# Progress in 𝐾→𝜋⁢𝜋 Decays Work supported in part by TMR, EC-Contract No. ERBFMRX-CT980169 (EURODAΦNE). Talk given at PANIC99, Uppsala 10-16 june 1999 LU TP 99-18hep-ph/9907307July 1999

## 1 Introduction

The qualitative feature that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^0\pi ^0\pi ^0)\mathrm{\Gamma }(K^+\pi ^+\pi ^0)`$ is one of the oldest problems in kaon decays that is not fully understood qualitatively. This is known as the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule. The isospin-2 final state amplitude $`A_2`$ is much smaller than the isospin-0 amplitude $`A_0`$. Experimentally we have $`|A_0/A_2|=22.1`$, the precise definition used here can be found in  and a review of Kaon physics is in  More references can be found in either of these two.

The underlying standard model process is the exchange of a $`W`$-boson but due to the large difference in the Kaon and $`W`$-mass very large corrections can come into play and even normally suppressed contributions can be enhanced by large factors $`\mathrm{ln}(m_W^2/m_K^2)10`$. At the same time, at low energies the strong interaction coupling $`\alpha _S`$ becomes very large which requires us to use non-perturbative methods at those scales.

The resummation of large logarithms at short-distance can be done using renormalization group methods. At a high scale the exchange of $`W`$-bosons is replaced by a sum over local operators. For weak decays these start at dimension 6. The scale can then be lowered using the renormalization group. The short-distance running is now known to two-loops  (NLO) which sums the $`\left(\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}(m_W/\mu )\right)^n`$ and $`\alpha _S\left(\alpha _S\mathrm{ln}(m_W/\mu )\right)^n`$ terms. A review of this can be found in the lectures by A. Buras .

The major remaining problem is to calculate the matrix elements of the local operators at some low scale. I will address some progress on this issue in this talk. The main method was originally proposed in Ref.  arguing that $`1/N_c`$ counting could be used to systematically calculate the matrix elements. Various improvements have since been introduced. The correct momentum routing was introduced in . The use of the extended Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model as an improved low energy model was introduced for weak matrix elements in  and a short discussion of its major advantages and disadvantages can be found in . The results obtained were encouraging but a major problem remained. At NLO order the short-distance running becomes dependent on the precise definition of the local operators. This dependence should also be reflected in the calculations of the matrix elements as well as a correct identification of the scale of the renormalization group in the matrix element calculation. The more precise interpretation of the scheme of  introduced in  was shown there at one-loop to satisfy the latter criterion. Here I present in the next section how this method also satisfies the latter at NLO and how it solves the first problem as well. We call this method the $`X`$-boson method. The third section describes the numerical results we obtained in .

Other recent work on matrix elements is the work of  and  using the $`1/N_c`$ method as well. A more model dependent approach is .

## 2 The $`X`$-boson method

The basic underlying idea is that we know how to hadronize currents or at least that this is a tractable problem. So we replace the effect of the local operators of $`H_W(\mu )=_iC_i(\mu )Q_i(\mu )`$ at a scale $`\mu `$ by the exchange of a series of colourless $`X`$-bosons at a low scale $`\mu `$. The scale $`\mu `$ should be such that the $`1/N_c`$ suppressed contributions have no longer large logarithmic corrections. Let me illustrate the procedure in a simpler case of only one operator and neglecting penguin contributions. In the more general case all coefficients become matrices.

$$C_1(\mu )(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu d_L)(\overline{u}_L\gamma ^\mu u_L)X_\mu \left[g_1(\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu d_L)+g_2(\overline{u}_L\gamma ^\mu u_L)\right].$$
(1)   
Summation over colour indices is understood inside the brackets. We now determine $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ as a function of $`C_1`$. This is done by equalizing matrix elements of $`C_1Q_1`$ with the equivalent ones of $`X`$-boson exchange. The matrix elements are at the scale $`\mu `$ chosen such that perturbative QCD methods can still be used and thus we can use external states of quarks and gluons. To lowest order this is simple. The tree level diagram from Fig. 1(a) is set equal to that of Fig. 1(b) leading to

$$C_1=\frac{g_1g_2}{M_X^2}.$$
(2)   
At NLO diagrams like those of Fig. 1(c) and 1(d) contribute as well leading to

$$C_1\left(1+\alpha _S(\mu )r_1\right)=\frac{g_1g_2}{M_X^2}\left(1+\alpha _S(\mu )a_1+\alpha _S(\mu )b_1\mathrm{log}\frac{M_X^2}{\mu ^2}\right).$$
(3)   
At this level the scheme-dependence disappears. The left-hand-side (lhs) is scheme-independent. The right-hand-side can be calculated in a very different renormalization scheme from the lhs. The infrared dependence of $`r_1`$ is present in precisely the same way in $`a_1`$ such that $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are scheme-independent and independent of the precise infrared definition of the external state in Fig. 1.

One step remains, we now have to calculate the matrix element of $`X`$-boson exchange between meson external states. The integral over $`X`$-boson momenta we split in two

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p_X\frac{1}{p_X^2M_X^2}_0^{\mu _1}𝑑p_X\frac{1}{p_X^2M_X^2}+_{\mu _1}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p_X\frac{1}{p_X^2M_X^2}.$$
(4)   
The second term involves a high momentum that needs to flow back through quarks or gluons and leads through diagrams like the one of Fig. 1(c) to a four quark-operator with a coefficient

$$\frac{g_1g_2}{M_X^2}\left(\alpha _S(\mu _1)a_2+\alpha _S(\mu _1)b_1\mathrm{log}\frac{M_X^2}{\mu ^2}\right).$$
(5)   
The four-quark operator thus needs to be evaluated only in leading order in $`1/N_c`$. The first term we have to evaluate in a low-energy model with as much QCD input as possible. The $`\mu _1`$ dependence cancels between the two terms in (4) if the low-energy model is good enough and all dependence on $`M_X^2`$ cancels out to the order required as well. Calculating the coefficients $`r_1`$, $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ gives the required correction to the naive factorization method as used in previous $`1/N_c`$ calculations.

It should be stressed that in the end all dependence on $`M_X`$ cancels out. The $`X`$-boson is a purely technical device to correctly identify the four-quark operators in terms of well-defined products of nonlocal currents.

## 3 Numerical results

We now use the $`X`$-boson method with $`r_1`$ as given in  and $`a_1=a_2=0`$, the calculation of the latter is in progress, and $`\mu =\mu _1`$. For $`B_K`$ we can extrapolate to the pole for the real case ($`\widehat{B}_K`$) and in the chiral limit ($`\widehat{B}_K^\chi `$) and for $`K\pi \pi `$ we can get at the values of the octet ($`G_8`$), weak mass term ($`G_8^{}`$) and 27-plet ($`G_{27}`$) coupling. We obtain

$$\widehat{B}_K=0.69\pm 0.10;\widehat{B}_K^\chi =0.25\text{}0.40;G_8=4.3\text{}7.5;G_{27}=0.25\text{}0.40\text{ and }G_8^{}=0.8\text{}1.1,$$
(6)   
to be compared with the experimental values $`G_86.2`$ and $`G_{27}0.48`$ .

In Fig. 3 the $`\mu `$ dependence of $`G_8`$ is shown and in Fig. 3 the contribution from the various different operators.

## 4 Conclusions

I showed how the $`X`$-boson method allows to correctly treat NLO scheme dependence and that using that method and the ENJL model at low energies reproduces the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1/2`$ rule quantitatively without any free parameters.