text:
# Universal Quantum Computation using Exchange Interactions and Teleportation of Single-Qubit Operations

## Abstract

We show how to construct a universal set of quantum logic gates using control over exchange interactions and single- and two-spin measurements only. Single-spin unitary operations are teleported instead of being executed directly, thus eliminating a major difficulty in the construction of several of the most promising proposals for solid-state quantum computation, such as spin-coupled quantum dots, donor-atom nuclear spins in silicon, and electrons on helium. Contrary to previous proposals dealing with this difficulty, our scheme requires no encoding redundancy. We also discuss an application to superconducting phase qubits.

Quantum computers (QCs) hold great promise for inherently faster computation than is possible on their classical counterparts, but so far progress in building a large-scale QC has been slow. An essential requirement is that a QC should be capable of performing “universal quantum computation” (UQC). I.e., it should be capable of computing, to arbitrary accuracy, any computable function, using a spatially local and polynomial set of logic gates. One of the chief obstacles in constructing large scale QCs is the seemingly innocuous, but in reality very daunting set of requirements that must be met for universality, according to the standard circuit model Nielsen:book : (1) preparation of a fiducial initial state (initialization), (2) a set of single and two-qubit unitary transformations generating the group of all unitary transformations on the Hilbert space of the QC (computation), and (3) single-qubit measurements (read-out). Since initialization can often be performed through measurements, requirements (1) and (3) do not necessarily imply different experimental procedures and contraints. Until recently it was thought that computation is irreducible to measurements, so that requirement (2), a set of unitary transformations, would appear to be an essential component of UQC. However, unitary transformations are sometimes very challenging to perform. Two important examples are the exceedingly small photon-photon interaction that was thought to preclude linear optics QCs, and the difficult to execute single-spin gates in certain solid state QC proposals, such as quantum dots Loss:98 ; Levy:01a  and donor atom nuclear spins in silicon Kane:98 ; Mozyrsky:01 . The problem with single-spin unitary gates is that they impose difficult demands on $`g`$-factor engineering of heterostructure materials, and require strong and inhomogeneous magnetic fields or microwave manipulations of spins, that are often slow and may cause device heating. In the case of exchange Hamiltonians, a possible solution was recently proposed in terms of qubits that are encoded into the states of two or more spins, whence the exchange interaction alone is sufficient to construct a set of universal gates Bacon:99a ; Kempe:00 ; DiVincenzo:00a ; Bacon:Sydney ; Levy:01 ; Benjamin:01 ; LidarWu:01 ; WuLidar:01 ; Kempe:01 ; Kempe:01a ; WuLidar:01a ; WuLidar:02 ; Vala:02 ; Skinner:02  (the “encoded universality” approach). In the linear optics case, it was shown that photon-photon interactions can be induced indirectly via *gate teleportation* Knill:00 . This idea has its origins in earlier work on fault-tolerant constructions for quantum gates Shor:96 ; Preskill:97a ; Gottesman:99b  (generalized in Zhou:00 ) and stochastic programmable quantum gates Nielsen:97a ; Vidal:02 . The same work inspired more recent results showing that, in fact, measurements and state preparation *alone* suffice for UQC Nielsen:01 ; Fenner:01 ; Leung:01a ; Raussendorf:01 .

Experimentally, a minimalistic approach to constructing a QC seems appealing. In this sense, retaining only the absolutely essential ingredients needed to construct a universal QC may be an important simplification. Since read-out is necessary, *measurements are inevitable*. Here we propose a minimalistic approach for universal quantum computation that is particularly well suited to the important class of spin-based QC proposals governed by exchange interactions Loss:98 ; Levy:01a ; Kane:98 ; Vrijen:00 ; Mozyrsky:01 ; Imamoglu:99 , and other proposals governed by *effective* exchange interactions Cirac:95 ; Platzman:99 ; Brown:01 . In particular, we show that *UQC can be performed using only single- and two-qubit measurements and controlled exchange interactions, via gate teleportation*. In our approach, which offers a new perspective on the requirements for UQC, the need to perform the aforementioned difficult single-spin unitary operations is obviated, and replaced by measurements, which are anyhow necessary. The tradeoff is that the implementation of gates becomes probabilistic (as in all gate-teleportation based approaches), but this probability can be boosted arbitrarily close to 1 exponentially fast in the number of measurements.

We begin our discussion with a relatively simple example of the utility of measurement-aided UQC. This example is not in the exchange-interaction category, but both serves to illustrate some of the more complex ideas needed below, and solves a problem of relevance to an important solid-state QC proposal. The proposal we have in mind is that using d-wave grain boundary (dGB) phase qubits Zagoskin:99 ; Blais:00 . The system Hamiltonian is:

$$H_S=H_X+H_Z+H_{ZZ},$$
(1)
where $`H_X=_i\mathrm{\Delta }_iX_i`$ describes phase tunneling, $`H_Z=_ib_iZ_i`$ is a bias, and $`H_{ZZ}=_{i,j}J_{ij}Z_iZ_j`$ represents Josephson coupling of qubits; $`X_i,Y_i,Z_i`$ denote the Pauli matrices $`\sigma ^x,\sigma ^y,\sigma ^z`$ acting on the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ qubit. It turns out that in this system only one of the terms $`H_X,H_Z,H_{ZZ}`$ can be on at any given time Zagoskin:99 ; Blais:00 . Moreover, turning on the bias or Josephson coupling is the only way to control the value of the tunneling matrix element. In the idle state $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is non-zero and the qubit undergoes coherent tunneling. In the dGB proposal it is important to reduce the constraints on fabrication by removing the possibility of applying bias $`b_i`$ on individual qubits LidarWuBlais:02 . This bias requires, e.g., the possibility of applying a local magnetic field on each qubit, and is experimentally very challenging to realize. The effective system Hamiltonian that we consider is therefore: $`H_S^{}=H_X+H_{ZZ}`$, with continuous control over $`J_{ij}`$. In LidarWuBlais:02  it was shown how UQC can be performed given this Hamiltonian, by encoding a logical qubit into two physical qubits, and using sequences of recoupling pulses. Here we show instead how to implement $`Z_i`$ using measurements, which together with $`H_S^{}`$ is sufficient for UQC. Suppose we start from an unknown state of qubit 1: $`|\psi =a`$ $`|0+b`$ $`|1`$. By cooling in the idle state (only $`H_X`$ on) we can prepare an ancilla qubit 2 in the state $`(|0+`$ $`|1)/\sqrt{2}`$. Then the total state is: $`a|00+b|10+a|01+b|11`$. Letting the Josephson-gate $`e^{i\varphi Z_1Z_2/2}`$ act on this state, we obtain

$`a|00+e^{i\varphi }b|10+e^{i\varphi }a|01+b|11`$
$``$ $`e^{i\varphi Z_1/2}|\psi |0+e^{i\varphi Z_1/2}|\psi |1`$
We then measure $`Z_2`$. If we find $`0`$ (with probablity $`1/2`$) then the state has collapsed to $`e^{i\varphi Z_1/2}|\psi |0`$, which is the required operation on qubit 1. If we find $`1`$ then the state is $`e^{i\varphi Z_1/2}|\psi |1`$, which is an erred state. To correct it we apply the pulse $`e^{i\varphi Z_1Z_2}`$, which takes the erred state to the correct state $`e^{i\varphi Z_1/2}|\psi |1`$. We then re-initialize the ancilla qubit. This method for implementing $`Z_i`$ succeeds with certainty after one measurement, possibly requiring (with probability $`1/2`$) one correction step.

We now turn to QC-proposals based on exchange interactions Loss:98 ; Levy:01a ; Kane:98 ; Vrijen:00 ; Mozyrsky:01 ; Imamoglu:99 ; Cirac:95 ; Platzman:99 ; Brown:01 . In these systems, that are some of the more promising candidates for scalable QC, the qubit-qubit interaction can be written as an axially symmetric exchange interaction of the form:

$$H_{ij}^{\mathrm{ex}}(t)=J_{ij}^{}(t)(X_iX_j+Y_iY_j)+J_{ij}^z(t)Z_iZ_j,$$
(2)
where $`J_{ij}^\alpha (t)`$ ($`\alpha =,z`$) are controllable coupling constants. The XY (XXZ) model is the case when $`J_{ij}^z=0`$ ($`0`$). The Heisenberg interaction is the case when $`J_{ij}^z(t)=J_{ij}^{}(t)`$. See LidarWu:01  for a classification of various QC models by the type of exchange interaction. In agreement with the QC proposals Loss:98 ; Levy:01a ; Kane:98 ; Vrijen:00 ; Mozyrsky:01 ; Imamoglu:99 ; Cirac:95 ; Platzman:99 ; Brown:01 , we assume here that $`J_{ij}^{}(t)`$ is competely controllable and allow that the ratio between $`J_{ij}^{}(t)`$ and $`J_{ij}^z(t)`$ may not be controllable. The method we present here works equally well for all three types of exchange interactions, thus unifying all exchange-based proposals under a single universality framework. Since all terms in $`H_{\mathrm{ex}}(t)`$ commute it is simple to show that it generates a unitary two-qubit evolution operator of the form $`U_{ij}(\phi ^{},\phi ^z)=\mathrm{exp}[i^t𝑑t^{}H_{ij}^{\mathrm{ex}}(t^{})]=`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}e^{i\phi ^z}& & & \\ & e^{i\phi ^z}\mathrm{cos}2\phi ^{}& ie^{i\phi ^z}\mathrm{sin}2\phi ^{}& \\ & ie^{i\phi ^z}\mathrm{sin}2\phi ^{}& e^{i\phi ^z}\mathrm{cos}2\phi ^{}& \\ & & & e^{i\phi ^z}\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
(we use units where $`\mathrm{}=1`$), where $`\phi ^\alpha =^t𝑑t^{}J^\alpha (t^{})`$, and we have suppressed the qubit indices for clarity. In preparation of our main result, we first prove:

Proposition. The set $`𝒢=\{U_{ij}(\phi ^{},\phi ^z),R_{j\beta }\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma _j^\beta )\}`$ ($`\beta =x,z`$) is universal for quantum computation.

*Proof*: A set of continuous one-qubit unitary gates and any two-body Hamiltonian entangling qubits are universal for quantum computation Dodd:01 . The exchange Hamiltonian $`H_{ij}^{\mathrm{ex}}`$ clearly can generate entanglement, so it suffices to show that we can generate all single-qubit transformations using $`𝒢`$. Two of the Pauli matrices are given simply by $`\sigma _j^\beta =iR_{j\beta }^2`$. Now, let $`C_A^\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\phi B)\mathrm{exp}(i\theta A)\mathrm{exp}(i\phi B)\mathrm{exp}(+i\theta A)`$; two useful identities for anticommuting $`A,B`$ with $`A^2=I`$ (the identity) are WuLidar:01a :

$$C_A^{\pi /2}e^{i\phi B}=e^{i\phi B},C_A^{\pi /4}e^{i\phi B}=e^{\phi AB}.$$

Using this, we first generate $`e^{i\phi X_1X_2}=U_{12}(\phi /2,\phi ^z)C_{X_1}^{\pi /2}U_{12}(\phi /2,\phi ^z)`$, which takes six elementary steps (where an elementary step is defined as one of the operations $`U_{ij}(\phi ^{},\phi ^z),R_{j\beta }`$). Second, as we show below, our gate teleportation procedure can prepare $`R_{j\beta }^{}`$ just as efficiently as $`R_{j\beta }^{}`$ (also note that $`R_{j\beta }^{}=(R_{j\beta })^3`$), so that with two additional steps we have $`e^{i\phi Y_1X_2}=C_{Z_1}^{\pi /4}`$ $`e^{i\phi X_1X_2}`$. Finally, with a total of $`8+6+8=22`$ elementary steps we have $`e^{i\phi Z_1}=C_{Y_1X_2}^{\pi /4}e^{i\phi X_1X_2}`$, where $`\phi `$ is arbitrary. Similarly, we can generate $`e^{i\phi Y_1}`$ in 22 steps using $`C_{X_1}^{\pi /4}`$ instead of $`C_{Z_1}^{\pi /4}`$. Using a standard Euler angle construction we can generate arbitrary single-qubit operations by composing $`e^{i\phi Z_1}`$ and $`e^{i\phi Y_1}`$ Nielsen:book .

It is important to note that optimization of the number of steps given in the proof above may be possible. We now show that the single qubit gates $`R_{j\beta }`$ can be implemented using cooling, weak spin measurements, and evolution under exchange Hamiltonians of the Heisenberg, XY, or XXZ type. Our method is inspired by the gate teleportation idea Nielsen:97a ; Shor:96 ; Preskill:97a ; Gottesman:99b ; Zhou:00 ; Vidal:02 ; Knill:00 ; Nielsen:01 ; Fenner:01 ; Leung:01a , which we briefly review, along with state teleportation Bennett:93 , in Fig. 1. We proceed in two cycles. In Cycle (i), consider a spin (our “data qubit”) in an unknown state $`|\psi =a|0+b|1`$, and two additional (“ancilla”) spins, as shown in Fig. 2. Our task is to apply the one-qubit operation $`R_\beta `$ to the data qubit. As in gate teleporation, we require an entangled pair of ancilla spins. However, it turns out that rather than one of the Bell states we need an entangled state that has a phase of $`i`$ between its components. To obtain this state, we first turn on the exchange interaction $`H_{23}^{\mathrm{ex}}`$ between the ancilla spins such that $`J^{}>0`$. The eigenvalues (eigenstates) are $`\{2J^{}J^z,2J^{}J^z,J^z,J^z\}`$ ($`|S,|T_0,|00,|11`$) where $`|S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01|10)`$, $`|T_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|01+|10)`$ are the singlet and one of the triplet states. Provided $`J^{}>J^z`$ \[which is the case for all QC proposals of interest, in which either $`\mathrm{sign}(J^{})=\mathrm{sign}(J^z)`$, or $`J^z=0`$\] and we cool the system significantly below $`2J^{}J^z`$, the resulting ground state is $`|S`$. We then perform a single-spin measurement of the observable $`\sigma _j^z`$ on one or both of the ancillas, which will yield either $`|01`$ or $`|10`$. For definiteness assume the outcome was $`|01`$. We then immediately apply a $`\pi /8`$ exchange pulse to the ancilla spins \[Fig. 2(a)\]: $`U(\pi /8,\phi _0^z)|10=\frac{e^{i\phi ^z}}{\sqrt{2}}(|01i|10)`$ \[as follows from Eq. (3)\]. The total state of the three spins then reads (neglecting an overall phase $`e^{i\phi ^z}`$):

$`|\psi _1U_{23}(\pi /8,\phi _0^z)|10_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(a|001ib|110)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r|T_0_{12}R_{3z}^{}|\psi _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^{}|S_{12}R_{3z}|\psi _3`$ (4)
where $`r=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /4)`$ and the subscripts denote the spin index.

At this point Alice makes a weak measurement of her spins \[Fig. 2(b)\]. Let $`\stackrel{}{S}_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i+\stackrel{}{\sigma }_j)`$ be the total spin of qubits $`i,j`$; Alice measures $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}^2`$, with eigenvalues $`S(S+1)`$. Since only for the singlet state $`|S_{12}`$ do we have $`S(S+1)=0`$, it follows that if the measurement yields $`0`$, then the state has collapsed to $`|S_{12}R_{3z}|\psi _3`$. In this case, which occurs with probability $`1/4`$, Bob has $`R_{3z}|\psi _3`$, and we are done \[Fig. 2(c), bottom\]. If, on the other hand, Alice finds $`S=1`$, then the normalized post-measurement state is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}[r|T_0_{12}R_{3z}^{}|\psi _3+a\sqrt{2}(|001ib|110)].$$
(5)
Similar to the gate teleportation protocol Nielsen:01 ; Fenner:01 ; Leung:01a  shown in Fig. 1(b), Alice and Bob now need to engage in a series of correction steps. In the next step Alice measures $`S_z^2=\frac{1}{4}(\sigma _1^z+\sigma _2^z)^2=\frac{1}{2}(I+\sigma _1^z\sigma _2^z)`$ \[Fig. 2 (c), top\]. Measurement of the observable $`\sigma _1^z\sigma _2^z`$ is discussed in Nielsen:book . If Alice finds $`S_z^2=0`$ then with probability $`1/3`$ the state collapses to $`|T_0_{12}R_{3z}^{}|\psi _3`$ and Bob ends up with the opposite of the desired operation, namely $`R_z^{}|\psi `$ \[Fig. 2(d), bottom\]. We describe the required corrective action below, in Cycle (ii). If Alice finds $`S_z^2=1`$, then the state is:

$$a|001ib|110=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(r^{}R_{1z}^{}|\psi _1|S_{23}+rR_{1z}|\psi _1|T_0_{23}).$$

Bob now measures $`\stackrel{}{S}_{23}^2`$. If he finds $`S=0`$ then the state has collapsed to $`R_{1z}^{}|\psi _1|S_{23}`$, while if $`S=1`$ then the outcome is $`R_{1z}|\psi _1|T_0_{23}`$, equiprobably. In the latter case Alice ends up with the desired operation \[Fig. 2(e)\].

In a similar manner one can generate $`R_x`$ or $`R_x^{}`$ acting on an arbitrary qubit state $`|\psi `$. Let $`|\pm `$ denote the $`\pm 1`$ eigenstates of the Pauli operator $`\sigma ^x`$. As in the $`R_z`$ case above, first prepare a singlet state $`|S=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|+|+)`$ on the ancilla spins $`2,3`$ by cooling. Then perform a single-spin measurement of the observable $`\sigma _j^x`$ on each ancilla, which will yield either $`|+`$ or $`|+`$. For definiteness assume the outcome was $`|+_{23}`$. Observing that in the $`\{|+,|+\}`$ subspace, $`H_{ij}^{\mathrm{ex}}=J_{ij}^{}I+(J_{ij}^{}+J_{ij}^z)\stackrel{~}{X}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{X}:|+|+`$, it follows that $`U(\pi /4\phi _0^z,\phi _0^z)|+=\frac{e^{i\phi ^{}}}{\sqrt{2}}(|+i|+)`$, so that we have a means of generating an entangled initial state. The unknown state $`|\psi _1`$ of the data qubit can be expressed as $`|\psi =a_x|++b_x|`$, where $`a_x=(a+b)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`b_x=(ab)/\sqrt{2}.`$ Then (neglecting the overall phase $`e^{i\phi ^{}}`$):

$`|\psi _1U_{23}(\pi /4\phi _0^z,\phi _0^z)|+_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^{}|S_{12}R_{3x}|\psi _3+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r|T_0^x_{12}R_{3x}^{}|\psi _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(a_x|++ib_x|+)`$
where $`|T_0^x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|++|+)`$ is a triplet state, a zero eigenstate of the observable $`\sigma _1^x+\sigma _2^x`$. The gate teleportation procedure is now repeated to yield $`R_x`$ or $`R_x^{}.`$ First, Alice measures the total spin $`\stackrel{}{S}_{12}^2`$. If she find $`S=0`$ (with probability $`1/4`$) Bob has spin $`3`$ in the desired state $`R_{3x}|\psi _3`$. If she finds $`S=1`$ then she proceeds to measure the total length of the $`x`$ component $`S_x^2=\frac{1}{4}(\sigma _1^x+\sigma _2^x)^2`$, yielding, provided she finds $`S_x^2=0`$, the state $`|T_0^x_{12}R_{3x}^{}|\psi _3`$ with probability $`1/3`$. If, on the other hand, she finds $`S_x^2=1`$, i.e., the state is $`a_x|++ib_x|+`$, then by letting Bob measure $`\stackrel{}{S}_{23}^2`$, the states $`R_{1x}^{}|\psi _1|S_{23}`$ or $`R_{1x}|\psi _1|T_0^x_{23}`$ are obtained, with equal probabilities.

Fig. 2 summarizes the protocol we have described thus far. The overall effect is to transform the input state $`|\psi `$ to either the output state $`R_\beta |\psi `$ or $`R_\beta ^{}|\psi `$, equiprobably.

We have now arrived at Cycle (ii), in which we must fix the erred state $`R_{j\beta }^{}|\psi _j`$ ($`j=1`$ or $`3`$). To do so we essentially repeat the procedure shown in Fig. 2. We explicitly discuss one example; all other cases are similar. Suppose that we obtain the erred state $`R_{1z}^{}|\psi _1|S_{23}`$ \[Fig. 2(e)\]. It can be rewritten as

$`rR_{1z}^{}|\psi _1|S_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}(a|001ib|110)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r|S_{12}R_{3z}^{}|\psi _3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^{}|T_0_{12}R_{3z}|\psi _3,`$
which up to unimportant phases is identical to Eq. (4), except that the position of $`R_{3z}^{}`$ and $`R_{3z}`$ has flipped. Correspondingly flipping the decision pathway in Fig. 2 will therefore lead to the correct action $`R_\beta |\psi `$ with probability $`1/2`$, while the overall probability of obtaining the faulty outcome $`R_\beta ^{}|\psi `$ after the second cycle of measurements is $`1/4.`$ Clearly, after $`n`$ measurement cycles as shown in Fig. 2, the probability for the correct outcome is $`12^n`$. The expected number of measurements per cycle is $`1\frac{1}{4}+3\frac{3}{4}\frac{2}{3}\frac{1}{2}=1`$, and the expected number of measurement cycles needed is $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}n2^n=2`$.

We note that in the case of the erred state $`R_{jz}^{}|\psi _j`$ ($`j=1`$ or $`3`$) there is an alternative that is potentially simpler than repeating the measurement scheme of Fig. 2. Provided the exchange Hamiltonian is of the XY type, or of the XXZ type with a tunable $`J^z`$ exchange parameter, one can simply apply the correction operator $`U_{j2}(\frac{\pi }{2},0)=Z_jZ_2`$ to $`R_{jz}^{}|\psi _j`$, yielding $`R_{jz}|\psi _j`$ as required. Finally, we note that Nielsen Nielsen:01  has discussed the conditions for making a gate teleportation procedure of the type we have proposed here, fault tolerant.

To conclude, we have proposed a gate-teleportation method for universal quantum computation that is uniformly applicable to Heisenberg, XY and XXZ-type exchange interaction-based quantum computer (QC) proposals. Such exchange interactions characterize almost all solid-state QC proposals, as well as several quantum optics based proposals LidarWu:01 . In a number of these QC proposals, e.g., quantum dots Loss:98 , exchange interactions are significantly easier to control than single-qubit operations DiVincenzo:00a ; LidarWu:01 . Therefore it is advantageous to replace, where possible, single-qubit operations by measurements. Moreover, spin measurements are necessary for state read-out, both at the end of a computation and at intermediate stages during an error-correction prodecure, and often play an important role in initial-state preparation. Our method combines measurements of single- and two-spin observables, and a tunable exchange interaction. In a similar spirit we have shown how to replace with measurements certain difficult single-qubit operations in a QC-proposal involving superconducting phase qubits. We hope that the flexibility offered by this approach will provide a useful alternative route towards the realization of universal quantum computation.

Acknowledgments.— The present study was sponsored by the DARPA-QuIST program (managed by AFOSR under agreement No. F49620-01-1-0468) and by DWave Systems, Inc.


format: text

text:
# References

IFT-19-02 TOKUSHIMA Report (hep-ph/0208079)

Decoupling of Anomalous Top-Quark-Decay Vertices

in Angular Distribution of Secondary Particles

Bohdan GRZADKOWSKI$`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}),}`$a)a)a)E-mail address: bohdan.grzadkowski@fuw.edu.pl and Zenrō HIOKI$`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}),}`$b)b)b)E-mail address: hioki@ias.tokushima-u.ac.jp

$`1)`$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University

Hoża 69, PL-00-681 Warsaw, POLAND

$`2)`$ Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Tokushima

Tokushima 770-8502, JAPAN

ABSTRACT

Angular distribution of a secondary particle from top-quark decays is studied in a simple and general manner, paying careful attention to how relevant the top-quark production mechanism is. The conditions that lead to the distribution free from any possible anomalous top-quark decay interactions are specified. Some approximations adopted in earlier papers are relaxed and their relevance is discussed.

PACS: 14.60.-z, 14.65.Ha

Keywords: anomalous top-quark interactions, decoupling, angular distributions

Top-quark interactions could provide relevant information on physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) because of its huge mass. For instance the top-quark Yukawa couplings are expected to be enhanced comparing to those for lighter fermions and therefore precise tests of top-quark interactions could either reveal new scalar degrees of freedom or limit possible extensions of the SM Higgs sector. Since future high-energy accelerators like NLC/LHC will operate as factories of top quarks, a lot of attention has been paid to study their production mechanisms (for a review, see  and the reference list there).

Only anomalous $`t\overline{t}\gamma `$, $`t\overline{t}Z`$ and $`t\overline{t}g`$ couplings have usually been considered in those studies, however there is a priori no good reason to assume that the top-quark decay is properly described by the SM couplings. Therefore in a series of papers (see e.g. ) we have performed analysis of top-quark decay products assuming the most general couplings both for the production and the decay.

In Ref. we found that the angular distribution of the final leptons in $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}`$ is not sensitive to modification of the SM $`VA`$ decay vertex. The same conclusion was also reached by Rindani  through an independent calculation. We usually suffer from too many parameters to be determined while testing top-quark couplings in a general model-independent way. Therefore, a distribution insensitive to a certain class of non-standard form factors is obviously a big advantage as it increases expected precision for the determination of other remaining relevant couplings . Furthermore in Ref. we have noticed that this phenomenon appears not only in the process $`e^+e^{}t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}`$, but also in any $`t\overline{t}`$ production process.

There, however, we have limited ourselves to semileptonic SM-like decays $`tbWb\mathrm{}\nu `$ from $`t\overline{t}`$ pair production and used the explicit decay-width formula. The aim of this report is to complete full generalization of those preceding works. That is, we intend to relax these conditions studying general top-quark productions and its decays as model-independently as possible. Eventually we will specify the necessary conditions for decoupling of the anomalous top-quark-decay effects in the angular distributions of secondary particles from the top-quark decays.

Let us consider a general top-quark production process $`1+2t+\mathrm{}`$ followed by its decay $`tf+\mathrm{}`$ where $`f`$ denotes the secondary particle that we are going to observe.♯1♯1♯1Note that we are not limiting ourselves here to the SM-like decays with $`f=\mathrm{}^+,b`$ which we have considered in earlier papers. Following our preceding works, we assume $`\sqrt{s}`$ to be much higher than the threshold energy. Since the ratio of the top-quark width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$ to its mass $`m_t`$ is of the order of $`10^2`$ we can adopt the narrow-width approximation in the open-top region. Then one can apply the Kawasaki-Shirafuji-Tsai formula  in order to determine the $`f`$ distribution:♯2♯2♯2In the threshold region, this formula might be no longer valid due to large corrections. For example, non-factorizable QCD corrections appear at the level of 10 % in $`e\overline{e}t\overline{t}\mathrm{}^\pm X`$  (see also  and references therein for studies in the threshold region).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f}}(1+2t+\mathrm{}f+\mathrm{})`$
$`=2{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(s_t=n)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_t}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f}}=2B_f{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(s_t=n)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f}}.`$ (1)
Here $`d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}`$ denotes the Lorentz-invariant phase-space element $`d𝒑/[(2\pi )^32p^0]`$, $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f`$ is the spin-averaged top-quark width

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f}(tf+\mathrm{}),$$

$`B_f\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }_t`$, and $`d\sigma (s_t=n)/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t`$ is the single-top-quark inclusive cross section

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(s_t=n)\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(1+2t+\mathrm{};s_t=n)$$

with the polarization vector $`s_t`$ being replaced with the so-called “effective polarization vector” $`n`$

$$n_\mu =\left[g_{\mu \nu }\frac{p_{t}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}p_{t}^{}{}_{\nu }{}^{}}{m_t^2}\right]\frac{\underset{\mathrm{spin}}{}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+\gamma _5\gamma ^\nu B}}{_{\mathrm{spin}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }_+B}},$$
(2)
where the spinor $`B`$ is defined such that the matrix element for $`t(s_t)f+\mathrm{}`$ is expressed as $`\overline{B}u_t(p_t,s_t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+p/_t+m_t`$, $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the relevant final-state phase-space element, and $`_{\mathrm{spin}}`$ denotes the appropriate spin summation.

The angular distribution of $`f`$ shall be calculated based on eq.(1). Since $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f`$ is a Lorentz-invariant quantity depending only on $`p_t`$ and $`p_f`$, the distribution is a function of $`p_tp_f`$ alone

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f=F(\xi ),$$
(3)
where $`\xi p_tp_f=E_tE_f(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf})`$, $`\beta =|𝒑_t|/E_t`$ and we have neglected the mass of $`f`$. Integrating over $`𝒑_f`$ we find:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{2(2\pi )^2\beta E_t}𝑑E_f𝑑\xi F(\xi )=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^2m_t^2}𝑑\xi \xi F(\xi ),$$
(4)
where we used the following constraint on $`E_f`$ for a fixed $`\xi `$ in the $`E_f`$ integration:

$$\frac{\xi }{E_t(1+\beta )}E_f\frac{\xi }{E_t(1\beta )}.$$
(5)
On the other hand, the $`f`$ angular distribution is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{B_f}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑E_fE_f𝑑\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(s_t=n)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}F(\xi ).$$
(6)
Here the polarization-vector $`n`$ can in general depend on $`E_f`$ and the integration over $`E_f`$ cannot be performed before explicit calculation of $`d\sigma (s_t=n)/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t`$.

However, if the vector $`n`$ is free from $`E_f`$, we can perform the $`E_f`$ integration independently of the production mechanism since $`d\sigma /d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t`$ can depend on $`E_f`$ only through $`n`$ inserted instead of $`s_t`$. Let us briefly discuss possible dependence of $`n`$ on $`E_f`$. From the definition (2), $`n`$ is a linear combination of $`p_t`$ and $`p_f`$: $`n=ap_t+bp_f`$. Since $`np_t=0`$ we obtain

$$n=\alpha ^f\left(\frac{m_t}{p_tp_f}p_f\frac{p_t}{m_t}\right),$$
(7)
where we have introduced the depolarization factor $`\alpha ^fam_t`$. We also have the following inequality from eq.(2)

$$1n^201\alpha ^f1,$$
(8)
which can be easily proven in the top-quark rest frame via a generalized triangle inequality. Since we assumed that $`f`$ is massless, $`E_f`$ drops out in $`p_f/(p_tp_f)`$ in eq.(7) and the above inequality constrains the $`E_f`$ dependence of $`\alpha ^f`$. This discussion is never a proof that $`n`$ is always $`E_f`$ independent, but eq.(8) is a strong constraint and it will not be unreasonable to consider an $`E_f`$-independent $`n`$ vector.

Therefore, let us now temporarily assume that $`n`$ is not a function of $`E_f`$. Then we can carry out the $`E_f`$ integration in eq.(6):

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{B_f}{(2\pi )^3}𝑑\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(s_t=n)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑E_fE_fF(\xi ).$$
(9)
Since eq.(4) gives

$$𝑑E_fE_fF(\xi )=\frac{1}{E_t^2(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf})^2}𝑑\xi \xi F(\xi )=\frac{(2\pi )^2(1\beta ^2)}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf})^2}\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

eventually we obtain

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{1}{2\pi }B_f𝑑\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t\frac{d\sigma }{d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_t}(s_t=n)\frac{1\beta ^2}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf})^2}.$$
(10)
Note that there are only two possible ways that the structure of the top-quark decay vertex could influence the distribution:
i) through the width $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f`$, ii) through the effective polarization vector $`n`$.
Therefore we conclude that if the polarization vector $`n`$ (i.e. $`\alpha ^f`$) depends neither on $`E_f`$ nor on anomalous top-quark-decay vertices, the angular distribution $`d\sigma /d\Omega _f`$ is not altered by those anomalous vertices except for possible trivial modification of the branching ratio $`B_f`$. Furthermore, if we focus on the single standard-decay channel $`tbW^+b\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, even that dependence disappears. This result is never a trivial matter since the lepton-energy distribution, e.g., does depend on the anomalous decay parameters even when $`n`$ satisfies the above conditions .

Let us stress here the difference between this conclusion and those in : If we focus only on the decay mode $`tbW^+b\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$, the calculations in  can of course give the same result. However we cannot say thereby anything on other decay modes since we fully used the explicit decay-width formula for that mode there to get the results. On the other hand, the present formalism can do. Indeed, there could be infinite other decay patterns (although $`tbW^+b\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ will be the leading channel). That is, if we extend the Higgs sector, the top-quark could decay via charged Higgs exchange. If we introduce effective four-fermion interactions, then it would decay through a contact $`[tb\mathrm{}\nu ]`$ coupling. Even within the standard model, $`tbWb\mathrm{}\nu +arbitrarynumberofphotons`$ could occur. The present formula is applicable to any of them. This comparison clearly shows that our present formalism is the full important generalization of our previous works.

Finally, we consider the structure of $`n`$ for the main-decay mode $`tb\mathrm{}^+\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$ focusing on $`f=\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`b`$. Within the SM, it was found in Ref. that

$$\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+=1\mathrm{and}\alpha ^b=(2M_W^2m_t^2)/(2M_W^2+m_t^2).$$
(11)
Using the most general covariant $`tbW`$ coupling

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \overline{u}(p_b)\left[\gamma ^\mu (f_1^LP_L+f_1^RP_R)\frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu }{M_W}(f_2^LP_L+f_2^RP_R)\right]u(p_t),$$
(12)
where $`P_{L/R}=(1\gamma _5)/2`$ and $`k`$ is the momentum of $`W`$, we have confirmed in  that $`\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+`$ remains unchanged while $`\alpha ^b`$ receives corrections proportional to $`\mathrm{Re}(f_2^R)`$. In those calculations, all the fermions except $`t`$ were treated as massless, the narrow-width approximation was adopted also for the decaying $`W`$, and only the $`[`$SM$`]`$-$`[`$non-SM$`]`$ interference terms were taken into account. Thus, $`n`$ was indeed $`E_f`$-independent for those cases within our approximations, and the leptonic angular distribution cannot depend on the decay interactions even for the general $`tbW`$ vertex. Since the depolarization factor for $`f=b`$ was found to be sensitive to non-SM interactions already for $`m_b=0`$, hereafter we shall focus only on the leptonic distribution.

In the above calculations, we have used the following spinor $`B`$, defined below eq.(2), for the interaction specified in (12):

$`B\left[\gamma ^\mu (f_1^LP_L+f_1^RP_R)+{\displaystyle \frac{i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu }{M_W}}(f_2^LP_R+f_2^RP_L)\right]u(p_b)`$
$`\times \overline{v}(p_{\mathrm{}})\gamma _\mu P_Lu(p_\nu )\delta (k^2M_W^2),`$ (13)
while the phase-space element $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ needed in (2) is

$$d\mathrm{\Phi }=d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_bd\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_\nu \delta ^4(p_tp_bp_{\mathrm{}}p_\nu ).$$
(14)
Let us now test the relevance of the approximations so far adopted. First the $`b`$-quark mass: It is seen from the form of $`B`$ that if $`m_b=0`$ then only $`f_2^R`$ term can interfere with the leading $`VA`$ from factor. However, for $`m_b0`$ all the form factors do contribute. Nevertheless, we have found via explicit analytical calculations that the depolarization factor for $`f=\mathrm{}^+`$ still remains unchanged: $`\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+=1`$ even when $`m_b`$ is not neglected. So, when only interference terms are kept, $`\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+`$ depends neither on $`E_\mathrm{}^+`$ nor on the anomalous couplings regardless what bottom-quark mass was employed! On the other hand, however, we have noticed that $`\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+`$ does receive non-SM corrections of the order of $`[\text{non-SM}]^2`$ not only when eq.(12) is used for the $`tbW`$ vertex but also when similar anomalous terms were introduced into the $`\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}W`$ vertex. The narrow-width approximation for the decaying $`W`$ was also found to be inevitable for $`\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+=1`$. That is, if we replace $`\delta (k^2M_W^2)`$ in eq.(13) by the squared $`W`$ propagator with a finite width, $`\alpha ^\mathrm{}^+`$ does not stay unchanged even if only interference terms are kept.

There are a few remarks here in order:

* The angular dependence seen in eq.(10) cannot have any dynamical origin as we have never specified top-quark interactions. The angular distribution $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\stackrel{~}{𝒑}_f`$ entering eq.(1) is isotropic in the top-quark rest frame as top quark is unpolarized. Therefore the dependence on $`\theta _{tf}`$ of the integrand (10) is just a remnant of the Lorentz transformation from the top-quark rest frame to the LAB frame:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf}}=\frac{1\beta ^2}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf})^2}\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{d\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}},$$
(15)
where $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}/\mathrm{d}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}`$ is the constant distribution defined in the top-quark rest frame.
* Our derivation of the angular distribution (10) applies to any top-quark production process, including pair and single productions at both $`e^+e^{}`$ and hadronic machines (or $`\gamma \gamma `$ collisions enabled by laser-electron/positron backward scatterings) in the open-top region. For $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions the absolute value of top-quark momentum is fixed by $`\beta ^2=14m_t^2/s`$ and eq.(10) reduces to

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_f}=\frac{2m_t^2}{\pi s}B_f𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_t\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }_t}(s_t=n)\frac{1}{(1\beta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{tf})^2},$$
(16)
which is what we have derived in  including beyond-the-SM interactions.♯3♯3♯3The analogous SM result has been found in Ref.. On the other hand, the distribution in the CM frame of hadron-hadron collisions has some additional factors since the hadron CM frame and the parton CM frame are different from each other and they are connected through Lorentz transformation. However, any Lorentz boost can never produce anomalous-decay-parameter dependence. So, if $`d\sigma /d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ in the parton-CM frame is free from the non-SM form factors, then the one in the hadron-CM frame is also free from them. Consequently, our decoupling theorem holds in hadron-hadron collisions, too.

In conclusion, we have investigated the angular distribution of a secondary particle $`f`$ (without concentrating only on $`f=\mathrm{}^+,b`$) in processes like $`1+2t+\mathrm{}`$ followed by $`tf+\mathrm{}`$ neglecting the $`f`$ mass and applying the narrow-width approximation for the decaying top quark. It has been shown that if the effective polarization vector $`n`$ contains neither non-SM top-quark couplings nor $`E_f`$ (as is the case for $`f=\mathrm{}^+`$ within our approximation) then the whole angular distribution of $`f`$ has no non-SM top-quark-decay contributions. Non-standard corrections can enter the leptonic distribution only through modification of $`n`$ as corrections to the narrow-width approximation, $`m_{\mathrm{}}0`$ terms or contributions quadratic in non-SM vertices. However, if the polarization vector $`n`$ does contain non-SM contributions (as is the case for $`f=b`$), then the angular distribution of $`f`$ receives extra correction from the top-quark-decay vertices only through the production cross section of the polarized top quark.

We emphasize that our conclusions concerning the decoupling holds for any possible top-quark production mechanism even if the bottom-quark mass is not neglected. Therefore unknown top-quark couplings that parameterize the angular distribution of $`f`$ in the case of SM polarization vector (e.g. $`f=\mathrm{}^+`$) are reduced to those that influence the production process. Since fewer unknown parameters lead to higher precision for their determination, we believe that the angular distribution will be useful while testing top-quark couplings at future colliders.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

B.G. thanks José Wudka for interesting discussions. B.G. is also indebted to U.C. Riverside for its warm hospitality extended to him while this work was being performed. Z.H. is grateful to Y. Sumino for valuable conversations on the QCD corrections in the threshold region. This work is supported in part by the State Committee for Scientific Research under grant 5 P03B 121 20 (Poland) and the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.13135219 from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.


text:
# Exclusive Radiative Decays of B MesonsInvited talk at the 9th International Conference in Quantum Chromodynamics (Montpellier 2–9th July 2002)

## 1 Introduction

The main goal of todays $`B`$ physics is a precision study of the flavour sector and the phenomenon of CP violation that comes along with it. Particularly useful for clean tests of the Standard Model are the rare radiative $`bs(d)\gamma `$ transitions. The inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ mode was measured to have a branching fraction of $`B(BX_s\gamma )=(3.23\pm 0.42)10^4`$. Branching ratios of exclusive radiative channels are measured to be $`B(B^0K^0\gamma )=(4.44\pm 0.35)10^5`$ and $`B(B^+K^+\gamma )=(3.82\pm 0.47)10^5`$ whereas for the $`B\rho \gamma `$ and $`B\gamma \gamma `$ decays so far only upper limits exist .

Whereas the inclusive mode can be computed perturbatively using the heavy-quark expansion, for the exclusive channels bound state effects have to be taken into account. The basic mechanisms for the exclusive radiative decays were already discussed by various groups . However, they all had to use hadronic models which do not allow a clear separation of short- and long-distance dynamics and a clean distinction of model-dependent and model-independent features.

Yet, a systematic and model-independent analysis of exclusive radiative decays is possible in the heavy quark limit $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. The relevant hadronic matrix elements of local operators in the weak Hamiltonian simplify in this limit because perturbatively calculable hard scattering kernels can be separated from nonperturbative form factors and universal light-cone distribution amplitudes. A power counting in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b`$ implies a hierarchy among the possible transition mechanisms and allows to identify leading and subleading contributions. In particular, effects from quark loops are calculable rather than being generic, uncalculable long-distance contributions. Our approach is similar in spirit to the treatment of hadronic matrix elements in two-body non-leptonic $`B`$ decays formulated by Beneke, Buchalla, Neubert, and Sachrajda .

## 2 $`BV\gamma `$ at NLO in QCD

The effective Hamiltonian for $`bs\gamma `$ transitions reads

$$_{eff}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\underset{p=u,c}{}\lambda _p^{(s)}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}C_iQ_i^p+\underset{j=3}{\overset{8}{}}C_jQ_j\right)$$
(1)
where $`\lambda _p^{(s)}=V_{ps}^{}V_{pb}`$. The relevant operators are the current-current operators $`Q_{1,2}^p`$, the QCD-penguin operators $`Q_{3\mathrm{}6}`$, and the electro- and chromomagnetic penguin operators $`Q_{7,8}`$. The effective Hamiltonian for $`bd\gamma `$ is obtained from (1) by the replacement $`sd`$. The most difficult step in computing the $`BV\gamma `$ decay amplitudes is the evaluation of the hadronic matrix elements of the operators in (1). In the heavy-quark limit a systematic treatment of the hadronic matrix elements is possible. In this case the following factorization formula  is valid

$`V\gamma (ϵ)|Q_i|\overline{B}=`$
$`=\left[F^{BV}T_i^I+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑\xi 𝑑vT_i^{II}(\xi ,v)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_V(v)\right]ϵ`$
where $`ϵ`$ is the photon polarization 4-vector. Here $`F^{BV}`$ is a $`BV`$ transition form factor, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_V`$ are leading twist light-cone distribution amplitudes of the $`B`$ meson and the vector meson $`V`$, respectively. These quantities are universal, nonperturbative objects. They describe the long-distance dynamics of the matrix elements, which is factorized from the perturbative, short-distance interactions expressed in the hard-scattering kernels $`T_i^I`$ and $`T_i^{II}`$. To leading order in QCD and leading power in the heavy-quark limit, $`Q_7`$ gives the only contribution to the $`BV\gamma `$ amplitude. At $`𝒪(\alpha _s)`$ the operators $`Q_{1\mathrm{}6}`$ and $`Q_8`$ start contributing and the factorization formula becomes nontrivial.

The relevant diagrams for the NLO hard-vertex corrections $`T_i^I`$ were computed in  to get the virtual corrections to the matrix elements for the inclusive $`bs\gamma `$ mode at next-to-leading order. We re-interpret these results as the perturbative type I hard-scattering kernels for the exclusive process. As required for the consistency of the factorization formula, these contributions are dominated by hard scales $`m_b`$ and are hence infrared finite.

We now turn to the mechanism where the spectator participates in the hard scattering. The non-vanishing contributions to $`T_i^{II}`$ are shown in Fig. 1.

We can express both the type I and type II contributions to the matrix elements $`Q_i`$ in terms of the matrix element $`Q_7`$, an explicit factor $`\alpha _s`$, and hard-scattering functions $`G_i`$ and $`H_i`$ which are given explicitely in .

The total $`\overline{B}V\gamma `$ amplitude then can be written as

$$A(\overline{B}V\gamma )=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\lambda _u^{(s)}a_7^u+\lambda _c^{(s)}a_7^c\right]V\gamma |Q_7|\overline{B}$$

where the factorization coefficients $`a_7^p(V\gamma )`$ consist of the Wilson coefficient $`C_7`$ and the contributions from the type I and type II hard-scattering corrections. We get a sizeable enhancement of the leading order value, dominated by the $`T^I`$-type correction. The net enhancement of $`a_7`$ at NLO leads to a corresponding enhancement of the branching ratios, for fixed value of the form factor. This is illustrated in Fig. 2,

where we show the residual scale dependence for $`B(\overline{B}\overline{K}^0\gamma )`$ and $`B(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )`$ at leading and next-to-leading order.

A complex phase is generated at NLO which leads to a non-vanishing value of the CP asymmetry

$$𝒜_{CP}(V\gamma )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV\gamma )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}V\gamma )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(BV\gamma )+\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}V\gamma )}$$

It is of $`𝒪(10\%)`$ for the $`\rho \gamma `$ mode with the largest theoretical uncertainty coming from the scale dependence. The CP asymmetry is with $`𝒜_{CP}(K^{}\gamma )0.3\%`$ very small for the $`bs\gamma `$ transition because of the large CKM hierarchy $`|\lambda _u^{(s)}||\lambda _c^{(s)}|`$.

A further interesting observable is the charge averaged isospin breaking ratio

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(V\gamma )=\frac{v\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^+V^+\gamma )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^0V^0\gamma )}+\frac{v\mathrm{\Gamma }(B^{}V^{}\gamma )}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}^0V^0\gamma )}1$$

where $`v=1`$ for $`V=K^{}`$ and $`v=1/2`$ for $`V=\rho `$. Within our approximations, isospin breaking is generated by weak annihilation contributions. They are power suppressed but can nevertheless be computed within QCD factorization because the colour-transparency argument applies to the emitted, highly energetic vector meson in the heavy-quark limit. Isospin breaking was already discussed in , partially including NLO corrections. Kagan and Neubert found a large effect from the penguin operator $`Q_6`$ on the isospin asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^{}\gamma )`$ . This brings the prediction $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^{}\gamma )=(7.5_{5.9}^{+4.1})\%`$ within the large error bars in rather good agreement with the experimental value $`\mathrm{\Delta }(K^{}\gamma )_{exp}=(19.2\pm 11.8)\%`$ . For $`B\rho \gamma `$ we find a strong dependence of the isospin asymmetry on the angle $`\gamma `$ of the unitarity triangle. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.

A measurement of the isospin asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\rho \gamma )`$ can therefore give valuable indirect information on the CKM angle $`\gamma `$.

## 3 The Radiative Decays $`B\gamma \gamma `$

The double radiative $`B\gamma \gamma `$ modes realize the exceptional situation of nontrivial QCD dynamics related to the decaying $`B`$ in combination with a completely nonhadronic final state and simple two-body kinematics. As the two-photon system can be in a CP-even or CP-odd state we can study direct CP-violating effects.

In the heavy-quark limit we get a factorization formula  for the hadronic matrix elements of the operators in the effective Hamiltonian (1):

$$\gamma (ϵ_1)\gamma (ϵ_2)|Q_i|\overline{B}=_0^1𝑑\xi T_i^{\mu \nu }(\xi )\mathrm{\Phi }_{B1}(\xi )ϵ_{1\mu }ϵ_{2\nu }$$

Because there are no hadrons in the final state only one type of hard-scattering kernel $`T`$ (type II or hard-spectator contribution) enters the factorization formula.

To leading power in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}/m_b`$ and in the leading logarithmic approximation of QCD only one diagram contributes to the amplitude for $`B\gamma \gamma `$. It is the one-particle reducible (1PR) diagram with the electromagnetic penguin operator $`Q_7`$, where the second photon is emitted from the $`s`$-quark line. The result for both the CP-even and CP-odd amplitude is

$$A_\pm =(\lambda _u^{(q)}+\lambda _c^{(q)})C_7\frac{m_B}{\lambda _B}$$

where $`\lambda _B=𝒪(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$ parametrizes the first negative moment of the $`B`$ meson wave function. In the present approximation the strong-interaction matrix elements multiplying $`\lambda _u^{(q)}`$ and $`\lambda _c^{(q)}`$ are identical and have no relative phase. For the strictly leading-power result we therefore get no direct CP violation.

Subleading contributions come for example from the 1PR diagram, where the second photon is emitted from the $`b`$ quark line. This and other subleading effects in $`Q_7`$, however, contribute equally to the up- and charm-quark components of the amplitude and therefore do not affect direct CP violation. The one-particle irreducible diagrams (1PI) of Fig. 4,

on the other hand, provide the basic effects responsible for a difference between the up- and charm-quark sectors of the amplitude, including rescattering phases. Although power-suppressed they are calculable in QCD factorization. We then get a non-vanishing CP asymmetry already at $`𝒪(\alpha _s^0)`$. The effect for $`B_s\gamma \gamma `$ is again negligible whereas the direct CP asymmetry for $`B_d\gamma \gamma `$ is approximately $`10\%`$. However, we do not expect these CP asymmetries to be measured in the near future because of the tiny branching ratios. We predict $`B(\overline{B}_s\gamma \gamma )=(1.2_{0.7}^{+2.5})10^6`$ and $`B(\overline{B}_d\gamma \gamma )=(3.1_{2.1}^{+6.7})10^8`$ which are both roughly two orders of magnitude below the current experimental upper limits. The large uncertainty in our prediction comes from the poorly known hadronic parameter $`\lambda _B`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented a systematic and model-independent framework for the rare radiative decays $`BV\gamma `$ and $`B\gamma \gamma `$ based on the heavy-quark limit $`m_b\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$. Quark-loop contributions are calculable in QCD factorization rather than being uncalculable long-distance effects. Non-factorizable long-distance corrections may still exist, but they are power-suppressed. Strong interaction phases from both hard-vertex and hard-spectator contributions are calculable and important for CP-violating observables. We have seen that weak-annihilation amplitudes in $`BV\gamma `$ are power-suppressed but numerically enhanced and calculable. We used them to estimate isospin breaking effects.

Our NLO predictions for the central values of the $`BV\gamma `$ branching ratios are $`B(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0\gamma )=(7.4_{2.4}^{+2.6})10^5`$ and $`B(B^{}\rho ^{}\gamma )=(1.6_{0.5}^{+0.7})10^6`$. They are substantially larger than the leading logarithmic values when the same form factors are used. The dominant uncertainty comes from the variation of the nonperturbative input parameters, most notably from the $`BV`$ form factors. This situation, however, can be systematically improved. In particular, our approach allows for a consistent perturbative matching of the form factor to the short-distance part of the amplitude.

## Acknowledgements

I thank the organizers of QCD02 for inviting me to such an interesting conference and I am very grateful to Gerhard Buchalla for the extremely pleasant collaboration.