1: \documentclass[a4paper,12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \global\arraycolsep=2pt %reduces the separation in eqnarrays
4: \setlength{\headheight}{0pt}
5: \setlength{\headsep}{0pt}
6: %
7: % --- orbar ---- the tool for drawing overlines in parantheses ---------
8: % --- author --- Ingo Schwarze, 21.6.1999 ------------------------------
9: \newlength{\orbarwd}\newlength{\orbarht}\newsavebox{\orbararg}%
10: \newcommand{\orbar}[1]{\savebox{\orbararg}{\ensuremath{#1}}%
11: \settowidth{\orbarwd}{\usebox{\orbararg}}%
12: \settoheight{\orbarht}{\usebox{\orbararg}}%
13: \raisebox{1.1\orbarht}[0pt]{\makebox[0pt][l]{%
14: \resizebox{1.1\orbarwd}{0.5ex}{\boldmath\ensuremath{(-)}}}}%
15: \usebox{\orbararg}}%
16: %
17: % --- dirac ---- Dirac bras and kets -----------------------------------
18: % --- author --- Ingo Schwarze, 11.12.1999 -----------------------------
19: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\left\langle#1\right|}%
20: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\left|#1\right\rangle}%
21: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\left\langle\left.#1\right|#2\right\rangle}%
22: \newcommand{\ketbra}[2]{\left\langle#1\left|#2\right.\right\rangle}%
23: \newcommand{\bracket}[3]{\left\langle#1\left|#2\right|#3\right\rangle}%
24: %
25: % --- eqnacn --- eqnarray with centered formula number -----------------
26: % --- author --- Ingo Schwarze, 11.12.1999 -----------------------------
27: \newlength{\eqnwidth}\setlength{\eqnwidth}{\textwidth}%
28: \addtolength{\eqnwidth}{-15mm}%
29: \newenvironment{eqnacn}[1]{%
30: \begin{equation}\label{#1}\begin{minipage}{\eqnwidth}%
31: \renewcommand{\\}{\\\vspace{5mm}}%
32: \vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}\begin{eqnarray*}}{%
33: \end{eqnarray*}\end{minipage}\end{equation}}%
34: \newenvironment{eqnacn*}[1]{%
35: \vspace{-\abovedisplayskip}\begin{eqnacn}{#1}}{\end{eqnacn}}%
36: %
37: % --- various mathematical commands ------------------------------------
38: \newcommand{\re}[1]{{\rm Re}\left\{#1\right\}}
39: \newcommand{\im}[1]{{\rm Im}\left\{#1\right\}}
40: \newcommand{\Br}[2]{\ensuremath{{\rm Br}\left(#1\to#2\right)}}
41: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}%
42: \newcommand{\absq}[1]{\abs{#1}^2}%
43: \newcommand{\vma}[1]{\gamma#1(1\!-\!\gamma_5)}
44: %
45: % --- the Feynman slash ------------------------------------------------
46: \begin{document}
47: \makeatletter
48: \def\fmslash{\@ifnextchar[{\fmsl@sh}{\fmsl@sh[0mu]}}
49: \def\fmsl@sh[#1]#2{%
50: \mathchoice
51: {\@fmsl@sh\displaystyle{#1}{#2}}%
52: {\@fmsl@sh\textstyle{#1}{#2}}%
53: {\@fmsl@sh\scriptstyle{#1}{#2}}%
54: {\@fmsl@sh\scriptscriptstyle{#1}{#2}}}
55: \def\@fmsl@sh#1#2#3{\m@th\ooalign{$\hfil#1\mkern#2/\hfil$\crcr$#1#3$}}
56: \makeatother
57: %
58: % --------------------------- CERN Title page --------------------------
59: \thispagestyle{empty}
60: \begin{titlepage}
61:
62: \begin{flushright}
63: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62}, 0960xx \\
64: hep-ph/0001022\\
65: TTP99--53\\
66: LMU 18/99\\
67: 21 September 2000
68: \end{flushright}
69:
70: \vspace{0.3cm}
71: \boldmath
72: \begin{center}
73: \Large\bf One-particle inclusive $CP$ asymmetries
74: \end{center}
75: \unboldmath
76: \vspace{0.8cm}
77:
78: \begin{center}
79: {\large Xavier Calmet}\\
80: {\sl Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at,
81: Sektion Physik,\\
82: Theresienstra\ss e 37, D--80333 M\"unchen, Germany}
83:
84: \vspace{5mm}
85: {\large Thomas Mannel and Ingo Schwarze}\\
86: {\sl Institut f\"ur Theoretische Teilchenphysik,\\
87: Universit\"at Karlsruhe, D--76128 Karlsruhe, Germany}
88:
89: \vspace{\fill}
90: To be published in Physical Review {\bf D62}, 0960xx \\
91: (Received 5 January 2000; to be published 1 November 2000)
92: \end{center}
93:
94: \vspace{\fill}
95: \begin{abstract}
96: \noindent
97: One-particle inclusive $CP$ asymmetries in the decays of the type $B
98: \to \orbar{D}^{(*)}X$ are considered in the framework of a QCD based
99: method to calculate the rates for one-particle inclusive decays.
100:
101: \medskip\noindent PACS numbers: 11.30.Er, 13.25.Hw
102: \end{abstract}
103: \end{titlepage}
104:
105: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
106: \setcounter{page}{2}
107: \thispagestyle{empty}
108: \mbox{}
109: \clearpage
110:
111: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
112: \setcounter{page}{1}
113: \section{Introduction}
114: One of the main goals in $B$ physics is a detailed study of flavor
115: mixing, which is encoded in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
116: of the standard model. In particular, the violation of the $CP$
117: symmetry, which the standard model describes by a nontrivial phase in
118: the CKM matrix or equivalently by the angles of the unitarity
119: triangle, will be investigated.
120:
121: Typically $CP$ asymmetries are expected to be large in some of the
122: exclusive nonleptonic $B$ decays which, however, have only small
123: branching ratios. Examples are the determination of $\beta$ from $B
124: \to J\!/\!\psi\,K_s$ and of $\alpha$ from $B \to \pi\pi$. In
125: addition, in these exclusive nonleptonic decays it is very hard to
126: obtain a good theoretical control over the hadronic uncertainties, in
127: particular due to the presence of strong phases.
128:
129: On the other hand, inclusive decays have large branching fractions but
130: typically smaller $CP$ asymmetries than exclusive decays
131: \cite{Dunietz99}. One may use parton hadron duality to obtain a good
132: theoretical description. This has been studied by Beneke, Buchalla and
133: Dunietz who set up a theoretically clean method to calculate the $CP$
134: asymmetries in inclusive $B$ decays~\cite{BBD97}. They still find
135: sizable $CP$ asymmetries, but their measurement would require to
136: identify charmless final states inclusively, which is not an easy
137: task.
138:
139: One-particle inclusive decays lie somehow between these two cases.
140: This class of decays still has large branching fractions and some of
141: the expected $CP$ asymmetries are sizable. Furthermore, a measurement
142: of these decays is feasible.
143:
144: For one-particle inclusive decays of the type $B \to
145: \orbar{D}^{(*)}X$, a QCD based description has been developed
146: recently, exploiting factorization and the heavy mass limit for both
147: the $b$ and the $c$ quark~\cite{CMS99}. Since the expansion
148: parameters are $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/(m_b-m_c)$, $1/N_C$ and
149: $\alpha_s(m_c)$, corrections to the leading term could be fairly
150: large, in the worst case of the order of $30\%$. Using this method,
151: which unfortunately is not completely model independent, we compute
152: mixing induced time-dependent and time-integrated $CP$ asymmetries in
153: the framework of the standard model.
154:
155: In view of the considerable uncertainties due to an unknown strong
156: phase, our method cannot yet be used for a competitive determination
157: of the $CP$ violation parameters, in particular compared to a
158: measurement of $\sin(2\beta)$ in the ``gold-plated'' channel $B \to
159: J\!/\!\psi\,K_s$. However, it can be used as an estimate of the
160: one-particle inclusive $CP$ asymmetries, for which we shall use
161: present central values of the $CP$ angles $\beta$ and $\gamma$
162: \cite{Ciuchini99}. Compared to fully inclusive methods, the advantage
163: is that we can predict asymmetries for the various spins and charges
164: of the ground-state charmed mesons separately. This is certainly a
165: worthwhile task, in particular since we are not aware of any previous
166: prediction for these asymmetries, not even in the context of quark
167: models.
168:
169: After introducing our notations for $B$ mixing in Sec.~\ref{sec:asym},
170: we calculate the relevant matrix elements in Sec.~\ref{sec:matrix} and
171: model the form factors in Sec.~\ref{sec:formfact}. The numerical
172: results are given in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}.
173:
174: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
175: \section{\boldmath $CP$ asymmetries in
176: $B \to \protect\orbar{D}^{(*)}X$} \label{sec:asym}
177: In Wigner Weisskopf approximation the time evolution of an initially
178: pure $B^0$ or $\overline B^0$,
179: \begin{eqnacn*}{eq:bsystem}
180: \ket{B^0_{\rm phys}(t)} & = &
181: g_+(t) \ket{B^0} - \frac{q}{p} g_-(t) \ket{\overline B^0}, \\
182: \ket{\overline B^0_{\rm phys}(t)} & = &
183: g_+(t) \ket{\overline B^0} - \frac{p}{q} g_-(t) \ket{B^0},
184: \end{eqnacn*}%
185: is determined by the time-dependent functions
186: \begin{eqnacn}{eq:gfunc}
187: g_+(t) & = & e^{-iMt -\frac{1}{2} \Gamma t}
188: \left[\cosh\frac{\Delta\Gamma t}{4} \cos\frac{\Delta Mt}{2}
189: + i \sinh\frac{\Delta{\Gamma}t}{4} \sin\frac{\Delta Mt}{2}
190: \right] \\
191: g_-(t) & = & e^{-iMt -\frac{1}{2} \Gamma t}
192: \left[\sinh\frac{\Delta\Gamma t}{4} \cos\frac{\Delta Mt}{2}
193: + i \cosh\frac{\Delta\Gamma t}{4} \sin\frac{\Delta Mt}{2}
194: \right],
195: \end{eqnacn}%
196: where $\Delta M = M_H - M_L > 0$ and $\Delta\Gamma = \Gamma_H -
197: \Gamma_L < 0$ are the mass and width differences between the mass
198: eigenstates $|B_H\!\!> \, = p |B^0\!\!> + \: q |\overline B^0\!\!>$ and
199: $|B_L\!\!> \, = p |B^0\!\!> - \: q |\overline B^0\!\!>$.
200:
201: The quantity $q/p$ is given in terms of the off-diagonal elements of
202: the Hamiltonian $H = M - i\Gamma/2$ of the neutral $B$ meson
203: system
204: \begin{equation}
205: \frac{q}{p} =
206: \frac{\Delta M - \frac{i}{2}\Delta\Gamma}
207: {2\left(M_{12} - \frac{i}{2}\Gamma_{12}\right)} =
208: \frac{M_{12}^*}{|M_{12}|}
209: \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} a + {\cal O}(a^2) \right), \qquad
210: a = \im{ \frac{\Gamma_{12}}{M_{12}} }.
211: \end{equation}
212: In fact, $\Gamma_{12}/M_{12}={\cal O}(m_b^2/m_t^2)$ is very small and
213: hence $q/p$ is to a good approximation a phase factor.
214:
215: The time-dependent rate for the decay of a $B$ meson into a set of
216: final states $\ket{f} = \sum_i\ket{f_i}$ can be written as
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: \nonumber \Gamma [B(t) \! \to \! f] & = &
219: \frac{1}{2m_B} \sum_i \int\!d\phi_i\,(2\pi)^4 \delta^4 (p_B-p_{f_i})
220: \bracket{B(t)}{H_{\rm eff}}{f_i}\bracket{f_i}{H_{\rm eff}}{B(t)} \\
221: & = & \frac{1}{2m_B} \int d^4 x \,
222: \bracket{B(t)}{H_{\rm eff}(x) \Pi_f H_{\rm eff}(0)}{B(t)},
223: \end{eqnarray}
224: where $d\phi_i$ is the phase space element of the state $\ket{f_i}$
225: and
226: \begin{equation}
227: \Pi_f = \sum_i \int d\phi_i \, \ket{f_i}\bra{f_i}
228: \end{equation}
229: is the projector on the set of final states. Note that both an
230: exclusive final state as well as inclusive states can be treated in
231: this way. Even differential distributions can be considered if the
232: phase spaces $d\phi_i$ are not fully integrated.
233:
234: The $CP$ asymmetries we are going to consider are of the type
235: \begin{equation}
236: {\cal A}_{CP}(t) =
237: \frac{\Gamma(B^0(t)\to f) - \Gamma(\overline B^0(t)\to\overline f)}
238: {\Gamma(B^0(t)\to f) + \Gamma(\overline B^0(t)\to\overline f)}
239: \end{equation}
240: which involves the $CP$ conjugate set $|\overline f\!>$ of final
241: states.
242:
243: Up to here the discussion is completely general. In the following we
244: shall use the above formalism to compute the $CP$ asymmetries for
245: one-particle inclusive final states, for which the projector reads
246: \begin{equation}
247: \Pi_f = \sum_X \ket{XY}\bra{XY},
248: \end{equation}
249: where $Y$ can be a $D$ or a $\overline D$ meson. Since the sum runs
250: over all possible states $X$, the $CP$ conjugate of the projector is
251: \begin{equation}
252: \Pi_{\overline f} = \sum_X \ket{X\overline Y}\bra{X\overline Y}.
253: \end{equation}
254: Inserting the time-dependent states~(\ref{eq:bsystem}) we obtain
255: \begin{eqnacn}{eq:rates}
256: \!\!\! \Gamma [B(t) \!\! \to \!\! YX] & = &
257: \absq{g_+(t)} \Gamma_Y^{BB} +
258: \absq{\frac{q}{p} g_-(t)} \! \Gamma_Y^{\overline B \, \overline B} -
259: 2 \re{\frac{q}{p} g_+^*g_-(t) T_Y^{B \overline B} }, \!\!\! \\
260: \!\!\! \Gamma [\overline B(t) \!\! \to \!\! \overline YX] & = &
261: \absq{g_+(t)} \Gamma_{\overline Y}^{\overline B \, \overline B} +
262: \absq{\frac{p}{q} g _-(t)} \! \Gamma_{\overline Y}^{BB} -
263: 2 \re{\frac{p}{q} g_+^*g_-(t) T_{\overline Y}^{\overline BB}},
264: \!\!\!
265: \end{eqnacn}%
266: where the matrix elements are defined by
267: \begin{eqnacn}{eq:tdef}
268: \Gamma_{Y}^{BB} & = & \frac{1}{2m_B} \int d^4 x \,
269: \bracket{B}{H_{\rm eff}(x) \Pi_Y H_{\rm eff}(0)}{B}, \\
270: T_{Y}^{B \overline B} & = & \frac{1}{2m_B} \int d^4 x \,
271: \bracket{B}{H_{\rm eff}(x) \Pi_Y H_{\rm eff}(0)}{\overline B}.
272: \end{eqnacn}%
273: The $\Delta B = 2$ transition matrix elements representing the
274: interference between the mixed and the unmixed amplitudes are related
275: by $CPT$ symmetry, such that
276: \begin{equation}
277: T_Y := T_Y^{B \overline B} = \left( T_Y^{\overline BB} \right)^*.
278: \end{equation}
279:
280: The direct $CP$ asymmetries in these processes are expected to be
281: tiny. In fact, using the method described in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}, they
282: turn out to be of higher order in the $1/m$ expansion. Hence we have
283: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:gsym}
284: \Gamma_Y := \Gamma_Y^{BB}
285: & = & \Gamma_{\overline Y}^{\overline B \, \overline B}
286: = \Gamma(B \to YX), \qquad
287: \Gamma_{\overline Y} := \Gamma_{\overline Y}^{BB}, \\[2mm]
288: T_Y & = & T_{\overline Y}.
289: \end{eqnarray}
290:
291: Inserting the time-dependent decay rates in Eq.~(\ref{eq:rates}) and
292: neglecting both the width difference and $a$, such that $q/p$ becomes
293: a phase factor, we obtain for the time-dependent $CP$ asymmetries
294: \begin{equation} \label{eq:atime}
295: {\cal A}_{CP}(t) = \frac
296: { \sin\left( \Delta Mt \right) \im{ \frac{q}{p} T_Y } }
297: { \cos^2 \left( \frac{\Delta Mt}{2} \right) \Gamma_Y +
298: \sin^2 \left( \frac{\Delta Mt}{2} \right) \Gamma_{\overline Y} },
299: \end{equation}
300: from which we get the time-integrated asymmetry
301: \begin{equation} \label{eq:aint}
302: {\cal A}_{CP} = \frac
303: { 2 \, x \, \im{ \frac{q}{p} T_Y } }
304: { \left( 2 + x^2 \right) \Gamma_Y + x^2 \, \Gamma_{\overline Y} },
305: \end{equation}
306: where $x = \Delta M/\Gamma$ is measured to be $x = 0.73$ \cite{PDG}.
307:
308: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
309: \section{Transition matrix elements} \label{sec:matrix}
310: In order to compute the $CP$ asymmetries, one has to evaluate the
311: matrix elements in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tdef}). The total rates $\Gamma_Y$
312: have already been discussed in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}, so we only need to
313: calculate the interference term $T_Y$.
314:
315: The relevant pieces of the effective Hamiltonian contributing to this
316: interference are $(\overline ub)_{V-A} (\overline dc)_{V-A}$ and
317: $(\overline cb)_{V-A} (\overline du)_{V-A}$ interfering with each
318: other and $(\overline cb)_{V-A} (\overline dc)_{V-A}$ interfering with
319: itself, so $T_Y$ is a sum of the two contributions
320: \begin{eqnarray}
321: T_Y & = & T_c + T_u, \\
322: T_q & = & \frac{1}{2m_B} \frac{G_F^2}{2}
323: V^{ }_{cb} V^*_{qd} V^{ }_{qb} V^*_{cd}
324: \absq{C_1} \sum_X (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(p_B-p_D-p_X)
325: \\ \nonumber & &
326: \bracket{B^0}{(\overline qb)_{V-A}(\overline dc)_{V-A}}{DX}
327: \bracket{DX}{(\overline dq)_{V-A}(\overline cb)_{V-A}}{\overline B^0}.
328: \end{eqnarray}
329:
330: Fierzing the operators into the form $(\overline db)_{V-A} (\overline
331: uc)_{V-A}$, $(\overline db)_{V-A} (\overline cu)_{V-A}$ and
332: $(\overline db)_{V-A} (\overline cc)_{V-A}$ one can reproduce the
333: inclusive results of Ref.~\cite{BBD97}. In order to evaluate the
334: interference term for the one-particle inclusive case, we use the
335: method developed in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}. It is based on factorization,
336: which holds to leading order in the $1/N_C$ expansion, where $N_C$ is
337: the number of QCD colors. Thus we can write the interference terms as
338: products of two tensors
339: \begin{equation}
340: T_q = \frac{1}{2m_B} \frac{G_F^2}{2}
341: V^{ }_{cb} V^*_{qd} V^{ }_{qb} V^*_{cd}
342: \absq{C_1} \int \! \frac{d^4 Q}{(2\pi)^4} \,
343: K_{\mu\nu}(p_B,Q) \int \! d\phi_D \, P_q^{\mu\nu}(p_D,Q)
344: \end{equation}
345: with
346: \begin{eqnarray}
347: K_{\mu\nu}(p_B,Q) & = & \sum_X (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(p_B-p_X-Q)
348: \\ \nonumber &&
349: \bracket{B^0(p_B)}{(\overline d \vma{_\mu} b)}{X}
350: \bracket{X}{(\overline d \vma{_\nu} b)}{\overline B^0(p_B)},
351: \\[2mm]
352: P_q^{\mu\nu}(p_D,Q) & = & \sum_{X'} (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(Q-p_D-p_{X'})
353: \\ \nonumber &&
354: \bracket{0}{(\overline q \vma{^\mu} c)}{D^{(\!*\!)}(p_D) X'}
355: \bracket{D^{(\!*\!)}(p_D) X'}{(\overline c \vma{^\nu} q)}{0}.
356: \end{eqnarray}
357:
358: The tensor $K_{\mu\nu}(p_B,Q)$ is fully inclusive and one can perform
359: a standard short distance expansion. The resulting $\Delta B=2$
360: matrix element can be parameterized by the decay constant $f_B$ of the
361: $B$ meson and the bag factors $B$ and $B_s$ for the axial vector and
362: the scalar current, respectively.
363:
364: The other tensor $P_q^{\mu\nu}(p_D,Q)$ involves a projection on a
365: one-particle inclusive charmed meson state and hence we cannot perform
366: a short distance expansion. We proceed along the same lines as in
367: Ref.~\cite{CMS99}, where the rates for wrong charm decays have been
368: modeled. Heavy quark symmetry yields the Dirac matrix structure
369: \begin{equation}\label{eq:hqs}
370: P_q^{\mu\nu}(p_D,Q) \propto \overline H_{D^{(*)}}(p_D) \vma{^\mu}
371: \otimes \vma{^\nu} H_{D^{(*)}}(p_D),
372: \end{equation}
373: where the representation matrices for the charmed mesons are
374: \begin{equation}
375: H_D = \sqrt{m_D} \, \frac{1+\fmslash{v}_D}{2} \, \gamma_5, \qquad
376: H_{D^*} = \sqrt{m_{D^*}} \, \frac{1+\fmslash{v}_{D^*}}{2} \,
377: \fmslash{\epsilon}.
378: \end{equation}
379: In principle, all possible contractions of the light quark indices may
380: contribute, giving rise to several form factors. For a first
381: estimate, it is sufficient to use only the simplest one of these
382: contractions,
383: \begin{equation}\label{eq:contr}
384: P_q^{\!\mu\nu}(p_D,\!Q) \!=\! 2\pi \,
385: \delta \! \left( \left( Q \!-\! p_D \right)^2 \!\!-\! m_q^2 \right)
386: {\rm Tr} \Big\{ \fmslash{p}_D \, \vma{^\mu}
387: \left( \fmslash{Q} \!-\! \fmslash{p}_D \right) \vma{^\nu} \!\Big\}
388: \tilde f_{qY},
389: \end{equation}
390: corresponding to a replacement of the $D^{(*)}X$ final state by a pair
391: of free quarks, rescaled by an operator- and decay-channel-specific
392: form factor $\tilde f_{qY}$, where $Y$ is one of the ground state $D$
393: mesons. In the following, we call this contraction ``partonic.''
394:
395: Using this ansatz and the heavy mass limit, the transition matrix
396: elements read
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: \label{eq:tc}
399: T_c & = & - \frac{G_F^2 m_B^3 f_B^2}{24 \pi}
400: (V^{ }_{cb} V^*_{cd})^2 \absq{C_1} \sqrt{1\!-\!4z}
401: \big[ (1\!-\!4z)B \!+\! 2(1\!+\!2z)B_S \big] \tilde f_{cY}, \\
402: \label{eq:tu}
403: T_u & = & - \frac{G_F^2 m_B^3 f_B^2}{24 \pi}
404: V^{ }_{cb} V^*_{ud} V^{ }_{ub} V^*_{cd}
405: \absq{C_1} (1\!-\!z)^2
406: \big[ (1\!-\!z) B \!+\! 2 (1\!+\!2z) B_S \big]
407: \tilde f_{uY}, \quad
408: \end{eqnarray}
409: where $z=(m_c/m_b)^2$ and $C_1$ is the Wilson coefficient of the
410: effective Hamiltonian in the notation of Ref.~\cite{CMS99}.
411: Equations~(\ref{eq:tc}) and (\ref{eq:tu}) correspond to the expression
412: for the width difference of neutral heavy meson
413: systems~\cite{Hagelin81}.
414:
415: In the standard CKM parametrization, the phases of the transition
416: matrix elements are
417: \begin{eqnarray}
418: \arg(T_c) & = & 0, \\
419: \arg(T_u) & = & \arg( - V^{ }_{ub} ) = - \gamma, \\[2mm]
420: \arg(q/p) & = & \arg( - V^2_{td} ) = - 2 \beta,
421: \end{eqnarray}
422: such that
423: \begin{equation}
424: \im{ \frac{q}{p} T_Y } = \sin(2\beta)\abs{T_c}
425: + \sin(2\beta+\gamma)\abs{T_u}.
426: \end{equation}
427:
428: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
429: \section{Modeling the form factors} \label{sec:formfact}
430: We assume that the form factors $\tilde f_{qY}$ do not vary strongly
431: over the accessible phase space and hence we approximate them by
432: constants. For the case $q=c$, these constants have been fitted to
433: the wrong charm yield in $B$ decays~\cite{CMS99}. Operators analogous
434: to the case $q=u$ are Cabibbo suppressed when calculating wrong charm
435: rates, so they did not appear in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}. Assuming that all
436: charm quarks eventually hadronize to $D$ mesons, we use
437: \begin{equation} \label{eq:fsat}
438: \tilde f_{uD^0} + \tilde f_{uD^+} = 1.
439: \end{equation}
440:
441: To resolve the spin and charge counting, we first discuss the heavy
442: mass limit where the pseudoscalar and vector charmed mesons form a
443: degenerate ground state doublet. The decay of vector to pseudoscalar
444: mesons will be discussed below. In the following, $D_{\rm dir}$
445: refers to those $D$ mesons that do not result from $D^*$ decays, and
446: $D^{(*)}$ can be either $D_{\rm dir}$ or $D^*$.
447:
448: As long as the light quark spin indices of the $D^{(*)}$ meson
449: representation matrices are contracted with each other,
450: Eq.~(\ref{eq:hqs}) reproduces the naive spin counting
451: \begin{equation}\label{eq:spin}
452: \tilde f_{qD^{*0}} = 3 \tilde f_{qD^0_{\rm dir}}, \qquad
453: \tilde f_{qD^{*+}} = 3 \tilde f_{qD^+_{\rm dir}}.
454: \end{equation}
455: Different contractions yield results of comparable size.
456: The experimental spin counting factor appears to be smaller by roughly
457: a factor of two~\cite{CMS99}. Since this effect is not yet
458: understood, we treat it as an uncertainty.
459:
460: Concerning charge counting, we argued by isospin symmetry~\cite{CMS99}
461: that in the case $q=c$ we have
462: \begin{equation}
463: \tilde f_{cD^{(*)0}} = \tilde f_{cD^{(*)+}}.
464: \end{equation}
465: In the case $q=u$, two topologies can contribute to the decay
466: amplitude: the charm quark can either hadronize with the $u$ quark
467: from the weak effective current, in which case the isospin of the
468: state $\ket{X}$ is $I_X = 0$, or with a $u$ or $d$ quark from vacuum,
469: which contains both $I_X = 0$ and $I_X = 1$ contributions. In the
470: case $I_X = 0$, both amplitudes can interfere, so there are three
471: contributions to the decay rate
472: \begin{eqnacn}{eq:interfere}
473: \tilde f_{uD^{(*)0}} & = & \absq{a_1+a_2} =
474: \absq{a_1} + \absq{a_2} + 2 \re{a_1^* a_2} \\
475: \tilde f_{uD^{(*)+}} & = & \absq{a_2},
476: \end{eqnacn}
477: see Figs.~\ref{fig:spectator}--\ref{fig:interfere}.
478:
479: \begin{figure}
480: \begin{center}
481: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{topo1.eps}
482: \caption{Topology yielding $\absq{a_1}$
483: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:interfere}).
484: \label{fig:spectator}}
485: \end{center}
486: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}\centering
487: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{topo2.eps}
488: \begin{minipage}{0.9\linewidth}
489: \caption{Topology yielding $\absq{a_2}$
490: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:interfere}).
491: \label{fig:pop}}
492: \end{minipage}
493: \end{minipage}
494: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}\centering
495: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{topo3.eps}
496: \begin{minipage}{0.9\linewidth}
497: \caption{Interference topology for Eq.~(\ref{eq:interfere}).
498: \label{fig:interfere}}
499: \end{minipage}
500: \end{minipage}
501: \end{figure}
502:
503: One might doubt whether using the partonic contraction given in
504: Eq.~(\ref{eq:contr}) is justified for all the topologies, as it
505: appears to correspond to the topology in Fig.~\ref{fig:pop}, while the
506: topology in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectator} should rather be described by the
507: contraction
508: \begin{equation}
509: P_q^{\mu\nu}(p_D,Q) \propto
510: {\rm Tr} \Big\{ \overline H_{D^{(*)}}(p_D) \vma{^\mu} \Big\}
511: {\rm Tr} \Big\{ \vma{^\nu} H_{D^{(*)}}(p_D) \Big\}.
512: \end{equation}
513:
514: This is not a problem for three reasons. First, we do not claim to be
515: able to accurately model the matrix element, but we only give the
516: simplest possible ansatz by rescaling the partonic result. In
517: particular, it is clearly not yet feasible to model particular
518: contributions individually. We only use the three topologies to
519: estimate the integrated relative magnitudes of the two main
520: contributions and to bound the magnitude of their interference term.
521: Secondly, neither the time-dependent nor the time-integrated
522: asymmetries depend on the choice of the contraction unless studied
523: differentially in the momentum of the charmed meson, which so far we
524: do not attempt to do. Finally, as noted in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}, the
525: choice of the wrong charm contraction appeared to have little
526: influence even on differential observables.
527:
528: The topologies in Figs.~\ref{fig:spectator} and \ref{fig:pop} also
529: occur in wrong charm production in $B$ decays.
530: Figure~\ref{fig:spectator} corresponds to the process $B \to
531: D_s^{(*)+}X$, Fig.~\ref{fig:pop} to the process $B \to D^{(*)}X$,
532: where $D^{(*)}$ can be either $D^{(*)0}$ or $D^{(*)+}$. Both
533: contributions are experimentally known to be of similar size, i.e.,
534: $(10 \pm 2.5)\%$ \cite{PDG} and $(7.9 \pm 2.2)\%$ \cite{Coan98},
535: respectively, such that
536: \begin{equation}
537: \absq{a_1} = 2 \absq{a_2}.
538: \end{equation}
539: The relative phase of the two contributions is unknown. Therefore,
540: although it may be large, we have to treat the interference part as a
541: theoretical uncertainty. This is acceptable since the $q=u$
542: contribution is smaller than the $q=c$ contribution according to
543: \begin{equation}
544: \abs{\frac{T_u}{T_c}} =
545: \abs{\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}\frac{V_{ud}}{V_{cd}}}
546: \frac{(1-z)^2 (1+z)}{\sqrt{1-4z}} \frac{\tilde{f}_u}{\tilde{f}_c}
547: \propto \abs{\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}} \frac{(1+z)}{\abs{V_{cd}}}
548: \approx 0.4.
549: \end{equation}
550:
551: Off the heavy mass limit, $D^* \to D$ decay has to be taken into
552: account. In the same way as in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}, we get
553: \begin{eqnacn}{eq:feeddown}
554: \tilde f_{qD^+} & = &
555: \tilde f_{qD^+_{\rm dir}} +
556: \Br{D^{*+}}{D^+ X} \tilde f_{qD^{*+}} \\
557: \tilde f_{qD^0} & = &
558: \tilde f_{qD^0_{\rm dir}} + \tilde f_{qD^{*0}} +
559: \Br{D^{*+}}{D^0 X} \tilde f_{qD^{*+}}.
560: \end{eqnacn}%
561: The coefficients obtained from
562: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:fsat})--(\ref{eq:feeddown}) and Ref.~\cite{CMS99} are
563: summarized in Table~\ref{tab:formfact}. The ranges given result from
564: varying the spin counting factor in Eq.~(\ref{eq:spin}) from $3$ down
565: to $3/2$ and the interference in Eq.~(\ref{eq:interfere}) from the
566: central value of vanishing interference to full constructive and
567: destructive interference.
568:
569: \begin{table}
570: \centering
571: \newlength{\ld}\settodepth{\ld}{g}\addtolength{\ld}{3pt}
572: \settoheight{\unitlength}{l}
573: \addtolength{\unitlength}{\ld}\addtolength{\unitlength}{4pt}
574: \newcommand{\mh}{\rule[-\ld]{0pt}{\unitlength}}
575: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{0}
576: \begin{tabular}{|@{}c@{}|c|c|c|r@{--}l|}
577: \hline
578: \mh & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{$q=c$} & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$q=u$} \\
579: \raisebox{-\ld}[0pt][0pt]{
580: \begin{picture}(4,2)
581: \put(4,1.8){\makebox(0,0)[tr]{operator}}
582: \put(0,0.2){channel}
583: \put(0,2){\line(2,-1){4}}
584: \end{picture}}
585: \mh & central & r. to & central & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{range} \\
586: \hline
587: \mh$\tilde f_{qD^+_{\rm dir}}$&$\:\:2/16$&$0.2$&$\:\:1/16$&0.04&0.34\\
588: \mh$\tilde f_{qD^0_{\rm dir}}$&$\:\:2/16$&$0.2$&$\:\:3/16$&0.34&0.04\\
589: \mh$\tilde f_{qD^{*+}}$ &$\:\:6/16$&$0.3$&$\:\:3/16$&0.09&0.64\\
590: \mh$\tilde f_{qD^{*0}}$ &$\:\:6/16$&$0.3$&$\:\:9/16$&0.64&0.09\\
591: \mh$\tilde f_{qD^+}$ &$\:\:4/16$&$0.3$&$\:\:2/16$&0.07&0.51\\
592: \mh$\tilde f_{qD^0}$ & $12/16$&$0.7$& $14/16$&0.93&0.49\\
593: \hline
594: \end{tabular}
595: \caption{Operator- and channel-specific form factors.
596: \label{tab:formfact}}
597: \end{table}
598:
599: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
600: \section{Results} \label{sec:results}
601: We have computed the parameters for the time-dependent $CP$
602: asymmetries as well as the time-integrated asymmetries. We have
603: inserted recent values for $\sin 2\beta=0.75$ and $\gamma=68^\circ$
604: \cite{Ciuchini99}. In addition, we use $V_{cb}=0.04$,
605: $V_{ub}=0.08\,V_{cb}$, $z=0.09$, $x=0.73$, $f_B=180$ MeV,
606: $\Br{D^{*+}}{D^0Y} = 1 - \Br{D^{*+}}{D^+ Y} = 0.683$ and
607: $C_1=B=B_S=1$. The results of the calculations can be found in
608: Fig.~\ref{fig:atime} and Table~\ref{tab:aint}.
609:
610: \begin{figure}\centering
611: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{atime.eps}
612: \caption{Time-dependent $CP$ asymmetries
613: in $B^0 \to \protect\orbar{D}X$
614: for pseudoscalar (above), vector (below),
615: charged (left), neutral (right),
616: right charm (solid), and wrong charm (dashed)
617: $\protect\orbar{D}$ mesons.
618: \label{fig:atime}}
619: \end{figure}
620:
621: To assess the uncertainties involved in Fig.~\ref{fig:atime}, note
622: that according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:atime}) the shapes of the
623: time-dependent asymmetries are determined by the ratios of the wrong
624: to right charm rates $\Gamma_{\overline Y}/\Gamma_Y$. We
625: checked numerically that the shapes would hardly change even if these
626: ratios were off by $30\%$. The dominant contribution to the
627: uncertainty of the amplitudes arises from the transition matrix
628: elements $T_Y$ and is directly proportional to the uncertainties of
629: the time-integrated asymmetries given in Table~\ref{tab:aint}.
630:
631: Suppose $N$ perfectly tagged $B^0$ decays are recorded in an
632: experiment. In order to establish the asymmetry in a channel with a
633: branching ratio $b$ on the $3\sigma$ level,
634: \begin{equation} \label{eq:minumber}
635: \frac{\cal A}{3} \ge \Delta {\cal A} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2bN}}
636: \end{equation}
637: has to be satisfied. The necessary numbers of tagged $B^0$ decays are
638: given in the last column of Table~\ref{tab:aint}. Since the asymmetry
639: tends to be roughly inversely proportional to the branching ratio by
640: Eq.~(\ref{eq:aint}), we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{eq:minumber})
641: \begin{equation}
642: N \propto \frac{1}{{\cal A}^2 b} \propto b,
643: \end{equation}
644: such that rare channels are advantageous for observing one-particle
645: inclusive asymmetries.
646:
647: \begin{table}
648: \centering
649: \begin{tabular}{|l|r|c|r@{--}l|r|}
650: \hline
651: decay & Br \cite{CMS99} & ${\cal A}$ &
652: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{${\cal A}$ range} & necessary \\
653: channel & (\%) & (\%) & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{(\%)} & $B^0$ decays \\
654: \hline
655: $B^0 \to D^- X$ & 29.1& 0.16& 0.15& 0.29& 6.000.000\\
656: $B^0 \to \overline D^0 X$ & 31.8& 0.58& 0.59& 0.46& 400.000\\
657: $B^0 \to D^+ X$ & 2.2& 0.58& 0.54& 1.04& 6.000.000\\
658: $B^0 \to D^0 X$ & 5.7& 1.53& 1.56& 1.23& 350.000\\
659: $B^0 \to D^{*-} X$ & 46.8& 0.16& 0.12& 0.23& 4.000.000\\[-2pt]
660: $B^0 \to \overline D^{*0} X$ & (0)& (20)& (21)& (10)&$>$ 80.000\\
661: $B^0 \to D^{*+} X$ & 2.5& 0.61& 0.45& 0.89& 5.000.000\\
662: $B^0 \to D^{*0} X$ & 2.5& 4.17& 4.40& 2.20& 100.000\\
663: \hline
664: \end{tabular}
665: \caption{Branching ratios, integrated $CP$ asymmetries
666: and numbers of necessary tagged $B^0$ decays
667: for the one-particle inclusive
668: $B^0 \to \protect\orbar{D}^{(*)}X$ decay channels.
669: Concerning $\overline D^{*0}$, see the text.
670: \label{tab:aint}}
671: \end{table}
672:
673: The channel $B^0 \to \overline D^{*0}X$ deserves a further comment.
674: Looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:atime}, there is an obvious problem at small
675: proper decay times. The reason for this problem is that we have
676: discussed all the rates only to leading order in the combined $1/N_C$
677: and $1/m_Q$ expansions. However, this leading term vanishes for the
678: channel $B^0 \to \overline D^{*0}X$ and thus subleading terms become
679: relevant. On the other hand, the numerator $T_Y$ of the $CP$
680: asymmetries is given by a matrix element of a dimension six operator
681: and hence is suppressed compared to the leading terms of most of the
682: rates. In other words, while in most of the rates the asymmetries are
683: of subleading order $f_B^2 / m_B^2$, this is not the case for the
684: channel $B^0 \to \overline D^{*0}X$.
685:
686: Unfortunately we cannot compute this possibly large asymmetry, since
687: this would involve to compute subleading terms for the decay rate.
688: Hence we try to estimate the asymmetry by varying $\Br{B^0}{\overline
689: D^{*0} X}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:aint}) and show the reaction of the
690: asymmetry in Fig.~\ref{fig:ds0asym} and of the necessary number of
691: tagged $B^0$ events in Fig.~\ref{fig:ds0numb}. The wrong charm
692: asymmetry is practically unaffected by $\Br{B^0}{\overline D^{*0} X}$
693: since the pole occurs near four average lifetimes where most of the
694: $B$ mesons have already decayed, but the right charm asymmetry turns
695: out to be extremely sensitive. Therefore we cannot predict the latter
696: quantitatively, but it can be as large as several percent, and it will
697: be measurable with a few $100\,000$ tagged $B^0$ events.
698:
699: \begin{figure}
700: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}\centering
701: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ds0asym.eps}
702: \begin{minipage}{0.9\linewidth}
703: \caption{Time-integrated asymmetry in
704: $B^0 \to \protect\orbar{D}^{*0}X$
705: as a function of ${\rm Br} (B^0 \to \overline D^{*0}X)$.
706: \label{fig:ds0asym}}
707: \end{minipage}
708: \end{minipage}
709: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.49\linewidth}\centering
710: \includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{ds0numb.eps}
711: \begin{minipage}{0.9\linewidth}
712: \caption{Necessary number of tagged $B^0$ events in
713: $B^0 \to \protect\orbar{D}^{*0}X$
714: as a function of ${\rm Br} (B^0 \to \overline D^{*0}X)$.
715: \label{fig:ds0numb}}
716: \end{minipage}
717: \end{minipage}
718: \end{figure}
719:
720: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
721: \section{Conclusion}
722: Motivated by the work on fully inclusive $CP$ asymmetries and the
723: question how to measure them, we studied one-particle inclusive $CP$
724: asymmetries. In the final state only a $\orbar{D}^{(*)}$ meson has to
725: be identified and thus they are experimentally more easily accessible
726: than the fully inclusive $CP$ asymmetries.
727:
728: We have used a similar method as in in Ref.~\cite{CMS99} to calculate
729: the time-dependent and time-integrated $CP$ asymmetries for
730: one-particle inclusive $B \to \orbar{D}^{(*)}X$ decays. It turns out
731: that, as in Ref.~\cite{CMS99}, one cannot avoid to introduce some
732: model dependence. Furthermore, there is also some dependence on an
733: unknown relative phase, which we treat as an uncertainty. Due to
734: these uncertainties we cannot expect our method to compete with
735: proposed methods using ``gold-plated'' channels for determining CKM
736: parameters, but we can still give estimates for the expected $CP$
737: asymmetries of the different ground state $\orbar{D}$ mesons.
738:
739: For most of the asymmetries we find results of a few $10^{-3}$, but
740: some are expected to be as large as several percent. These effects
741: should be observable at the $B$ factories. The channels involving
742: right and wrong charm neutral vector mesons turn out to be most
743: promising: they are expected to have the largest asymmetries, and the
744: theoretical method yields the best results for the production rates
745: and spectra of the vector mesons~\cite{CMS99}.
746:
747: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
748: \section*{Acknowledgments}
749: The authors thank Thomas Gehrmann for fruitful discussions. This work
750: (X.~C. during his time in Karlsruhe, T.~M. and I.~S.) was supported by
751: the DFG Graduiertenkolleg ``Elementarteilchenphysik an
752: Beschleunigern'' and by the DFG Forschergruppe ``Quantenfeldtheorie,
753: Computeralgebra und Monte-Carlo-Simulation.''
754:
755: % ----------------------------------------------------------------------
756: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
757: \bibitem{Dunietz99} I.~Dunietz,
758: %``CP asymmetries in (semi-)inclusive B0 decays,''
759: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 7}, 197 (1999).
760: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806521;%%
761: \bibitem{BBD97} M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, and I.~Dunietz,
762: % ``Mixing induced CP asymmetries in inclusive B decays,''
763: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 393}, 132 (1997).
764: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B393,132;%%
765: \bibitem{CMS99} X.~Calmet, T.~Mannel, and I.~Schwarze,
766: % ``{QCD}-Based Description of One-Particle Inclusive B-Decays,''
767: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 114004 (2000).
768: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907378;%%
769: \bibitem{Ciuchini99}
770: M.~Ciuchini, E.~Franco, L.~Giusti, V.~Lubicz, and G.~Martinelli,
771: % ``Combined analysis of the unitarity triangle
772: % and CP violation in the standard model,''
773: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B573}, 201 (2000).
774: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910236;%%
775: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, C.~Caso {\em et al.},
776: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 3} (1998).
777: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C3;%%
778: \bibitem{Hagelin81}J.~S.~Hagelin,
779: %``Mass Mixing And CP Violation In The B0 Anti-B0,''
780: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B193}, 123 (1981).
781: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B193,123;%%
782: \bibitem{Coan98} CLEO Collaboration, T.E.~Coan {\em et al.},
783: % ``Flavor-specific inclusive B decays to charm,''
784: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 1150 (1998).
785: %%CITATION = PRLTA,80,1150;%%
786: \end{thebibliography}
787: \end{document}
788: