Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Effective electroweak Hamiltonian in the gradient-flow formalism

Robert V. Harlander1,* and Fabian Lange2,3,†

  • 1Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany
  • 2Institut für Theoretische Teilchenphysik, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Wolfgang-Gaede-Straße 1, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
  • 3Institut für Astroteilchenphysik, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany

  • *harlander@physik.rwth-aachen.de
  • †fabian.lange@kit.edu

Phys. Rev. D 105, L071504 – Published 26 April, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L071504

Abstract

The effective electroweak Hamiltonian in the gradient-flow formalism is constructed for the current-current operators through next-to-next-to-leading-order QCD. The results are presented for two common choices of the operator basis. This allows for a consistent matching of perturbatively evaluated Wilson coefficients and nonperturbative matrix elements evaluated by lattice simulations on the basis of the gradient-flow formalism.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (41)

  1. M. Lüscher, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2010) 071; 03 (2014) 092(E).
  2. H. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2013, 083B03 (2013); 2015, 079201(E) (2015).
  3. H. Makino and H. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2014, 063B02 (2014); 2015, 079202(E) (2015).
  4. R. V. Harlander, Y. Kluth, and F. Lange, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 944 (2018); 79, 858(E) (2019).
  5. T. Iritani, M. Kitazawa, H. Suzuki, and H. Takaura, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2019, 023B02 (2019).
  6. Y. Taniguchi, S. Ejiri, K. Kanaya, M. Kitazawa, H. Suzuki, and T. Umeda (WHOT-QCD Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 014510 (2020); 102, 059903(E) (2020).
  7. M. Shirogane, S. Ejiri, R. Iwami, K. Kanaya, M. Kitazawa, H. Suzuki, Y. Taniguchi, and T. Umeda (WHOT-QCD Collaboration), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 013B08 (2021).
  8. M. D. Rizik, C. J. Monahan, and A. Shindler (SymLat Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 102, 034509 (2020).
  9. E. Mereghetti, C. J. Monahan, M. D. Rizik, A. Shindler, and P. Stoffer, arXiv:2111.11449.
  10. R. V. Harlander, F. Lange, and T. Neumann, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2020) 109.
  11. A. Suzuki, Y. Taniguchi, H. Suzuki, and K. Kanaya, Phys. Rev. D 102, 034508 (2020).
  12. K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Münz, Nucl. Phys. B520, 279 (1998).
  13. Y. Aoki et al., arXiv:2111.09849.
  14. A. J. Buras and P. H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. B333, 66 (1990).
  15. M. Lüscher, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2013) 123.
  16. M. Lüscher and P. Weisz, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2011) 051.
  17. J. Artz, R. V. Harlander, F. Lange, T. Neumann, and M. Prausa, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 121; 10 (2019) 032(E).
  18. M. J. Dugan and B. Grinstein, Phys. Lett. B 256, 239 (1991).
  19. S. Herrlich and U. Nierste, Nucl. Phys. B455, 39 (1995).
  20. S. G. Gorishny, S. A. Larin, and F. V. Tkachov, Phys. Lett. 124B, 217 (1983).
  21. S. G. Gorishny and S. A. Larin, Nucl. Phys. B283, 452 (1987).
  22. R. V. Harlander, S. Y. Klein, and M. Lipp, Comput. Phys. Commun. 256, 107465 (2020).
  23. R. Harlander, T. Seidensticker, and M. Steinhauser, Phys. Lett. B 426, 125 (1998).
  24. T. Seidensticker, in Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the ACAT Series (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9905298.
  25. P. Nogueira, J. Comput. Phys. 105, 279 (1993).
  26. P. Nogueira, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 559, 220 (2006).
  27. J. A. M. Vermaseren, arXiv:math-ph/0010025.
  28. J. Kuipers, T. Ueda, J. A. M. Vermaseren, and J. Vollinga, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1453 (2013).
  29. T. van Ritbergen, A. N. Schellekens, and J. A. M. Vermaseren, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 41 (1999).
  30. P. Maierhöfer, J. Usovitsch, and P. Uwer, Comput. Phys. Commun. 230, 99 (2018).
  31. J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierhöfer, and J. Usovitsch, Comput. Phys. Commun. 266, 108024 (2021).
  32. J. Klappert and F. Lange, Comput. Phys. Commun. 247, 106951 (2020).
  33. J. Klappert, S. Y. Klein, and F. Lange, Comput. Phys. Commun. 264, 107968 (2021).
  34. See Supplemental Material at http://link.aps.org/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L071504 for analytic results of ζ−1 in both the CMM and the nonmixing bases.
  35. P. Gambino, M. Gorbahn, and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B673, 238 (2003).
  36. M. Gorbahn and U. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. B713, 291 (2005).
  37. A. J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, U. Haisch, and U. Nierste, J. High Energy Phys. 11 (2006) 002; 11 (2012) 167(E).
  38. G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, and M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125 (1996).
  39. C. Bobeth, M. Misiak, and J. Urban, Nucl. Phys. B574, 291 (2000).
  40. J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, Phys. Rev. D 82, 094026 (2010).
  41. J. Brod and M. Gorbahn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 121801 (2012).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation