1: %hf.tex
2: \documentclass[proceedings]{JHEP} \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \title{On determining CKM angles $\alpha$ and $\beta$}
4: \author{Isard Dunietz\\
5: %\thanks{}\\
6: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, P.~O.~Box~500, Batavia, IL
7: 60510-0500, U.S.A.\\
8: E-mail: \email{dunietz@fnal.gov}}
9: \conference{Heavy Flavours 8, Southampton, UK, 1999}
10: \abstract{Because the $B_d \rightarrow J/ \psi K_S$ asymmetry determines
11: only $\sin{2\beta},$ a discrete ambiguity in the true value of $\beta$
12: remains.
13: This note reviews how the ambiguity can be removed. Extractions of the CKM
14: angle $\alpha$ are discussed next. Some of the methods require very large
15: data samples and will not be feasible in the near future. In the
16: near future, semi-inclusive CP-violating searches could be undertaken,
17: which are reviewed last.}
18: \keywords{Heavy Quark Physics, CKM Parameters, CP Violation}
19: \begin{document}
20: \section{CKM angle $\beta$}
21: The primary goal of the various $B$-factories is to test most incisively
22: the standard CKM (Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa)~\cite{ckm} description of CP
23: violation.
24:
25: For that purpose, the CKM angle $\beta$ extraction via the ``golden'' $B_d
26: \rightarrow J/ \psi K_S$ asymmetry \cite{bigisanda} can be contrasted to
27: those via the $B \rightarrow \phi K_S, \eta' K_S, D\overline{D},
28: D_{CP}^0\rho^0, \mbox{etc.}$ asymmetries. Any significant discrepancy in the
29: measured $ \beta\ $ values indicates physics beyond the standard
30: model~\cite{grossmanworah}.
31:
32: The CKM predictions can be tested more incisively by removing discrete CKM
33: ambiguities. The CP-violating asymmetry of
34: $B_d \rightarrow J/ \psi K_S$ allows the determination of $\sin{2
35: \beta}$~\cite{bigisanda, cpreview}.
36: A discrete ambiguity in determining $\beta \in [0, 2 \pi)$ remains.
37: Measuring $ \cos{2\beta}$ removes the ambiguity partially and can be
38: accomplished,
39: either by
40: \begin{description}
41: \item [(a)] correlating \(B_s(t) \rightarrow J/ \psi\phi\;\; \mbox{with}\\
42: B_d(t) \rightarrow J/\psi(\pi^0 K_S)_{K^*} \;
43: [B_d(t) \rightarrow J/\psi \rho^0] \; \) decays~\cite{ddf}.
44: \item [(b)] studying the decay-time $(t_K)$ of the produced neutral
45: kaon~\cite{azimov,kayserstodolsky} in the process \[B_d(t) \rightarrow
46: J/\psi
47: \stackrel{(-)}{K^0}(t_K),\;\; \stackrel{(-)}{K^0}(t_K) \rightarrow \pi
48: \ell \nu, \pi \pi . \]
49: \item [(c)] analyzing Dalitz plots~\cite{charlesetal} of \[B_d(t)
50: \rightarrow D \overline{D}K_S, D_{CP}^0 \pi^+ \pi^-, \ldots\]
51: \item [(d)] using the $B_d-\overline{B}_d$ width difference\footnote{
52: If a non-zero width difference $(\Delta\Gamma)_{B_d}$ has been measured,
53: then
54: $\cos{2\beta}$ can be obtained from the time-dependence of the untagged
55: $J/\psi K_S$
56: sample.
57: } \[(\Delta\Gamma/ \Gamma)_{B_d} \;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\; 1\%. \ ~\cite{bbd} \]
58: \end{description}
59: Further methods to remove ambiguities can be found in Ref.~\cite{ambiguityremoval}.
60: \subsection{Physics of Ambiguity Removal}
61: The underlying reason on how $\cos{2\beta}$ enters is in each case
62: trivial. For instance, consider the above method $(d)$.
63: The interference term $\lambda$ is defined by
64: \begin{equation}
65: \lambda \equiv \frac{q}{p}\frac{<f|\overline{B^0}>}{<f|B^0>} =
66: -e^{-i2\beta}\ \mbox{ for } f=J/ \psi K_S .
67: \end{equation}
68: The coefficients $q$ and $p$ describe the mass-\-eigen\-states in terms of
69: $B^0$ and $\overline{B^0}$ states, re\-spec\-tively \cite{cpreview,untagged,annals}.
70: Note that $\lambda$ is an observable, i.e., a rephase-invariant
71: quantity~\cite{annals,ddw}. Thus, both $Im \lambda$ and $Re \lambda$ are
72: measurable, in principle.
73:
74: The conventional CP-asymmetry measures $Im \lambda$, and is given by (ignoring
75: $\Delta\Gamma$):
76: \begin{equation}
77: \mbox{Asym}(B_d(t) \rightarrow J/\psi K_S) = -Im \lambda\;\; \sin{\Delta mt}.
78: \end{equation}
79: However, $Re \lambda$ enters in the untagged
80: %isick create a line break here
81: time-depen\-dence~\cite{untagged},\footnote{
82: Eq.~(1.3) is correct for $|q/p|=1$, which holds to an excellent
83: approximation within the CKM model. However, when the statistics
84: gets sufficiently large to detect effects due to a non-vanishing width
85: difference, then also the effects due to $|q/p|\neq
86: 1$~\cite{altomari} may have to
87: be incorporated.
88: Determining the sign of $\cos{2\beta}$ from Eq.~(1.3) requires independent
89: knowledge of whether $\Delta\Gamma \equiv \Gamma_H - \Gamma_L$ is positive
90: or negative.
91: This independent knowledge may be very difficult to achieve. Thus, the
92: argument
93: can be reversed and Eq.~(1.3) may be used to determine the observable
94: sign($\Delta\Gamma$), because $\mbox{sign} (\cos{2\beta})$ will be known by
95: other means.
96: }
97:
98: \begin{eqnarray}
99: \Gamma[J/ \psi K_S(t)] &\equiv& \Gamma(B_d(t) \rightarrow J/ \psi K_S) + \nonumber
100: \nonumber\\
101: & & \Gamma(\overline{B_d}(t) \rightarrow J/ \psi
102: K_S) \nonumber \\
103: &\sim & e^{- \Gamma _Lt}+ e^{- \Gamma _Ht} + \nonumber
104: \\
105: & &Re \lambda(e^{-\Gamma _Lt}- e^{- \Gamma _Ht}).
106: \end{eqnarray}
107: Because the expected $\Delta\Gamma/\Gamma$ is tiny, an excess of $10^5$\
108: untagged $J/ \psi K_S$ events is required. Then studies of effects
109: dependent on the $B_d-\overline{B_d}$ width difference become feasible.
110:
111: While the above discussion may become relevant only in the far future of
112: $B_d$ physics, it is of more immediate importance for $B_s$ physics.
113:
114: The $B_s-\overline{B_s}$ width difference is predicted to be sizable
115: (around 10\%)~\cite{bbd}, and once observed will permit the
116: \underline{unambiguous}~\cite{untagged}
117: extraction of CKM phases in $B_s(t) \rightarrow f$ processes. For example,
118: a time dependent study of $B_s(t) \rightarrow D_s^\pm K^\mp$~\cite{adk}
119: will determine the CKM angle $\gamma$ unambiguously. Experiments
120: where $B_s$ mesons are copiously produced, may be able to make extensive
121: use of this opportunity.
122:
123: \section{CKM angle $\alpha$}
124: The CKM matrix can be completely specified by four independent quantities.
125: The three angles of the CKM unitarity triangle satisfy
126: $$ \alpha =\pi -\beta -\gamma , $$
127: and thus are not independent.
128:
129: Since we were asked to discuss the extraction of the angle $\alpha$, we
130: should have reviewed the determination of the CKM angle $\gamma$.
131: The angle $\gamma$ can be determined from
132: \begin{description}
133: \item [(a)] a $B \rightarrow K\pi$
134: analysis~\cite{neubertRosner},
135: \item [(b)] $B_s(t) \rightarrow D_s^\pm K^\mp$
136: studies~\cite{adk},
137: \item [(c)] a $B^- \rightarrow D^0K^-, \overline{D^0}K^-$
138: analysis~\cite{ads},
139: \item [(d)] Dalitz plot analyses~\cite{enomototanabashi},
140: \item [(e)] $B_d(t) \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^-$ and $ B_s(t) \rightarrow
141: K^+K^-$ correlations~\cite{snowmass,fleischerGamma},
142: \item [(f)] $ B_d(t) \rightarrow J/\psi K_S$ and $B_s(t) \rightarrow
143: J/\psi K_S$ correlations~\cite{snowmass,fleischerGamma}.
144: \end{description}
145: However, Neubert addressed the extraction of the CKM angle
146: $\gamma$~\cite{neubert}, and this note thus reviews the ``traditional" CKM
147: $\alpha$ determinations.
148:
149: The angle $\alpha$ can be determined from
150: \begin{description}
151: \item [(1)] the $B_d(t) \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^-$ asymmetry if penguin
152: amplitudes were negligible,
153: \item [(2)] $B_d(t) \rightarrow \rho \pi$ Dalitz plot
154: analyses~\cite{snyderQuinn},
155: \item [(3)] $B_d(t) \rightarrow D^{(*)^\pm} \pi ^\mp$ studies~\cite{dpi}.
156: \end{description}
157: Penguin amplitudes in the $B \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi^-$ process are likely to be
158: sizable,
159: as can be inferred from the recent CLEO measurement~\cite{cleo}
160: \[ \frac {B(B \rightarrow K\pi)}{B(B \rightarrow \pi\pi)} \approx 4, \]
161: and the naive approach (1) will probably not work.
162: The CKM angle $\alpha$ can be
163: extracted by selecting the ``penguin-free" $B \rightarrow (\pi\pi)_{I=2}$
164: process~\cite{gronaulondon}.\footnote{
165: Electro-weak penguin amplitudes may have to be accounted
166: for also~\cite{desh}.
167: }
168: The selection requires studies of $B \rightarrow \pi
169: ^0\pi ^0$,
170: which is not feasible with first generation $B$-factory experiments.
171:
172: However, recent theoretical advances indicate that it may be possible to
173: determine the CKM angle $ \alpha$ from the $B_d(t) \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi
174: ^-$
175: asymmetry alone~\cite{benekebns}.
176:
177: Approach (2) requires large statistics~\cite{lediberder}. But once
178: obtained, the CKM angle $\alpha$ can be extracted even if penguins are
179: present.
180: Electro-weak penguin contributions may introduce sizable uncertainties,
181: and must be studied further.\footnote{
182: They were found to be small in particular models~\cite{charles}.
183: }
184:
185: The $D^{(*)^\pm} \pi ^\mp$ processes permit the clean determination of
186: $\beta - \alpha$ or of $2\beta +\gamma$ because no penguins are involved
187: ~\cite{dpi}. Since $\beta$ will be known $\alpha\ $ (or $\gamma)$ can
188: thus be determined.
189: \section{Near Future}
190: For the near future, experiments will not be sensitive to CP violationg
191: effects with tiny branching ratios, because of
192: limited integrated luminosity. One may still be able to study
193: (semi-) inclusive CP asymmetries.
194: %isick When look at ps, want the (semi-)inclusive on one line. How done?
195:
196: For instance, mixing-induced CP violation can be searched for in double
197: charm, single charm and charmless $B^0$ samples~\cite{inclusiveCP,inclusiveCPIsi,bbd}.
198:
199: \TABULAR{|l|c|}{\hline
200: {Final state of $B^0(\equiv B_d^0\ \mbox{or}\ B_s^0)$} & Required number of flavor tagged\\
201: & $B_s^0\ \&\ \overline {B_s^0}\ \ (B_d^0\ \&\ \overline{B_d^0}$) mesons\\\hline
202: {double charm} & {$2 \times10^5\ (2\times 10^6)$} \\\hline
203: {single charm} & {$6 \times10^5\ (8 \times 10^6)$}\\\hline
204: {charmless} & {$ 10^6\ (2\times 10^7)$}\\\hline}{Number
205: of flavor-tagged $B^0$ plus $ \overline{B^0}$
206: mesons necessary to observe a $3\sigma$ CP-violating
207: effect (column 2) in the modes specified by column 1.}
208:
209: Table I lists the required number of tagged $B^0$ and $\overline{B^0}$
210: mesons to observe $3\sigma$ effects~\cite{inclusiveCPIsi}.
211: Such effects, once observed, can be related to
212: CKM parameters~\cite{inclusiveCP,inclusiveCPIsi,bbd}.
213:
214: Other promising mixing-induced CP asymmetries are
215: \begin{description}
216: \item [(1)] $B^0(t) \rightarrow J/\psi X \; $ versus
217: $\; \overline{B^0}(t) \rightarrow J/\psi X, \\$
218: \item [(2)] $B^0(t) \rightarrow \mbox{(primary $K_S$)} X$ \ versus\ \\
219: $\overline{B^0}(t) \rightarrow \mbox{(primary
220: $K_S$)}X.$
221: \end{description}
222:
223: All the above effects in this Section require flavor-tagging, which is expensive. The
224: flavor-tagging requirement reduces the statistical reach by an order of
225: magnitude.
226:
227: Thus, direct CP violation should be searched for also. It requires neither
228: flavor-tagging nor mixing nor time-dependences. [At hadron colliders,
229: the long b-lifetimes are a blessing and provide the primary distinction
230: between b-hadrons and backgrounds. For hadron colliders,
231: time-dependences are no hindrance.]
232:
233: Browder et al.~\cite{browder} suggested to search for semi-inclusive CP
234: asymmetries in
235: \[B \rightarrow K^+X, K^*X \;\; \mbox{versus}\;\; \overline{B}
236: \rightarrow K^-X, \overline{K^*}X, \]
237: where the $K^{(*)}$ has a very high momentum. The $BR \sim 10^{-4}$ and
238: the CP asymmetries are expected to be $\;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\; 10\%$. Additional semi-inclusive CP-violating effects were
239: discussed in Ref.~\cite{moreInclCP}.
240:
241: The semi-inclusive $b \rightarrow J/\psi +d$ processes also may
242: exhibit direct CP asymmetries at the $ \;\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}\; \mbox{few}\, \%$
243: level~\cite{psicp,snowmass}.
244: Their $BR \approx 5 \times 10^{-4}$ and the effect can be searched for in charged $B^\pm$ decays,
245: \[N(J/\psi X_d^+) \neq N(J/\psi X_d^-).\]
246: \section{Conclusions}
247: The CKM quantity $\sin{2\beta}$ will soon be measured accurately from the
248: $B \rightarrow J/\psi K_S$ asymmetry.
249:
250: Measurements of the sign of $\cos{2\beta}$ will test the CKM model more
251: incisively (see Section 1). Section~1 emphasizes that time-dependent
252: studies of $B_s$ decays can determine CKM parameters without any
253: discrete ambiguity!
254: The relevant $B_s$ modes thus probe the CKM model in detail.
255:
256: Section~2 discusses several ways of determining the CKM angle $\alpha$.
257: Because CP effects with tiny branching ratios are unreachable in the near
258: future, Section~3 suggests several (semi-)inclusive CP asymmetries,
259: some of which could even yield valuable CKM information.
260:
261: \acknowledgments
262: I thank the organizers and their
263: excellent staff for making the Heavy Flavours 8 conference at Southampton
264: so
265: successful and pleasant. I am grateful to G. Buchalla, R. Kutschke and
266: U. Nierste for proofreading this manuscript.
267:
268: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
269:
270: \bibitem{ckm}
271: N. Cabibbo, \prl{10}{1963}{531};\\
272: M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Theor. Phys. {\bf 49} (1973) 652.
273:
274: \bibitem{bigisanda}
275: I.I. Bigi and A.I. Sanda, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B193}, 85 (1981).
276:
277: \bibitem{grossmanworah}
278: D. London and R.D. Peccei, \plb{223}{1989}{257};\\
279: Y.~Grossman and M.~P.~Worah, \plb{395}{1997}{241}.
280:
281: \bibitem{cpreview}
282: See, for instance, A.~J. Buras and R.~Fleischer, in Heavy Flavours II, World Scientific
283: (1997), eds. A.J. Buras and M. Lindner, p. 65 [hep-ph/9704376], and references therein.
284:
285: \bibitem{ddf}
286: A.~S. Dighe, I.~Dunietz and R.~Fleischer, \plb{433}{1998}{147}.
287:
288: \bibitem{azimov}
289: Ya.I. Azimov, \jetpl{50}{1989}{447}; \prd {42}{1990}{3705}.
290:
291: \bibitem{kayserstodolsky}
292: B.~Kayser and L.~Stodolsky [hep-ph/9610522];\\
293: B.~Kayser, in '97 Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, ed. J. Tran Thanh Van (Editions Frontieres, Paris, 1997), p. 389.
294:
295: \bibitem{charlesetal}
296: J. Charles, A. Le Yaouanc, L. Oliver, O. Pene, J.C. Raynal, \plb {425}{1998}{375}; Erratum- \ibid {433}{1998}{441}.
297:
298: \bibitem{bbd}
299: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla and I. Dunietz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 4419 (1996);\\
300: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, C. Greub, A. Lenz and U.
301: Nierste, \plb {459}{1999}{631}.
302:
303: \bibitem{ambiguityremoval}
304: See, for instance,
305: Y. Grossman and H.R. Quinn, \prd {56}{1997}{7259};\\
306: L. Wolfenstein, \prd {57}{1998}{6857};\\
307: B. Kayser and D. London, [hep-ph/9909560].
308:
309: \bibitem{untagged}
310: I. Dunietz, Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 3048 (1995).
311:
312: \bibitem{annals}
313: I.~Dunietz, Ann.~of Physics {\bf 184}, 350 (1988).
314:
315: \bibitem{ddw}
316: D. Du, I. Dunietz and Dan-di Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D34}, 3414 (1986).
317:
318: \bibitem{altomari}
319: T. Altomari, L. Wolfenstein and J.D. Bjorken, \prd {37}{1988}{1860}.
320:
321: \bibitem{adk}
322: R. Aleksan, I. Dunietz and B. Kayser, Z. Phys. {\bf C54}, 653 (1992).
323:
324: \bibitem{neubertRosner}
325: M. Neubert and J.~L. Rosner, \prl {81}{1998}{5076}.\\
326: Ref.~\cite{cpreview} summarizes several methods that extract CKM angles from two-body $B \to$ pseudo-scalar $\times$ pseudo-scalar processes.
327:
328: \bibitem{ads}
329: D. Atwood, I. Dunietz and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3257 (1997).
330:
331: \bibitem{enomototanabashi}
332: R. Enomoto and M. Tanabashi, \plb {386}{1996}{413}.
333:
334: \bibitem{snowmass}
335: I. Dunietz, in Proceedings of the Workshop on $B$ Physics at Hadron
336: Accelerators, Snowmass, Co., June 21 - July 2, 1993, edited by P. McBride
337: and C. Shekhar Mishra, p. 83.
338:
339: \bibitem{fleischerGamma}
340: R.~Fleischer, \plb {459}{1999}{306};
341: Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C10} (1999) 299.
342:
343: \bibitem{neubert}
344: M.~Neubert, these proceedings.
345:
346: \bibitem{snyderQuinn}
347: A. E. Snyder and H.~R. Quinn, \prd{48}{1993}{2139}.
348:
349: \bibitem{dpi}
350: I. Dunietz, Phys. Lett. {\bf B427}, 179 (1998).
351:
352: \bibitem{cleo}
353: CLEO Collaboration, CLEO CONF 99-14 [hep-ex/9908039].
354:
355: \bibitem{gronaulondon}
356: M. Gronau and D.~London, \prl {65}{1990}{3381}.
357:
358: \bibitem{desh}
359: N.G. Deshpande and X.-G. He, \prl {74}{1995}{26};
360: Erratum- \ibid {74}{1995}{4099};\\
361: M. Gronau, O.F. Hernandez, D. London and J.L. Rosner,
362: \prd {52}{1995}{6374};\\
363: R. Fleischer, \plb {365}{1996}{399}.
364:
365: \bibitem{benekebns}
366: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, \prl {83}{1999}{1914}.
367:
368: \bibitem{lediberder}
369: F. Le Diberder, S. Versille et al., in The BaBar Physics Book, SLAC Report 504,
370: eds. P.F.Harrison and H.R.Quinn
371: (October, 1998).
372:
373: \bibitem{charles}
374: J.~Charles, Ph. D. Thesis, Orsay preprint, LPT-Orsay 99-31, April 1999.
375:
376: \bibitem{inclusiveCP}
377: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla and I. Dunietz, Phys. Lett. {\bf B393}, 132 (1997).
378:
379: \bibitem{inclusiveCPIsi}
380: I. Dunietz, Eur.~Phys.~J.~ {\bf C7} (1999) 197.
381:
382: \bibitem{browder}
383: T.E. Browder, A. Datta, X.G. He and S. Pakvasa, \prd {57}{1998}{6829}.
384:
385: \bibitem{moreInclCP}
386: See, for instance,
387: A. Lenz, U. Nierste and G. Ostermaier, \prd {59}{1999}{034008}
388: [hep-ph/9802202];\\
389: D.~Atwood and A.~Soni, \prl {81}{1998}{3324}.
390:
391: \bibitem{psicp}
392: I. Dunietz, Phys. Lett. {\bf B316}, 561 (1993).
393:
394: %{}{}{}
395: %{}{}{}
396:
397: \end{thebibliography}
398:
399: \end{document}
400: