1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{moriond,epsfig}
3: %\documentstyle[11pt,moriond,epsfig]{article}
4:
5: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
6: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
7: % first citation.
8:
9: % A useful Journal macro
10: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
11:
12: % Some useful journal names
13: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
14: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
15:
16: \begin{document}
17: \vspace*{4cm}
18: \title{RESULTS ON $B\to VV$ AND $PV$ DECAYS FROM BELLE}
19:
20: \author{Jingzhi Zhang}
21:
22: \address{KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, \\
23: 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0801, JAPAN}
24:
25: \maketitle\abstracts{
26: I report results on $B\to VV$ and $B\to PV$ decays.
27: The results include the measurements of the decay
28: amplitudes and the branching fractions in the decays $B\to \phi
29: K^*$ and $B^+\to \rho^+\rho^0$, the measurements of the branching
30: fraction and $CP$ asymmetry in $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$,
31: and the first evidence of the decay $B^0\to\rho^0\pi^0$.}
32:
33: % based on a $78~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ data sample
34: % using $140~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ data.}
35:
36:
37: %%=============== Introduction ==============
38: \section{Introduction}
39:
40: %%=== \subsection{$B \to PV$ Decays}
41: At the quark level, the decays $B \to \rho \pi$ occur via $b\to u$
42: tree diagrams and can be used to measure the CKM angle
43: $\phi_2$~\cite{phi1-3}.
44: However, because of the presence of $b\to d$ penguin diagrams, the
45: extraction of $\phi_2$ from time-dependent $CP$-asymmetry measurements
46: requires an isospin analysis of the decay rates of all the $\rho \pi$
47: decay modes~\cite{iso_ana}. The decay channels $B^+ \to \rho^0 \pi^+$
48: ~\cite{charge_conjugate} and $B^0 \to \rho^{\pm} \pi^{\mp}$ have
49: already been measured~\cite{current_rhopi}. The remaining decay modes,
50: $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$ and $B^0\to\rho^0\pi^0$, are reported here.
51: Direct $CP$ violation may occur in these decays because of
52: interference between the tree and penguin amplitudes. It would be
53: indicated by a non-zero partial-rate asymmetry: ${\cal A}_{CP}\equiv
54: \frac{{\Gamma{(\bar B \to \bar f)}-\Gamma{(B \to f)}}}{{\Gamma{(\bar B
55: \to \bar f)}+\Gamma{(B \to f)}}}$, where $\Gamma{(B \to f)}$
56: denotes the partial width of $B$ decaying into a final state $f$ and
57: $\Gamma{(\bar B \to \bar f)}$ represents that of the charge conjugate
58: decay.
59:
60: %%=== \subsection{$B \to VV$ Decays}
61: In addition to rate asymmetries, $B\to VV$ decays provide
62: opportunities to search for direct $CP$ and/or $T$ violation through
63: angular correlations between the vector meson decay final
64: states~\cite{a.datta}.
65: These decays produce final states where three helicity states are
66: possible.
67: The standard model (SM) predicts (1) $R_0\gg R_T=(R_\perp+R_\parallel)$,
68: (2) $R_\perp \approx R_\parallel$~\cite{Grossman}, where $R_0$ $(R_T,
69: R_\perp, R_\parallel)$ is the longitudinal (transverse, perpendicular,
70: parallel) polarization fraction in the transversity
71: basis~\cite{ref_trans}.
72: %Related to the helicity basis(${\cal A}_-$, ${\cal A}_+$ and ${\cal
73: % A}_0$), ${\cal A}_{\parallel,\perp}=\frac{{\cal A}_- \pm {\cal
74: % A}_+}{\sqrt{2}}$ and the longitudinal amplitude remains unchanged.
75: In this report, we focus on the modes $B\to\phi K^*$~\cite{ref:phiK}
76: and $B^+\to\rho^+\rho^0$~\cite{ref:rhoprho0}.
77: The $B\to\phi K^*$ decays proceed via pure $b\to s$ penguin
78: diagrams, and are sensitive probes of new $CP$-violating phases from
79: physics beyond the SM~\cite{datta}.
80: The decay $B^+\to\rho^+\rho^0$ is a tree-dominated $b\to u$ process,
81: and can be used to extract $\phi_2$ by an isospin analysis analogous
82: to the $B\to \rho \pi$ decays.
83:
84: The data samples, $140~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ used for the $\rho\pi$
85: modes and $78~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ for the $\phi K^{*}$ and
86: $\rho^+\rho^0$ modes, are collected with the Belle detector at the
87: KEKB asymmetric $e^+e^-$ collider~\cite{KEKB}.
88: KEKB operates at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance
89: %($\sqrt{s} = 10.58$~GeV)
90: and has achieved a peak luminosity above $1.2 \times 10^{34}{\rm
91: cm}^{-2}s^{-1}$.
92:
93: %%=============== Event Selection =================
94: \section{Event Selection}
95: We reconstruct $B$ meson candidates from their decay products
96: including the intermediate states $\phi \to K^+K^-$,
97: $K^{* 0} \to K^{+} \pi^{-}$,
98: $K^{* +} \to K^{+} \pi^{0}$,
99: $K^{* +} \to K^{0} \pi^{+}$,
100: $\rho^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$,
101: $\rho^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ decays,
102: and $\pi^0\to \gamma\gamma$ and $K^0\to K_S^0\to \pi^+\pi^-$.
103: $B$ candidates are identified using the beam-constrained mass $M_{\rm
104: bc}\equiv\sqrt{E_{\rm beam}^2-p_B^2}$, and the energy difference
105: $\Delta E\equiv E_B-E_{\rm beam}$, where $E_{\rm beam}$ is the
106: center-of-mass system (CMS) beam energy, and $p_B$ and $E_B$ are the
107: CMS momentum and energy of the $B$ candidate, respectively.
108:
109: %% \section {Continuum Suppression:}
110: The continuum process $e^+e^- \to q \bar{q}$ ($q=u, d, s, c$) is the
111: main source of background and must be strongly suppressed.
112: One method of discriminating the signal from the background is based
113: on the event topology, which tends to be isotropic for $B\bar B$
114: events and jet-like for $q\bar q$ events.
115: Another is $\theta_B$, the CMS polar angle of the $B$ flight
116: direction. $B$ mesons are produced with a $1-\cos^2\theta_B$
117: distribution while continuum background events tend to be uniform in
118: $\cos\theta_B$.
119: We achieve continuum suppression by a likelihood ratio requirement
120: derived from a Fisher discriminant based on modified Fox-Wolfram
121: moments~\cite{fox} and $\theta_B$.
122:
123: %% =======================VV results ======================
124:
125: \section { $VV$ Modes: $B\to \phi K^*$, $B^+\to \rho^+ \rho^0$}
126:
127: The $B\to \phi K^*$ signal yields are extracted by $2D$ extended unbinned
128: maximum-likelihood fits to the $\Delta E$-$M_{\rm bc}$ distributions.
129: The non-resonant $B \to KKK^{(*)}$ background is estimated from the
130: $\phi$ sideband region and is subtracted from the raw signal
131: yield. The branching fractions are
132: $$ {\cal B}(B\to \phi
133: K^{*0})=(10.0^{+1.6}_{-1.5}\;^{+0.7}_{-0.8})\times
134: 10^{-6},~~
135: {\cal B}(B \to \phi
136: K^{*+})=(6.7^{+2.1}_{-1.9}\;^{+0.7}_{-1.0})\times10^{-6},$$
137: where the first (second) error is statistical (systematic) throughout
138: this paper.
139:
140: The decay angles of $B \to \phi K^{*0}(K^+\pi^-)$ are defined in the
141: transversity basis, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_phiK} (a).
142: % The $x$-$y$ plane is defined by the $K^{*0}$ daughters and the $x$
143: % axis is in the direction of the $\phi$-meson. The $y$ axis is on the
144: % side of the kaon from $K^{*0}$ decay and is perpendicular to the $x$
145: % axis. The $z$ axis is perpendicular to the $x$-$y$ plane according to
146: % the right-hand rule. $\theta_{\rm tr}$ ($\phi_{\rm tr}$) is the polar
147: % (azimuthal) angle of the $K^+$ from $\phi$ decay in the $\phi$ rest
148: % frame, and $\theta_{K^*}$ is the angle between the $K^{*0}$ and its
149: % daughter kaon defined in the $K^{*0}$ rest frame.
150: The distribution of the three angles $\theta_{K^*}$, $\theta_{\rm
151: tr}$, and $\phi_{\rm tr}$ is \cite{polarization_hepex}
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: \label{equ:angularpdf}
154: \nonumber
155: &&{d^3 \Gamma (\phi_{\rm tr}, \cos\theta_{\rm tr}, \cos\theta_{K^*}) \over d\phi_{\rm tr} d\cos{\theta_{\rm tr}} d\
156: cos{\theta_{K^*}}}
157: = {9\over 32\pi} [
158: |A_\perp|^2 2 \cos^2{\theta_{\rm tr}} \sin^2{\theta_{K^*}}
159: +|A_\parallel|^2 2 \sin^2{\theta_{\rm tr}} \sin^2{\phi_{\rm tr}}
160: \sin^2{\theta_{K^*}}\\
161: \nonumber
162: &&+{|A_0|}^2 4 \sin^2\theta_{\rm tr} \cos^2\phi_{\rm tr} \cos^2\theta_{K^*}
163: +\sqrt{2} {\rm Re}(A^*_\parallel{A_0}) \sin^2\theta_{\rm tr}\sin 2 \phi_{\rm tr} \sin 2\theta_{K^*} \\
164: %\nonumber
165: &&-\eta\sqrt{2} {\rm Im}({A_0}^* A_\perp) \sin 2\theta_{\rm tr} \cos\phi_{\rm tr} \sin 2\theta_{K^*}
166: -2\eta{\rm Im}(A_\parallel^* A_\perp) \sin 2 \theta_{\rm tr} \sin \phi_{\rm tr} \sin^2 \theta_{K^*} ]~,
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: where $A_0$, $A_\parallel$, and $A_\perp$ are the complex amplitudes
169: of the three helicity states in the transversity basis with the
170: normalization condition $|A_0|^2 + |A_\parallel|^2 + |A_\perp|^2 = 1$,
171: and $\eta\equiv +1$ ($-1$) for $B^0$ ($\overline{B}{}^0$).
172:
173: % $|A_0|$ denotes the longitudinal polarization of the $ \phi\to K^+K^-$
174: % system and $|A_\perp|$ ($|A_\parallel|$) is the transverse
175: % polarization along the $z$-axis ($y$-axis).
176:
177: The complex amplitudes are determined from an unbinned maximum
178: likelihood fit to the $B^0 \to \phi K^{*0}$ candidates. The
179: combined likelihood is given by
180: $\mathcal{L} =
181: \prod_i^N \epsilon[f_{\phi K^{*0}}\cdot\Gamma
182: +f_{q\overline{q}}\cdot P_{q\overline{q}}
183: + f_{KKK^{*0}}\cdot P_{KKK^{*0}} ],$
184: where $\Gamma$ is the angular distribution function (ADF) given in
185: Eq.~\ref{equ:angularpdf}, and $R_{q\overline{q}}$ and $R_{KKK^{*0}}$
186: are the ADFs for continuum and $B \to KKK^{*0}$ background.
187: % The value of $\eta$ is determined from the charge of the kaon in
188: % $K^{*0}$ decay,
189: $R_{q\overline{q}}$ is determined from sideband data and
190: $R_{KKK^{*0}}$ is assumed to be flat.
191: The detection efficiency function $\epsilon$ is determined by Monte
192: Carlo (MC).
193: The fractions of $\phi K^{*0}$ ($f_{\phi K^{*0}}$), $q\overline{q}$
194: ($f_{q\overline{q}}$) and $KKK^{*0}$ ($f_{KKK^{*0}}$) are
195: parameterized as a function of $\Delta E$ and $M_{\rm bc}$.
196: Four parameters ($|A_0|^2$, $|A_\perp|^2$, $\arg(A_\parallel)$,
197: $\arg(A_\perp)$) are left free;
198: $\arg(A_0)$ is set to zero and $|A_\parallel|^2$ is calculated from
199: the normalization constraint.
200: Projections of the three angles with fit results are shown in
201: Fig.~\ref{fig_phiK} (b) $\sim$ (d).\\
202:
203: \vspace*{0.2cm}
204: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
205: \hspace*{0.5cm}(a)\hspace*{4.3cm}&(b)\hspace*{1.7cm}&(c)\hspace*{1.7cm}& (d)
206: \end{tabular}
207: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
208: \begin{figure}[htbp]
209: \begin{center}
210: \includegraphics[width=3.5cm, clip]{fig_1a.eps}
211: \includegraphics[width=8.1cm, clip]{fig_1b.eps}
212: \caption{(a) the definition of decay angles in $B \to
213: \phi K^{*0}$ decay; (b $\sim$ d) the projections of the angles with results
214: of the fit superimposed, the dashed (dot-dashed) line denotes the
215: continuum ($B\to KKK^*$) background.}
216: \label{fig_phiK}
217: \end{center}
218: \end{figure}
219:
220: The amplitudes obtained from the fit are
221: \begin{eqnarray}
222: \nonumber
223: |A_0|^2 = 0.43 \pm 0.09\pm 0.04;~~&&
224: |A_\perp|^2 = 0.41 \pm 0.10\pm 0.04;\\
225: \nonumber
226: \arg(A_\parallel) = -2.57 \pm 0.39\pm 0.09;~~&&
227: \arg(A_\perp) = 0.48 \pm 0.32\pm 0.06.
228: \end{eqnarray}
229:
230: %\subsection{$B\to \rho\rho$}
231:
232: Figures~\ref{fig_rhorho} (a) and (b) show the $\Delta E$ and $M_{\rm bc}$
233: projections for $B^+\to \rho^+\rho^0$. The curve shows the results of
234: a binned maximum-likelihood fit with three components: signal,
235: continuum, and $b\to c$ background. The $\Delta E$ fit
236: gives a signal yield of $59 \pm 13$ entries. The statistical
237: significance of the signal, defined as $\sqrt{-2\ln({\cal
238: L}_0/{\cal L}_{\rm max})}$, where ${\cal L}_{\rm max}$ is the
239: likelihood value at the best-fit signal yield and ${\cal L}_{0}$ is
240: the value with the signal yield fixed to zero, is 5.3$\sigma$.
241:
242: We use the $\rho\to\pi\pi$ helicity-angle ($\theta_{\rm {hel}}$)
243: distributions to determine the relative strengths of the longitudinally
244: and transversely polarization. Here $\theta_{\rm {hel}}$ is the angle
245: between an axis anti-parallel to the $B$ flight direction and the
246: $\pi^+$ flight direction in the $\rho$ rest frame.
247: The signal yields for each helicity-angle bin are plotted versus
248: $\cos\theta_{\rm hel}$ for the $\rho^0$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_rhorho} (c) and
249: the $\rho^+$ in Fig.~\ref{fig_rhorho} (d).
250: We perform a simultaneous $\chi^2$ fit to the two
251: %background-subtracted
252: $\rho$ helicity-angle distributions using
253: MC-determined expectations for the longitudinal and transverse helicity
254: states. The fit results are shown as histograms in
255: Fig.~\ref{fig_rhorho} (c) and(d).
256: Since the detection efficiency is strongly dependent on
257: polarization, we calculate the branching fraction based on the measured
258: longitudinal polarization fraction $R_0$ (note that
259: $R_0=\frac{|A_0|^2}{|A_0|^2 + |A_\parallel|^2 + |A_\perp|^2}$),
260:
261: \begin{eqnarray}
262: \nonumber
263: %{\Gamma_{L}}/{\Gamma}
264: R_0(B^+\to \rho^+\rho^0)&=& 0.95\pm 0.11\pm 0.02,\\
265: \nonumber
266: {\cal B}(B^+\to \rho^+\rho^0)&=&(31.7\pm 7.1^{+3.8}_{-6.7}\;)\times
267: 10^{-6}.
268: \end{eqnarray}
269:
270: \vspace*{0.2cm}
271: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
272: \hspace*{0.6cm}(a)\hspace*{2.8cm}&(b)\hspace*{2.8cm}&(c)\hspace*{2.8cm}& (d)
273: \end{tabular}
274:
275: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
276: \begin{figure}[htbp]
277: \begin{center}
278: \includegraphics[width=3.6cm, clip]{fig_2a.eps}
279: \includegraphics[width=3.6cm, clip]{fig_2b.eps}
280: \includegraphics[width=3.6cm, clip]{fig_2c.eps}
281: \includegraphics[width=3.6cm, clip]{fig_2d.eps}
282: \caption{(a) the $\Delta E$ and (b) $M_{\rm bc}$ fits to the $B^+\to
283: \rho^+\rho^0$ candidate events.
284: The sum of the $b\to c $ and continuum components is shown as a
285: dashed line; shaded histogram represents the $b\to c$
286: background. (c)(d): the data points show the background-subtracted
287: cosine helicity-angle distributions $\rho^0$ (c) and $\rho^+$
288: (d). The dashed (dot-dashed) histogram is the $H_{00}$ ($H_{11}$)
289: component of the fit; the solid histogram is their sum. The absence
290: of events near $\cos\theta_{hel_{\rho^+}}=1$ is due to a $\pi^0$
291: momentum requirement $p_{\pi^0}>0.5{\,{\rm GeV}/c}$.}
292: \label{fig_rhorho}
293: \end{center}
294: \end{figure}
295:
296: We see that in the tree-dominated $B\to\rho^+\rho^0$, the SM
297: prediction~\cite{Grossman} $R_0 \gg R_T$ is confirmed.
298: The second prediction, $R_\perp \approx R_\parallel$, cannot be tested
299: at the current level of statistics.
300: In contrast, in the pure $b\to s$ penguin $B\to\phi K^*$ we find
301: $R_0\approx R_T$; also find $R_T\gg R_\parallel$
302: ($R_0+R_\perp+R_\parallel=1$). Both of these results for $B\to\phi
303: K^*$ are in disagreement with SM predictions.
304:
305: \section{$PV$ Modes: $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$, $B^0\to \rho^0\pi^0$}
306:
307: From the ${\rm pseudoscalar} \to {\rm vector}+{\rm pseudoscalar}$ decay
308: $B\to \rho\pi$, we expect the $\rho$ helicity
309: angle ($\theta_{\rm hel}$) to have a $\cos^2\theta_{\rm hel}$
310: distribution.
311: We apply the following requirements: $|\cos \theta_{\rm
312: hel}|>0.3$ for $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$ and $\left|
313: \cos\theta_{\rm hel} \right| > 0.5$ for $B^0\to \rho^0\pi^0$.
314: Additional discrimination is provided by the $b$-flavor tagging
315: parameter $r$, which is a measure of the probability that the $b$
316: flavor of the accompanying $B$ meson is correctly assigned
317: by the Belle flavor-tagging algorithm~\cite{Belle-sin2phi1}.
318: Events with a high value of $r$ are well-tagged and are less likely to
319: originate from continuum events. We extract signal yields by using
320: extended unbinned maximum-likelihood fits to the $M_{\rm bc}$-$\Delta
321: E$ distributions.
322:
323: Figures~\ref{fig_rhopi} (a) and (b) show the $\Delta E$ and $M_{\rm bc}$
324: projections for $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$.
325: The solid curve shows the fit results with the components:
326: signal, continuum, the $b\to c$ decays, $B^0 \to \rho^+\rho^-$ and
327: $B^0\to\pi^0\pi^0$.
328: In the fit, all normalizations are allowed to float, except for the
329: $\pi^0\pi^0$ component, which is fixed at a MC-determined value based
330: on recent Belle~\cite{shlee} and BaBar~\cite{BaBar_pi0pi0} measurements.
331: The fit gives a signal yield of $87 \pm 15$, with a statistical
332: significance of 8.1$\sigma$.\\
333:
334: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}
335: \hspace*{1cm}(a)\hspace*{2.4cm}&(b)\hspace*{2.8cm}&(c)\hspace*{2.6cm}& (d)
336: \end{tabular}
337:
338: \vspace*{-1.1cm}
339: \begin{figure}[htbp]
340: \begin{center}
341: \includegraphics[width=7cm, clip]{fig_3a.eps}
342: \includegraphics[width=7cm, clip]{fig_3b.eps}
343: \caption{
344: (a) the $\Delta E$ projection in the $M_{\rm bc}$
345: signal region, (b) the $M_{\rm bc}$ projection in the $\Delta E$
346: signal region for the decay $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$. The
347: solid curve shows the fit results. The signal (continuum, the
348: sum of continuum and $b\to c$) component is shown as dashed
349: (dotted, dot-dashed) line. The hatched (dark) histogram represents
350: the $B\to \rho^+\rho^-$ ($B\to \pi^0\pi^0$) background;
351: (c)(d) for $B^0\to \rho^0\pi^0$, the solid curve is a projection
352: of the maximum likelihood fit result. The dashed (dot-dashed,
353: dotted) curve represents the signal (continuum, the composite of
354: continuum and B-related background) component of the fit.}
355: \label{fig_rhopi}
356: \end{center}
357: \end{figure}
358:
359: %\subsection{$B\to \rho^0\pi^0$}
360: Figures~\ref{fig_rhopi} (c) and (d) show the fit results for $B^0\to
361: \rho^0\pi^0$.
362: The fit contains components for the signal, continuum, $b
363: \to c$ background and the decays $B^+ \to \rho^+ \rho^0$, $B^+ \to
364: \rho^+ \pi^0$ and $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$.
365: The normalizations of the $B^+ \to \rho^+\pi^0$ and $B^+ \to \pi^+\pi^0$
366: components are fixed according to previous
367: measurements~\cite{current_rhopi}, while the normalizations
368: of all other components are allowed to float.
369: The signal yield is found to be $15 \pm 5$ with 3.6$\sigma$ significance.
370:
371: %Assuming neutral and charged $B$ mesons to be produced equally at
372: %$\Upsilon(4S)$,
373:
374: % Direct $CP$ violation would be indicated by an asymmetry in the
375: % partial rates: ${\cal A}_{CP}\equiv ({\Gamma{(\bar B \to \bar
376: % f)}-\Gamma{(B \to f)}})/ ({\Gamma{(\bar B \to \bar f)}+\Gamma{(B
377: % \to f)}})$, where $\Gamma{(B \to f)}$ denotes the partial width of
378: % $B$ decaying into a final state $f$ and $\Gamma{(\bar B \to \bar f)}$
379: % represents that of the charge conjugate decay.
380: We use a simultaneous fit to extract the partial rate asymmetry (${\cal
381: A}_{CP}$) by introducing asymmetry parameters into the
382: $B^\mp\to\rho^\mp\pi^0$ fit.
383: The measured ${\cal A}_{CP}$ together with the branching fractions
384: are summarized in Table.~\ref{table_rhopi}.
385: \vspace*{-0.3cm}
386: \begin{table}[htbp]
387: \caption{Signal yields ($N_{\rm sig}$), significance ($S$), efficiencies
388: ($\epsilon$), branching fractions and ${\cal A}_{CP}$
389: \label{table_rhopi}}
390: \begin{center}
391: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}\hline
392: Modes & $N_{\rm sig}$ & $S$ & $\epsilon$ & Branch Fraction($\times 10^{-6}$) & ${\cal A}_{CP}$\\ \hline
393: $B^+\to\rho^+\pi^0$ & $87\pm15$ & 8.1 & 4.4\% & $13.2\pm 2.3^{+1.4}_{-1.9}\;$ & $0.06\pm0.19\pm0.04$\\ \hline
394: $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$ & $15\pm 5$ & 3.6 & 1.91\% & $5.1 \pm 1.6\pm 0.8$ & -\\ \hline
395: \end{tabular}
396: \end{center}
397: \end{table}
398:
399: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
400: \section*{Summary}
401: In summary, we measured the branching fractions of the decays $B\to\phi
402: K^*$, $B^+\to \rho^+\rho^0$. We observed the decay $B^+\to \rho^+\pi^0$,
403: and the first evidence for $B^0 \to \rho^0\pi^0$.
404: An angular analysis is performed on the $VV$ modes.
405: It indicates that, in the tree-dominated decay $B^+\to \rho^+\rho^0$, the
406: longitudinal polarization is saturated ($R_0\approx 1$), which is
407: consistent with SM predictions.
408: However, in the pure $b\to s$ penguin decay $B\to\phi K^*$, $R_0$ and
409: $R_T$ are comparable, while $R_\perp$ is significantly larger than
410: $R_\parallel$;
411: these results are in disagreement with SM predictions.
412: It is thus important to obtain polarization measurements in
413: other modes, especially the pure penguin $b\to s \bar d d$ decay,
414: $B^+\to K^{*0}\rho^+$.
415:
416: \section*{References}
417: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
418:
419: \bibitem{phi1-3}
420: H.~R.~Quinn and A.~I.~Sanda, Eur. Phys. Jour. C{\bf 15}, 626 (2000).
421:
422: \bibitem{iso_ana}
423: H.~J.~Lipkin, Y.~Nir, H.~R.~Quinn, A.~Snyder, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 44},
424: 1454 (1991);\\
425: A.~E.~Snyder, H.~R.~Quinn, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 48}, 2139 (1993).
426:
427: \bibitem{charge_conjugate}
428: The inclusion of charge conjugate modes is implied unless stated otherwise.
429:
430: \bibitem{current_rhopi}
431: A.~Gordon {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B{\bf 542}, 183 (2002);\\
432: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 201802 (2003);\\
433: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration), hep-ex/0311049, submitted to Phys. Rev. Lett.
434:
435: \bibitem{a.datta}
436: A.~Datta, D.~London, hep-ph/0303159 (2003).
437:
438: %\hep-ph/0310229
439: \bibitem{Grossman}
440: Y.~Grossman, Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys. A{\bf 19}, 907 (2004).
441:
442: \bibitem{ref_trans}
443: I.~Dunietz, H.~Quinn, A.~Snyder, W.~Toki, and H.~J.~Lipkin,
444: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 43}, 2193 (1991).
445:
446: \bibitem{ref:phiK}
447: K.~F.~Chen {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
448: 91}, 201801 (2003).
449:
450: \bibitem{ref:rhoprho0}
451: J.~Zhang {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
452: 91}, 221801 (2003).
453:
454: \bibitem{datta}
455: A.~Datta, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 66}, 071702, (2002).
456:
457: \bibitem{KEKB}
458: S.~Kurokawa and E.~Kikutani, Nucl. Instr. Meth. A{\bf 499}, 1 (2003).
459:
460: \bibitem{fox}
461: G.~C.~Fox, S.~Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 41}, 1581 (1978);\\
462: K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},
463: 101801 (2001).
464:
465: \bibitem{polarization_hepex}
466: K.~Abe, M.~Satpathy and H.~Yamamoto, hep-ex/0103002 (2001).
467:
468: \bibitem{Belle-sin2phi1}
469: K.~Abe {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D{\bf 66},
470: 071102 (2002).
471:
472: \bibitem{shlee}
473: S.~H.~Lee {\it et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
474: 91}, 261801 (2003).
475:
476: \bibitem{BaBar_pi0pi0}
477: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} (BaBar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
478: 91}, 241801 (2003).
479:
480: \end{thebibliography}
481:
482: \end{document}
483: