format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The decay $`\overline{B}X_s\gamma `$ constitutes a stringent test of the Standard Model (SM) and many of its extensions. In the theoretical prediction for its branching ratio, crucial role is played by the NLO QCD corrections to the $`bs\gamma `$ partonic amplitude. In the introduction to our previous article , status of the NLO calculations has been summarized. The only missing elements were two-loop matrix elements of the so-called QCD-penguin operators.

The present paper is devoted to evaluation of these matrix elements. Our results for two-loop diagrams are presented in such a manner that they can be applied to an arbitrary extension of the SM where additional four-quark operators arise, e.g. to the generic MSSM. Thus, apart from completing the NLO QCD calculation in the SM, we provide an important ingredient for analyses of new physics effects. Moreover, contrary to previous calculations , no expansion in the mass ratio $`m_c/m_b`$ is performed.

The article is organized as follows. In the next section, the relevant definitions are collected. In section 3, we summarize our results for the matrix elements, and describe consequences for BR$`[\overline{B}X_s\gamma ]`$ in the SM. Section 4 contains details of the calculation for one set of the two-loop diagrams. For the remaining sets, we present only the final expressions in section 5. The renormalization procedure is described in section 6. Section 7 contains our conclusions.

## 2 The effective Hamiltonian

In the SM, the $`bs\gamma `$ transition is mediated by the effective Hamiltonian111 It is written in terms of bare quantities here. The renormalized interaction terms can be found in eq. (6.1).$`^,`$ 222For simplicity, we set $`V_{ub}`$ to zero in all our formulae. However, its non-zero value will be included in the phenomenological analysis, as in eq. (3.7) of ref. .

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}C_kP_k,$$
(2.1)
where $`C_k`$ are the Wilson coefficients and $`P_k`$ stand for the following operators:

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^ac_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu T^ab_L),`$
$`P_2`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L),`$
$`P_3`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q),(q=u,d,s,c,b)`$
$`P_4`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu T^ab_L){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu T^aq),`$
$`P_5`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho b_L){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho q),`$
$`P_6`$ $`=`$ $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\rho T^ab_L){\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}(\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho T^aq),`$
$`P_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{16\pi ^2}}m_b(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }b_R)F_{\mu \nu },`$
$`P_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{16\pi ^2}}m_b(\overline{s}_L\sigma ^{\mu \nu }T^ab_R)G_{\mu \nu }^a.`$ (2.2)
In order to match our computation with the NLO results for $`C_k`$, we adopt here the same operator basis as in ref. .

Instead of the original Wilson coefficients $`C_k`$ it is convenient to use certain linear combinations of them, the so-called “effective coefficients”

$$C_k^{\mathrm{eff}}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}C_k,\hfill & & \text{ for }k=1,\mathrm{},6,\hfill \\ C_7+_{i=1}^6y_iC_i,\hfill & & \text{ for }k=7,\hfill \\ C_8+_{i=1}^6z_iC_i,\hfill & & \text{ for }k=8.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
The numbers $`y_i`$ and $`z_i`$ are defined so that the leading-order $`bs\gamma `$ and $`bsgluon`$ matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian are proportional to the leading-order terms in $`C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`C_8^{\mathrm{eff}}`$, respectively. In the NDR scheme,

$$\stackrel{}{y}=(0,0,\frac{1}{3},\frac{4}{9},\frac{20}{3},\frac{80}{9}),\stackrel{}{z}=(0,0,1,\frac{1}{6},20,\frac{10}{3}).$$
(2.4)
The renormalization group equations for the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized effective coefficients read

$$\mu \frac{d}{d\mu }C_i^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )=C_j^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )\gamma _{ji}^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu ).$$
(2.5)
Explicit results for the coefficients

$$C_i^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )=C_i^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )+\frac{\alpha _s(\mu )}{4\pi }C_i^{(1)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)$$
(2.6)
and the matrix

$$\widehat{\gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}+\left(\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\right)^2\widehat{\gamma }^{(1)\mathrm{eff}}+𝒪(\alpha _s^3)$$
(2.7)
can be found in ref.  (see also eq. (6.3) here). The partonic decay rate from eqs. (29)–(32) of that article can be expressed as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[bX_s\gamma ]^{E_\gamma >E_0}=\frac{G_F^2\alpha _{em}m_b^5}{32\pi ^4}\left|V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\right|^2\left[|D|^2+A+𝒪(\alpha _s^2,\alpha _{em})\right],$$
(2.8)
where, for $`\mu m_b`$,

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{Terms}\mathrm{proportional}\mathrm{to}C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ 1k8\\ k7\end{array}}{}}C_k^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )\left[r_k+\gamma _{k7}^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right],`$ (2.12)
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{Terms}\mathrm{proportional}\mathrm{to}|C_7^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}(\mu )|^2\right)+\left(\mathrm{Terms}\mathrm{vanishing}\mathrm{when}E_0{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{2}}\right).`$ (2.13)
For $`k=1,..,6`$, the quantities $`r_k`$ in eq. (2.12) can be found by calculating the two-loop $`bs\gamma `$ matrix elements of the four-quark operators $`P_k`$. The relevant Feynman diagrams are presented in fig. 1, where the square boxes denote the operator insertions. On the other hand, $`r_8`$ is given by the one-loop matrix element of $`P_8`$.

## 3 Final results for $`r_k`$ and consequences for BR$`[\overline{B}X_s\gamma ]`$

Calculation of $`r_k`$ in eq. (2.12) has been the main goal of the present paper. For $`k=1,2,8`$, we confirm the findings of refs. . For $`k=3,\mathrm{},6`$, our results are new. Altogether, they read

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill r_1& =& \frac{833}{729}\frac{1}{3}[a(z)+b(z)]+\frac{40}{243}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill r_2& =& \frac{1666}{243}+2[a(z)+b(z)]\frac{80}{81}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill r_3& =& \frac{2392}{243}+\frac{8\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}+\frac{32}{9}X_ba(1)+2b(1)+\frac{56}{81}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill r_4& =& \frac{761}{729}\frac{4\pi }{9\sqrt{3}}\frac{16}{27}X_b+\frac{1}{6}a(1)+\frac{5}{3}b(1)+2b(z)\frac{148}{243}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill r_5& =& \frac{56680}{243}+\frac{32\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}+\frac{128}{9}X_b16a(1)+32b(1)+\frac{896}{81}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill r_6& =& \frac{5710}{729}\frac{16\pi }{9\sqrt{3}}\frac{64}{27}X_b\frac{10}{3}a(1)+\frac{44}{3}b(1)+12a(z)+20b(z)\frac{2296}{243}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill r_8& =& \frac{44}{9}\frac{8}{27}\pi ^2+\frac{8}{9}i\pi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.1)
where $`z=m_c^2/m_b^2`$. Similar ratios for the light quarks ($`u`$, $`d`$, $`s`$) have been set to zero. The constant $`X_b`$ is given by

$$X_b=_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑vxy\mathrm{ln}\left[v+x(1x)(1v)(1v+vy)\right]0.1684.$$
(3.2)
Exact expressions for the functions $`a(z)`$ and $`b(z)`$ are as follows:

$`a(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{8}{9}{\displaystyle _0^1}dx{\displaystyle _0^1}dy{\displaystyle _0^1}dv\{[2v+xy(2v3)]\mathrm{ln}[vz+x(1x)(1v)(1v+vy)]`$ (3.3)
$`+[1v+xy(2v1)]\mathrm{ln}[zi\epsilon x(1x)yv]\}+\frac{43}{9}+\frac{4}{9}i\pi ,`$
$`b(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{4}{81}\mathrm{ln}z+\frac{16}{27}z^2+\frac{224}{81}z\frac{92}{243}+\frac{4}{81}i\pi +\frac{48z^264z+4}{81}\sqrt{14z}f(z)\frac{8}{9}z^2\left(\frac{2}{3}z1\right)f(z)^2`$ (3.4)
$`\frac{8}{9}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}y^2(y^21)x(1x)+(2y)u_1\mathrm{ln}u_1+(2y^22y1)u_2\mathrm{ln}u_2}{(1y)^2}},`$
with $`u_k=y^kx(1x)+(1y)z`$, $`\sqrt{1}=+i`$ and

$$f(z)=\theta (14z)\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{1+\sqrt{14z}}{1\sqrt{14z}}i\pi \right)2i\theta (4z1)\mathrm{arctan}\frac{1}{\sqrt{4z1}}.$$
(3.5)
Additive constants in the functions $`a`$ and $`b`$ have been chosen in such a manner that $`a(0)=b(0)=0`$. Our results for $`a(1)`$ and $`b(1)`$ read

$`a(1)`$ $``$ $`4.0859+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}i\pi ,`$ (3.6)
$`b(1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{320}{81}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{632}{1215}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{8}{45}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)}{dx^2}}\right]_{x=\frac{1}{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{81}}i\pi 0.0316+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{81}}i\pi .`$ (3.7)
There is no need to apply numerical integration for $`z=m_c^2/m_b^20.1`$, because, as illustrated in fig. 2, both functions are then accurately given by their expansions in $`z`$ ,

(3.8)
$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a(z)& =& \frac{16}{9}\{[\frac{5}{2}\frac{1}{3}\pi ^23\zeta (3)+(\frac{5}{2}\frac{3}{4}\pi ^2)L+\frac{1}{4}L^2+\frac{1}{12}L^3]z\hfill \\ & & +\left[\frac{7}{4}+\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2\frac{1}{2}\pi ^2L\frac{1}{4}L^2+\frac{1}{12}L^3\right]z^2+\left[\frac{7}{6}\frac{1}{4}\pi ^2+2L\frac{3}{4}L^2\right]z^3\hfill \\ & & +\left[\frac{457}{216}\frac{5}{18}\pi ^2\frac{1}{72}L\frac{5}{6}L^2\right]z^4+\left[\frac{35101}{8640}\frac{35}{72}\pi ^2\frac{185}{144}L\frac{35}{24}L^2\right]z^5\hfill \\ & & +[\frac{67801}{8000}\frac{21}{20}\pi ^2\frac{3303}{800}L\frac{63}{20}L^2]z^6+i\pi [(2\frac{1}{6}\pi ^2+\frac{1}{2}L+\frac{1}{2}L^2)z\hfill \\ & & +(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{6}\pi ^2L+\frac{1}{2}L^2)z^2+z^3+\frac{5}{9}z^4+\frac{49}{72}z^5+\frac{231}{200}z^6]\}+𝒪(z^7L^2),\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.14)
$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill b(z)& =& \frac{8}{9}\{(3+\frac{1}{6}\pi ^2L)z\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2z^{3/2}+(\frac{1}{2}+\pi ^22L\frac{1}{2}L^2)z^2\hfill \\ & & +\left(\frac{25}{12}\frac{1}{9}\pi ^2\frac{19}{18}L+2L^2\right)z^3+\left[\frac{1376}{225}+\frac{137}{30}L+2L^2+\frac{2}{3}\pi ^2\right]z^4\hfill \\ & & +\left[\frac{131317}{11760}+\frac{887}{84}L+5L^2+\frac{5}{3}\pi ^2\right]z^5+\left[\frac{2807617}{97200}+\frac{16597}{540}L+14L^2+\frac{14}{3}\pi ^2\right]z^6\hfill \\ & & +i\pi [z+(12L)z^2+(\frac{10}{9}+\frac{4}{3}L)z^3+z^4+\frac{2}{3}z^5+\frac{7}{9}z^6]\}+𝒪(z^7L^2),\hfill \end{array}`$ (3.19)
where $`L=\mathrm{ln}z`$.

The numerical values of $`r_k`$ for two different values of $`m_c/m_b`$ are presented in table 1. We observe that the real parts of $`r_3`$ and $`r_5`$ are considerably larger than the remaining ones. If $`r_4`$ were as large as $`r_3`$, its effect on the SM branching ratio would be around 6%. On the other hand, the size of $`r_5`$ is somewhat artificial — it is due in part to the lack of a “natural” factor $`\frac{1}{16}`$ in the definition of $`P_5`$ (2.2).

In order to calculate BR$`[\overline{B}X_s\gamma ]`$, we use the NLO formulae collected in ref. . The only elements that must be modified due to non-zero values of $`r_3`$, …, $`r_6`$ are the so-called “magic numbers”. Their updated values are presented in table 2. Once they are used, and the same computer program with the same numerical inputs is applied,333 One exception is $`\epsilon _{ew}`$ from eq. (4.6) of ref.  which we change to 0.0071 according to ref. . This modification slightly diminishes the net effect on the branching ratio. we find

$$\mathrm{BR}[\overline{B}X_s\gamma ]_{E_\gamma >1.6\mathrm{GeV}}^{\mathrm{subtracted}\psi ,\psi ^{}}=(3.57\pm 0.30)\times 10^4,$$
(3.21)
which is only a little lower than $`(3.60\pm 0.30)\times 10^4`$ in eq. (4.14) of ref. . For the cutoff energy of $`\frac{1}{20}m_b`$ (which corresponds to the fake “total rate”), the effect on the branching ratio is the same: the central value decreases from $`3.73\times 10^4`$ to $`3.70\times 10^4`$.

Such a small effect of the non-zero values of $`r_3`$, …, $`r_6`$ is due to smallness of the Wilson coefficients of the corresponding operators. In ref. , this effect was estimated to be around 1%. For that reason, the NLO QCD computation was called “practically complete” already at that time. However, it becomes strictly complete only now, when we learn exactly what the effect is and in what direction it acts.

## 4 Example of a two-loop diagram calculation: $`G_3`$

In the present section, we describe in detail the calculation of the two diagrams denoted by $`G_3`$ in fig. 1. We choose $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L)`$ for the inserted operator. Here, contrary to refs. , no expansion in $`z`$ is performed, because the limit $`z1`$ is relevant for operators that contain three $`b`$-quarks. The UV divergences are regularized dimensionally. We treat $`\gamma _5`$ as fully anticommuting in $`D=42ϵ`$ dimensions. The $`s`$-quark is assumed to be massless.

The considered Feynman integral can be written as follows

$$G_3^{(1)}=\frac{d^Dk}{k^2(q+k)^2}\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (q\text{/}+k\text{/})\gamma _\rho P_LJ_{\mu \nu }e^\mu \gamma ^\rho P_Lb,$$
(4.1)
where

$$J_{\mu \nu }=\frac{d^Dp}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left\{[p\text{/}+k\text{/}+m_c]\gamma _\nu [p\text{/}+m_c]\gamma _\mu [p\text{/}+r\text{/}+m_c][p\text{/}+r\text{/}m_c]\gamma _\mu [p\text{/}m_c]\gamma _\nu [p\text{/}+k\text{/}m_c]\right\}$$
(4.2)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=[(p+k)^2m_c^2][(p+r)^2m_c^2][p^2m_c^2].$$
(4.3)
Here, $`r`$ and $`q`$ stand for the outgoing photon and $`s`$-quark momenta, respectively. The momentum $`p`$ runs inside the $`c`$-quark loop, while $`k`$ is the gluon momentum. The polarization vector of the photon is denoted by $`e^\mu `$.

Let us first consider the one-loop subgraph $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ for arbitrary off-shell momenta of the quarks, the gluon and the photon. The necessary one-loop integrals read

$`{\displaystyle d^Dp/\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $``$ $`a,`$ (4.4)
$`{\displaystyle d^Dpp_\alpha /\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`bk_\alpha +cr_\alpha ,`$ (4.5)
$`{\displaystyle d^Dpp_\alpha p_\beta /\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ $`=`$ $`dm_c^2g_{\alpha \beta }+ek_\alpha k_\beta +fr_\alpha r_\beta +g(k_\alpha r_\beta +r_\alpha k_\beta ).`$ (4.6)
There is no need to consider $`p_\alpha p_\beta p_\gamma `$ in the numerator, because $`p\text{/}\gamma _\nu p\text{/}\gamma _\mu p\text{/}p\text{/}\gamma _\mu p\text{/}\gamma _\nu p\text{/}=p^2(p\text{/}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu p\text{/})`$. The coefficients $`a,\mathrm{},g`$ are not all independent. The following relations can be found by considering various contractions of the tensor integrals:

$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ac2g(c+2f){\displaystyle \frac{kr}{k^2}},`$ (4.7)
$`d`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8ϵm_c^2}}\left[a(k^24m_c^2)+2c(kr+k^23r^2)+4f(kr2r^2)+4g(k^22kr)\right],`$ (4.8)
$`e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c+g+(c+2f){\displaystyle \frac{kr+r^2}{2k^2}}.`$ (4.9)
After performing the Dirac algebra with the above relations taken into account, one arrives at the following result:

$$J_{\mu \nu }=bV_{\mu \nu }^b+cV_{\mu \nu }^c+fV_{\mu \nu }^f+gV_{\mu \nu }^g+m_c\left[aP_{\mu \nu }^a+(c+2f)P_{\mu \nu }^{cf}+gP_{\mu \nu }^g\right],$$
(4.10)
where

$`V_{\mu \nu }^b`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}\right),`$
$`V_{\mu \nu }^c`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{2r^2}{k^2}}\left(X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}\right),`$
$`V_{\mu \nu }^f`$ $`=`$ $`4\left(\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4r^2}{k^2}}\left(X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}\right),`$
$`V_{\mu \nu }^g`$ $`=`$ $`4\left[(r\text{/}k\text{/})X_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}+X_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}\right],`$
$`P_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(X_{\mu \nu }^{(5)}X_{\mu \nu }^{(6)}\right),`$
$`P_{\mu \nu }^{cf}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{k^2}}X_{\mu \nu }^{(7)},`$
$`P_{\mu \nu }^g`$ $`=`$ $`8X_{\mu \nu }^{(1)},`$ (4.11)
and

$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`krg_{\mu \nu }k_\mu r_\nu ,`$
$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`r\text{/}(k^2g_{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu )\gamma _\mu (k^2r_\nu krk_\nu ),`$
$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(k^2\gamma _\nu k\text{/}k_\nu )\sigma _{\alpha \mu }r^\alpha ,`$
$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`i(kr\gamma _\mu r\text{/}k_\mu )\sigma _{\alpha \nu }k^\alpha ,`$
$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _{\alpha \nu }k^\alpha \sigma _{\beta \mu }r^\beta ,`$
$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left[\sigma _{\mu \nu }kr\sigma _{\alpha \beta }k^\alpha r^\beta g_{\mu \nu }+\sigma _{\alpha \mu }k^\alpha r_\nu \sigma _{\alpha \nu }r^\alpha k_\mu \right],`$
$`X_{\mu \nu }^{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2r^2g_{\mu \nu }r^2k_\mu k_\nu k^2r_\mu r_\nu +krk_\nu r_\mu .`$ (4.12)
The structures $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}`$ are obtained from $`X_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}`$ by interchanging $`\mu \nu `$ and $`kr`$, i.e.$`\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}(k,r)=X_{\nu \mu }^{(n)}(r,k)`$. Note that each of those structures vanishes under contractions with $`k^\nu `$ and $`r^\mu `$. This is a manifestation of the Ward identities $`k^\nu J_{\mu \nu }=r^\mu J_{\mu \nu }=0`$.

Once we have found the one-loop integral $`J_{\mu \nu }`$, we should complete the remaining Dirac algebra in $`G_3^{(1)}`$ (4.1). Given our explicit expressions for the structures $`X_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}_{\mu \nu }^{(k)}`$, it is easy to verify that

$$\gamma _\rho P_LJ_{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\rho P_L=(2+2ϵ)P_R\left[bV_{\mu \nu }^b+cV_{\mu \nu }^c+fV_{\mu \nu }^f+gV_{\mu \nu }^g\right].$$
(4.13)
Consequently, in our present calculation of the matrix element of $`(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu c_L)(\overline{c}_L\gamma ^\mu b_L)`$, the terms proportional to $`m_c`$ in $`J_{\mu \nu }`$ (4.10) are irrelevant. Nevertheless, we have presented them explicitly here because they matter for other operators.

From now on, we shall impose the on-shell conditions for the quarks and the photon:$`q^2=r^2=0`$, $`qr=\frac{1}{2}m_b^2`$, $`\overline{s}q\text{/}=0`$ and $`(q\text{/}+r\text{/})b=m_bb`$. For an arbitrary scalar function $`F(k^2,kr,kq)`$, we find the following identities:

$`{\displaystyle d^DkF(k^2,kr,kq)\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (q\text{/}+k\text{/})V_{\mu \nu }^be^\mu b}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{proportional}\mathrm{to}\overline{s}e\text{/}b\mathrm{and}(er)\overline{s}b]`$ (4.14)
$`+m_b\overline{s}(e\text{/}r\text{/}r\text{/}e\text{/})b{\displaystyle d^DkF(k^2,kr,kq)\left[(k+q)^2\frac{kr}{m_b^2}k^2\left(1+\frac{2kr}{m_b^2}\right)\right]},`$
$`{\displaystyle d^DkF(k^2,kr,kq)\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (q\text{/}+k\text{/})V_{\mu \nu }^ce^\mu b}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{proportional}\mathrm{to}\overline{s}e\text{/}b\mathrm{and}(er)\overline{s}b],`$ (4.15)
$`{\displaystyle d^DkF(k^2,kr,kq)\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (q\text{/}+k\text{/})V_{\mu \nu }^fe^\mu b}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{proportional}\mathrm{to}\overline{s}e\text{/}b\mathrm{and}(er)\overline{s}b],`$ (4.16)
$`{\displaystyle d^DkF(k^2,kr,kq)\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (q\text{/}+k\text{/})V_{\mu \nu }^ge^\mu b}`$ $`=`$ $`[\mathrm{terms}\mathrm{proportional}\mathrm{to}\overline{s}e\text{/}b\mathrm{and}(er)\overline{s}b]`$ (4.17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{m_b\overline{s}(e\text{/}r\text{/}r\text{/}e\text{/})b}{1ϵ}}{\displaystyle d^DkF(k^2,kr,kq)\left[2ϵ(k+q)^2\frac{kr}{m_b^2}k^2\left(1+(23ϵ+2ϵ^2)\frac{2kr}{m_b^2}\right)\right]}.`$
Consequently, $`G_3^{(1)}`$ (4.1) takes the following form

$$G_3^{(1)}=4\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ)\pi ^Dm_b^{4ϵ}\overline{s}P_R\left\{R_3^{(1)}m_b(e\text{/}r\text{/}r\text{/}e\text{/})+R_3^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}m_ber+R_3^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(1)}e\text{/}\right\}b,$$
(4.18)
where

$`R_3^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1+ϵ)m_b^{4ϵ}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ)\pi ^D}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{k^2(k+q)^2}}\{b(k^2,kr)[(k+q)^2{\displaystyle \frac{kr}{m_b^2}}k^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2kr}{m_b^2}})]`$ (4.19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{g(k^2,kr)}{1ϵ}}[2ϵ(k+q)^2{\displaystyle \frac{kr}{m_b^2}}k^2(1+(23ϵ+2ϵ^2){\displaystyle \frac{2kr}{m_b^2}})]\}.`$
As discussed in the next section, we do not need to calculate $`R_3^{{}_{}{}^{}(1)}`$ and $`R_3^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(1)}`$. The overall normalization factor in eq. (4.18) is chosen in such a manner that the $`𝒪(1)`$ part of $`R_3^{(1)}`$ is equal to the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{M}_3`$ from our previous article  (see eqs. (2.6) and (2.11) there).

The terms proportional to $`(k+q)^2kr`$ in the curly bracket of eq. (4.19) give vanishing integrals over $`k`$. Consequently, $`R_3^{(1)}`$ simplifies to

$$R_3^{(1)}=\frac{(1+ϵ)m_b^{4ϵ}}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ)\pi ^D}\frac{d^Dk}{(k+q)^2+i\epsilon }\left[\left(1+\frac{2kr}{m_b^2}\right)b+\left(1+(23ϵ+2ϵ^2)\frac{2kr}{m_b^2}\right)\frac{g}{1ϵ}\right].$$
(4.20)
Now, we need explicit expressions for $`b`$ and $`g`$. They can be easily found from eqs. (4.5) and (4.6) with the help of Feynman parameters

$`b(k^2,kr)`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi ^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{x^ϵ(1x)^ϵ}{[(kyr)^2+\frac{m_c^2i\epsilon }{x(1x)}]^{1+ϵ}}},`$ (4.21)
$`g(k^2,kr)`$ $`=`$ $`i\pi ^{D/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ϵ){\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{x^ϵ(1x)^ϵ}{[(kyr)^2+\frac{m_c^2i\epsilon }{x(1x)}]^{1+ϵ}}}(xy).`$ (4.22)
Introducing another Feynman parameter and integrating over $`k`$, one obtains

$$R_3^{(1)}=\frac{1+ϵ}{4ϵ(1ϵ)}_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v\frac{(1ϵ)v+xy[(1v)(23ϵ+2ϵ^2)1]}{x^ϵ(1x)^ϵv^ϵ[zi\epsilon x(1x)y(1v)]^{2ϵ}},$$
(4.23)
where $`z=m_c^2/m_b^2`$. After expanding the integrand to $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ and performing the easy integrations, we find

$$R_3^{(1)}=\frac{1}{8ϵ}+\frac{1}{8}+\frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v[1v+xy(2v1)]\mathrm{ln}[zi\epsilon x(1x)yv].$$
(4.24)
In the next section, analogous results for all the diagrams in fig. 1 will be presented.

## 5 Results for the unrenormalized two-loop diagrams

In the present section, we shall be interested in the unrenormalized two-loop 1PI on-shell $`bs\gamma `$ diagrams with insertions of the following 4-quark operators:

$`Q^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4^{n1}}}(\overline{s}P_R\gamma _{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\alpha _n}c)(\overline{c}\gamma ^{\alpha _n}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{\alpha _1}P_Lb),`$ (5.1)
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4^{n1}}}(\overline{s}P_R\gamma _{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\alpha _n}c)(\overline{c}\gamma ^{\alpha _n}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{\alpha _1}P_Rb).`$ (5.2)
The corresponding diagrams in fig. 1 will be denoted by $`G_k^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{(n)}`$, respectively. Their overall normalization is assumed to be the same as in eq. (4.1), e.g.

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_3^{(n)}=\frac{1}{4^{n1}}\frac{d^Dk}{k^2(q+k)^2}\overline{s}\gamma ^\nu (q\text{/}+k\text{/})P_R\gamma _{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\alpha _n}J_{\mu \nu }e^\mu \gamma ^{\alpha _n}\mathrm{}\gamma ^{\alpha _1}P_Rb.$$
(5.3)
The operators $`Q^{(0)}`$, $`Q^{(1)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(0)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(1)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(2)}`$ together with their mirror copies and analogous operators with color-octet currents form a complete set of dimension-six $`(\overline{s}c)(\overline{c}b)`$ operators in four spacetime dimensions. Extending our results to $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=\mathrm{\Delta }S=1`$ four-quark operators with other flavor contents is straightforward, as we perform no expansion in the ratio $`m_c/m_b`$.

For the operators $`Q^{(n)}`$, only the diagrams $`G_1^{(n)}`$, …, $`G_4^{(n)}`$ matter. The remaining ones in fig. 1 vanish due to chirality conservation in the charm-quark loop and QED gauge invariance.

For $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(n)}`$, the set $`\stackrel{~}{G}_7^{(n)}`$ gives no contribution on-shell, i.e. it cancels with the corresponding 1PR diagrams, because it is proportional to the matrix element of a two-quark operator $`\overline{s}P_Rb`$ that vanishes by the equations of motion, up to a total derivative

$$\overline{s}P_Rb=\frac{1}{m_b}\left[\overline{s}P_R(D\text{/}m_b)b+\overline{s}\stackrel{}{D\text{/}}P_Lb^\mu \left(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu P_Lb\right)\right].$$
(5.4)
The diagram $`\stackrel{~}{G}_6^{(n)}`$ is just a product of two one-loop diagrams. It contains an IR divergence that cancels out only after adding the corresponding bremsstrahlung corrections. However, for all the $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(n)}`$ except $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(0)}`$ (which is of no interest in the SM), the effect of those diagrams can be taken into account by the standard replacement $`C_7C_7^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (see section 6). Thus, we shall ignore $`\stackrel{~}{G}_6^{(n)}`$ in this section, i.e. we shall consider only $`\stackrel{~}{G}_1^{(n)}`$, …., $`\stackrel{~}{G}_5^{(n)}`$ for the operators $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(n)}`$.

By analogy to eq. (4.18), we write

$$G_k^{(n)}=4\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2ϵ)\pi ^Dm_b^{4ϵ}\overline{s}P_R\left\{R_k^{(n)}m_b(e\text{/}r\text{/}r\text{/}e\text{/})+R_k^{{}_{}{}^{}(n)}m_ber+R_k^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }(n)}e\text{/}\right\}b,$$
(5.5)
and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{(n)}`$. Below, we shall present our results for the coefficients in front of $`(e\text{/}r\text{/}r\text{/}e\text{/})`$ only. Due to QED gauge invariance, the remaining Dirac structures must cancel out when all the 1PI and 1PR diagrams are included. No explicit calculation of the 1PR diagrams is necessary, as they can give no $`(e\text{/}r\text{/}r\text{/}e\text{/})`$ structure.

We have found the following expressions for $`R_k^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_k^{(n)}`$:

$$R_1^{(1)}=\frac{1}{36ϵ}\frac{1}{18}\mathrm{ln}z\frac{2}{3}z^2\frac{47}{18}z+\frac{37}{216}+\frac{12z^2+16z1}{18}\sqrt{14z}f(z)+\frac{z^2(2z3)}{3}f(z)^2,$$
(5.6)
$`R_2^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{36ϵ}}+{\displaystyle \frac{35}{72}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}z+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}y^2(y^21)x(1x)+(2y)u_1\mathrm{ln}u_1+(2y^22y1)u_2\mathrm{ln}u_2}{(1y)^2}},`$
(5.7)
$$R_3^{(1)}=\frac{1}{8ϵ}+\frac{1}{8}+\frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v[1v+xy(2v1)]\mathrm{ln}[zi\epsilon x(1x)vy],$$
(5.8)
$$R_4^{(1)}=\frac{1}{4ϵ}+\frac{3}{4}+\frac{1}{2}_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v[2v+xy(2v3)]\mathrm{ln}[vz+x(1x)(1v)(1v+vy)],$$
(5.9)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}_1^{(1)}=\sqrt{z}\{\frac{1}{4ϵ}\frac{11+4i\pi }{8}+ϵ\left[\frac{10\pi ^28544i\pi }{16}+_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v\frac{v}{y}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\frac{yz}{x(1x)(1v)}+i\epsilon \right)\right]\},$$
(5.10)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}_2^{(1)}=\sqrt{z}\{\frac{1}{4ϵ}+\frac{4\pi ^251}{24}+ϵ\left[\frac{6\pi ^2171+80\zeta (3)}{16}+_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y\left(\frac{y3}{22y}\mathrm{Li}_2(w_1)+\frac{y(32y)}{1y}\mathrm{Li}_2(w_2)\right)\right]\},$$
(5.11)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}_3^{(n)}=\sqrt{z}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{n2}{4ϵ}\frac{n2}{2}\mathrm{ln}z\frac{n}{8}+1+z\frac{2z+1}{2}\sqrt{14z}f(z)+z(1z)f(z)^2,\hfill & \text{n}\mathrm{odd},\hfill \\ Y^{(n)}+_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v\left\{\frac{12x^2y}{x}\mathrm{ln}\left[zx(1x)vyi\epsilon \right]\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{ln}z\right\},\hfill & \text{n}\mathrm{even},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.12)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}_4^{(n)}=\sqrt{z}\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{n2}{4ϵ}+\frac{3n}{2}\mathrm{ln}z\frac{n+6}{8}2_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑vxy\mathrm{ln}\frac{zv+x(1x)(1v)(1v+vy)}{v},\hfill & \text{n}\mathrm{odd},\hfill \\ Y^{(n)}+_0^1𝑑x_0^1𝑑y_0^1𝑑v\left\{\frac{12x^2y}{x}\mathrm{ln}\frac{zv+x(1x)(1v)(1v+vy)}{v}\frac{1}{x}\mathrm{ln}z\right\},\hfill & \text{n}\mathrm{even},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.13)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}_5^{(1)}=\frac{\sqrt{z}}{4}\left[\frac{1}{ϵ}2\mathrm{ln}z\frac{5}{2}+ϵ\left(\frac{3}{4}\frac{\pi ^2}{6}+5\mathrm{ln}z+2\mathrm{ln}^2z\right)\right],$$
(5.14)
where $`Y^{(n)}=\frac{1}{2ϵ^2}+\frac{1}{ϵ}\left(\mathrm{ln}z+\frac{1}{4}\right)\mathrm{ln}^2z+\frac{\pi ^2}{12}\frac{n^25n+6}{16}`$ and $`w_k=\frac{(y1)z}{x(1x)y^k}`$. The variables $`u_k`$ and the function $`f(z)`$ are as in $`b(z)`$ in eq. (3.4).

We have presented $`\stackrel{~}{R}_3^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_4^{(n)}`$ for arbitrary $`n`$, while $`n=1`$ was assumed otherwise. In those cases, results for other $`n`$ can be found from the following simple relations:

$`G_k^{(n+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1+ϵ}{2}G_k^{(n)},\hfill & \mathrm{for}k=1,2,\hfill & (\mathrm{because}\gamma _\alpha \gamma _\mu \gamma ^\alpha =(2+2ϵ)\gamma _\mu ),\hfill \\ \frac{+1+ϵ}{2}G_k^{(n)},\hfill & \mathrm{for}k=3,4,\hfill & \text{(see eq. (}\text{4.13}\text{))},\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.17)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{(n+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{ϵ}{2}\stackrel{~}{G}_k^{(n)},\mathrm{for}k=1,2,5,(\mathrm{because}\gamma _\alpha \sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^\alpha =2ϵ\sigma _{\mu \nu }).`$ (5.18)
The overall factor of $`ϵ`$ in the r.h.s. of the latter equation is the reason why we have calculated the $`𝒪(ϵ)`$ parts of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_1^{(1)}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{R}_2^{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_5^{(1)}`$. They are necessary for the $`𝒪(1)`$ matrix elements of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(0)}`$, i.e. they may matter beyond SM.

For the color-octet analogues of $`Q^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(n)}`$, the expressions for $`R_k^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_k^{(n)}`$ get multiplied by additional color factors of $`\frac{1}{6}`$ (for $`k4`$) and $`\frac{4}{3}`$ (otherwise). Of course, the values of $`R_k^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_k^{(n)}`$ remain the same for the mirror copies of $`Q^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(n)}`$, provided $`P_R`$ is replaced by $`P_L`$ in eq. (5.5).

Thus, apart from the trivial case of $`\stackrel{~}{G}_6^{(n)}`$, the present section contains complete results for the unrenormalized two-loop $`bs\gamma `$ diagrams with insertions of four-quark operators, in the SM and beyond.444 Up to operators that vanish in 4 spacetime dimensions, i.e. evanescent operators — see section 6.

## 6 The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized amplitude in the SM

In the present section, we shall restrict ourselves to the SM operators $`P_k`$ (2.2) and use eqs. (5.6)–(5.14) to evaluate the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized on-shell $`bs\gamma `$ amplitude at the NLO in QCD. From this amplitude one reads out the coefficients $`r_k`$, i.e. our main results presented in section 3.

The renormalized effective Lagrangian reads555 Note that the interaction terms in eq. (2.1) have opposite sign.

$`_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{QCD}\times \mathrm{QED}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\{C_7(\mu )Z_{77}Z_\psi Z_mP_7+C_8(\mu )Z_\psi Z_m(Z_{88}Z_gZ_G^{\frac{1}{2}}P_8+Z_{87}P_7)`$ (6.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}}C_k(\mu )[Z_\psi ^2({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}Z_{kj}P_j+{\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}}Z_{kj}^EE_j^{(1)})+Z_{k7}Z_\psi Z_mP_7]\}+\mathrm{}.`$
The evanescent operators $`E_3^{(1)}`$ and $`E_4^{(1)}`$ are as in the appendix of ref.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E_3^{(1)}=& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3}\gamma _{\mu _4}\gamma _{\mu _5}b_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^{\mu _1}\gamma ^{\mu _2}\gamma ^{\mu _3}\gamma ^{\mu _4}\gamma ^{\mu _5}q)20P_5+64P_3,\hfill \\ \hfill E_4^{(1)}=& (\overline{s}_L\gamma _{\mu _1}\gamma _{\mu _2}\gamma _{\mu _3}\gamma _{\mu _4}\gamma _{\mu _5}T^ab_L)_q(\overline{q}\gamma ^{\mu _1}\gamma ^{\mu _2}\gamma ^{\mu _3}\gamma ^{\mu _4}\gamma ^{\mu _5}T^aq)20P_6+64P_4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.2)
The dots in eq. (6.1) stand for other evanescent operators that do not affect the NLO matrix elements. They are relevant for the NLO anomalous dimension matrix though.

Below, in the calculation of the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized amplitude, we shall use the MS-scheme renormalization constants, and implicitly assume that all the unrenormalized $`l`$-loop matrix elements are multiplied by $`(4\pi )^{lϵ}e^{lϵ\gamma }`$. The light ($`u,d,s`$) quark masses will be neglected.

In the NLO calculation of $`bs\gamma `$ matrix elements, the renormalization constants $`Z_g`$ and $`Z_G`$ can be set to unity. As far as $`Z_m`$ and $`Z_\psi `$ are concerned, we need the one-loop expressions $`Z_m=1\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ϵ}`$ and $`Z_\psi =1\frac{\alpha _s}{3\pi ϵ}`$.

The renormalization constants $`Z_{k3}^E`$ and $`Z_{k4}^E`$ can be found from eqs. (20)666 In that equation, the expression “(counterterms due to $`Z_\psi ^2`$)” has been missed. and (45) of ref. . The only non-vanishing contributions to those constants at order $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ are $`Z_{54}^E=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi ϵ}`$, $`Z_{63}^E=\frac{\alpha _s}{18\pi ϵ}`$ and $`Z_{64}^E=\frac{5\alpha _s}{48\pi ϵ}`$.

The renormalization constants $`Z_{kj}`$ can be found from the anomalous dimension matrix $`\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}`$ given in eq. (8) of ref. 777 Signs of $`\gamma _{k7}^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\gamma _{k8}^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}`$ are fixed by our sign convention inside $`D_\mu \psi =\left(_\mu +igG_\mu ^aT^a+ieQA_\mu \right)\psi `$.

$$\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}=\left[\begin{array}{cccccccc}4& \frac{8}{3}& 0& \frac{2}{9}& 0& 0& \frac{208}{243}& \frac{173}{162}\\ 12& 0& 0& \frac{4}{3}& 0& 0& \frac{416}{81}& \frac{70}{27}\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{52}{3}& 0& 2& \frac{176}{81}& \frac{14}{27}\\ 0& 0& \frac{40}{9}& \frac{100}{9}& \frac{4}{9}& \frac{5}{6}& \frac{152}{243}& \frac{587}{162}\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{256}{3}& 0& 20& \frac{6272}{81}& \frac{6596}{27}\\ 0& 0& \frac{256}{9}& \frac{56}{9}& \frac{40}{9}& \frac{2}{3}& \frac{4624}{243}& \frac{4772}{81}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{32}{3}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \frac{32}{9}& \frac{28}{3}\end{array}\right].$$
(6.3)
The relation $`Z_{kj}=\delta _{kj}+\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi ϵ}\gamma _{kj}^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}`$ holds for all the $`Z_{kj}`$ except $`(Z_{k7},Z_{k8})_{k=1,\mathrm{},6}`$. In the latter case,

$$Z_{k7}=\frac{\alpha _s}{16\pi ϵ}\gamma _{k7}^{(0)}\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}Z_{kj}^Ey_j^E,$$
(6.4)
where $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ is related to $`\widehat{\gamma }^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ by

$$\gamma _{ji}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{j7}+_{k=1}^6y_k\gamma _{jk}y_j\gamma _{77}z_j\gamma _{87},& \text{when }i=7\text{ and }j=1,\mathrm{},6,\\ \gamma _{j8}+_{k=1}^6z_k\gamma _{jk}z_j\gamma _{88},& \text{when }i=8\text{ and }j=1,\mathrm{},6,\\ \gamma _{ji},& \text{otherwise},\end{array}$$
(6.5)
with $`y_i`$ and $`z_i`$ given in eq. (2.4). The numbers $`y_k`$ and $`y_j^E`$ parametrize the unrenormalized on-shell one-loop $`bs\gamma `$ matrix elements of the 4-quark operators

$`P_k_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}\right)^{2ϵ}\stackrel{~}{y}_kP_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+𝒪(ϵ^2),(y_k=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{y}_k),`$ (6.6)
$`E_j^{(1)}_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}\right)^{2ϵ}\stackrel{~}{y}_j^EP_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+𝒪(ϵ^2),(y_j^E=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{y}_j^E).`$ (6.7)
An easy one-loop calculation gives $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1=\stackrel{~}{y}_2=0`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& \stackrel{~}{y}_3=Q_d=\frac{1}{3},\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{y}_4=Q_dC_F=\frac{4}{9},\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{y}_5=4(53ϵ)Q_d,\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{y}_6=4(53ϵ)Q_dC_F,\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{y}_3^E=16(425ϵ)Q_d,\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{y}_4^E=16(425ϵ)Q_dC_F.\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.8)
The unrenormalized one-loop matrix elements of $`P_7`$ and $`P_8`$ can be expressed as follows:

$`P_7_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\stackrel{~}{r}_7P_7_{\mathrm{tree}},`$ (6.9)
$`P_8_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m_b}}\right)^{2ϵ}\left(Z_{87}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}r_8\right)P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+𝒪(\alpha _s^2,ϵ).`$ (6.10)
No explicit expression for $`\stackrel{~}{r}_7`$ is necessary for our purpose. It is enough to mention that $`\stackrel{~}{r}_7`$ is UV-finite (note that $`Z_{77}Z_\psi Z_m=1+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$), but it contains an IR divergence. We assume that this IR divergence is regulated with a small gluon mass.

The quantity $`r_8`$ reads

$$r_8=\frac{44}{9}\frac{8}{27}\pi ^2+\frac{8}{9}i\pi .$$
(6.11)
We have verified this result during the calculation of $`\stackrel{~}{R}_1^{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{R}_2^{(1)}`$.

In the following, we shall need two unrenormalized matrix elements of evanescent operators

$`P_4^{c\overline{c}}+\frac{1}{6}P_3^{c\overline{c}}\frac{1}{2}Q^{(1)}+\frac{1}{4}Q^{(0)}_{2\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}e_4P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+𝒪(ϵ),`$ (6.12)
$`P_6^{c\overline{c}}+\frac{1}{6}P_5^{c\overline{c}}8Q^{(1)}+Q^{(0)}_{2\mathrm{loop}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}e_6P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+𝒪(ϵ),`$ (6.13)
where $`P_k^{c\overline{c}}`$ are just the $`c\overline{c}`$–parts of the respective $`P_k`$. Note that $`P_3^{c\overline{c}}_{2\mathrm{loop}}=P_5^{c\overline{c}}_{2\mathrm{loop}}=0`$ due to color factors. We find $`e_4=Q_u\frac{8}{27}Q_d`$ and $`e_6=16Q_u\frac{32}{27}Q_d`$. These results are independent of $`m_c`$. Thus, after appropriate replacement of quark charges, they hold for any flavor circulating in the loop. Consequently, we can use eqs. (6.12) and (6.13) to express all the two-loop diagrams with Dirac traces in $`P_k_{2\mathrm{loop}}`$ as linear combinations of the results from section 5, up to the following additive constants obtained from $`e_4`$ and $`e_6`$:

$$D_4=uQ_u+dQ_d\frac{8}{27}(u+d)Q_d,\mathrm{and}D_6=16(uQ_u+dQ_d)\frac{32}{27}(u+d)Q_d,$$
(6.14)
where $`u=2`$ and $`d=3`$ are the numbers of active up and down flavors, respectively.

Such an approach is much more convenient than calculating diagrams with Dirac traces separately, because $`e_4`$ and $`e_6`$ can be (and are) found using expansion in external momenta and computer algebra, as in the so-called matching computations (see e.g. ref. ). More precisely, such an expansion is applied to diagrams with subtracted subdivergences, because subtracted matrix elements of evanescent operators must be local (i.e. polynomial in external momenta). Once they are found, we add the one-loop subdivergences again, setting the external momenta on shell. Then, the only relevant subdivergence is proportional to $`P_4_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ that we already know.

Now, we are ready to calculate the unrenormalized two-loop matrix elements of $`P_k`$. Let us write them as follows:

$$P_k_{2\mathrm{loop}}=\frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }\left(\frac{\mu }{m_b}\right)^{4ϵ}(x_k+\stackrel{~}{r}_7\stackrel{~}{y}_k)P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+𝒪(ϵ),$$
(6.15)
where the terms proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{r}_7`$ originate from $`\stackrel{~}{G}_6^{(n)}`$ diagrams. Evaluation of $`x_k`$ amounts to forming appropriate linear combinations of eqs. (5.6)–(5.14) with $`z0`$, $`z`$ or 1, according to the Dirac and flavor structure of $`P_k`$. Explicitly

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[Q_dH_{12}^{(1)}(z)+Q_uH_{34}^{(1)}(z)\right],`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`Q_dH_{12}^{(1)}(z)+Q_uH_{34}^{(1)}(z),`$
$`x_3`$ $`=`$ $`Q_d\left[H_{14}^{(1)}(0)+H_{14}^{(1)}(1)+\stackrel{~}{H}_{15}^{(1)}\right],`$
$`x_4`$ $`=`$ $`D_4+Q_u[H_{34}^{}(0)+H_{34}^{}(z)]+Q_d[3H_{12}^{}(0)+2H_{34}^{}(0)+H_{12}^{}(z)+H_{14}^{}(1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(H_{14}^{(1)}(0)+H_{14}^{(1)}(1)+\stackrel{~}{H}_{14}^{(1)})+C_FQ_d\stackrel{~}{H}_{55}^{(1)}],`$
$`x_5`$ $`=`$ $`Q_d\left[H_{14}^{(3)}(0)+H_{14}^{(3)}(1)+\stackrel{~}{H}_{15}^{(3)}\right],`$
$`x_6`$ $`=`$ $`D_6+Q_u[H_{34}^{\prime \prime }(0)+H_{34}^{\prime \prime }(z)]+Q_d[3H_{12}^{\prime \prime }(0)+2H_{34}^{\prime \prime }(0)+H_{12}^{\prime \prime }(z)+H_{14}^{\prime \prime }(1)`$ (6.16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(H_{14}^{(3)}(0)+H_{14}^{(3)}(1)+\stackrel{~}{H}_{14}^{(3)})+C_FQ_d\stackrel{~}{H}_{55}^{(3)}],`$
where

$`H_{ij}^{(n)}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`4^nC_F{\displaystyle \underset{k=i}{\overset{j}{}}}S_k^{(n)}(y),\stackrel{~}{H}_{ij}^{(n)}=4^nC_F{\displaystyle \underset{k=i}{\overset{j}{}}}\stackrel{~}{S}_k^{(n)},`$
$`H_{ij}^{}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}H_{ij}^{(1)}(y)H_{ij}^{(0)}(y),H_{ij}^{\prime \prime }(y)=8H_{ij}^{(1)}(y)4H_{ij}^{(0)}(y),`$
$`S_i^{(n)}(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(R_i^{(n)}\right)_{zy},\hfill & n=0,1,\hfill \\ \left[R_i^{(3)}+(2012ϵ)R_i^{(1)}\right]_{zy},\hfill & n=3.\hfill \end{array}`$ (6.19)
The relations between $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i^{(n)}`$ and $`\left(\stackrel{~}{R}_i^{(n)}\right)_{z1}`$ are the same as between $`S_i^{(n)}(1)`$ and $`\left(R_i^{(n)}\right)_{z1}`$. The necessity of introducing $`S_i^{(n)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_i^{(n)}`$ follows from the fact that ordering of the Dirac matrices in $`P_5`$ and $`P_6`$ is opposite to the one in $`Q^{(3)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}^{(3)}`$.

After all the above substitutions, one finds (up to $`𝒪`$$`(ϵ)`$)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x_1& =& \frac{46}{243ϵ}+\frac{833}{729}\frac{1}{3}[a(z)+b(z)]+\frac{40}{243}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill x_2& =& \frac{92}{81ϵ}\frac{1666}{243}+2[a(z)+b(z)]\frac{80}{81}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill x_3& =& \frac{248}{81ϵ}+\frac{2932}{243}\frac{8}{27}\pi ^2+\frac{8\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}+\frac{32}{9}X_ba(1)+2b(1)+\frac{128}{81}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill x_4& =& \frac{46}{243ϵ}\frac{1031}{729}+\frac{4}{81}\pi ^2\frac{4\pi }{9\sqrt{3}}\frac{16}{27}X_b+\frac{1}{6}a(1)+\frac{5}{3}b(1)+2b(z)\frac{184}{243}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill x_5& =& \frac{5552}{81ϵ}+\frac{42424}{243}\frac{160}{27}\pi ^2+\frac{32\pi }{3\sqrt{3}}+\frac{128}{9}X_b16a(1)+32b(1)+\frac{2336}{81}i\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill x_6& =& \frac{4588}{243ϵ}\frac{14378}{729}+\frac{80}{81}\pi ^2\frac{16\pi }{9\sqrt{3}}\frac{64}{27}X_b\frac{10}{3}a(1)+\frac{44}{3}b(1)+12a(z)+20b(z)\frac{3016}{243}i\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.20)
where the constant $`X_b`$ as well as the functions $`a(z)`$ and $`b(z)`$ have been already defined in section 3.

Once we have found the unrenormalized matrix elements of $`P_1`$, …, $`P_6`$, it is straightforward to calculate the renormalized ones. The $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$-renormalized amplitude for $`bs\gamma `$ decay reads888 Up to an overall normalization factor of $`\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}`$.

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left[C_7^{(0)}(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_7^{(1)}(\mu )\right]\left[P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+P_7_{1\mathrm{loop}}\right]+C_8^{(0)}(\mu )\left[P_8_{1\mathrm{loop}}+Z_{87}P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}\right]`$ (6.21)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{6}{}}}[C_k^{(0)}(\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_k^{(1)}(\mu )]\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{6}{}}}[Z_{kj}Z_\psi +(12ϵ)(Z_m1)\delta _{kj}]P_j_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$
$`+P_k_{2\mathrm{loop}}+Z_{k7}P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=3}{\overset{4}{}}}Z_{kj}^EE_j^{(1)}_{1\mathrm{loop}}\}+𝒪(\alpha _s^2,ϵ).`$
When comparing the above equation with eq. (6.1), one should remember about the identity $`Z_{77}Z_\psi Z_m=1+𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$.

The appearance of $`Z_\psi `$ and $`Z_m`$ in eq. (6.21) can be understood without calculating any diagram. It is enough to remember that insertions of the $`Z_\psi `$-counterterms on internal quark propagators always cancel with the $`Z_\psi ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$-counterterms at the ends of those propagators. Thus, we are left with a single power of $`Z_\psi `$ that corresponds to two external quark lines. The term proportional to $`(Z_m1)`$ is found from

$$\left[P_k_{1\mathrm{loop}}\right]_{m_b(\mu )Z_mm_b(\mu )}P_k_{1\mathrm{loop}},$$
(6.22)
where $`P_k_{1\mathrm{loop}}`$ is given in eq. (6.6). Remember that $`P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}`$ depends linearly on $`m_b(\mu )`$.

When all the matrix elements and renormalization constants are substituted into eq. (6.21), one finds that all the $`1/ϵ`$ singularities cancel as they should. Furthermore, when the effective Wilson coefficients are used, all the logarithms of $`m_b/\mu `$ are found to be multiplied by numbers from the 7th column of $`\widehat{\gamma }^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}`$ (6.3). Thus, the amplitude $`M`$ takes the form

$`M=P_7_{\mathrm{tree}}\left\{\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}\stackrel{~}{r}_7\right]\left[C_7^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}C_7^{(1)\mathrm{eff}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\\ 1k8\\ k7\end{array}}{}}C_k^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}\left[r_k+\gamma _{k7}^{(0)\mathrm{eff}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{\mu }}\right]\right\}.`$ (6.26)
From the above expression, we have read out the results for $`r_k`$ that have been already given in eq. (3.1).

## 7 Conclusions

We have computed the two-loop $`bs\gamma `$ matrix elements of all the four quark operators containing no derivatives. This allowed us to complete the NLO QCD calculation of $`\overline{B}X_s\gamma `$ decay by including for the first time the two-loop matrix elements of the QCD-penguin operators $`P_3,\mathrm{},P_6`$. The values of the corresponding parameters $`r_k`$ that enter the branching ratio are collected in table 1. They are also valid in extensions of the SM.

The Wilson coefficients of QCD-penguin operators are small in the SM. Consequently, two-loop matrix elements of these operators affect the $`\overline{B}X_s\gamma `$ branching ratio by around $`1\%`$ only. In extensions of the SM, the Wilson coefficients might be larger, which would enhance their phenomenological significance. However, it should be emphasized that the modification of $`C_i`$ with $`i=3,\mathrm{},6`$ would not only have a NLO effect (via the two-loop contributions evaluated here) but also a LO one (via the effective coefficients in eq. (2.3)).

Since in certain extensions of the SM, new operators with different Dirac and color structures may contribute, we have performed calculations that allow inclusion of such operators if necessary. The relevant results can be found in section 5. However, a complete NLO analysis in the presence of new operators would require extending the 3-loop anomalous dimension computation of ref. , which is beyond the scope of the present work.

On the technical side, occurrence of internal b-quark propagators required going beyond the techniques developed in refs.  that used expansions in $`z=m_c^2/m_b^2`$. Our exact calculations valid for any $`z`$ show that the expansions performed in refs.  break down around $`z0.5`$, and are very accurate up to $`z0.3`$, i.e. well above the physical value of $`z0.1`$.

## 8 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Paolo Gambino for verifying the influence of our results for $`r_k`$ on the entries of table 2 and on the final prediction for the branching ratio. J.U. would like to thank Stefan Fritsch and Michael Spranger for fruitful discussions. The work presented here was supported in part by the German Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung under the contract 05HT1WOA3 and the DFG Project Bu. 706/1-1, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. M.M. was supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under grant 2 P03B 121 20.


text:
# The HLMA project: determination of high Δ𝑚² LMA mixing parameters and constraint on |𝑈_{𝑒3}| with a new reactor neutrino experiment

## 1 Introduction

Over the last years, measurements of atmospheric and solar neutrinos gave increasing evidence for massive neutrinos and lepton mixing. Recent results of the SNO experiment combined with those of Super-Kamiokande showed for the first time directly that neutrino flavour conversion occurs .

Whilst atmospheric neutrino measurements (dominant channel: $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$) confine the oscillation parameters to $`1.4\times 10^3<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2<4.2\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{atm}>0.9`$ (90% CL) , solar neutrino data (dominant channel: $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$) allow various disjoint areas in oscillation parameter space ranging from $`10^{10}`$ to $`10^3`$ eV2 . They are commonly referred to as small mixing angle (SMA), large mixing (LMA), LOW and (quasi-) vacuum (VAC) solution. The main objective of ongoing and upcoming solar and reactor neutrino experiments is to unambiguously identify the solution and determine with high accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ and the respective mixing angle.

Solutions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2<10^6`$ eV2 or small mixing angles can be probed best with solar neutrino experiments at sub-MeV energies . Values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2>10^6`$ eV2 and large mixing angles can be studied both with long-baseline nuclear reactor neutrino experiments  and with sub-MeV solar neutrinos . Large mixing, in particular at large $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ values, is favoured when combining all solar neutrino data. The LMA solution gives the best $`\chi ^2`$ values in global analysis for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=(3.76.3)\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}0.350.38`$ ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}0.770.80`$) . Large part of the $`10^4`$ eV2 range is allowed by the current data. It is limited by the CHOOZ reactor experiment at $`1\times 10^3`$ eV2 . In the following we shall focus on the potential of long-baseline reactor neutrino experiments to observe neutrino oscillations and to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ in case that the LMA solution is realized in nature.

Electron anti–neutrinos ($`\overline{\nu }_e`$) from nuclear reactors have a continous energy spectrum up to about 10 MeV. They can be detected via inverse beta decay on protons $`\overline{\nu }_epe^+n`$ for $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}>E_{thr}1.8`$ MeV, and their energy is derived from the measured positron kinetic energy as $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}E_{e^+}+E_{thr}`$. The inverse beta decay cross section, including recoil, weak magnetism, and radiative corrections, can be found in .

If the distance between nuclear reactor and detector is larger than, or equal to the oscillation length, neutrino oscillations become observable as an integral reduction of the interaction rate, as well as a periodic modulation of the continous $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum. For two-neutrino mixing the survival probability is

$$P_{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}=1\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}\mathrm{sin}^2\left(1.27\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2[\mathrm{eV}^2]L[\mathrm{m}]}{E_{\overline{\nu }_e}[\mathrm{MeV}]}\right),$$
(1)
with the mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}`$, the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$, the reactor–detector distance $`L`$ and the neutrino energy $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}`$. Since the mixing angle is expected to be large, the periodic modulation of the energy spectrum should become clearly visible and the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ could be derived with high accuracy.

If however, for a given value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ the baseline is choosen too long, adjacent peaks cannot be resolved experimentally. The shape of the positron spectrum then appears unchanged, whilst its normalization is determined by the mixing angle only, independent of the actual value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$. In this case only lower limits on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ could be derived. An additional smearing can arise, if several reactors with different baseline distances contribute to the interaction rate.

Currently, there are two experiments which have the sensitivity to explore the parameter space of the solar LMA solution with $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from nuclear reactors: the neutrino signal in the KamLAND experiment in Japan is dominated by nuclear power reactors at a distance of 160 km. It is thus sensitive to probe distortions of the positron spectrum for values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^22\times 10^5`$ to $`2\times 10^4`$ eV2 . The BOREXINO experiment in Italy has a characteristic reactor baseline distance of about 750 km, thus would observe spectral distortions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^24\times 10^6`$ to $`4\times 10^5`$ eV2. Both upper limits are approximate only and depend on the energy resolution that will be achieved in the experiments. A resolution of $`<`$ 10% ($`\sigma `$) at 1 MeV is expected in KamLAND  and for BOREXINO an even better resolution is expected as the design goal for the light yield is about 400 pe/MeV .

Several authors pointed out that a dedicated reactor neutrino oscillation experiment is needed, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2>2\times 10^4`$ eV2. The authors of Ref.  concluded that a baseline shorter than that of KamLAND is required in order to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ in the above quoted range. The authour of Ref.  discussed a reactor experiment with baseline of a few 10 km to investigate the high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ range of the LMA parameter space. First experimental details of this study were presented in . The authors of Ref.  studied the achievable accuracy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in a hypothetical reactor experiment with a baseline of 20 km and 3000 events/year. Finally, the authors of Ref.  discussed the positron energy spectra for a generic reactor experiment with 20 km baseline and the accuracy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ determination. Moreover, the authors pointed out that for a distinct combination of mixing parameters, one can distinguish normal from inverted mass hirarchy. In summary, a new reactor neutrino experiment would become mandatory in the case that KamLAND observes a reduction of the event rate but could not resolve the characteristic oscillation pattern of the positron energy spectrum.

In this paper we propose a location and a design for a reactor neutrino experiment which would be dedicated to study, with high sensitivity, neutrino oscillations in the HLMA parameter range, i.e. $`2\times 10^4<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2<10^3`$ eV2. Moreover, we discuss a new approach to constrain $`|U_{e3}|`$ from the observation of “atmospheric” driven oscillation imprinted on the positron spectrum. Finally, we estimate for the proposed location and detector design, the background signals induced by natural radioactivity as well as by in-situ cosmic ray muon interaction, and discuss a strategy to detect the neutrino signal ’free of background’.

## 2 Experimental Site

Requiring the first oscillation peak to appear at about 1 MeV above threshold (i.e $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}2.8`$ MeV), the minimal distance between reactor and detector for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=2\times 10^4`$ eV2 given by Eq. (1) should be approximately 17 km. The detector should be located sufficiently deep underground to reduce the cosmic ray muon flux. Furthermore, the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$-interaction rate should be dominated by a single baseline only to minimize the smearing of the oscillation pattern from several sources.

Various location have been investigated over the last year. Our most favoured site is a saltmine close to Heilbronn, in the south-west of Germany. More than 2000 cavernes with approximate dimensions of 15 m $`\times `$ 15 m $`\times `$ 150 m have been excavated at a depth between 180 and 240 m (480 to 640 meter of water equivalent (mwe)). Two reactors are in the close, nearly equidistant vicinity: Neckarwestheim (2 cores, 6.4 GWth) in southern and Obrigheim (1 core, 1.1 GWth) in northern direction. Since the saltmine is extended about six kilometers in north-south direction, it is possible to select a location with a common baseline of exact 19.5 km to each of the two reactors. It is noteworthy that the Obrigheim reactor might be shut down in the very near future. In this case the baseline could be selected between 14 and 20 km, depending to which parameters the experiment needs to be optimized to. In this paper we take as generic location the position with equidistant baselines of 19.5 km to the reactors Neckarwestheim and Obrigheim.

## 3 Anti-neutrino interaction rate

The $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum above detection threshold is the result of $`\beta ^{}`$ decays of 235,238U and 239,241Pu fission products. Mesurements for 235U and 239,241Pu and theoretical calculations for 238U are used to evaluate the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum ; its overall normalisation is known to about $`1.4\%`$  and its shape to about $`2\%`$ . As a nuclear reactor operates, the fission element proportions evolve in time; as an approximation we use an averaged fuel composition typical during a reactor cycle corresponding to 235U (55.6 %), 239Pu (32.6 %), 238U (7.1 %) and 241Pu (4.7 %). The mean energy release $`(W)`$ per fission is then 203.87 MeV and the energy weighted cross section for $`\overline{\nu }_epne^+`$ amounts to $`<\sigma >_{\mathrm{fission}}=5.825\times 10^{43}`$ cm2 per fission. The reactor power ($`P_{th}`$) is related to the number of fissions per second ($`N_f`$) by $`N_f=6.241\times 10^{18}\mathrm{sec}^1(P_{th}[\mathrm{MW}])/(W[\mathrm{MeV}])`$. The event rate ($`R_L`$) at a distance $`L`$ from the source, assuming no–oscillation, is then $`R_L=N_f<\sigma >_{\mathrm{fission}}n_p1/(4\pi L^2)`$, where $`n_p`$ is the number of protons of the target. For the purpose of simple scaling, a reactor with a power of 1 GWth induces a rate of 447.8 events per year in a detector with $`10^{31}`$ protons at a distance of 10 km. All relevant European nuclear plants are added in turn in order to compute the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ interaction rate at the Heilbronn site. Five of them (see Tab. 1) contribute to $`92\%`$ of the total rate $`R_0`$; the other reactors contribute less than $`1\%`$ to the total flux each, and 8 % in total. Assuming all reactors running at their nominal power, one expects $`1150`$ $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ interactions per year in a target containing $`10^{31}`$ protons (as an example, a PXE-based scintillator with a mass of 194 tons contains $`10^{31}`$ protons).

## 4 Neutrino oscillation signatures

A three-neutrino mixing scenario is required to explain both atmospheric and solar anomalies. In that case, flavour eigenstates $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and mass eigenstates $`i=1,2,3`$ are related through the Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) mixing matrix $`U`$ via the relation $`\nu _\alpha =_{i=1}^3U_{\alpha i}\nu _i`$ . Assuming a “normal” mass hierarchy scenario, $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$, the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability can be written

$`P_{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}`$ $`=`$ $`12|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2L}{2E}}\right)`$
$`+2|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}\left(\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2L}{2E}}\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}\right).`$
The first two terms of Eq. 4 contain respectively the atmospheric driven ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$) and solar driven ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}`$) contributions, while the third term, absent from any two-neutrino mixing model, is an interference between solar and atmospheric driven oscillations. We only notice here that $`U_{e3}`$ is the PMNS matrix element that couples the heaviest neutrino field to the electron field. The relative neutrino interaction rate and spectrum compared with the no-oscillation case is given, for a single reactor at a distance L from the detector, by $`R/R_L=\mathrm{\Phi }(E)P_{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}(E)𝑑E`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ production energy spectrum weighted by the inverse $`\beta `$decay cross section. In what follows, the positron energy spectra expected from the five power plants listed in Tab. 1 are added in turn to obtain the signal at the Heibronn site. If the KamLAND experiment points out any part of the HLMA region as the correct solution of the solar neutrino problem, the experimental signature at the Heilbronn site will be a reduction of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ rate as well as a distortion of the positron energy spectrum.

### 4.1 Two-neutrino mixing analysis

If $`|U_{e3}|`$ vanishes the lepton mixing is radically simplified and the relation 4 reduces then to 1, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}`$; this approximation has been used by previous reactor neutrino experiments . If $`|U_{e3}|^2<0.01`$ the two-neutrino model remains valid with the small correction $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}=(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}`$. The sensitivity of the experiment depends obviously on the background level that can be evaluated from the time variation of the reactor signal; at this stage, assuming no background and nuclear power plants running at their full capacity, a detector containing $`10^{31}`$ target protons would be sensitive to a $`10\%`$ suppression in rate at a 3 $`\sigma `$ level after one year of data taking. Fig. 1 displays the contour lines of equal rate suppression, and thus the potential sensitivity at the Heilbronn site over the LMA region satisfying $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2>3\times 10^5`$ eV2. In what follows, the finite energy resolution of the detector has not been included. The expected positron energy spectrum is displayed in Fig. 2 for several combinations $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}`$. Since $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s with different energies arrive at the Heilbronn detector with different phases, shape distortions of the positron energy spectrum are expected. These deformations depend strongly on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ value in the range $`110\times 10^4`$ eV2; this constitutes the main advantage of a medium baseline reactor experiment over other choices, in order to measure accurately high $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ values lying in the HLMA area. The sensitity to a distorted spectrum could extend up to a few times $`10^3`$ eV2, depending on the achievable energy resolution. This overlaps significantly with the parameter space probed by the CHOOZ and Palo-Verde experiments . Whereas the precision measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ depends mainly on the energy resolution, the accuracy of the determination of the solar mixing angle will rely on the statistics as well as the control of the various backgrounds.

### 4.2 Three-neutrino mixing analysis

Thanks to its simplicity the two-neutrino oscillation model is a powerful tool to analyse reactor neutrino data. Nevertheless, on the baseline of interest ($`20`$ km), assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and $`U_{e3}0`$, both $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations due to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ (solar driven) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ (atmospheric driven) can develop without being averaged. This would allow to constrain the relevant $`|U_{e3}|`$ parameter which plays a very important role in the three-neutrino oscillation phenomenology. For instance, it drives the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$) oscillations of the atmospheric and (very) long baseline experiments. At present, the most stringent limit comes from the negative result from the CHOOZ experiment111A slighly less stringent constraint has been obtained by the Palo-Verde experiment .; in the case of interest $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2>210^4`$ eV2, a three-neutrino mixing analysis has constrained $`|U_{e3}|^2<0.036`$ at 95 $`\%`$ CL, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=2.5\times 10^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}=0.27`$ . In the forthcoming years, the long baseline accelerator experiments aim to reach a sensitivity for $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ down to $`0.0015`$ (see for example ); a somewhat weaker constraint on $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.003`$ is expected from the K2Rdet reactor neutrino experiment . On a much longer timescale, a sensitivity improved by several order of magnitude seems to be achievable with neutrino factories . Improving our knowledge of $`|U_{e3}|`$ beforehand is however relevant for the design of neutrino factories. For instance, no CP–violation effect would be observable in the lepton sector if $`|U_{e3}|`$ vanishes or is very small. We note here that all these CP–violation effects are unambiguous in long baseline experiment only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ is known with a very high accuracy .

In that context, an additional constraint on $`|U_{e3}|`$ could be a by-product of the Heilbronn experiment. So as to illustrate the potential sensitivity to $`|U_{e3}|`$, we compute the positron spectrum obtained at the Heilbronn site with both two and three neutrino mixing scenarios, for a few $`|U_{e3}|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ combinations. For simplicity, we consider the typical set of LMA parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=580\times 10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}=0.8`$. Taking into account the SuperKamiokande result on atmospheric neutrinos , we fix222 $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ is assumed to be known at better than $`10\%`$, and slight modifications of it do not change notably the results. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=2.5\times 10^3`$ eV2. The resulting spectrums are respectively displayed in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.04,0.02`$.

The envelop of the positron spectrum is roughly given by the two-neutrino solar mixing, whereas ripples are imprinted with the “atmospheric” frequency and an amplitude proportional to $`|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)`$ (first and third term of Eq. 4). To detect these ripples one should be able to resolve two adjacent peaks, which are separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(E)`$; this requires the energy resolution $`\delta \mathrm{E}`$ to satisfy

$$\delta E<\mathrm{\Delta }(E)=\left(\frac{aE_{\overline{\nu }_e}^2[MeV]}{1aE[MeV]}\right),$$
(3)
with $`2\pi /a=2.54\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2[eV^2]L[m]`$. At a baseline of 20 km, for $`E_{\overline{\nu }_e}=3,4,5`$ MeV, one has respectively the conditions $`\delta E<0.5,1.0,1.7`$ MeV. This seems to be achievable according to the energy resolution quoted by CHOOZ (0.40 MeV), and expected by KamLAND (FWHM $`2.35\times 10\%\sqrt{E}0.50`$ MeV) and BOREXINO (FWHM $`2.35\times 7\%\sqrt{E}0.35`$ MeV) over the same energy range. In addition, if one does not meet the requirement, the constraint on energy resolution could be relaxed by $`25\%`$ if one choses the southern site of the Heilbronn mine, located at 14 km of Neckarwestheim (which provides the bulk of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux).

An adequate statistics is also necessary to detect the “atmospheric” driven ripples; to obtain a rough estimate of the exposure needed, on can subdivide the positron energy spectrum in $`0.5`$ MeV energy bins. The statistical error has to be small enough to separate a “bump” from an adjacent “gap” (i.e 2 bins separated by an amplitude of about $`4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)`$ ), at a $`\beta `$ sigma level. The expected bin content $`n_b`$ should then satisfy $`n_b>\beta ^2/16|U_{e3}|^4`$. For $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.04,0.02,0.01`$ one obtains respectively $`n_b=40,160,640`$ for $`\beta =1`$ and $`n_b=160,640,2560`$ for $`\beta =2`$; this leads respectively to $`0.9,3.5,14\times 10^{31}`$ and $`3.5,14,56\times 10^{31}`$ proton–years of exposure (assuming no background, and power plants running full time at their nominal capacity). Probing $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ down to 0.01 corresponds to a $`2\%`$ relative effect on average. This is close to the systematic incertainties on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ energy spectrum production , although those frequencies are expected to be lower than the “atmospheric” ripple frequencies. Finally, a complete likelihood analysis will be required to estimate accurately the detection limit of $`|U_{e3}|`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$, exposure, and backgrounds.

For completeness, it is worthy of mention that the previous discussion remains valid if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2<2\times 10^4`$ eV2; indeed, if $`|U_{e3}|`$ is not too small, whatever the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ value measured at KamLAND, an experiment at the Heilbronn site would observe a global rate suppression from the “solar” driven neutrino oscillation and “atmospheric” ripples as discussed previously; this is illustrated in the top-left part of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=510^5`$ eV2 and $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.04,0.02`$.

As pointed out by Petcov and Piai , a medium baseline reactor neutrino experiment could have the potential to distinguish between normal ($`m_1<m_2<m_3`$) and inverted ($`m_3<m_1<m_2`$) neutrino mass hierarchy. In this latter case, the heaviest neutrino field is mainly coupled to the electron neutrino field. To obtain the survival probability from Eq. 4 one has to apply the following permutations of indices: $`23`$ and $`12`$. Eq. 4 remains then unchanged (with now $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$) apart from the amplitude of the interference term that can be express as $`2|U_{e1}|^2(1|U_{e1}|^2)\mathrm{cos}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}`$; notice that $`U_{e1}`$333The matrix element that couple the electron neutrino to the lightest neutrino field. is now constrained if one considers the inverted mass hierarchy model. The difference between the two hierarchies, for a medium baseline reactor neutrino experiment, is in principal observable if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{sol}1`$, $`|U_{e3/1}|^2>0.03`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ is known with a high precision . At the Heilbronn site, the net difference between the two kinds of hierarchy can be seen as a shift of the phase of the “atmospheric” driven ripples on the positron energy spectrum (Fig. 4). Since the interference term has approximately the same frequency as the “atmospheric” driven oscillation term, the energy resolution requirement is also given by Eq. 3. The exposure needed depends mainly on the $`|U_{e3/1}|`$ value as discussed previously. The residuals between the two-neutrino and the three-neutrino cases normalised to the two-neutrino model (Rate(2$`\nu `$)-Rate(3$`\nu `$))/Rate(2$`\nu `$) are shown in the right part of Fig. 4, for a few $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ LMA values and $`|U_{e3/1}|^2=0.02`$. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2<210^4`$ eV2, the interference term vanishes since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and no difference can be seen between normal and inverted hierarchy. Then, Fig. 4 indicates that the difference between the two mass hierarchies could be distinguished in the narrow range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=2410^4`$ eV2, while it becomes hardly detectable for higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ values. The ascertainable range is somewhat smaller than the one discussed in Ref.  with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=1510^4`$ eV2. Indeed, at the Heilbronn site the interference pattern is slightly washed out since reactors at different distances are involved.

## 5 Conceptual detector design

At this stage, we want to line out the basic concepts of a detector design for the Heilbronn site. Detector size and energy resolution depend on the physics goals to be addressed: the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ in the HLMA parameter range can be performed with a $`100`$ ton detector, while searches for small oscillation pattern driven by the atmospheric $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ with an amplitude proportional to $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ requires a high event statistics, and therefore a large target mass. We estimate that $`10^{32}`$ proton–years are required in order to reach a sensitivity of $`|U_{e3}|^2>0.01`$. This implies a detector similar in size to the KamLAND experiment. In order to resolve adjacent oscillation peaks, a light yield of $`400`$ pe/MeV is required for both detector sizes. A detailed analysis of the exposure (number of protons $`\times `$ years) vs. sensitivity in $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ needs to be carried out carefully.

The detector concept proposed here is similar to that of the Counting Test Facility of BOREXINO , however scaled up in size and equipped with a hermetical muon veto system. It consists of concentrical spherical volumes with a liquid scintillator target at its center contained in a transparent vessel, a water buffer surrounding it, a layer of photomultiplier tubes (PMT’s) viewing the scintillator target, and optically separated, an outer water buffer equipped with PMT’s as a cosmic ray muon detector. A schematic view is displayed in Fig. 5.

Our current best choice for the liquid scintillator is phenyl-xylyl-ethan (PXE, C16H18) as a solvent and p-Tp and bis-MSB as fluor and secondary shifter, or alternatively PMP. PXE has a low vapor pressure ($`<1.4\times 10^4`$ hPa at 20 oC) and a flash point at 149 oC, and therefore complies with general safety regulations. Moreover, the density is 0.99 g/cm3 and thus creates modest boyant forces to the scintillator contaiment vessel when emersed in water. Comprehensive studies of PXE based scintillators were performed in the frame of the BOREXINO project comprising optical properties, radioactive impurities and purification methods . Key results include low trace contaminations ($`<10^{17}`$g U/g), excellent $`\alpha \beta `$ discrimination, and high light yield (310 pe/MeV with 20% optical coverage).

A $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ event is characterized by a prompt positron event which deposits a visible energy between 1 and 8 MeV, followed by a delayed 2.2 MeV gamma event arising from neutron capture in hydrogen with $`\tau 200\mu `$sec. The minimal energy of 1 MeV of the prompt event is due to the positron annihilation in the scintillator. Prompt and delayed event are spatially correlated (coincidence volume $`<1\mathrm{m}^3`$) and both have a $`\beta /\gamma `$-type pulse shape. This characteristic signature allows to discriminate efficiently against backgrounds.

For the rest of this article, in particular for the estimation of the backgrounds, we consider the smallest useful detector size which still allows high precision determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ in the HLMA parameter range. As generic dimensions we use 300 cm radius for the scintillator contaiment vessel, filled with a PXE based scintillator (target mass 112 ton), and an optical coverage of about 30 % providing a photo electron yield of 400/MeV. Background estimations, as discussed in the following sections, require the PMT’s to be located on a sphere with a radius larger than about 500 cm. In order to shield against external radiation, an additional external water shielding of about 200 cm is necessary. This can be achieved by a cylindrical tank of about 14 m in diameter and similar in height. A schematic view of the detector layout is displayed in Fig. 5.

As a result of the background considerations we note that a detector can be realized without using a gadolinium loaded scintillator, since the accidental background rate can be suppressed to values well below one event per year. Therefore, we can achieve the highest possible light yield with liquid scintillators and hence optimize pulse shape discrimination, position reconstruction, as well as energy resolution.

## 6 Backgrounds

Oscillation parameters can only be determined with high accuracy if the backgrounds to reactor neutrino interaction are small. In particular, a possible observation of small $`|U_{e3}|`$ values depends critically on the fraction of background events which survive the acceptance cuts.

Backgrounds from primordial and man-made radioactivity can perturb neutrino detection, as well as backgrounds induced by cosmic ray interaction. Previous developments and experiments provide quantitative guidance on how to design an experiment which, in principle, allows to measure $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s “free of background”. In particular the Counting Test Facility of BOREXINO , the CHOOZ experiment  and measurements of muon induced production of radio-isotopes  provide a quantitative database as well as operational experiences.

### 6.1 Non-reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ signals

Further interferences with reactor neutrinos can arise from geo-physical $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s. Electron anti-neutrinos which are emitted in beta disintegration of the decay products of primordial 238U and 232Th in the interior of the earth have sufficient energy to create background to the reactor neutrino signal. The visible energy of the geo-$`\overline{\nu }_e`$ signal is below 2.4 MeV and exhibits a characteristical spectral shape. Following Ref. , a rate between 5 and 33 events per year and $`10^{31}`$ protons is expected at the Heilbronn site444Heilbronn is located on the continental crust. Therefore, the model developed for the interaction rate for the BOREXINO detector can be adopted.. The exact value depends on the global abundance of 238U and 232Th in the earth’s crust, mantle and core. First measurements of the geo-$`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux will be performed by the KamLAND and BOREXINO experiments  and data to estimate the interference at the Heilbronn site will be available. Albeit the geo-$`\overline{\nu }_e`$ rate is expected to be $`<3\%`$ of the reactor rate, an interference with the reactor signal at low energies can not be excluded. A possibility to discard this background is to establish an analysis threshold greater than 2.4 MeV.

### 6.2 Backgrounds from radioactivity

Naturally occuring radioactivity can create accidental as well as correlated backgrounds. The radon daughters 214Bi-214Po are a potential background of the latter type, because their decay sequence is similar to the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ tag. However, the fast $`\beta \alpha `$ decay with $`\tau =237\mu `$sec can be discriminated by the energy deposition of the 214Po $`\alpha `$-decay, quenched to $`0.8`$ MeV (i.e. $`>10\sigma `$ separated from the delayed 2.2 MeV $`\gamma `$), and in addition by pulse shape information.

Neutrons from spontaneous fission or ($`\alpha ,n`$)-reactions can produce recoil protons, subsequently thermalize and capture on hydrogen atoms. Selection of high purity materials for detector construction, passive shielding together with pulse shape discrimination provides an efficient handle against this type of correlated background. However, high energy neutrons due to cosmic ray muon interaction may contribute significantly to the background. This is discussed in detail in Sec. 6.3.2.

Gamma and beta signals in the scintillator volume may generate accidentally background events which mimick $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ interactions. The accidental background rate $`b_{acc}`$ is given by $`b_{acc}b_pb_d\tau _dV_dV_{det}`$. Here $`b_p`$ and $`b_d`$ are the specific background rates (in units of $`sec^1m^3`$) for the prompt and the delayed events, respectively. The time window for the coincidence is given by $`\tau _d`$, the coincidence volume by $`V_d`$, and $`V_{det}`$ is the total detetction volume. In order to estimate this background rate in the detector we use the rather conservative values of $`\tau _d1msec`$ and $`V_d1m^3`$.

If the accidental background rate should be below $`b_{acc}1y^1`$, and hence negligible in comparison to the neutrino interaction rate, the condition for the background rates for a $`V_{det}113m^3`$ detector then reads $`b_pb_d<310^7sec^2m^6`$. We are comparing this limit with possible contributions from different background sources.

#### 6.2.1 External backgrounds

As external background we describe contributions due to the detector structure material (i.e. PMT’s, light concentrators etc.) and the water shielding outside the liquid scintillator.

The most dangerous source for the external background is the strongly penetrating 2.6 MeV gamma line from $`{}_{}{}^{208}Tl`$ in the Thorium chain. The typical Thorium activity reached in selected materials for all PMT’s and light concentrators in the solar neutrino experiment BOREXINO is about $`10^3Bq`$ . There a coverage of 30% at a distance of about 6.5m to the center of the detector is achieved. Assuming to use PMT’s and light concentrators with the same specific activity at a coverage similar to BOREXINO, the background scales with the surface of the PM-sphere.

The shielding $`S`$ of 2.6 MeV gammas due to the water in a spherical geometry can be parameterized by $`S10^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha (Rr)/0.5m`$, where $`R`$ and $`r`$ are the radii of the PM-sphere and the scintillator vessel, respectively.

Monte-Carlo calculations show that signals due to the external 2.6 MeV gamma line contribute with about 40 % to $`b_p`$ and to about 10 % to $`b_d`$. The background rate in the total scintillator volume can be estimated to be: $`b_{ptot}10^3sec^1\times (R/6.5m)^2\times S`$. For $`R5.0m`$ and $`r3m`$ one obtains $`b_{ptot}=2.4\times 10^2sec^1`$ and $`b_{dtot}=6\times 10^3sec^1`$. Due to the self-shielding of the scintillator these events are distributed in an outer region (roughly between 2.5m and 3m) with a total volume of about 50$`m^3`$. Hence the specific activity at this geometry (i.e. radius of the PM-sphere at 5m) is $`b_pb_d610^8sec^2m^6`$ and therefore well below the limit given above.

External backgrounds due to radioactive impurities in the water shielding have been estimated for Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium in Monte-Carlo calculations. For the prompt background all events with energies above 1 MeV have been counted. The energy window for the delayed 2.2 MeV event was chosen to be 3 sigma at a light yield of 400 photo-electrons per MeV energy deposition, corresponding to a 30% optical coverage for the PMT’s and light concentrators.

The critical concentration limits obtained for Th and U in the water are in the range of about $`10^{13}g/g`$ to $`10^{12}g/g`$, and for K between $`10^{10}g/g`$ and $`10^{11}g/g`$, respectively. The latter obviously gives no contribution to $`b_d`$, as the 1.46 MeV gammal line from $`{}_{}{}^{40}K`$ is far below the 2.2 MeV neutron capture energy.

For Thorium the counting rates in the total volume at a concentration of $`510^{13}g/g`$ in water are $`b_{ptot}1.510^2sec^1`$ and $`b_{dtot}310^3sec^1`$, respectively. As these events are distributed mainly in an outer scintillator volume of about 20$`m^3`$, the specific background therefore is $`b_pb_d10^7sec^2m^6`$ and below the allowed level given above.

For Uranium the allowed numbers are very similar and one can conclude, that for both, U and Th, a concentration lower than $`10^{12}g/g`$ is sufficient.

These requirements for the water purity have been achieved in the Counting Test Facility (CTF) of the BOREXINO experiment . Special care has to be taken for Radon in the water, which is often found to be out of the equilibrium of the U-chain. The limit given above translates to a tolerable specific Rn-activity of $`10^2mBq/m^3`$. However, also this (and even better) values have been achieved in the CTF.

#### 6.2.2 Internal backgrounds

The acceptable single counting rates for U, Th and K within the liquid scintillator were estimated in Monte-Carlo calculations. Also here a 3 sigma window around the 2.2 MeV line for the delayed event was chosen. The results show, that the limits for concentrations of U and Th are in the level of about $`10^{13}g/g`$.

The results in detail: at $`110^{13}g/g`$ for Uranium $`b_{ptot}110^1sec^1`$ and $`b_{dtot}210^2sec^1`$, are the total counting rates in the scintillator volume. As these events are distributed homogeneously all over the scintillator volume (i.e. ca. 100$`m^3`$), the specififc counting rates combine to $`b_pb_d210^7sec^2m^6`$, at the design goal. A dominant part of this background comes from 214Bi decay. Since the 214Bi-214Po coincidence can be tagged, one can reduce the accidental backgound further by a about a factor 10. This translates into a a limit for the trace contamination of $`<110^{12}g\mathrm{U}/g`$.

The same limit is basically valid for Thorium. As again the K-activity does not contribute to the delayed signal, the corresponding concentration limits are higher by about 2 orders of magnitude, i.e. in the range of about $`10^{11}g/g`$.

In the CTF and with neutron activation analysis of BOREXINO it has been shown  that even better limits have been reached with PXE as liquid solvent and p-TP as wavelengthshifter. The measured values of U and Th of the scintillator as achieved from the company was already in the $`10^{14}g/g`$ range. After purification in a Silica-Gel column and using water extraction limits in Th and U of $`210^{16}g/g`$ and $`110^{17}g/g`$ have been obtained, respectively. In Tab. 2 we summarize the requirements for the principal detector components.

### 6.3 Backgrounds induced by cosmic ray muons

The rock overburden of the Heilbronn site is 180 m at “Kochendorf”, the northern area of the Heilbronn saltmine, and 240 m at “Neubollinger Hof”, the south western area. With a standard rock density of 2.65 g/cm3 the depths correspond to about 480 m and 640 m of water equivalent (mwe). The underground muon fluxes, its zenith angle distribution and mean energies can be calculated following Ref. . The vertical intensity at a depth of 480 (640) mwe is $`9.8(4.7)\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{sr}^1`$ and the total flux, taking into account the flat surface topology, is $`2.1(1.0)\times 10^5\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ or 760 (360)/h/m2. The mean energy of the vertical flux corresponds to 72 (110) GeV.

Cosmic ray muons will be the dominating trigger rate at this depth. About six muons per second will cross a spherical scintillation target with a volume of 113 m3. The energy deposition corresponds to about 2 MeV per cm path length which provides a strong discrimination tool.

#### 6.3.1 Muon induced production of radioactive isotopes

Long-lived muon induced isotopes can not be correlated to the primary muon interaction if their life time are much longer with respect to the characteristic time between two subsequent muon interactions. They can contribute significantly to the single trigger rate as well as simulate the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ coincidence signature.

Cross sections of muon induced isotope production on liquid scintillator targets (12C) have been measured by the NA54 experiment at the CERN SPS muon beam at 100 GeV and 190 GeV muon energies . The energy dependence was found to scale as $`\sigma _{tot}(E_\mu )E_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ with $`\alpha =0.73\pm 0.10`$ averaged over the various isotopes produced.

Cross sections and interaction rates are calculated for a depth of 480 mwe and summarized in Tab. 3.

The dominating background for muon induced single events comes from the decay of 11C with a rate of about $`3.5\times 10^3`$ per day or $`3.6\times 10^4\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{m}^3`$ PXE scintillator. It thus suffices the constraint on accidental background. Correlated backgrounds induced by muon interactions, can be created by $`\beta `$–neutron instable isotopes. Of this type of events, with 12C as target, only 8He, 9Li and 11Li are produced. The cumulative production of 8He and 9Li together amounts to about $`3\times 10^3`$ per year for our generic target size. The characteristic signature of this class of events consists of a four-fold coincidence ($`\mu n\beta n`$). The initial muon interaction is followed by the capture of spallation neutrons within about 1 ms. The time scale of the $`\beta `$-decay of the considered isotopes is on the order of a few 100 ms (c.f. Tab. 3) again followed by a neutron capture. This signature allows one to discard with high efficiency this class of events maintaining a high acceptance probability for real $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events.

#### 6.3.2 Muon induced neutrons

Muon induced neutron production can be estimated from the results of the CTF experiment . At LNGS the muon mean energy is 320 GeV and the flux corresponds to $`1.16\mathrm{m}^2\mathrm{h}^1`$. Scaling the CTF production rate of $`0.3\mathrm{d}^1\mathrm{t}^1`$ to a depth of 480 mwe, we obtain about $`7.2\times 10^3\mathrm{d}^1`$. About a factor three higher is estimated following the compilation of Ref. . A muon preceeding a neutron, therefore must not to be mistaken for a positron event with an efficienecy better than one in $`10^6`$ events.

A further source of background are neutrons which are produced in the surrounding rocks by radioactivity and in cosmic ray muon induced hadronic cascades. Neutrons can create a recoil proton and be captured by hydrogen atoms after thermalization mimicking a $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ event. At depths below several tens of meter, radioactive decays followed by $`(\alpha ,n)`$ reactions dominate the overall flux. However, the energies involved are low and a water buffer of a modest thickness efficiently shields these neutrons. High energetic neutrons are produced in nuclear cascades up to GeV energies and above. Since the primary cosmic ray muons is not penetrating the detector, they are invisible and can not be used for discrimination purpose. High energetic neutron fluxes have been estimated for the Gran Sasso Laboratory and amount to about 25 m-2 year-1 . Scaling to the depth of the Heilbronn site gives a flux of $`5\times 10^3`$ m-2 year-1. Assuming a surface of 113 m2 an overall reduction factor of about $`5\times 10^5`$ is required. This challenging requirement needs to be obtained by passive shielding together with active recognition of the recoil nuclei by pulse shape discrimination techniques.

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper we present a possible new reactor neutrino experiment with a baseline of $`20`$ km, dedicated to the accurate determination of the solar mixing parameters in the HLMA range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2>2\times 10^4`$ eV2. In this parameter range the KamLAND experiment would observe only a suppression of the total rate, while for the proposed experiment the oscillations would become directly visible as an unique pattern in the positron energy spectrum. High precision determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ would then become feasible. Moreover, this would provide essential input for future long baseline neutrino experiments.

We showed that an experiment at the Heilbronn site with a minimal detector mass of about 100 tons could be realized yielding an event rate of about $`5\times 10^2`$ per year (in the case of no-oscillation) at a very low background rate of less than one event per year. Furthermore, we discussed that small effects related to $`|U_{e3}|`$ could be investigated if one increases the detector mass to about 1 kton. $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ could indeed be constrained down to about 0.01 and the normal and inverted neutrino mass hierarchies could be separated for a distinct combination of parameters.

###### Acknowledgments.

S.S. would like to thank S. M. Bilenky for valuable discussions about three neutrino mixing. We are grateful to S. T. Petcov and M. Piai for discussions and for bringing to our attention Ref. .