data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d3e99/d3e9918a81a21dc2be1906470321e97fe3a28307" alt=""
space S
†
n
(x) = P exp
ig
R
∞
0
ds n·A
s
(ns+x)
, and ultrasoft Wilson lines Y
n,¯n
are the analogs
with ultrasoft gluon fields in bHQET. The difference between the SCET fields and bHQET
fields is that SCET still contains soft and collinear fluctuations at the top mass scale, i.e.
the SCET fields contain mass mode fluctuations which scale as (p
+
, p
−
, p
⊥
) ∼ (m, m, m)
and (Q, m
2
/Q, m) or (m
2
/Q, Q, m) which are absent in bHQET. This makes our EFT
above the top mass scale an SCET
II
type theory. There are six flavors in the MS running
coupling in QCD and SCET, and five flavors in bHQET.
The notation above differs from ref. [14] which used a hybrid of SCET
I
and SCET
II
,
where the current operator was written as
e
J
SCET
= ¯χ
n
Y
†
n
S
†
n
Γ
µ
i
S
¯n
Y
¯n
χ
¯n
. (2.2)
Here the Wilson lines S
n,¯n
describe exclusively soft mass mode fluctuations and have ultra-
soft zero-bin subtractions. In eq. (2.1) the SCET operator only describes soft fluctuations
above and of order of the mass scale m, and not far below m. This simplifies the setup for
the matching coefficient calculation, which in particular can be viewed as going from a six
flavor theory to a five flavor theory.
The matching coefficients between these effective theories are defined by
J
(n
l
+1)
QCD
= C
(n
l
+1)
Q
J
(n
l
+1)
SCET
1 + O(m/Q)
, (2.3)
J
(n
l
+1)
SCET
= C
(n
f
)
m
J
(n
l
)
bHQET
1 + O(ˆs/m)
. (2.4)
Here both the currents and Wilson coefficients refer to the renormalized quantities. When
we refer to the bare objects we will indicate this explicitly as e.g. in J
(bare,n
l
+1)
SCET
. For
all quantities we consider we use the renormalized coupling constant. When we want to
separate the color structures of the matching coefficients we will do so in the following way:
C
(n
l
+1)
Q
= 1 + C
(1, n
l
+1)
Q
+ C
(C
2
F
, n
l
+1)
Q
+ C
(C
F
C
A
, n
l
+1)
Q
+ C
(C
F
n
l
T
F
, n
l
+1)
m
+ C
(C
F
T
F
, n
l
+1)
Q
,
C
(n
f
)
m
= 1 + C
(1, n
f
)
m
| {z }
O(α
s
)
+ C
(C
2
F
, n
f
)
m
+ C
(C
F
C
A
, n
f
)
m
+ C
(C
F
n
l
T
F
, n
f
)
m
+ C
(C
F
T
F
, n
f
)
m
| {z }
O(α
2
s
)
. (2.5)
In all the objects above the coupling is renormalized in the MS scheme with the number
of dynamical flavors, n
f
, being either n
l
or (n
l
+ 1) as indicated by the superscript. Here
n
l
is the number of light quarks, and the additional flavor indicates the heavy quark (here
the top quark). The choice for the number of flavors in each of the expressions above is
motivated by the scales at which these objects live compared to the top mass. Note that
we have kept the number of flavors appearing in C
m
unspecified, as it can be expressed in
either the n
l
- or the (n
l
+ 1)-flavor scheme. We will be explicit about which scheme we are
using in the equations below.
The hard functions in eq. (1.2) are related to the Wilson coefficients via
H
Q
(Q, µ) = |C
Q
|
2
, H
m
m,
Q
m
, µ
= |C
m
|
2
. (2.6)
Here the dependence on Q in the hard function H
m
appears due to the boost factor Q/m.
– 6 –