# Addendum to: “Two Higgs Doublet Model predictions for 𝐵̄→𝑋_𝑠⁢𝛾 in NLO QCD” *footnote **footnote *Work supported in part by CNRS and Schweizerischer Nationalfonds

preprint:   PM/98–22 BUTP–98/24 hep-ph/9809438    

Recently, several papers appeared that include different classes of electroweak corrections  to the process $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$. In , corrections to the Wilson coefficients at the matching scale due to the top quark and the neutral higgs boson were calculated and found to be negligible. The analysis  concluded that the most appropriate value of $`\alpha _{em}^1`$ to be used for this problem is the fine structure constant $`\alpha ^1=137.036`$ instead of the value $`\alpha _{em}^1=130.3\pm 2.3`$ previously used. In , the leading logarithmic QED corrections of the form $`\alpha \mathrm{log}(\mu _W/\mu _b)\left(\alpha _s\mathrm{log}(\mu _W/\mu _b)\right)^n`$ (with resummation in $`n`$) were given.

We update our results of  for the branching ratio $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$ in the SM and for the exclusion contour plot $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_H)`$ in a 2HDM of Type II, by changing the value of $`\alpha _{em}`$ and by including the class of QED corrections presented in . They can be used to improve $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$ in any extension of the SM which does not increase the set of effective operators relevant for the problem.

In the SM, we obtain:

$$\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )=\left(3.32\pm _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.11}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.00}}(\mu _\mathrm{b})\pm _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.08}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.00}}(\mu _\mathrm{W})\pm _{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.25}}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.26}}(\mathrm{param})\right)\times 10^4.$$
(1)   
The bulk of the change with respect to the value presented in  is due to the different value of $`\alpha _{em}^1`$ used. In a 2HDM of Type II, the new exclusion plot in $`(\mathrm{tan}\beta ,m_H)`$, obtained for different possible experimental upper bounds for $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$, is shown in Fig. 1.

Each curve is obtained minimizing $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )/\mathrm{BR}(bcl\nu _l)|_{theor}`$ by varying the input parameters within their range of errors and the two scales $`\mu _b`$ and $`\mu _W`$ as described in , for each value of $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )|_{exp}`$ considered.

As already mentioned in , one should bear in mind that the error in (1) as well as that considered to obtain the exclusion curves in Fig. 1 does not include all possible uncertainties in the theoretical estimate of $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$. A different way of handling the semileptonic width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$, for example, retaining only the first term in the $`\alpha _s`$ expansion of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ lowers the central value of $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$ from $`3.32\times 10^4`$ to $`3.22\times 10^4`$ in the standard model. Similarly, the different treatment of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SL}`$ leads to shifts of the exclusion curves in Fig. 1 by tens of GeV for $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )4\times 10^4`$ or more for smaller values of $`\mathrm{BR}(\overline{B}X_s\gamma )`$.

A similar effect has to be expected for additional electroweak corrections not included here, which presumably will not exceed the $`2\%`$ level .