1: % Observables in B -> K0 pi0
2: % submitted to PLB July 23, 2008
3: %MG corrections 08/04
4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{cite}
7: \def\gsim{\grtsim}
8: \def\lsim{\lesssim}
9: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
10: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
11: \def \b{{\cal B}}
12: \def \bo{B^0}
13: \def \boo{{\cal B}(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)}
14: \def \ckp{C_{K \pi}}
15: \def \cpp{C_{\pi^+ \pi^-}}
16: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
17: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
18: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
19: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
20: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
21: \def \skp{S_{K \pi}}
22: \def \spp{S_{\pi^+ \pi^-}}
23: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
24: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
25: \def \half{\frac{1}{2}}
26: \def\smhalf{\small{\frac{1}{2}}}
27: \def \3half{\frac{3}{2}}
28: \def \ko{K^0}
29: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
30: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
31: \textwidth 6.2in
32: \textheight 9.0in
33: \hoffset -0.3in
34: \voffset -0.4in
35: \begin{document}
36: \begin{flushright}
37: EFI 08-21 \\
38: July 2008 \\
39: arXiv:0807.3080 \\
40: \end{flushright}
41: \centerline{\bf Implications for CP asymmetries of improved data
42: on $B \to K^0 \pi^0$}
43: \bigskip
44: \centerline{Michael Gronau\footnote{On sabbatical leave from the Physics
45: Department, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel.} and Jonathan L. Rosner}
46: \medskip
47: \centerline{\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
48: University of Chicago}
49: \centerline{\it Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.}
50: \bigskip
51: \begin{quote}
52: The decay $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$, dominated by a $b \to s$ penguin amplitude,
53: holds the potential for exhibiting new physics in this amplitude. In the pure
54: QCD penguin limit one expects $\ckp = 0$ and $\skp = \sin 2 \beta$ for the
55: coefficients of $\cos \Delta m t$ and $\sin \Delta m t$ in the time-dependent
56: CP asymmetry. Small non-penguin contributions lead to corrections to these
57: expressions which are calculated in terms of isospin-related $B\to K\pi$ rates
58: and asymmetries, using information about strong phases from experiment. We
59: study the prospects for incisive tests of the Standard Model through
60: examination of these corrections.
61: We update a prediction $\ckp=0.15\pm 0.04$,
62: pointing out the sensitivity of a prediction
63: $\skp\approx 1$ to the measured branching ratio for $B^0\to K^0\pi^0$ and to
64: other observables.
65: \end{quote}
66:
67: \leftline{\qquad PACS codes: 12.15.Hh, 12.15.Ji, 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd}
68:
69: \medskip
70: One of the most challenging CP asymmetry measurements in $B$ meson decays has
71: involved the coefficients $\ckp$ and $\skp$ in the time-dependent
72: asymmetry measured in $B^0\to K_S\pi^0$~\cite{Gronau:1989ia}
73: \beq
74: A(t) = \frac{\Gamma(\ob(t) \to \ok \pi^0) - \Gamma(\bo(t) \to \ko \pi^0)}
75: {\Gamma(\ob(t) \to \ok \pi^0) + \Gamma(\bo(t) \to \ko \pi^0)}
76: = - \ckp \cos(\Delta m t) + \skp \sin(\Delta m t)~.
77: \eeq
78: The parameter $\ckp$ is related to the direct CP asymmetry by
79: $\ckp\equiv -A_{CP}(B^0\to K^0\pi^0)$.
80: The decay $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$ is expected to be dominated by the $b \to s$
81: penguin amplitude and thus is a good place to look for any new physics that may
82: arise in this amplitude \cite{Gronau:1996rv,Grossman:1996ke,London:1997zk}.
83: In the pure QCD penguin limit one expects $\ckp = 0$ and $\skp = \sin 2 \beta$,
84: respectively, where $\beta = (21.5 \pm 1.0)^\circ$~\cite{HFAG} is an angle in
85: the unitarity triangle. Accounting for small non-penguin contributions leads
86: to corrections to these expressions, which are calculable in terms of
87: isospin-related $B\to K\pi$ decay rates and asymmetries.
88: In this Letter we study the prospects for incisive tests of the Standard Model
89: through examination of these corrections.
90: We update a prediction $\ckp=0.15\pm 0.04$ and
91: point out the sensitivity of a recent theoretical prediction
92: $\skp\approx 1$~\cite{Fleischer:2008wb} to the branching ratio for
93: $B^0\to K^0\pi^0$ and to other observables.
94:
95: % This is Table I
96: \begin{table}
97: \caption{Measurements of $\ckp$ and $\skp$.
98: \label{tab:ckpskp}}
99: \begin{center}
100: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
101: Ref.\ & $\ckp$ & $\skp$ \\ \hline
102: BaBar \cite{Aubert:2007mgb} & $0.24 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.03$ & $0.40 \pm 0.23 \pm 0.03$ \\
103: Belle \cite{Abe:2006gy} & $0.05 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.05$ & $0.33 \pm 0.35 \pm 0.08$ \\
104: Average \cite{HFAG} & $0.14 \pm 0.11$ & $0.38 \pm 0.19$ \\ \hline
105: \end{tabular}
106: \end{center}
107: \end{table}
108: %
109: % This is Table II
110: \begin{table}
111: \caption{CP-averaged branching ratios and CP rate asymmetries for $B \to K \pi$
112: decays and $B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0$, based on averages in Ref.\ \cite{HFAG}.
113: \label{tab:data}}
114: \begin{center}
115: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
116: Mode & Branching & $A_{CP}$ \\
117: & ratio ($10^{-6}$) & \\ \hline
118: $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ & $19.4 \pm 0.6$ & $-0.097\pm0.012$ \\
119: $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$ & $9.8 \pm 0.6$ & $-0.14\pm 0.11$ \\
120: $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ & $23.1 \pm 1.0$ & $0.009\pm0.025$ \\
121: $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ & $12.9 \pm 0.6$ & $0.050\pm0.025$ \\
122: $B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$ & $5.59^{+0.41}_{-0.40}$ & $0.06\pm 0.05$\\
123: \hline \hline
124: \end{tabular}
125: \end{center}
126: \end{table}
127: %
128: The current status of measurements of $\ckp$ and $\skp$ is summarized in
129: Table \ref{tab:ckpskp}. The value of $\ckp$ is consistent with the
130: pure-penguin value of zero, while that of $\skp$ is $1.6 \sigma$ below the
131: pure-penguin value of $\sin 2 \beta = 0.681 \pm 0.025$.
132:
133: A sum rule for direct CP asymmetries in $B \to K \pi$ decays has been derived
134: purely on the basis of the $\Delta I = 0$ property of the
135: dominant penguin amplitude, using an isospin quadrangle relation among
136: the four $B\to K\pi$ decay amplitudes which depend also on two
137: $\Delta I=1$ amplitudes~\cite{Nir:1991cu,Gronau:1991dq}:
138: \beq\label{Quad}
139: A(B^0\to K^+\pi^-) + \s A(B^0\to K^0\pi^0) = A(B^+\to K^0\pi^+) + \s A(B^+\to K^+\pi^0)~.
140: \eeq
141: In its most precise form the sum rule relates the four CP rate differences~\cite{Gronau:2005kz},
142: \beq\label{SRDelta}
143: \Delta(K^+ \pi^-) + \Delta(K^0 \pi^+) = 2 \Delta(K^+ \pi^0) +
144: 2\Delta(K^0 \pi^0)~,
145: \eeq
146: where one defines
147: \beq
148: \Delta(f) \equiv \Gamma(\bar B \to \bar f) - \Gamma(B \to f)~.
149: \eeq
150: This sum rule includes interference terms of the dominant penguin
151: amplitude with all small non-penguin contributions. A few very small quadratic terms
152: representing interference of tree and electroweak penguin amplitudes vanish in
153: the SU(3) and heavy quark limits~~\cite{Gronau:2005kz}.
154:
155: Using the decay branching ratios and CP asymmetries summarized in Table
156: \ref{tab:data}~\cite{HFAG} and the known lifetime ratio $\tau(B^+)/
157: \tau(B^0) = 1.071 \pm 0.009$ \cite{HFAG}, one can use this relation to
158: solve for the least-well-known quantity $\Delta(K^0 \pi^0)$, implying
159: \beq\label{pred}
160: A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^0) = -0.148 \pm 0.044~.
161: \eeq
162: The error on the right-hand-side is dominated by the current experimental
163: errors in $A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^+)$ and $A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0)$. The prediction
164: (\ref{pred}) following from (\ref{SRDelta}) involves a smaller theoretical
165: uncertainty at a percent level from quadratic terms describing the interference
166: of small non-penguin amplitudes. Verification of this prediction would provide
167: evidence that non-penguin amplitudes behave as expected in the Standard Model.
168: [If one uses the corresponding sum rule for CP asymmetries,
169: \beq
170: A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^-) + A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^+) = A_{CP}(K^+ \pi^0) +
171: A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^0)~,
172: \eeq
173: one predicts $A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^0) = - 0.138 \pm 0.037$. Using this
174: relation with $A_{CP}(K^0 \pi^+) = 0$, as expected since $B^+ \to K^0
175: \pi^+$ should be dominated by a penguin amplitude with only a very small
176: annihilation contribution \cite{Gronau:2005gz}, one predicts $A_{CP}(K^0
177: \pi^0) = -0.147 \pm 0.028$.]
178:
179: Non-penguin amplitudes are generally agreed to increase $\skp$ from its
180: pure-penguin value of $\sin 2 \beta = 0.681 \pm 0.025$ by a modest amount,
181: generally to 0.8 or below
182: \cite{Chiang:2004nm,Cheng:2005bg,Beneke:2005pu,Williamson:2006hb}.
183: Model-independent bounds
184: using flavor SU(3)~\cite{Gronau:2003kx,Gronau:2006qh} also favor
185: at most a deviation of 0.2 from the pure-penguin
186: value. An exception is noted in the treatments of Refs.\ \cite{Buras:2003dj}
187: and \cite{Buras:2004ub}, and most recently in Ref.\ \cite{Fleischer:2008wb},
188: where a relation between $\ckp$ and $\skp$ was studied implying a value
189: $\skp=0.99$ for the central value measured for $\ckp$.
190: A geometrical construction is
191: performed which illustrates the way in which such a large value arises.
192:
193: An aspect of the prediction of $\skp \simeq 0.99$ which has not been
194: sufficiently stressed is its extreme sensitivity to the branching ratio
195: $\b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$. In the present Letter we analyze the sensitivity
196: of $\skp$ to this and other observables within the Standard Model, and
197: highlight those measurements which would shed light on the presence of new
198: physics. In order to restrict the range allowed for $\skp$ in the Standard
199: Model one needs certain information about strong phases. Theoretical
200: calculations of strong phases in $B\to K\pi$ based on $1/m_b$ expansions are
201: known to fail, most likely because of long distance charming penguin
202: contributions~\cite{Ciuchini:1997rj,Jain:2007dy}. We propose to obtain the
203: necessary information about strong phases directly from experiments.
204: Somewhat different but not completely independent arguments were presented
205: in Ref.~\cite{Fleischer:2008wb}.
206:
207: The $B \to K \pi$ amplitudes may be decomposed into contributions from
208: various amplitudes as follows~\cite{Gronau:1994rj,Gronau:1995hn}:
209: \bea
210: A_{+-} & \equiv & A(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) = -(p+t)~~~, \nonumber \\
211: A_{00} & \equiv & \s A(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0) = p-c~~~, \nonumber \\
212: A_{0+} & \equiv & A(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) = p + A~~~, \nonumber \\
213: A_{+0} & \equiv & \s A(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0) = -(p+t+c+A)~~~,
214: \label{eqn:decomp}
215: \eea
216: \beq
217: t \equiv T + P_{\rm EW}^C~,~~ c \equiv C + P_{\rm EW}~,~~
218: p \equiv P - \frac{1}{3} P_{\rm EW}^C~~~.
219: \eeq
220: The terms $T, C$ and $A$ represent color-favored and color-suppressed tree
221: amplitudes and a small annihilation term, while $P$ stands for a gluonic
222: penguin amplitude. Color-favored and color-suppressed electroweak penguin
223: amplitudes are represented by $P_{\rm EW}$ and $P_{\rm EW}^C$.
224: The sums of the first two and last two amplitudes in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:decomp})
225: are equal [see Eq.~(\ref{Quad})] and both correspond to an amplitude $A_{3/2}$
226: for a $K \pi$ state with isospin $I_{K \pi} = 3/2$ \cite{Nir:1991cu,Gronau:1991dq}:
227: $$
228: A(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) + \s A(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0) =
229: A(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) + \s A(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)
230: $$
231: \beq
232: = -(t+c) = -(T + C + P_{\rm EW}^C + P_{\rm EW}) = A_{3/2}~.
233: \label{eqn:tcsum}
234: \eeq
235:
236: The contribution $-(T+C)$ to $A_{3/2}$ has a magnitude which can be obtained
237: from the decay $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ via flavor SU(3) \cite{Gronau:1994bn},
238: \beq \label{eqn:xitc}
239: |T+C|=\s\frac{V_{us}}{V_{ud}}\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}\xi_{T+C}|A(B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)|~.
240: \eeq
241: SU(3) breaking in this amplitude is often assumed to be given by the factor
242: $f_K/f_\pi=1.193\pm 0.006$~\cite{Rosner:2008yu}. Here we introduce a parameter
243: $\xi_{T+C}=1.0\pm 0.2$ which represents an uncertainty in this factor. The
244: weak phase of $T+C$ is Arg($V^*_{ub} V_{us}) = \gamma$, where $\gamma = (65 \pm
245: 10)^\circ$~\cite{CKM}. We take its strong phase to be zero by convention.
246: All other strong phases will be taken in the range $(-\pi,\pi)$.
247: The penguin amplitude $P$ dominating $B\to K\pi$ decays carries the weak phase
248: Arg$(V^*_{tb} V_{ts}) =\pi$. Its strong phase relative to that of $T+C$ will be denoted
249: $-\delta_c$~\cite{Gronau:2001cj}. Thus
250: \beq
251: T+C=|T+C|e^{i\gamma}~,~~~~~~~~~~~P=-|P|e^{-i\delta_c}~.
252: \eeq
253:
254: The electroweak penguin contribution $P_{\rm EW}^C + P_{\rm EW}$ was shown in
255: Refs.\ \cite{Neubert:1998pt} and \cite{Gronau:1998fn} to have the same strong phase
256: as $T+C$ in the SU(3) symmetry limit. In this limit the ratio of these two amplitudes is
257: given numerically in terms of ratios of CKM factors and Wilson coefficients,
258: $(P_{\rm EW}+P_{\rm EW}^C)/(T+C)= -0.66\xi_{EW}e^{-i\gamma}$.
259: The parameter $\xi_{EW}$ includes an uncertainty from SU(3) breaking, which we will
260: take as $\xi_{EW}=1.0\pm 0.2$, and a smaller uncertainty from CKM factors. We neglect
261: a potential small strong phase of $\xi_{EW}$ which has a negligible effect on our analysis
262: below. Thus we have an amplitude triangle relation,
263: \beq \label{eqn:triangle}
264: A_{00} + A_{+-} = A_{3/2} = -|T+ C|\left(e^{i \gamma} - 0.66\xi_{EW}\right)~,
265: \eeq
266: and a similar relation for the CP-conjugate amplitudes in which
267: the sign of $\gamma$ is reversed.
268:
269: In order to visualize the geometric construction of the triangle
270: (\ref{eqn:triangle}) and its CP-conjugate,
271: as proposed in Ref.~\cite{Fleischer:2008wb} but with realistic quantities
272: including the restricted range (\ref{pred}) for $A_{CP}(K^0\pi^0)$,
273: we express all branching ratios in units of $10^{-6}$,
274: and take amplitudes as their square roots. (We first divide $B^+$ branching
275: ratios by the lifetime ratio $\tau(B^+)/\tau(B^0) = 1.071 \pm 0.009$
276: \cite{HFAG} to compare them with $B^0$ branching ratios.) The central values
277: of $|T+C|$ for $\xi_{T+C}=1$ and the squares $|A_{ij}|^2$ and
278: $|\bar A_{ij}|^2$, based on central values of the rates and CP asymmetries in
279: Table \ref{tab:data}, are
280: \bea
281: |T+ C| & = & 0.900~, \nonumber \\
282: |A_{00}|^2 & = & 2(9.8)(1 + 0.14) = 22.3~, \nonumber \\
283: |A_{+-}|^2 & = & (19.4)(1 + 0.097) = 21.3~, \nonumber \\
284: |\bar A_{00}|^2 & = & 2(9.8)(1 - 0.14) = 16.9~, \nonumber \\
285: |\bar A_{-+}|^2 & = & (19.4)(1 - 0.097) = 17.5~.
286: \label{eqn:amps}
287: \eea
288:
289: Solutions for the amplitude triangle (\ref{eqn:triangle}) and its CP-conjugate
290: may be obtained analytically by solving simple quadratic equations for the
291: central values of the parameters which fix $A_{3/2}$ in (\ref{eqn:triangle}),
292: $\xi_{EW}=1$, $\gamma=65^\circ$. The quadratic
293: equation for each triangle has two solutions, which can be visualized by
294: flipping the triangle around the side $A_{3/2}$ or $\bar A_{3/2}$ which is
295: kept fixed. One thus obtains a total of $2 \times 2 = 4$ solutions, of which
296: two are illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:tri}. The other two solutions correspond
297: to flipping one triangle but not the other.
298:
299: % This is Figure 1
300: \begin{figure}
301: \begin{center}
302: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{tri.ps}
303: \end{center}
304: \caption{Triangles relating amplitudes for $B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$ and $B^0 \to
305: K^+ \pi^-$ to the amplitude $A_{3/2}$, and triangles for the corresponding
306: charge-conjugate processes.
307: \label{fig:tri}}
308: \end{figure}
309:
310: We have chosen to express the triangles with $A_{00}$ or $\bar A_{00}$
311: emanating from the origin, in order to illustrate the relative phase of
312: $A_{00}$ and $\bar A_{00}$ which will be important in the evaluation
313: of $\skp$. This relative phase vanishes in the limit of pure penguin dominance
314: and is expected to be smaller than $\pi/2$ when including small
315: color-suppressed tree and electroweak penguin contributions in $A_{00}$.
316: This feature holds true for the two illustrated solutions but excludes
317: the two solutions with one triangle flipped, for which the relative phase between
318: $A_{00}$ and $\bar A_{00}$ is larger than $\pi/2$.
319:
320: The expected value of $\skp$ is related to the magnitudes and phases of
321: $A_{00}$ and $\bar A_{00}$ in the following manner:
322: \beq
323: \skp = \frac{2|A_{00} \bar A_{00}|}{|A_{00}|^2+|\bar A_{00}|^2}
324: \sin(2 \beta + \phi_{00})~.
325: \label{eqn:skp}
326: \eeq
327: The correction $\phi_{00}\equiv {\rm Arg}(A_{00} \bar A_{00}^*)$ to $2 \beta$
328: is found to be positive for both of the displayed solutions. It is quite large,
329: $\phi_{00}=42.6^\circ$ corresponding to $\skp=0.99$, for the solution (1) with
330: negative real values of the amplitudes $A_{00}$ and $\bar A_{00}$ and smaller,
331: $\phi_{00}=16.1^\circ$ corresponding to $\skp=0.85$, for the solution (2) with
332: positive real values. Since $A_{00}$ is dominated by the penguin amplitude,
333: $P=-|P|\exp(-i\delta_c)$, solution (1) corresponds to $\cos\delta_c >0$
334: ($|\delta_c|<\pi/2$) while solution (2) involves $\cos\delta_c<0$ ($|\delta_c|>
335: \pi/2$).
336:
337: In order to exclude solution (2) one would have to show unambiguously that
338: $\cos\delta_c>0$ or $|\delta_c|<\pi/2$, where $\delta_c$ is the strong phase
339: difference between $T+C$ and $P$. A most direct proof for $\cos\delta_c>0$
340: would need an observation of destructive interference between $P$ and $T+C$
341: in the CP-averaged decay rate of $B^+\to K^+\pi^0$ normalized by that of
342: $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$. However, this interference is cancelled by constructive
343: interference of $P$ and $P_{EW}+P^C_{EW}$~\cite{Gronau:2006ha}. Arguments for
344: small strong phase differences including $\delta_c$ have been presented in
345: studies of $B\to K\pi$ and $B\to\pi\pi$ based on a heavy quark expansion
346: \cite{Beneke:1999br}. These arguments failed, however, when
347: predicting a very small phase Arg$(C/T)$. This would imply $A_{CP}(K^+\pi^0)
348: <A_{CP}(K^+\pi^-)$, contrary to the two asymmetries quoted in Table
349: \ref{tab:data}, which show that this phase is not very
350: small and must be negative (see argument below~\cite{Gronau:2006ha}.)
351: A small value of $\delta_c$ ($|\delta_c|<30^\circ$) was obtained in global
352: flavor SU(3) fits to decay rates and CP asymmetries measured for $B\to K\pi$
353: and $B\to\pi\pi$~\cite{Chiang:2004nm,Chiang:2006ih}. Within these fits it is
354: difficult to pinpoint a small subset of $B\to K\pi$ measurements forcing a
355: small value for $\delta_c$. The purpose of the subsequent discussion is to
356: prove $\cos\delta_c>0$ using a series of arguments based on specific
357: measurements, stressing the minimal use of untested assumptions about
358: flavor SU(3).
359:
360: A strong phase which is more directly accessible to experiment than $\delta_c$
361: is $\delta$, the strong phase
362: of $T$ relative to that of $P$. This phase occurs in the amplitude for $B^0\to
363: K^+\pi^-$. Its cosine term appears in the ratio $R$ of CP-averaged decay rates
364: for this process and $B^+\to K^0\pi^+$~\cite{Fleischer:1997um,Gronau:1997an}.
365: Neglecting $P^C_{EW}$ and $A$ terms in these amplitudes, one would expect $R$
366: to be smaller than one for $\cos\delta>0$ and larger than one for $\cos\delta
367: <0$. The current value $R=0.899\pm 0.048$, obtained from branching ratios in
368: Table \ref{tab:data} and the above-mentioned ratio of $B^+$ and $B^0$
369: lifetimes, favors $\cos\delta>0$ over $\cos\delta<0$. This evidence is
370: statistically limited and may suffer from $P^C_{EW}$ corrections in $B^0\to
371: K^+\pi^-$. The negative asymmetry $A_{CP}(K^+\pi^-)=-0.097 \pm 0.012$ proves
372: unambiguously that $\delta$ is positive.
373:
374: An argument proving $|\delta|<\pi/2$ unambiguously is based on the
375: time-dependent CP asymmetry parameter $\spp$ in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$.
376: Assuming flavor SU(3), the ratio of penguin and tree amplitudes and their
377: relative phase are equal in this process to those in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$, up to
378: CKM factors defining the ratios of amplitudes. Neglecting small $W$-exchange
379: and penguin annihilation contributions (the resulting systematic uncertainty
380: introduced by this approximation is taken as part of an uncertainty due to
381: SU(3) breaking
382: mentioned below), one has~\cite{Gronau:2002qj}
383: \beq\label{Spp}
384: \spp = \frac{\sin 2\alpha + 2r\cos\delta\sin(\beta-\alpha) -
385: r^2\sin 2\beta}{1 - 2r\cos\delta\cos(\beta + \alpha) + r^2}~,
386: \eeq
387: where $\alpha=\pi-\beta-\gamma$ and $r$ is the ratio of penguin and tree
388: amplitudes in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$.
389: In the absence of a penguin amplitude one has $\spp=\sin 2\alpha$, and to first
390: order in the ratio $r$ one finds
391: \cite{Gronau:2007af}
392: \beq
393: \spp = \sin 2 \alpha + 2 r \cos \delta \sin(\beta + \alpha) \cos 2 \alpha~.
394: \eeq
395: BaBar~\cite{Aubert:2007mj} and Belle~\cite{Ishino:2006if} find the same value
396: for this quantity; the average is large and negative\cite{HFAG}, $\spp = -0.61
397: \pm 0.08$. Since $\alpha=\pi-\beta-\gamma\simeq \pi/2$~\cite{CKM} one has
398: $\sin 2 \alpha \simeq 0$ and $\cos 2 \alpha \simeq -1$,
399: while $\sin(\beta + \alpha) > 0$, which implies $\cos \delta > 0$.
400:
401: A detailed analysis using the exact expression (\ref{Spp}) and measurements of
402: $\spp$ and a second asymmetry $\cpp\equiv -A_{CP}(\pi^+\pi^-)$ confirmed this
403: conclusion obtaining a value $\delta=(33\pm 7^{+8}_{-10})^{\circ}$
404: \cite{Gronau:2007af}. The first error is experimental, while the second is
405: associated with a systematic uncertainty in flavor-SU(3) breaking. The positive
406: sign of $\delta$, following from the negative averaged $\cpp$, agrees with the
407: negative value of the measured $A_{CP}(K^+\pi^-)$.
408: The two CP rate asymmetries are equal within experimental errors and
409: have opposite signs~\cite{Deshpande:1994ii,Gronau:1995qd}. Expressed in
410: units of $10^{-6}$ they are $\Delta(K^+\pi^-)=-1.88\pm 0.24=-\Delta(\pi^+\pi^-)=
411: -1.96\pm 0.37$~\cite{HFAG}. This confirms the flavor SU(3) assumption for equal
412: ratios of penguin and tree amplitudes and equal relative strong phases
413: in these two processes. A difference of $180^\circ$
414: between the two phases, which would not affect the equality of
415: CP rate asymmetries, is extremely unlikely. The property $|\delta|<
416: \pi/2$ implies constructive
417: (destructive) interference between $T$ and $P$ in the CP averaged
418: rate for $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ ($B^0\to K^+\pi^-$).
419:
420: In order to constrain $\delta_c$ (the strong phase difference between $T+C$
421: and $P$), using the above range for $\delta$ (the strong phase difference
422: between $T$ and $P$), one needs information about the strong phase of the ratio
423: $C/T$. The observation $A_{CP}(K^+\pi^0)>A_{CP}(K^+\pi^-)$ implies that
424: Arg$(C/T)$ is negative and larger in magnitude than $\delta$
425: \cite{Gronau:2006ha}. A simple proof of this behavior, for terms in the two
426: asymmetries which are linear in $|T+C|/|P|$ and $|T|/|P|$, respectively,
427: follows from the geometrical identity
428: \beq \label{eqn:tri}
429: |T+C| \sin \delta_c = |T| \sin \delta + |C| \sin [\delta + {\rm Arg}(C/T) ]
430: \eeq
431: illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:tctri}.
432: The amplitudes $T + C$ interfere constructively in $B^+\to \pi^+\pi^0$. This
433: follows from the observation that $2\b(B^+\to\pi^+\pi^0)>\b(B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-)$
434: \cite{HFAG}, and the above-mentioned constructive interference of $T$ and $P$
435: in $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$. Thus $-\pi/2 < {\rm Arg}(C/T) < -\delta<0$ which
436: implies geometrically $-\pi/2 < \delta_c < \delta< \pi/2$, without making any
437: assumption about the magnitude $|C/T|$. This concludes the proof of $\cos\delta_c>
438: 0$ which excludes solution (2) in Fig.~1.
439:
440: % This is Figure 2
441: \begin{figure}
442: \begin{center}
443: \includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{tctri.ps}
444: \end{center}
445: \caption{Illustration of relative strong phases of $T$, $C$, and $P$ in
446: $B \to K \pi$ decays and the construction leading to Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:tri}).
447: Here $\delta = {\rm Arg}(T/P)$; $\delta_c = {\rm Arg}[(T+C)/P]$.
448: \label{fig:tctri}}
449: \end{figure}
450:
451: It is the large value of $\phi_{00}\equiv {\rm Arg}(A_{00} \bar A_{00}^*)$ in
452: solution (1) in Fig.~1 which is thus responsible
453: for boosting the expected value of $\skp$ from its penguin-dominated value
454: of $\sin 2 \beta \simeq 0.68$ to a value very close to 1. We now explore the
455: sensitivity of this effect to small changes in experimental inputs.
456:
457: % This is Figure 3
458: \begin{figure}
459: \mbox{\includegraphics[width=0.370\textwidth]{var1b00.ps}
460: \includegraphics[width=0.300\textwidth]{var2b00.ps}
461: \includegraphics[width=0.300\textwidth]{var3b00.ps}}
462: \caption{Dependence of Arg($A_{00}/\bar A_{00})$ and $\skp$ on B$(K^0 \pi^0)
463: \equiv \b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$. Vertical dashed lines in top panel show central
464: value and $\pm 1\sigma$ errors of B$(K^0\pi^0)$. The plotted point on the
465: lower panels shows the experimental values. (a) All
466: parameters as in text; (b) same as (a), but $\gamma = 55^\circ$;
467: (c) same as (b), but $\b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) = 20 \times 10^{-6}$.
468: \label{fig:var}}
469: \end{figure}
470: % This is Table III
471: \begin{table}
472: \caption{Comparison of sensitivity of $\phi_{00} \equiv {\rm Arg}(A_{00}
473: \bar A_{00}^*)$ (in degrees) and $\skp$ to various parameters.
474: \label{tab:comp}}
475: \begin{center}
476: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
477: Parameter & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-1\sigma$} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$+1\sigma$} \\
478: & $\phi_{00}$ & $\skp$ & $\phi_{00}$ & $\skp$ \\ \hline
479: $\b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$ & 23.9 & 0.911 & 60.6 & 0.963 \\
480: $\gamma$ & 24.3 & 0.913 & 59.4 & 0.967 \\
481: $\b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)$ & 52.0 & 0.986 & 33.3 & 0.962 \\
482: $\xi_{T+C}$ & 41.0 & 0.985 & 44.4 & 0.989 \\
483: $\xi_{EW}$ & 26.3 & 0.926 & 58.0 & 0.972 \\ \hline \hline
484: \end{tabular}
485: \end{center}
486: \end{table}
487:
488: We find the greatest sensitivity of $\skp$ is to variations of the branching
489: ratio B$(K^0 \pi^0)$ $ \equiv \b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$. In Fig.\
490: \ref{fig:var}(a) we plot $\phi_{00}$ and $\skp$ versus B$(K^0\pi^0)$ for
491: nominal values of the parameters noted in the text. We note that $\skp$ drops
492: from a value of 0.99 at the central value of B$(K^0\pi^0)$
493: to 0.91 and 0.72 at $-1\sigma$ and $-2\sigma$ below the central value.
494: We next vary $\gamma$ within its $1 \sigma$ limits to $55^\circ$ [Fig.\
495: \ref{fig:var}(b)]. The experimental values become considerably more compatible
496: with the Standard Model predictions, and even more so if $\b(B^0 \to K^+
497: \pi^-)$ is increased by $1 \sigma$ to $20 \times 10^{-6}$ [Fig.\
498: \ref{fig:var}(c)]. In Figs.\ 3 the quantity $\phi_{00}$ is more
499: sensitive than $\skp$ to variations in $\b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$, $\gamma$, and
500: $\b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)$. For the central value of $\phi_{00}$, $\skp$ is
501: very close to its maximum value, so it is only for considerably lower values
502: of $\phi_{00}$ that $\skp$ becomes sensitive to these parameters.
503:
504: In Table \ref{tab:comp} we summarize the effects on $\phi_{00}$ and $\skp$ of
505: varying $\b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$, $\gamma$, and $\b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)$ by $\pm
506: 1 \sigma$ around their central values.
507: (See Table \ref{tab:data}; we are taking $\gamma = (65 \pm
508: 10)^\circ$.) A possible effect combining these three errors is seen in Fig.\
509: \ref{fig:var}(c). We also include the effects of $\pm 1 \sigma$ variations of
510: $\xi_{T+C} = 1.0 \pm 0.2$ and $\xi_{EW} = 1.0 \pm 0.2$. For nominal values of
511: the parameters, one has $\phi_{00}= 42.6^\circ$ and $\skp =
512: 0.987$. Table \ref{tab:comp} indicates the greatest sensitivity of $\phi_{00}$
513: to $\b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)$, followed by $\gamma$ and $\xi_{EW}$. There is
514: relatively little sensitivity to $\xi_{T+C}$.
515:
516: Other variations are found to have a negligible effect on $\skp$.
517: This includes the asymmetry $A_{CP}(B^0\to K^+\pi^-)$, which involves
518: a very small experimental error, and $A_{CP}(B^0\to K^0\pi^0)\equiv -\ckp$,
519: which is predicted in (\ref{pred}) with a small uncertainty. A large variation
520: in this asymmetry would in any case have little effect on $\skp$, as a geometric
521: construction similar to that in Fig.\ \ref{fig:tri} illustrates. The
522: phases of $A_{00}$ and $\bar A_{00}$ are found to shift nearly together,
523: so that the correction to $\sin 2 \beta$ in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:skp}) changes
524: very little. This insensitivity to $\ckp$ is displayed for the favored
525: $\skp$ solution in Ref.\ \cite{Fleischer:2008wb},
526: where $\ckp$ is left unconstrained disregarding the sum rule (\ref{SRDelta}).
527:
528: Thus the possibility that the above calculation of
529: $\skp$ in the Standard Model differs both from
530: its penguin-dominated value of $\sin 2 \beta \simeq 0.68$ and from the data
531: remains intriguing. However, for it to become a robust conclusion
532: about the presence of new physics, accuracies of measurements
533: of the $B^0$ branching ratios to $K^0 \pi^0$ and $K^+ \pi^-$ and of the CKM angle
534: $\gamma$ need to be improved. We look forward to such advances in future data,
535: and to more precise measurements of the two asymmetries $\ckp$ and $\skp$
536: in $B^0\to K^0\pi^0$.
537:
538: M.G. would like to thank the Enrico Fermi Institute at
539: the University of Chicago for its kind and generous hospitality. We thank
540: Masashi Hazumi for useful discussions, and Dan Pirjol and Jure Zupan for
541: helpful communications. This work was supported in part by
542: the United States Department of Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
543:
544: \medskip
545: {\bf Note added:}
546: The measurements of $\ckp$ and $\skp$ given in
547: Table \ref{tab:ckpskp} have been updated very recently by the BaBar and Belle collaborations.
548: New results and their averages are summarized in Table \ref{tab:ckpskp-update}.
549: %
550: % This is Table IV
551: \begin{table}[h]
552: \caption{Updated measurements of $\ckp$ and $\skp$.
553: \label{tab:ckpskp-update}}
554: \begin{center}
555: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
556: Ref.\ & $\ckp$ & $\skp$ \\ \hline
557: BaBar \cite{Hirschauer} & $0.13 \pm 0.13 \pm 0.03$ & $0.55 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.03$ \\
558: Belle \cite{Dalseno} & $-0.14 \pm 0.13 \pm 0.06$ & $0.67 \pm 0.31 \pm 0.08$ \\
559: Average & $0.00 \pm 0.10$ & $0.58 \pm 0.17$ \\ \hline
560: \end{tabular}
561: \end{center}
562: \end{table}
563: The averaged value of $\ckp$ agrees with the prediction (\ref{pred}) within $1.4\sigma$,
564: while $\skp$ is now consistent with $\sin 2\beta$ and somewhat larger values.
565: Recent updates by BaBar of the branching ratio for $B^0\to K^0\pi^0$ and the CP
566: asymmetry in $B^0\to K^+\pi^-$~\cite{Aubert:2008sb} do not affect significantly the
567: corresponding two averaged values in Table \ref{tab:data}.
568:
569: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
570: %1
571: %\cite{Gronau:1989ia}
572: \bibitem{Gronau:1989ia}
573: M.~Gronau,
574: %``CP Violation In Neutral B Decays To CP Eigenstates,''
575: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 63} (1989) 1451.
576:
577: %2
578: %\cite{Gronau:1996rv}
579: \bibitem{Gronau:1996rv}
580: M.~Gronau and D.~London,
581: %``New physics in CP asymmetries and rare B decays,''
582: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55} (1997) 2845
583: [arXiv:hep-ph/9608430].
584:
585: %3
586: %\cite{Grossman:1996ke}
587: \bibitem{Grossman:1996ke}
588: Y.~Grossman and M.~P.~Worah,
589: %``CP asymmetries in B decays with new physics in decay amplitudes,''
590: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 395} (1997) 241
591: [arXiv:hep-ph/9612269].
592:
593: %4
594: %\cite{London:1997zk}
595: \bibitem{London:1997zk}
596: D.~London and A.~Soni,
597: %``Measuring the CP angle beta in hadronic b --> s penguin decays,''
598: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 407} (1997) 61
599: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704277].
600:
601: %5
602: %\cite{HFAG}
603: \bibitem{HFAG}
604: E.~Barberio {\it et al.} [Heavy Flavor Averaging Group (HFAG) Collaboration],
605: %``Averages of b-hadron properties at the end of 2006,''
606: arXiv:0704.3575 [hep-ex]. Periodic updates may be found
607: at \\ {\tt http://www.slac.stanford.edu/xorg/hfag/rare/}.
608:
609: % 6
610: %\cite{Fleischer:2008wb}
611: \bibitem{Fleischer:2008wb}
612: R.~Fleischer, S.~Jager, D.~Pirjol and J.~Zupan,
613: %``Benchmarks for the New-Physics Search through CP Violation in B^0->pi^0
614: %K_S,''
615: arXiv:0806.2900 [hep-ph].
616:
617: % 7
618: %\cite{Aubert:2007mgb}
619: \bibitem{Aubert:2007mgb}
620: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
621: %``Measurement of the CP-Violating Asymmetries in B0 -> KS pi0 and of the
622: %Branching Fraction of B0 -> K0 pi0,''
623: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 77} (2008) 012003
624: [arXiv:0707.2980 [hep-ex]].
625:
626: % 8
627: %\cite{Abe:2006gy}
628: \bibitem{Abe:2006gy}
629: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
630: %``Measurements of time-dependent CP violation in B0 --> omega K0(S), f0(980)
631: %K0(S), K0(S) pi0 and K+ K- K0(S) decays,''
632: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76} (2007) 091103
633: [arXiv:hep-ex/0609006].
634:
635: %9
636: %\cite{Nir:1991cu}
637: \bibitem{Nir:1991cu}
638: Y.~Nir and H.~R.~Quinn,
639: %``Measuring CKM parameters with CP asymmetry and isospin analysis in B $\to$
640: %pi K,''
641: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 67} (1991) 541.
642:
643: %10
644: %\cite{Gronau:1991dq}
\bibitem{Gronau:1991dq}
M.~Gronau,
%``Elimination of penguin contributions to CP asymmetries in B decays through
%isospin analysis,''
Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 265} (1991) 389.
645:
646: % 11
647: %\cite{Gronau:2005kz}
648: \bibitem{Gronau:2005kz}
649: M.~Gronau,
650: %``A precise sum rule among four B --> K pi CP asymmetries,''
651: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 627} (2005) 82
652: [arXiv:hep-ph/0508047].
653:
654: %12
655: \bibitem{Gronau:2005gz}
656: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
657: %``The b --> s penguin amplitude in charmless B --> P P decays,''
658: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71} (2005) 074019
659: [arXiv:hep-ph/0503131].
660:
661: % 13
662: \bibitem{Chiang:2004nm}
663: C.~W.~Chiang, M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and D.~A.~Suprun,
664: %``Charmless B --> P P decays using flavor SU(3) symmetry,''
665: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 034020
666: [arXiv:hep-ph/0404073].
667:
668: %14
669: %\cite{Cheng:2005bg}
670: \bibitem{Cheng:2005bg}
671: H.~Y.~Cheng, C.~K.~Chua and A.~Soni,
672: %``Effects of final-state interactions on mixing-induced CP violation in
673: %penguin-dominated B decays,''
674: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 014006
675: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502235].
676:
677: %15
678: \bibitem{Beneke:2005pu}
679: M.~Beneke,
680: %``Corrections to sin(2beta) from CP asymmetries in B0 --> (pi0, rho0, eta,
681: %eta', omega, Phi) K(S) decays,''
682: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 620} (2005)
683: 143 [arXiv:hep-ph/0505075].
684:
685: % 16
686: \bibitem{Williamson:2006hb}
687: A.~R.~Williamson and J.~Zupan,
688: %``Two body B decays with isosinglet final states in SCET,''
689: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 014003
690: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 03901]
691: [arXiv:hep-ph/0601214].
692:
693: % 17
694: \bibitem{Gronau:2003kx}
695: M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman and J.~L.~Rosner,
696: %``Interpreting the time-dependent CP asymmetry in B0 --> pi0 K(S),''
697: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 579} (2004) 331
698: [arXiv:hep-ph/0310020].
699:
700: % 18
701: \bibitem{Gronau:2006qh}
702: M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and J.~Zupan,
703: %``Updated bounds on CP asymmetries in B0 --> eta' K(S) and B0 --> pi0 K(S),''
704: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 74} (2006) 093003
705: [arXiv:hep-ph/0608085].
706:
707: % 19
708: \bibitem{Buras:2003dj}
709: A.~J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel and F.~Schwab,
710: %``B --> pi pi, new physics in B --> pi K and implications for rare K and B
711: %decays,''
712: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004) 101804
713: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312259].
714:
715: % 20
716: %\cite{Buras:2004ub}
717: \bibitem{Buras:2004ub}
718: A.~J.~Buras, R.~Fleischer, S.~Recksiegel and F.~Schwab,
719: %``Anatomy of prominent B and K decays and signatures of CP-violating new
720: %physics in the electroweak penguin sector,''
721: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 697} (2004) 133
722: [arXiv:hep-ph/0402112].
723:
724: %21
725: %\cite{Ciuchini:1997rj}
726: \bibitem{Ciuchini:1997rj}M.~Ciuchini, R.~Contino, E.~Franco, G.~Martinelli and
727: L.~Silvestrini,
728: %``Charming-penguin enhanced B decays,''
729: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 512} (1998) 3 [Erratum-ibid.\ B {\bf 531} (1998) 656]
730: [arXiv:hep-ph/9708222].
731:
732: %22
733: %\cite{Jain:2007dy}
734: \bibitem{Jain:2007dy}
735: A.~Jain, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart,
736: %``Penguin Loops for Nonleptonic B-Decays in the Standard Model: Is there a
737: %Penguin Puzzle?,''
738: arXiv:0706.3399 [hep-ph].
739:
740: %23
741: %\cite{Gronau:1994rj}
742: \bibitem{Gronau:1994rj}
743: M.~Gronau, O.~F.~Hernandez, D.~London and J.~L.~Rosner,
744: %``Decays of B mesons to two light pseudoscalars,''
745: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50} (1994) 4529
746: [arXiv:hep-ph/9404283].
747:
748: % 24
749: %\cite{Gronau:1995hn}
750: \bibitem{Gronau:1995hn}
751: M.~Gronau, O.~F.~Hernandez, D.~London and J.~L.~Rosner,
752: %``Electroweak Penguins And Two-Body B Decays,''
753: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 52} (1995) 6374
754: [arXiv:hep-ph/9504327].
755:
756: % 25
757: %\cite{Gronau:1994bn}
758: \bibitem{Gronau:1994bn}
759: M.~Gronau, J.~L.~Rosner and D.~London,
760: %``Weak Coupling Phase From Decays Of Charged B Mesons To Pi K And Pi Pi,''
761: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 73} (1994) 21
762: [arXiv:hep-ph/9404282].
763:
764: %26
765: %\cite{Rosner:2008yu}
766: \bibitem{Rosner:2008yu}
767: J.~L.~Rosner and S.~Stone,
768: %``Decay Constants of Charged Pseudoscalar Mesons,''
769: prepared for 2008 Edition of Review of Particle Properties,
770: arXiv:0802.1043 [hep-ex].
771:
772: %27
773: %\cite{CKM}
774: \bibitem{CKM} J. Charles {\it et al.} [CKMfitter Group], Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\
775: C {\bf 41} (2005) 1; \\
776: periodic updates at {\tt http://ckmfitter.in2p3.fr}; \\
777: M. Bona {\it et al.} [UTfit Collaboration], JHEP {\bf 0507} (2005) 028; \\
778: periodic updates at {\tt http://utfit.roma1.infn.it}.
779:
780: %28
781: %\cite{Gronau:2001cj}
782: \bibitem{Gronau:2001cj}
783: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
784: %``Implications of CP asymmetry limits for B --> K pi and B --> pi pi,''
785: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 013004
786: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 079901]
787: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109238].
788:
789: % 29
790: \bibitem{Neubert:1998pt}
791: M.~Neubert and J.~L.~Rosner,
792: %``New bound on gamma from B+- --> pi K decays,''
793: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 441} (1998) 403
794: [arXiv:hep-ph/9808493];
795: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B441,403;%%
796: %bibitem{Neubert:1998jq}
797: M.~Neubert and J.~L.~Rosner,
798: %``Determination of the weak phase gamma from rate measurements in B+- --> pi
799: %K, pi pi decays,''
800: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 5076
801: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809311].
802:
803: % 30
804: \bibitem{Gronau:1998fn}
805: M.~Gronau, D.~Pirjol and T.~M.~Yan,
806: %``Model-independent electroweak penguins in B decays to two pseudoscalars,''
807: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60} (1999) 034021
808: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69} (2004) 119901]
809: [arXiv:hep-ph/9810482].
810:
811: %31
812: %\cite{Gronau:2006ha}
813: \bibitem{Gronau:2006ha}
814: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
815: %``Sum rule for rate and CP asymmetry in B+ --> K+ pi0,''
816: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 644} (2007) 237
817: [arXiv:hep-ph/0610227].
818:
819: %32
820: %\cite{Beneke:1999br}
821: \bibitem{Beneke:1999br}
822: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
823: %``{QCD} factorization for B --> pi pi decays: Strong phases and CP violation
824: %in the heavy quark limit,''
825: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83} (1999) 1914
826: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905312].
827:
828: %MG deleted reference
829: %33
830: %\cite{Bauer:2004tj}
831: %\bibitem{Bauer:2004tj}
832: %C.~W.~Bauer, D.~Pirjol, I.~Z.~Rothstein and I.~W.~Stewart,
833: %``B --> M(1) M(2): Factorization, charming penguins, strong phases, and
834: %polarization,''
835: % Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70} (2004) 054015
836: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0401188].
837:
838: %33
839: %\cite{Chiang:2006ih}
840: \bibitem{Chiang:2006ih}
841: C.~W.~Chiang and Y.~F.~Zhou,
842: %``Flavor SU(3) analysis of charmless B meson decays to two pseudoscalar
843: %mesons,''
844: JHEP {\bf 0612} (2006) 027
845: [arXiv:hep-ph/0609128].
846:
847: %34
848: %\cite{Fleischer:1997um}
849: \bibitem{Fleischer:1997um}
850: R.~Fleischer and T.~Mannel,
851: %``Constraining the CKM angle gamma and penguin contributions through
852: %combined B --> pi K branching ratios,''
853: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 2752
854: [arXiv:hep-ph/9704423].
855:
856: %35
857: %\cite{Gronau:1997an}
858: \bibitem{Gronau:1997an}
859: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
860: %``Weak phase gamma from ratio of B --> K pi rates,''
861: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57} (1998) 6843
862: [arXiv:hep-ph/9711246].
863:
864: %36
865: %\cite{Gronau:2002qj}
866: \bibitem{Gronau:2002qj}
867: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
868: %``Strong and weak phases from time-dependent measurements of B --> pi pi,''
869: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65} (2002) 093012
870: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202170].
871:
872: %37
873: \bibitem{Gronau:2007af}
874: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
875: %``Systematic Error on Weak Phase $\gamma$ from $B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B
876: %\to K \pi$,''
877: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 651} (2007) 166
878: [arXiv:0704.3459 [hep-ph]].
879: We use a definition of $\delta$ with an opposite sign.
880:
881: %38
882: %\cite{Aubert:2007mj}
883: \bibitem{Aubert:2007mj}
884: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
885: %``Observation of CP violation in B0 --> K+ pi- and B0 --> pi+ pi-,''
886: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 99} (2007) 021603
887: [arXiv:hep-ex/0703016].
888:
889: %39
890: %\cite{Ishino:2006if}
891: \bibitem{Ishino:2006if}
892: H.~Ishino {\it et al.} [Belle Collaboration],
893: %``Observation of Direct CP-Violation in B0 ---> pi+ pi- Decays and
894: %Model-Independent Constraints on phi2,''
895: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 98} (2007) 211801
896: [arXiv:hep-ex/0608035].
897:
898: %40
899: %\cite{Deshpande:1994ii}
\bibitem{Deshpande:1994ii}
N.~G.~Deshpande and X.~G.~He,
%``CP asymmetry relations between anti-b0 $\to$ pi pi and anti-b0 $\to$ pi K
%rates,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 75} (1995) 1703
[arXiv:hep-ph/9412393].
900:
901: %41
902: %\cite{Gronau:1995qd}
\bibitem{Gronau:1995qd}
M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,
%``Determining the CKM Unitarity Triangle From $B$ Decays to Charged Pions and
%Kaons,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 76} (1996) 1200
[arXiv:hep-ph/9510363].
903:
904: %42
905: %\cite{Hirschauer}
906: \bibitem{Hirschauer}
907: J. F. Hirschauer, talk at ICHEP08, the 34th International Conference on High Energy Physics,
908: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 30$-$ August 5, 2008.
909:
910: %43
911: %\cite{Dalseno}
912: \bibitem{Dalseno}
913: J. P. Dalseno, talk at ICHEP08, the 34th International Conference on High Energy Physics,
914: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 30$-$ August 5, 2008.
915:
916: %44
917: %\cite{Aubert:2008sb}
918: \bibitem{Aubert:2008sb}
B.~Aubert [BABAR Collaboration],
%``Measurement of CP Asymmetries and Branching Fractions in B0 -> pi+ pi-, B0
%-> K+ pi-, B0 -> pi0 pi0, B0 -> K0 pi0 and Isospin Analysis of B -> pi pi
%Decays,''
arXiv:0807.4226 [hep-ex].
919:
920: \end{thebibliography}
921: \end{document}
922:
923: