1: \documentclass[twocolumn,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,aps,nobibnotes,nofootinbib]{revtex4} %superscriptaddress
2: \pdfoutput=1
3:
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \graphicspath{{Figs/}}
6: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
7: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
8: \usepackage[a4paper, top=1.0in, bottom=1.2in, left=1.0in, right=1.0in]{geometry}
9: \usepackage{multirow}
10:
11: \hyphenation{SU-SY}
12: \hyphenation{fer-mi-on}
13: \hyphenation{sfer-mi-on}
14: \hyphenation{char-gi-no}
15: \hyphenation{neu-tra-li-no}
16: \hyphenation{glu-ino}
17: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}
18: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}
19: \newcommand{\beq}{\beqn}
20: \newcommand{\eeq}{\eeqn}
21: \newcommand{\beqn}{\begin{eqnarray}}
22: \newcommand{\eeqn}{\end{eqnarray}}
23: \def\sla#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}\dimen0=\wd0
24: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1
25: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} #1 \else
26: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}}
27: / \fi}
28: \newcommand{\n}{ \newline }
29: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
30: \newcommand{\ov}{\overline}
31: \newcommand{\al}{\alpha}
32: \newcommand{\be}{\beta}
33: \newcommand{\ga}{\gamma}
34: \newcommand{\de}{\delta}
35: \newcommand{\D}{\Delta}
36: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}
37: \newcommand{\vep}{\varepsilon}
38: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}
39: \newcommand{\te}{\theta}
40: \newcommand{\bk}{\hat B_K}
41: \newcommand{\keps}{\kappa_{\epsilon}}
42: \newcommand{\ovkeps}{{\overline\kappa}_{\epsilon}}
43: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
44: \newcommand{\mc}{\mathcal}
45: \newcommand{\id}{1 \hspace{1.15mm} \!\!\!\!1}
46: \newcommand{\mystackrel}[2]{\rotatebox{180}{$\stackrel{\mbox{\rotatebox{180}{\tiny#2}}}{\mbox{\rotatebox{180}{#1}}}$}}
47: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%
48: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnote[#1]{#2}\endgroup}
49: \newcommand{\mysection}[1]{\section{\boldmath #1}}
50: \newcommand{\mysectionA}[1]{\section*{\boldmath #1}}
51: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\arabic{section}}
52: \renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\arabic{subsection}}
53: \newcommand{\lc}{\lowercase}
54: \newcommand{\noi}{\noindent}
55: \newcommand{\bfootnote}[1]{\footnote{\bf \boldmath DG: #1}}
56: \newcommand{\tmpbf}{\boldmath \bf}
57:
58: \begin{document}
59:
60: \preprint{TUM-HEP-688/08}
61:
62: \title{\boldmath Correlations among new CP violating effects in $\D F = 2$ observables}
63:
64: \author{Andrzej~J.~Buras}
65: \affiliation{Physik-Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen, D-85748 Garching, Germany}
66:
67: \author{Diego~Guadagnoli}
68: \affiliation{Physik-Department, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen, D-85748 Garching, Germany}
69:
70: \date{\today}
71:
72: \begin{abstract}
73:
74: \noi We point out that the observed CP violation in $B_d - \ov B_d$ mixing, taking into account the measured ratio
75: $\D M_d / \D M_s$, the recently decreased lattice value of the non-perturbative parameter $\bk$ and an additional
76: effective suppression factor $\keps \simeq 0.92$ in $\eps_K$ neglected sofar in most analyses, may be insufficient
77: to describe the measured value of $\eps_K$ within the Standard Model (SM), thus hinting at new CP violating contributions
78: to the $K - \ov K$ and/or $B_d - \ov B_d$ systems. Furthermore, assuming that $\D M_d / \D M_s$ is SM-like,
79: the signs and the magnitudes of new physics effects in $\eps_K$ and in the CP asymmetries $S_{\psi K_s}$ and $S_{\psi \phi}$
80: may turn out to be correlated. For example, in a scenario with new CP-phases in $B_d$ and $B_s$ mixings being approximately
81: equal and negative, a common new phase $\approx - 5^\circ$ could remove the tension between $\eps_K$ and $S_{\psi K_s}$
82: present in the SM and simultaneously accommodate, at least partly, the recent claim of $S_{\psi \phi}$ being much larger
83: than the SM expectation.
84: We emphasize the importance of precise determinations of $V_{cb}$, $\bk$, $F_K$ and $\xi_s$,~to which the parameter
85: $\eps_K$ and its correlation with the CP violation in the $B_d - \ov B_d$ system are very sensitive.
86:
87: \end{abstract}
88:
89: %\pacs{}
90:
91: \maketitle
92:
93: \mysection{I\lc{ntroduction}}\label{sec:intro}
94:
95: \noi The major task achieved in quark flavour physics up to the present is a sound test of the Standard
96: Model (SM) mechanism of flavour and CP violation. This mechanism has proven to be able to accommodate dozens of
97: measured processes, to a degree of accuracy sometimes unexpected. These processes have consequently allowed a
98: redundant determination of the CKM matrix parameters, in particular $\ov \rho, \ov \eta$. Indeed, the $(\ov \rho,
99: \ov \eta)$-plots by the UTfit and CKMfitter collaborations have become somewhat an icon of the SM performance in
100: flavour physics. To the present level of accuracy, the `big picture' in flavour and CP violation looks therefore
101: quite solid.
102:
103: Nonetheless, hints of discrepancies with respect to the SM expectations do exist in some flavour observables. The
104: most recent is the claim of a $B_s$ mixing phase much larger than the SM prediction. This conclusion --~first
105: signalled in 2006 by Lenz and Nierste \cite{LenzNierste}~-- has been recently reported as an evidence
106: by the UTfit collaboration \cite{UTfit-Bs} on the basis of a combined fit to the time-dependent tagged angular analyses of
107: $B_s \to \psi \phi$ decays by the CDF \cite{CDF-tagged} and D{\O} \cite{D0-tagged} collaborations.
108: The result of \cite{UTfit-Bs} urges higher-statistics data from Tevatron, but, if confirmed, would be the first
109: evidence of physics beyond the SM from collider data.
110:
111: Another emblematic example, also emphasized in \cite{UTfit-Bs,LunghiSoni-Bd}, is that of the penguin-dominated
112: non-leptonic $b \to s$ decays. The mixing-induced CP asymmetries measured in these decays allow to access
113: $\sin 2 \beta$, where $\beta$ is one of the angles of the Unitarity Triangle (UT), defined below in
114: eq. (\ref{betadefs}). The $\sin 2 \beta$ determinations obtained from these decay modes are
115: systematically lower than the value measured in the tree-level decay $B_d \to \psi K_s$. The latter
116: direct determination has in turn been found to be lower than the one extracted indirectly
117: from tree-level measurements, in particular $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ \cite{UTfit-phid,BBGT,BallFleischer}. Conclusions in
118: this respect depend mostly on the $|V_{ub}|$ estimate, which is a not yet settled issue.
119: Independently of this, the problem has been recently revived in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd} as a consequence of a new lattice
120: estimate of the $\hat B_K$ parameter \cite{DJAntonio}, which reads: $\bk = 0.720(13)(37).$\footnote{Similar results have
121: been obtained in \cite{JLQCD-BK}, while $\bk = 0.83(18)$ has been reported in \cite{HPQCD-BK}. It may also be interesting to
122: note that some non-lattice estimates of $\bk$, e.g. those in the large $N_c$ approach, feature $\bk \lesssim 0.70$. See in
123: particular refs. \cite{BardeenBurasGerard-BK,PichDeRafael-BK,BijnensPrades-BK}.}
124: The parameter $\bk$ enters the CP-violating observable $\eps_K$ and, in the context of the SM, the decrease of $\bk$ found
125: in \cite{DJAntonio,JLQCD-BK} with respect to previous determinations favors $\sin 2 \beta$ again substantially higher than
126: the one extracted from $B_d \to \psi K_s$.
127:
128: Here we would like to gather these pieces of information and try to address the question whether existing
129: data on the $B_d$ and $K$ systems do already signal the presence of inconsistencies in the SM picture
130: of CP violation from a somewhat different point of view than the analysis in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}.
131: More concretely, the most updated theoretical input in $K$ physics --~in particular the quite
132: low central value from the aforementioned new lattice determination of $\hat B_K$ and an additional effective
133: suppression factor $\keps \simeq 0.92$ in the SM $\eps_K$ formula neglected in most analyses to date~-- tend both to lower
134: the SM prediction for $|\eps_K|$ beneath its measured value if the amount of CP violation in the $B_d$ system,
135: quantified by $\sin 2\beta$ from $B_d \to \psi K_s$, is used as input.
136:
137: In order to cure this potential inconsistency, one should then introduce either a new CP phase in the $B_d$ or respectively
138: in the $K$ system, or alternatively two smaller phases in both systems. The case of a single additional $B_d$ mixing phase
139: is especially interesting. In this instance, the SM formula for the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $S_{\psi K_s}$ generalizes to
140: \beqn
141: S_{\psi K_s} = \sin(2 \beta + 2 \phi_d) = 0.681 \pm 0.025~,
142: \label{SpsiKs}
143: \eeqn
144: where $\phi_d$ is the new phase. The information mentioned above points toward a small {\em negative} value of $\phi_d$.
145: On the other hand, the mixing-induced CP asymmetry $S_{\psi \phi}$ is given by \cite{BBGT}
146: \beqn
147: S_{\psi \phi} = \sin(2 |\beta_s| - 2 \phi_s)~,
148: \label{Spsiphi}
149: \eeqn
150: where the SM phases $\beta, \beta_s$ are defined from the CKM matrix entries $V_{td}, V_{ts}$ through
151: \beqn
152: V_{td} = |V_{td}| e^{- i \beta}~, ~~~ V_{ts} = - |V_{ts}| e^{- i \beta_s}~,
153: \label{betadefs}
154: \eeqn
155: with $\beta_s \approx - 1^\circ$. From eq. (\ref{Spsiphi}) one finds that a negative $\phi_s$ is also required
156: to explain the claim of \cite{UTfit-Bs}. It is then tempting to investigate whether, at least to first approximation, the same
157: new phase $\phi_d \approx \phi_s \approx \phi_B$ could fit in both $B_d$ and $B_s$ systems, being a small correction
158: in the former case --~where the SM phase is large~-- and the bulk of the effect in the latter.\footnote{This simple correlation
159: is unrelated to more involved correlations that invoked $\D F = 1$ transitions, as in \cite{BFRS} and references therein.}
160:
161: The rest of this paper is an attempt to explore the above possibilities in more detail. For the sake of clarity, we introduce
162: here some notation details. The amplitudes for $B_q$ ($q = d, s$) meson mixings are parameterized as follows
163: \beqn
164: \<B_q | \mc{H}^{\rm full}_{\D F = 2} | \ov{B}_q \> &\equiv& A_q^{\rm full} e^{2 i \beta_q^{\rm full}}~,
165: \label{parameterization}
166: \eeqn
167: where, to make contact with the conventions on the SM phases $\beta, \beta_s$, one has
168: \beqn
169: \beta_d^{\rm full} &=& \beta + \phi_d~, \nn \\
170: \beta_s^{\rm full} &=& \beta_s + \phi_s~.
171: \label{betadsdefs}
172: \eeqn
173: The magnitudes $A_q^{\rm full}$ can be written as
174: \beqn
175: &&\hspace{-0.2cm}A_q^{\rm full} = A_q^{\rm SM} C_q~, \nn \\
176: &&\hspace{-0.2cm}\mbox{with }A_q^{\rm SM} \equiv |\<B_q | \mc{H}^{\rm SM}_{\D F = 2} | \ov{B}_q \>| = \D M_q^{\rm SM}/2~.~~~~~
177: \label{SMdefs}
178: \eeqn
179: Concerning $C_q$, with present theoretical errors on the $B_q$ system mass differences $\D M_q$, it is impossible to draw
180: conclusions on the presence of NP. Therefore, one typically considers the ratio $\D M_d / \D M_s$, where the theoretical error is
181: smaller, and is dominated by the uncertainty in the lattice parameter $\xi_s$, defined as
182: \beqn
183: \xi_s \equiv \frac{F_{B_s} \sqrt{\hat B_s}}{F_{B_d} \sqrt{\hat B_d}}~.
184: \label{xis}
185: \eeqn
186: The resulting SM prediction for $\D M_d / \D M_s$ is in good agreement with the experimentally
187: measured ratio\footnote{Variations of the SM formula due to different CKM input are much smaller than the relative theoretical
188: error, which is roughly 2$\times \sigma_{\xi_s}$.}. Hence it is plausible, at least to first approximation, to assume
189: $\D M_d / \D M_s$ as unaffected by NP, i.e., recalling eq. (\ref{SMdefs}), that
190: \beqn
191: C_d = C_s = C_B~.
192: \label{Cd=Cs}
193: \eeqn
194: We will comment on this assumption later on in the analysis.
195:
196: \mysection{$\eps_K$ \lc{and $\sin 2 \beta$}}\label{sec:K}
197:
198: \noi We start our discussion by looking more closely at the $\eps_K$ parameter. For the latter, we use the following
199: theoretical formula \cite{Uli-private}
200: \beqn
201: &&\eps_K = e^{i \phi_\eps} \sin \phi_\eps \left( \frac{{\rm Im}(M^K_{12})}{\D M_K} + \xi \right)~,\nn \\
202: &&\xi = \frac{{\rm Im} A_0}{{\rm Re} A_0}~,
203: \label{epsexact}
204: \eeqn
205: with $A_0$ the 0-isospin amplitude in $K \to \pi \pi$ decays, $M^K_{12} = \<K | \mc{H}^{\rm full}_{\D F = 2} | \ov K \>$ and
206: $\D M_K$ the $K - \ov K$ system mass difference. The phase $\phi_\eps$ is measured to be \cite{PDG}
207: \beqn
208: \phi_\eps = (43.51 \pm 0.05)^\circ~.
209: \eeqn
210: Formula (\ref{epsexact}) can for instance be derived from any general discussion of the $K - \ov K$ system
211: formalism, like \cite{Chau-BSS,BurasLesHouches}, and can be shown to be equivalent to eq. (1.171) of \cite{FNAL-report-2002},
212: where all the residual uncertainties are explicitly indicated and found to be well below 1\%. In contrast with the $\eps_K$ formula
213: used in basically all phenomenological applications, eq. (\ref{epsexact}) takes into account $\phi_\eps \neq \pi/4$ and $\xi \neq 0$.
214: Specifically, the second term in the parenthesis of eq. (\ref{epsexact}) constitutes an O(5\%) correction
215: to $\eps_K$ and in view of other uncertainties was neglected until now in the standard analyses of the UT, with the notable exception
216: of \cite{AOV-epsK,AOV-BK}. Most interestingly for the discussion to follow, both $\xi \neq 0$ and $\phi_\eps < \pi/4$ imply
217: suppression effects in $\eps_K$ relative to the approximate formula. In order to make the impact of these two corrections transparent,
218: we will parameterize them through an overall factor $\kappa_\eps$ in $\eps_K$:
219: \beqn
220: \keps = \sqrt 2 \sin\phi_\eps \ovkeps~,
221: \eeqn
222: with $\ovkeps$ parameterizing the effect of $\xi \neq 0$. The calculation by Nierste in \cite{FNAL-report-2002} (page 58), the analyses
223: in \cite{AOV-epsK,AOV-BK} and our very rough estimate at the end of the paper show that $\ovkeps \lesssim 0.96$, with $0.94\pm 0.02$
224: being a plausible figure. Consequently we find
225: \beqn
226: \keps = 0.92 \pm 0.02~.
227: \label{keps}
228: \eeqn
229: In view of the improvements in the input parameters entering $\eps_K$, the correction (\ref{keps}) may start having a non-negligible
230: impact in UT analyses. Therefore, a better evaluation of this factor would certainly be welcome.
231:
232: One can now identify the main parametric dependencies of $\eps_K$ within the SM through the formula
233: \beqn
234: &&\hspace{-0.4cm} |\eps_K^{\rm SM}| = \keps C_\eps \bk |V_{cb}|^2 \la^2 \ov \eta \times \nn \\
235: && \left( |V_{cb}|^2 (1- \ov \rho) \eta_{tt} S_0(x_t) + \eta_{ct} S_0(x_c,x_t) - \eta_{cc} x_c \right)~, \nn \\
236: [0.2cm]
237: &&\hspace{-0.4cm} \mbox{with } C_\eps = \frac{G_F^2 F_K^2 m_{K^0} M_W^2}{6 \sqrt 2 \pi^2 \D M_K}~,
238: \label{epsapprox}
239: \eeqn
240: and where notation largely follows ref. \cite{BurasLesHouches}, in particular $x_i = m_i^2(m_i)/M_W^2$, $i = c,t$.
241: As far as CKM parameters are concerned, eq. (\ref{epsapprox}) reproduces the `exact' SM result, where
242: no expansion in $\la$ is performed, to 0.5\% accuracy. Now, $1- \ov \rho = R_t \cos \beta$ and $\ov \eta = R_t \sin \beta$,
243: where the UT side $R_t$ is given by
244: \beqn
245: R_t &\approx& \frac{1}{\la} \frac{|V_{td}|}{|V_{ts}|}
246: \nn \\
247: &=& \frac{\xi_s}{\la} \sqrt{\frac{M_{B_s}}{M_{B_d}}} \sqrt{\frac{\D M_d}{\D M_s}} \sqrt{\frac{C_s}{C_d}}~.
248: \label{Rt}
249: \eeqn
250: with $C_d = C_s$ assumed here (see eq. (\ref{Cd=Cs})) and $\xi_s$ introduced in eq. (\ref{xis}).
251: Therefore, for the leading contribution to $\eps_K$, due to top exchange, one can write
252: \beqn
253: |\eps_K| \propto \keps F_K^2 \bk |V_{cb}|^4 \xi_s^2 \frac{C_s}{C_d} \sin 2 \beta~,
254: \label{epsprop}
255: \eeqn
256: showing that the prediction for $\eps_K$ is very sensitive to the value of $|V_{cb}|$ but also
257: to $\xi_s$ and $F_K$. All the input needed in eqs. (\ref{epsapprox})-(\ref{epsprop}) and in the rest of our paper is reported
258: in table \ref{tab:input}.
259: \begin{table}[th]
260: \footnotesize
261: \center{
262: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
263: \hline
264: & \\
265: [-0.25cm]
266: $G_F = 1.16637 \cdot 10^{-5}$ GeV$^{-2}$ & $\lambda = 0.2255(7)$ \hfill \cite{Flavianet} \\
267: $M_W = 80.403(29)$ GeV & $|V_{cb}| = 41.2(1.1) \cdot 10^{-3}$ \hfill \cite{PDG08}\\
268: \cline{2-2}
269: & \\
270: [-0.25cm]
271: $M_Z = 91.1876(21)$ GeV & $\eta_{cc} = 1.43(23)$ \hfill \cite{HerrlichNierste} \\
272: $\al_s(M_Z) = 0.1176(20)$ & $\eta_{ct} = 0.47(4)$ \hfill \cite{HerrlichNierste} \\
273: $m_c(m_c) = 1.25(9)$ GeV & $\eta_{tt} = 0.5765(65)$ \hfill \cite{BurasJaminWeisz} \\
274: $M_t = 172.6(1.4)$ GeV\symbolfootnote[1]{The ${\rm \ov{MS}}$ mass value
275: $m_t(m_t) = 162.7(1.3)$ is derived using \cite{RunDec}.} \hfill \cite{CDF-D0-top}
276: & $F_K = 0.1561(8)$ GeV \hfill \cite{Flavianet}\\
277: \cline{1-1}
278: & \\
279: [-0.25cm]
280: $M_{B_d} = 5.2795(5)$ GeV & $M_{K^0} = 0.49765$ GeV \\
281: $M_{B_s} = 5.3661(6)$ GeV & $\D M_K = 0.5292(9) \cdot 10^{-2}/{\rm ps}$ \\
282: $\D M_d = 0.507(5)/{\rm ps}$ & $|\eps_K| = 2.232(7) \cdot 10^{-3}$ \\
283: $\D M_s = 17.77(12)/{\rm ps}$ \hfill \cite{CDF-DMs} & $\keps = 0.92(2)$ \\
284: $\xi_s = 1.21(6)$ \hfill \cite{Becirevic-CKM03,Hashimoto-ICHEP04,HPQCD-fB,Tantalo-CKM06} & $\phi_\eps = 43.51(5)^\circ$ \\
285: \hline
286: \end{tabular}
287: }
288: \caption{Input parameters. Quantities lacking a reference are taken from \cite{PDG}.}
289: \label{tab:input}
290: \end{table}
291:
292: \section{T\lc{hree new-physics scenarios}}\label{sec:3NP}
293:
294: Next we note that the most updated values for all the parameters on the r.h.s. of eq. (\ref{epsprop}), with
295: exception of $\sin 2 \beta$, are lower with respect to previous determinations. Notably, the central value of the most
296: recent estimate of $\bk$ \cite{DJAntonio} is lower by roughly 9\%, with a similar effect due to the $\keps$ factor
297: (see eq. (\ref{keps})). One can then investigate whether the value of $\sin 2 \beta$ required to accommodate $|\eps_K|$
298: within the SM may be too high with respect to the $\sin 2 \beta$ determination from $B_d$ physics, as already investigated
299: in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd} for $\keps = 1$. Here we would like to emphasize that, more generally, this could entail the presence
300: of a new phase either dominantly in the $B_d$ system or respectively in the $K$ system, or, alternatively, of two smaller phases in
301: both systems, defining in turn three NP scenarios. Addressing the significance of either scenario crucially depends on the errors
302: associated with the theoretical input entering the $\eps_K^{\rm SM}$ formula. We will come back to this point quantitatively in the
303: discussion to follow, where all the present uncertainties are taken into account.
304:
305: However, since these uncertainties in the input do not yet allow clear-cut conclusions, we would like to first illustrate the
306: three just mentioned NP scenarios by setting all input parameters except $\bk$ at their central values. This would correspond to
307: the hypothetical situation in which all the input, including the CKM parameters, were controlled with higher accuracy than $\bk$,
308: for which we assume a 3\% uncertainty. In fig. \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors} (left panel) we then show $|\eps_K^{\rm SM}|$ as a
309: function of $\sin 2 \beta$ for $\bk \in \{0.65, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80\} \pm 3$\%.
310: \begin{figure*}[t]
311: \begin{center}
312: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors.pdf}
313: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{gamma_vs_Vub.pdf}
314: \end{center}
315: \caption{\small\sl Left panel: $|\eps_K^{\rm SM}|$ vs. $\sin 2 \beta$ with only $\bk$ errors included.
316: $\bk \in \{0.65, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80\} \pm 3$\% are shown as blue areas (darker to lighter). Vertical green areas display
317: $\sin 2 \beta \in \{ 0.681, 0.75, 0.88 \} \pm 3.7$\% (see text).
318: Right panel: $\gamma$ vs. $|V_{ub}|$ for $\sin 2 \beta \in \{0.681,0.75,0.88\} \pm 3.7$\% (green areas).
319: Displayed in blue is the area corresponding to $R_t = R_t^{\rm SM}$, while orange lines represent the contours of $\eps_K^{\rm exp}$.}
320: \label{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors}
321: \end{figure*}
322: The vertical ranges centered at $\sin 2 \beta \in \{ 0.681, 0.75, 0.88 \}$, with a relative error chosen at 3.7\% as in the
323: $\sin 2 \beta_{\psi K_s}$ case, define the scenarios in question.
324: The horizontal range, representing the experimental result for $\eps_K$, shows that $\sin 2 \beta \approx \sin 2 \beta_{\psi K_s}$
325: would require NP in $\eps_K$ in order to fit the data, unless $\bk \gtrsim 0.85$.
326: Conversely, in the last scenario, as considered in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}, no NP is required to fit the data on $\eps_K$, even for
327: $\bk \approx 0.65$. In this case, however, the discrepancy with respect to the
328: $\sin 2 \beta_{\psi K_s}$ determination reveals the need for a NP phase in the $B_d$ system around $-9^\circ$.
329: In table \ref{tab:scenarios} we report indicative values for various quantities of interest obtained from the scenarios shown in
330: fig. \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors} (left panel). In particular, values for $|\eps_K^{\rm SM}|$ are shown for
331: $\hat B_K= \{0.7,0.8\}$. In giving the result for $S_{\psi\phi}$ we set $\phi_d=\phi_s$ (see discussion below).
332: \begin{table}[t]
333: \center{
334: \begin{tabular}{|r|ccc|}
335: \hline
336: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{$\sin 2 \beta$} \\
337: & ~~0.681~~ & ~~0.75~~ & ~~0.88~~ \\
338: \hline
339: & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{}\\
340: [-0.2cm]
341: \multirow{2}{*}{$10^3 \cdot |\eps_K^{\rm SM}| \left \lbrace \begin{array}{l} \bk = 0.7 \\[0.02cm] \bk = 0.8 \end{array} \right.$}
342: & 1.71 & 1.90 & 2.27 \\
343: [0.1cm]
344: & 1.96 & 2.17 & 2.59 \\
345: [0.1cm]
346: $\phi_d[^\circ]$ & 0 & $-2.8$ & $-9.4$ \\
347: [0.1cm]
348: $S_{\psi \phi}$ & 0.04 & 0.14 & 0.36 \\
349: [0.1cm]
350: $10^3 \cdot |V_{ub}|$ & 3.50 & 3.92 & 4.90 \\
351: [0.1cm]
352: $\ga[^\circ]$ & 63.5 & 64.0 & 63.9 \\
353: \hline
354: \end{tabular}
355: }
356: \caption{Indicative values for various quantities of interest in the scenarios represented in the left panel of
357: fig. \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors} (see also text).}
358: \label{tab:scenarios}
359: \end{table}
360: We observe that values of $\bk$ in the ballpark of 0.7 would imply a NP correction to $|\eps_K^{\rm SM}|$ exceeding $+20$\%,
361: which should be visible if the input parameters could be controlled with, say, 2\% accuracy.
362:
363: The above discussion, and the scenarios in table \ref{tab:scenarios}, assume that the UT side $R_t$ be equal to its SM value
364: (see eq. (\ref{Cd=Cs})) and imply $\gamma$ not larger than around $65^\circ$.
365: Figure \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors} (right panel) shows the correlation existing for fixed $\sin 2 \beta$ between $\gamma$ and
366: $|V_{ub}|$ (or, equivalently, the side $R_b$ \cite{ABG}). From the figure one can note that, if $\gamma$
367: from tree-level decays turns out to be larger than the values in table \ref{tab:scenarios}, consistency of $\sin 2 \beta$ with
368: eq. (\ref{SpsiKs}) can be recovered by increasing the side $R_t$ with respect to the SM value (thus shifting the blue area
369: in the figure upwards). As one can see from the same figure, this would also accommodate $\eps_K$, since an upward shift in
370: $R_t$ from NP corresponds to $C_s > C_d$ (cf. eqs. (\ref{Rt})-(\ref{epsprop})), and could come in particular from $C_d < 1$, as
371: $\D M_d$, in contrast to $\D M_s$, is directly sensitive to $R_t$.
372:
373: %% Analysis including all errors
374: Plots analogous to that of fig. \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors} (left panel), but with all present uncertainties on the input taken
375: into account, are shown in figures \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b} and \ref{fig:BK_vs_s2b}.
376: \begin{figure*}[th]
377: \begin{center}
378: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{epsK_vs_s2b_nn.pdf}\hspace{0.5cm}
379: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{epsK_vs_s2b_ss.pdf}
380: \end{center}
381: \caption{\small\sl $|\eps_K^{\rm SM}|$ vs. $\sin 2 \beta$ with inclusion of all input uncertainties. Left panel assumes present
382: $\bk$ and $\xi_s$ errors, whereas right panel shows the situation with errors on both quantities shrunk to 2.5\%.}
383: \label{fig:epsK_vs_s2b}
384: \end{figure*}
385: These plots are obtained by the following procedure. The $\D M_d / \D M_s$ constraint is used to solve for $\ov \rho, \ov \eta$
386: depending on the $\sin 2 \beta$ value. The range of solutions implied by the $\D M_d / \D M_s$ error (with $\ov \rho, \ov \eta$
387: highly correlated) can be translated into a range of values for $|\eps_K^{\rm SM}|$. The rest of the contributions to the $\eps_K$
388: error, mostly due to $m_c$, $m_t$, to the CKM entry $|V_{cb}|$ and to the assumed ranges for $\bk$ and $\keps$, can be
389: treated as uncorrelated, and plugged in an error-propagation formula. As one can see, this procedure only assumes that $\D M_d / \D M_s$
390: be SM-like.
391:
392: Figure \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b} confirms that the combined information of $\sin 2 \beta_{\psi K_s}$ and $|\eps_K^{\rm exp}|$ tends to prefer
393: `high' values of $\bk \gtrsim 0.85$ (cf. estimate in \cite{AOV-BK}). However, use of present errors on $\bk$ and $\xi_s$ (both $\approx$
394: 5\%), as in the left panel of fig. \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b}, impairs any clear-cut conclusion. The situation in the case of $\bk$ and $\xi_s$
395: errors hypothetically halved can be appreciated from the right panel of the same figure, where actually a large part of the improvement
396: is driven by the shrinking in the $\xi_s$ error, allowing a better determination of $\ov \rho, \ov \eta$. Therefore an alternative or
397: complementary strategy to an improvement in $\xi_s$ would be a major advance in the angle $\gamma$ through tree-level decays.
398:
399: Finally, as an alternative viewpoint on the above facts (in particular on the role of the $\bk$ and $\xi_s$ errors),
400: figure \ref{fig:BK_vs_s2b} displays, as a function of $\sin 2 \beta$, the $\bk$ range compatible with the experimental $\eps_K$ result.
401: For $\sin 2\beta = \sin 2\beta_{\psi K_s}$ the required $\bk$ agrees well with the one found in \cite{AOV-BK}.
402: \begin{figure}[hb]
403: \begin{center}
404: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{BK_vs_s2b.pdf}
405: \end{center}
406: \caption{\small\sl $\bk$ ranges compatible with the experimental $\eps_K$ result as a function of $\sin 2 \beta$. $\bk$ and/or $\xi_s$
407: are taken with present or 2.5\% uncertainties (see legend). Comparing red with blue areas one can note the role of a decrease in the
408: $\xi_s$ error.}
409: \label{fig:BK_vs_s2b}
410: \end{figure}
411:
412: \mysection{$S_{\psi \phi}$ \lc{and $\sin 2 \beta$}}\label{sec:B}
413:
414: \noi As a last case, we would like to focus on the possibility that NP contributions to $\eps_K$ be negligible, as assumed
415: in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd} and in scenario 3 discussed in the previous section.
416: As one can infer from the above considerations, this would favor values of $\sin 2 \beta \gtrsim 0.80$, implying the presence of
417: a sizable new phase in $B_d$ mixing with a possible correlation with the $B_s$ system, which we discuss next.
418:
419: Let us start with the $B_s$ mixing phase $\beta_s^{\rm full}$, eq. (\ref{betadsdefs}), using the information from \cite{UTfit-Bs}.
420: In the notation of our eqs. (\ref{parameterization})-(\ref{betadsdefs}), the range for the NP phase $\phi_s$ at 95\% probability
421: is found to be
422: \beqn
423: &&\phi_s \in [-30.45,-9.29]^\circ \cup [-78.45,-58.2]^\circ~,\nn \\
424: &&\mbox{corresponding to } S_{\psi \phi} \in [0.35, 0.89].
425: \label{phis}
426: \eeqn
427: Assuming generic NP, the SM contribution to the phase amounts instead to \cite{UTfit-Bs} $\beta_s = -1.17(11)^\circ$, where to estimate
428: the error we have simply propagated that on $\sin 2 \beta_s$.
429:
430: Let us now compare these findings with the $B_d$ case. If a NP phase contributes to the mixing amplitude, the CP asymmetry in
431: $B_d \to \psi K_s$ measures the quantity $\beta_d^{\rm full}$ (see eq. (\ref{betadsdefs})). Then, one can extract information on the
432: NP phase $\phi_d$, provided the SM phase $\beta$ is estimated in some other way. An example is the determination of
433: ref. \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}, where the main assumptions are the absence of NP in the ratio $\D M_d / \D M_s$ and in $\eps_K$
434: (as we are supposing in the present scenario). Using the CKMfitter package \cite{CKMfitter}, we find
435: \beqn
436: \sin (2 \beta) = 0.88^{+0.11}_{-0.12}~,
437: \label{betaLS}
438: \eeqn
439: where we have used the $\bk$ result from ref. \cite{DJAntonio} and the $\keps$ factor in table \ref{tab:input} and, similarly to
440: ref. \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}, we have treated all the input errors as Gaussian. The result in eq. (\ref{betaLS}) is compatible with that
441: of \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}: in particular, the inclusion of the $\keps$ correction pushes the $\sin 2 \beta$ determination further upwards,
442: even if its associated error introduces an additional uncertainty in the $\eps_K$ evaluation.
443:
444: If the high value implied by eq. (\ref{betaLS}) for $\beta$ were indeed correct, this would indicate the presence of a {\em negative}
445: NP phase in the $B_d$ system, with absolute value of O(10$^\circ$). Quite interestingly, the solutions found in \cite{UTfit-Bs}
446: for the NP phase in the $B_s$ system (see eq. (\ref{phis})) go in the same (negative) direction and the lowest solution is also compatible
447: with $\approx - 10^\circ$.
448:
449: One is then tempted to envisage a scenario characterized by a significant NP phase roughly equal in both $B_d$ and $B_s$ systems, i.e.
450: \beqn
451: \phi_B = \phi_d \approx \phi_s \approx - 9^\circ
452: \Rightarrow
453: \left \lbrace
454: \begin{array}{l}
455: \beta_{\psi K_s} < \beta \approx 30^\circ \\
456: S_{\psi \phi} \approx 0.4
457: \end{array}
458: \right.
459: \label{scenario3}
460: \eeqn
461: with no NP in the $K$ system. The interesting aspect of this scenario is the correlation between new CP violation in the $B_d$
462: and $B_s$ systems. In the limiting case of exact equality between the NP phases in the two sectors, we show in figure \ref{fig:S_vs_S}
463: \begin{figure}[t]
464: \begin{center}
465: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{Sd_vs_Ss.pdf}
466: \end{center}
467: \caption{\small\sl CP asymmetry $S_{\psi \phi}$ as a function of $S_{\psi K_s}$ for a common NP phase
468: $\phi_B \in [-12, +2]^\circ$.}
469: \label{fig:S_vs_S}
470: \end{figure}
471: the predicted $S_{\psi \phi}$ as a function of $S_{\psi K_s}$ (see eqs. (\ref{SpsiKs})-(\ref{Spsiphi}) for the definitions).
472: If improvements on the $\sin 2 \beta$ determination should indicate a large figure like eq. (\ref{betaLS}) and $S_{\psi \phi}$ were measured
473: as large as $0.4$, this could be a hint in favor of this scenario. On the other hand, the scenario in eq. (\ref{scenario3}) seems to be problematic
474: with regards to the implied $|V_{ub}|$ value. As seen already in the right panel of fig. \ref{fig:epsK_vs_s2b_noerrors}, the value of $|V_{ub}|$
475: is generically larger than the present exclusive result. To address this issue, we plot in figure \ref{fig:Vub_vs_phid} the $|V_{ub}|$ range
476: implied by a given NP phase $\phi_d$. We note that, since $|V_{ub}|$ is determined from the side $R_b$, its error depends mostly on the $|V_{cb}|$
477: uncertainty, and is estimated through the propagation formula. On the other hand, for fixed $\sin 2 \beta$, $|V_{ub}|$ depends only very weakly
478: on the error due to the $\ov \rho, \ov \eta$ determination, as expected.
479: \begin{figure}[t]
480: \begin{center}
481: \includegraphics[width=0.45 \textwidth]{Vub_vs_phid.pdf}
482: \end{center}
483: \caption{\small\sl $|V_{ub}|$ ranges implied by a given NP phase in the $B_d$ system, $\phi_d$. The green band displays the most recent $|V_{ub}|$
484: average quoted in the PDG \cite{PDG08}.}
485: \label{fig:Vub_vs_phid}
486: \end{figure}
487:
488: From figure \ref{fig:Vub_vs_phid} and table \ref{tab:scenarios} it is evident that $\phi_d \approx - 9^\circ$ would imply
489: $|V_{ub}| \approx 4.9 \times 10^{-3}$, which is even higher than the inclusive averages in \cite{Barberio}. For comparison, the most recent
490: combination of the inclusive and exclusive $|V_{ub}|$ determinations quoted in the PDG \cite{PDG08}, namely
491: \beqn
492: |V_{ub}| = (3.93 \pm 0.36) \times 10^{-3}~,
493: \label{VubINEX}
494: \eeqn
495: is reported in figure \ref{fig:Vub_vs_phid} as a green band, and can be seen to be compatible with no phase. Results similar to eq. (\ref{VubINEX})
496: can be found in \cite{Neubert-LP07}.
497:
498: Therefore, assuming that $|V_{ub}| \lesssim 4 \times 10^{-3}$ and that $S_{\psi \phi}$ should be confirmed as large as implied by
499: eq. (\ref{phis}), the middle scenario presented in the previous section, characterized by smaller NP effects in both the $B_d$ and $K$
500: sectors, would be a more plausible possibility. In this case, the NP phases in the $B_d$ and $B_s$ systems would be (mostly) uncorrelated
501: with each other. In fact, in the case of exact correlation (see figure \ref{fig:S_vs_S}), $\beta \approx 26^\circ$, corresponding to scenario 2,
502: would imply $S_{\psi \phi} \lesssim 0.2$. As for the $K$ system, ascertaining the presence of NP would require a leap forward in the input errors,
503: $\bk$ and $|V_{cb}|$ in the first place.
504:
505: \mysection{C\lc{onclusions}}\label{sec:concl}
506:
507: \noi In the present paper we have pointed out a possible inconsistency between the size of CP violation in $K - \ov K$ and $B_d - \ov B_d$
508: mixing within the SM. The recent decrease in $\bk$ from lattice \cite{DJAntonio,JLQCD-BK} and the inclusion of the suppression factor $\keps$
509: in the formula for $\eps_K$ are mostly responsible for this finding. Such an inconsistency has been already noted
510: in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}, but we differ from that paper as we do not assume the absence of NP in $\eps_K$. Moreover, in \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd}
511: $\keps \simeq 0.92$ has not been taken into account.
512:
513: Under the single assumption that $\D M_d/\D M_s$ be unaffected by NP, the general pattern of correlations between CP violation in
514: the $K - \ov K$ and $B_d - \ov B_d$ systems is as follows:
515:
516: \begin{itemize}
517:
518: \item In the absence of new CP violation in the $B_d$ system, the measured size~of $S_{\psi K_s}$ implies $\eps_K$ with a central value
519: as much as 20\% below the data, hinting at NP in $K - \ov K$ mixing.
520:
521: \item In the absence of new CP violation in $K - \ov K$ mixing, the size of the measured value of $\eps_K$ implies $\sin 2\beta$
522: by 10-20\% larger \cite{LunghiSoni-Bd} than $S_{\psi K_s}$, so that a negative new phase $\phi_d$ is required in order~to fit the experimental
523: value of $S_{\psi K_s}$.
524:
525: \item Since $\phi_d$ can reach O($-10^\circ$), the limiting case of a new phase roughly equal in both $B_d$ and $B_s$ systems allows an
526: enhancement of the asymmetry $S_{\psi \phi}$ by roughly an order of magnitude with respect to its SM value. This could then explain, at least
527: to a first approximation, the effect found in \cite{UTfit-Bs}.
528: \end{itemize}
529:
530: If, on the other hand, one allows for contributions of NP to $\D M_d/\D M_s$, so~that $R_t$ is increased with respect to its SM value, one
531: can~remove the discrepancy between the two systems, provided $R_t$ is increased by, say, 10-15\%. This would require, for instance, a
532: destructive interference between SM and NP contributions to $\D M_d$ -- i.e., recalling eq. (\ref{Rt}), $C_d < 1$ -- and would automatically
533: increase also $\gamma$.
534:
535: Finally, we would like to emphasize that our results are very sensitive to the used value of $V_{cb}$, as can be anticipated from
536: eq. (\ref{epsprop}). Therefore, in addition to an accurate calculation of $\bk$ and $\xi_s$, a very precise determination of $V_{cb}$ is
537: required in order to fully exploit the power of the $\eps_K$ constraint on NP.
538:
539: We hope that the results and the plots in our paper will help to monitor the developments in the field of $\D F=2$ transitions in the coming
540: years, when various input parameters and the data on CP violation in $b \to s$ transitions will steadily improve.
541:
542: \begin{acknowledgments}
543: \noi We thank Uli Nierste for discussions related to section \ref{sec:K}, Monika Blanke for critical comments on the manuscript and Federico Mescia
544: for kind feedback on input parameters from Flavianet. We also thank Alexander Lenz and Paride Paradisi for useful discussions.
545: This work has been supported in part by the Cluster of Excellence ``Origin and Structure of the Universe'' and by the German Bundesministerium
546: f{\"u}r Bildung und Forschung under contract 05HT6WOA. D.G. also warmly acknowledges the support of the A. von Humboldt Stiftung.
547: \end{acknowledgments}
548:
549: \mysectionA{A\lowercase{ppendix}: E\lowercase{stimate of the parameter $\ovkeps$}}
550: \setcounter{equation}{0}
551: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
552:
553: \noi A rough estimate of the factor $\ovkeps$, discussed at the beginning of section \ref{sec:K}, can be obtained as follows. Starting from
554: the general formula for $\eps_K$ in eq. (\ref{epsexact}), one finds
555: \beqn
556: \ovkeps \simeq 1 + \frac{\xi}{\sqrt 2 |\eps_K|} \equiv 1 + \D_\eps~,
557: \eeqn
558: where terms of O($\xi^2$) on the r.h.s. have been neglected. Then $\D_\eps$
559: can in principle be extracted from the analyses of $\eps^\prime / \eps$. One has \cite{BurasLesHouches}
560: \beqn
561: \frac{\eps^\prime}{\eps} = - \omega \D_\eps(1 - \Omega)~,
562: \eeqn
563: where $\omega = {\rm Re} A_2 / {\rm Re} A_0 = 0.045$ and $\Omega$ summarizes the isospin-breaking corrections, that are dominated by
564: electroweak penguin contributions. It is well known that $\Omega > 0$ in the SM and in most known SM extensions. Therefore, setting
565: $\Omega = 0$ and using the experimental value for $\eps^\prime / \eps = 1.66(26) \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{PDG}, one finds
566: \beqn
567: \D_\eps = - \frac{1}{\omega} \frac{\eps^\prime}{\eps} = (-3.7 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-2}~,
568: \label{Deps1}
569: \eeqn
570: which is compatible with \cite{AOV-epsK,AOV-BK}. This value can be considered as a plausible lower bound on $|\D_\eps|$.
571:
572: However, it is well known that $\Omega$ cannot be neglected, but the evaluation of this quantity is subject to significant hadronic
573: uncertainties, although, as discussed in ref. \cite{BurasJamin}, these uncertainties appear to~be smaller than in $\xi$ itself.
574: We recall that $\xi$ and $\Omega$ are dominated by QCD penguin and electroweak penguin operators respectively, and the evaluation of
575: $\xi$ and $\Omega$ requires the knowledge of their hadronic matrix elements.
576:
577: One method \cite{FNAL-report-2002} is to evaluate $\Omega$ and extract $\D_\eps$ from $\eps^\prime / \eps$. From the analysis
578: of \cite{BurasJamin}, that combined various non-perturbative approaches, we find $\Omega = 0.4 \pm 0.1$ in the SM.
579: Yet, one has to remember that $\Omega$ is sensitive to NP contributions, in contrast with $\D_\eps$, whose NP sensitivity turns out to be
580: much smaller. For this reason we have also calculated $\D_\eps$ directly in the large $N_c$ approach \cite{BardeenBurasGerard-2}. Both
581: routes give
582: \beqn
583: \D_\eps \simeq -6 \times 10^{-2}~.
584: \label{Deps2}
585: \eeqn
586: Calculations (\ref{Deps1}) and (\ref{Deps2}) and the fact that the SM estimate of $\eps^\prime / \eps$ in the large $N_c$ approach agrees
587: well with the data \cite{LHT-eps} drive us to the estimate
588: \beqn
589: \ovkeps \approx 0.94 \pm 0.02~.
590: \label{kepstimate}
591: \eeqn
592: This agrees well with the 6\% effect estimated in \cite{FNAL-report-2002}. The error quoted in (\ref{kepstimate}) is no more than
593: a guesstimate, but we believe it to be realistic. Clearly a better calculation of $\ovkeps$ should be attempted, using e.g. lattice methods.
594: The result obtained in \cite{AOV-BK} through a direct calculation of $\xi$ corresponds to $\ovkeps \simeq 0.90(3)$ and implies
595: $\eps^\prime / \eps \approx 4.5 \times 10^{-3}$ from QCD penguins alone, roughly by a factor 3 larger than the data. Such result requires
596: a very large negative electroweak penguin component for the predicted $\eps^\prime / \eps$ to agree with experiment and a certain fine
597: tuning between the two contributions. Consequently we believe that eq. (\ref{kepstimate}) represents a very plausible estimate of $\ovkeps$.
598:
599: \bibliography{BG}
600:
601: \end{document}
602: