_{𝝆𝝈}$$
(12)
which can interfere with the leading term $`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟕}`$ (see fig. 1).

The detailed calculation  reveals that this contribution is rather small

$$\frac{𝜹𝚪_{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}}{𝚪}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{𝑪_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟗}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}}\frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟐}}{𝒎_𝒄^\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}\mathbf{0.03}$$
(13)
### 3.3 Non-perturbative corrections in the photon energy spectrum

The non-perturbative corrections for the total rate are thus quite small and can safely be neglected against the perturbative ones. However, to extract the process $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ there has to be a lower cut on the photon energy to get rid of the uninteresting processes such as ordinary bremsstrahlung. Clearly it is desirable to have this cut as high as possible, but this makes the process “less inclusive” and hence more sensitive to non-perturbative contributions to the photon-energy spectrum.

Since we are dealing at tree level with a two-body decay, the naive calculation of the photon spectrum yields a $`𝜹`$ function at partonic level and the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^𝒏`$ corrections are again distributions located at the partonic energy $`𝑬_𝜸\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{/}\mathrm{𝟐}`$, see (11). Clearly (11) cannot be used to implement a cut on the photon energy spectrum, since this is not a smooth function.

The perturbative contributions have been calculated and yield a spectrum that is mainly determined by the bremsstrahlung of a radiated gluon. This part of the calculation is fully perturbative and enters the next-to-leading order analysis described in part I of this talk. In particular, the partonic $`𝜹`$ function smoothens and turns into “plus distributions” of the form

$$\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝒙}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝜶_𝒔}{𝝅}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝐥𝐧}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙}\mathbf{\right)}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{\left(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙}\mathbf{\right)}_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}$$
(14)
where the ellipses denote terms that are regular as $`𝒙\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and contributions proportional to $`𝜹\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$, which are determined by virtual gluons.

Here we shall focus on the non-perturbative contributions close to the endpoint. The general structure of the terms in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ expansion is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝒙}}`$ $`\mathbf{=}`$ $`𝚪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{[}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒊}{\mathbf{}}}𝒂_𝒊\mathbf{\left(}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{𝒎_𝒃}}\mathbf{\right)}^𝒊𝜹^{\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}`$
$`\mathbf{+}𝓞\mathbf{(}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{)}^{𝒊\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝜹^{\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}\mathbf{,}`$
where $`𝜹^{\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}}`$ is the $`𝒊`$th derivative of the $`𝜹`$ function.

It has been shown  that the terms with $`𝜹^{\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^𝒊`$ can be resummed into a non-perturbative function such that the photon energy spectrum becomes

$$\frac{𝒅𝚪}{𝒅𝒙}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝑮_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}𝜶𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟓}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}𝝅^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}𝑽_{𝒕𝒃^{\mathbf{}}}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{|}𝑪_\mathrm{𝟕}\mathbf{|}^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{[}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{]}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}$$
(16)
where the non-perturbative fuction $`𝒇`$ is formally defined by the matrix element

$$\mathrm{𝟐}𝑴_𝑩𝒇\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝑩\mathbf{|}\overline{𝑸}_𝒗𝜹\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{+}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒗\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}\mathbf{.}$$
(17)
Here $`𝑫_\mathbf{+}`$ is the light-cone component of the covariant derivative, acting on $`𝑸_𝒗`$, which denotes a heavy-quark field in the static approximation.

The shape function is in fact a universal function, which appears for any heavy-to-light transition in the corresponding kinematical region. In general these transitions should be written as a convolution of a (perturbatively calculable) Wilson coefficient and the non-perturbative matrix element

$$𝒅𝚪\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒅𝝎𝑪_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}𝑩\mathbf{|}𝑶_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{|}𝑩\mathbf{}$$
(18)
with

$$𝑶_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝑸}_𝒗𝜹\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{+}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒗$$
(19)
At tree level this leads to a simple and intuitive formula in which the mass $`𝒎_𝒃`$ is replaced by an “effective mass” $`𝒎_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{=}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝝎`$ such that

$$𝒅𝚪\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}𝒅𝝎𝒅𝚪_{𝒕𝒓𝒆𝒆}\mathbf{(}𝒎_𝒃\mathbf{}𝒎_𝒃^{\mathbf{}}\mathbf{)}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}$$
(20)
Since this function is universal, it appears in the semileptonic $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ transitions as well as in the $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ decays. At leading twist, this leads to a model-independent relation between these inclusive decays, which may be used to obtain $`\mathbf{|}𝑽_{𝒕𝒔}\mathbf{/}𝑽_{𝒖𝒃}\mathbf{|}`$ .

Moments of the shape function can be related to the parameters describing the subleading effects in the $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$ expansion. One has

$`{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅𝝎𝒇\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅𝝎𝝎𝒇\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{,}`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅𝝎𝝎^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝀_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{,}{\displaystyle \mathbf{}𝒅𝝎𝝎^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒇\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝆_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}𝒎_𝒃^\mathrm{𝟐}}}\mathbf{.}`$
Radiative corrections can be included using the machinery of effective field theory as described in part I. However, here some ambiguity arises from the appearance of a double logarithm (see (14)), which makes the matching ambiguous. Various authors  have used the mass convolution formula (20), although this has not yet been proven to be correct beyond the tree level.

Finally one may also try to resum the subleading terms in $`\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$, i.e. the terms of order $`𝜹^{\mathbf{(}𝒊\mathbf{)}}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}𝒙\mathbf{)}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^{𝒊\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ in (3.3). This has been discussed in , where it has been shown that the relevant operators are

$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟏}^𝝁\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\overline{𝑸}_𝒗\mathbf{\{}𝒊𝑫^𝝁\mathbf{,}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\}}𝑸_𝒗`$ (22)
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟐}^𝝁\mathbf{(}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒊\overline{𝑸}_𝒗\mathbf{[}𝒊𝑫^𝝁\mathbf{,}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝝎\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}𝑸_𝒗`$
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟑}^{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$ (23)
$`\overline{𝑸}_𝒗𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\{}𝒊𝑫_{\mathbf{}}^𝝁\mathbf{,}𝒊𝑫_{\mathbf{}}^𝝂\mathbf{\}}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒗`$
$`𝑶_\mathrm{𝟒}^{𝝁𝝂}\mathbf{(}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{,}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}`$
$`𝒈_𝒔\overline{𝑸}_𝒗𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}𝑮_{\mathbf{}}^{𝝁𝝂}𝜹\mathbf{(}𝒊𝑫_\mathbf{+}\mathbf{+}𝝎_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}𝑸_𝒗\mathbf{,}`$
plus the corresponding ones where a Pauli spin matrix appears between the quark spinors.

The effect of the subleading terms can be parametrized by four universal functions, which appear again in both $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒖\mathbf{}\overline{𝝂}`$ and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$. Using a simple but realistic model the effects of the subleading terms may be estimated as a function of the lower photon energy cut. In fig. 2 we plot the rate integrated from a lower cut as a function of this cut for various values of the parameters. As expected, the subleading terms at cut values of 2.3 GeV are of order 10% and negligibly small below 2.1 GeV.

## 4 PART III: “New Physics” in $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$

In the Standard Model, $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ is a loop-induced process; it thus has considerable sensitivity to new physics effects. However, as already pointed out in the introduction, any $`𝑩`$ physics experiment tests the coefficients $`𝒄_𝒊`$ appearing in the effective Hamiltonian (1) and thus all the information on new effects is encoded in combinations of the low-energy parameters $`𝒄_𝒊`$, which have to be computed in the Standard Model with the best possible accuracy. Comparing this to $`𝑩`$ decay data, it will clearly be impossible to find clean evidence for some specific scenario of new physics.

At present, no significant deviation from the Standard Model has been observed in $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ nor in any other $`𝑩`$ decay. Given that there are processes that are sensitive to new effects, $`𝑩`$ physics (and $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ in particular) can contribute to constrain new physics scenarios.

Keeping this in mind one may try various scenarios of new physics and calculate the effects on $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$, i.e. calculate the coefficients of the low energy effective Hamiltonian (1) in specific scenarios. There is an enormous variety of models for physics beyond the Standard Model on the market, and is is impossible to cover all these ideas.

For that reason I shall only consider two examples, which are instructive and demonstrate the kind of sensitivity one may expect. In the next subsection I shall consider the Type-II two-Higgs doublet model and in subsection 4.2 I shall discuss a few recent papers on supersymmetry with large values of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$.

### 4.1 Two-Higgs-Doublet Model (Type II)

One popular and consistent way to extend the Standard Model is to add one or more Higgs doublets. This can be done in various ways, but one well motivated way is to have two Higgs doublets where one doublet gives the mass to the up quarks, the other doublet to the down quarks.

Out of the eight degrees of freedom of the Higgs sector, three are needed to give mass to the heavy weak bosons, while the other five become physical states. In particular, the spectrum contains a charged Higgs boson, which appears in the loops relevant to $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$. The first analysis of this decay in this type of two-Higgs doublett model has been performed in .

The parameters of this model are the ratio of the two vacuum expectation values (usually expressed as $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷\mathbf{=}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{/}𝒗_\mathrm{𝟐}`$), the mass $`𝑴_{𝑯^\mathbf{+}}`$ of the charged Higgs boson, all other parameters are irrelevant for our discussion.

In fig. 3 (taken from ) the branching ratio of $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ is plotted as a function of the charged Higgs mass, for three different values of the renormalization scale $`𝝁`$.

In fig. 4 (taken from ) we plot contours in the $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$$`𝑴_{𝑯^\mathbf{+}}`$ plane for different values of the $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ branching ratio. From this figure it becomes clear that there is no large effect induced by enlarging $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$. One may derive bounds on the charged Higgs mass independently of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$; the current bound is $`𝑴_{𝑯^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{>}\mathrm{𝟑𝟏𝟒}`$ GeV at 95% CL . This does not yet include the new CLEO result , which will move the bound to even higher values.

### 4.2 Supersymmetry with large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$

If supersymmetry were an exact symmetry, $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ would vanish, owing to the cancellations between particles and sparticles . This means that $`𝒃\mathbf{}𝒔𝜸`$ tests the breaking of supersymmetry. Clearly many different scenarios for this symmetry breaking can be invented, having complicated flavour structure.

Again I shall pick an example from a recent analysis . In these papers it has been pointed out that $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ can indeed be enhanced in scenarios whith large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$. Working in the MSSM with a flavour-diagonal supersymmetry-breaking sector, the relevant parameters are the charged Higgs mass $`𝑴_{𝑯^\mathbf{+}}`$, the light stop mass $`𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒕}_\mathrm{𝟏}}`$, the supersymmetric $`𝝁`$ parameter, and the parameter $`𝑨_𝒕`$ from the sector of soft-supersymmetry breaking.

For large $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$, renormalization group methods may be used to resum these terms  and one may confront these results with the recent data. In fig. 5 (taken from ) we plot the rate for $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{𝐭𝐚𝐧}𝜷`$ for $`𝝁\mathbf{=}\mathbf{\pm }\mathrm{𝟓𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV; the values of the other parameters are $`𝑴_{𝑯^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV, $`𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒕}_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟐𝟓𝟎}`$ GeV, all other sparticle masses being at 800 GeV.

A similar plot can be made for negative $`𝑨_𝒕`$, but for the parameters chosen here this scenario is already practically excluded.

Given such a scenario, one may also scan over some range for the parameters and identify regions that are still allowed by the experimental constraints. In fig. 6 such a scan was performed with $`𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒕}_\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{}𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝒕}_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ TeV, $`𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝌}_\mathrm{𝟐}^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{}𝒎_{\stackrel{\mathbf{~}}{𝝌}_\mathrm{𝟏}^\mathbf{+}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ TeV, $`\mathbf{|}𝑨_𝒕\mathbf{|}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓𝟎𝟎}`$ GeV, all other sparticle masses being 1 TeV.

Clearly $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ places significant constraints on the parameter space of certain supersymmetric scenarios; however, these studies have been performed with a flavour diagonal supersymmetry-breaking sector. An analysis witout this constraint can be found in

## 5 Conclusion

The inclusive radiative rare decay $`𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸`$ is under reasonable theoretical control; the latest theoretical prediction  is slightly higher than (7)

$$𝑩𝒓_{𝒕𝒉}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{3.71}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.30}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}$$

where the difference originates from a different value for the ratio $`𝒎_𝒄\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃`$; while  use the ratio of pole masses, in  $`𝒎_𝒄^{\overline{𝑴𝑺}}\mathbf{/}𝒎_𝒃^{𝑷𝒐𝒍𝒆}`$ is is used as an “educated guess” of NNLO corrections.

The latest (combined) experimental result is

$$𝑩𝒓_{𝒆𝒙𝒑}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}𝑩\mathbf{}𝑿_𝒔𝜸\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{2.96}\mathbf{\pm }\mathbf{0.35}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{\times }\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}^\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{,}$$
(24)
which is in agreement with theory within $`\mathbf{1.6}𝝈`$.

The theoretical uncertainty is mainly determined by our ignorance of some of the input parameters (quark masses, mixing angles) and to some extent also by the uncertainty of higher-order radiative corrections. Improving the current theoretical uncertainty will be very difficult with current theoretical tools.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Toni Sanda for organizing such an exciting meeting in such a beautiful place, Tobias Hurth for comments on the manuscript, and Paolo Gambino for useful discussions.