1: %====================================================================%
2: % SPROCL.TEX 27-Feb-1995 %
3: % This latex file rewritten from various sources for use in the %
4: % preparation of the standard proceedings Volume, latest version %
5: % by Susan Hezlet with acknowledgments to Lukas Nellen. %
6: % Some changes are due to David Cassel. %
7: %====================================================================%
8: \documentstyle[sprocl]{article}
9: \input epsf.tex
10: \def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}
11: %\input{psfig}
12: \bibliographystyle{unsrt}
13: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
14: % first citation.
15: % A useful Journal macro
16: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
17: % Some useful journal names
18: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}
19: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
20: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
21: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
22: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.} B}
23: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}
24: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}
25: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}
26: % Some other macros used in the sample text
27: \def\st{\scriptstyle}
28: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}
29: \def\mco{\multicolumn}
30: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
31: \def\vep{\varepsilon}
32: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
33: \def\ppg{\pi^+\pi^-\gamma}
34: \def\vp{{\bf p}}
35: \def\ko{K^0}
36: \def\kb{\bar{K^0}}
37: \def\al{\alpha}
38: \def\ab{\bar{\alpha}}
39: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
40: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
41: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
42: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
43: \def\CPbar{\hbox{{\rm CP}\hskip-1.80em{/}}}
44: %temp replacement due to no font
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46: % %
47: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
48: % %
49: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
50: \begin{document}
51: \title{
52: CP Violation in the SM and Beyond in Hadronic B Decays
53: }
54: \author{
55: Xiao-Gang He~\footnote{e-mail: hexg@phys.ntu.edu.tw}
56: }
57: \address{
58: Department of Physics, National Taiwan University,
59: Taipei, Taiwan 10764, R.O.C.
60: }
61: \author{ }
62: \address{ }
63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
64: % You may repeat \author \address as often as necessary %
65: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
66: \maketitle
67: \begin{abstract}
68: Three different methods, using
69: $B_d\to J/\psi K_S$, $J/\psi K_S \pi^0$, $B_d\to K^-\pi^+, \pi^+\pi^-$
70: and $B_u\to K^- \pi^0, \bar K^0 \pi^-, \pi^-\pi^0$, to
71: extract hadronic model independent
72: information about new physics are discussed in this talk.
73: \end{abstract}
74:
75: \noindent
76: {\bf 1. Introduction}
77:
78: In this talk I discuss three methods, using
79: $B_d\to$ $ J/\psi K_S$, $J/\psi K_S \pi^0$~\cite{5},
80: $B_d\to K^-\pi^+, \pi^+\pi^-$~\cite{6}
81: and $B_u\to K^- \pi^0, \bar K^0 \pi^-, \pi^-\pi^0$~\cite{7,8}, to
82: extract hadronic model independent
83: information about the SM and models beyond.
84:
85: The SM effective Hamiltonian respossible for hadronic decays is
86: knownRef.~\cite{9}.
87: When going beyond the SM, there are new contributions.
88: I will take three models beyond the SM for illustrations.
89: \\
90:
91: \noindent
92: {\bf Model i): R-parity violation model}
93:
94: In R-parity violating supersymmetric (SUSY) models, there are
95: new CP violating phases. Here I consider the effects
96: due to, $L = (\lambda''_{ijk}/2) U^{ci}_R D^{cj}_RD^{ck}_R$,
97: R-parity violating
98: interaction.
99: Exchange of
100: $\tilde d_i$ squark
101: can generate the following effective Hamiltonian at tree level,
102: $H_{eff} =(4G_F/ \sqrt{2})$ $V_{fb}^*V_{fq}$ $c^{f(q)}[O^{f(q)}_1(R)
103: - O^{f(q)}_2(R)]$. Here
104: $O^{f(q)}_1(R) = \bar f\gamma_\mu R f \bar q \gamma^\mu R b$ and
105: $O^{f(q)}_2(R)$ $= \bar f_{\alpha}\gamma_\mu R f_{\beta} \bar q_{\beta}
106: \gamma^\mu R b_{\alpha}$. The operators $O_{1,2}(R)$ have
107: the opposite chirality
108: as those of the tree operators $O_{1,2}(L)$ in the SM.
109: The coefficients
110: $c^{f(q)}$ with QCD corrections are given by
111: $(c_1-c_2)(\sqrt{2}/(4G_F V_{fb}V_{fq}^*))
112: (-\lambda''_{fqi}\lambda''^*
113: _{f3i}/2m^2_{\tilde d^i})$.
114: Here $m_{\tilde d^i}$ is the squark mass.
115: $B_u\to \pi^-\bar K^0$ and $B_u\to K^-\bar K^0$ data constrain
116: $|c^{c(q)}|$ to be less than $O(1)$~\cite{10}.
117: The new contributions can be larger than the SM ones.
118: I will take the values to be 10\%
119: of the corresponding values for the SM
120: with arbitrary phases $\delta^{f(q)}$ for later discussions.
121: \\
122:
123: \noindent
124: {\bf Model ii): SUSY with large gluonic dipole interaction}
125:
126: In SUSY models with R-parity conservation, potential large
127: contributions to B decays may come from gluonic dipole interaction
128: $c_{11}^{new}$ by exchanging gluino at loop
129: level with left- and right-handed squark mixing.
130: $c_{11}^{new}$ is
131: constrained by experimental data from $b\to s\gamma$ which, however, still
132: allows $c_{11}^{new}$ to be as large as
133: three times of the SM contribution in magnitude
134: with an arbitrary CP violating phase $\delta_{dipole}$~\cite{11}.
135: I will take $c_{11}^{new}$ to be 3 times of the SM value with an arbitrary
136: $\delta_{dipole}$.
137: \\
138:
139: \noindent
140: {\bf Model iii): Anomalous gauge boson couplings}
141:
142: Anomalous gauge boson couplings can modify
143: the Wilson Coefficients of the SM ones with the same CP violating source
144: as that for the SM~\cite{8,12}.
145: The largest contribution may come from the $WWZ$ anomalous coupling
146: $\Delta g^Z_1$.
147: LEP data constrain~\cite{13} $\Delta g_1^Z$ to be within
148: $-0.113 <\Delta g_1^Z < 0.126$ at the 95\% c.l.. The resulting Wilson
149: Coefficients can be
150: very different from those in the SM.
151: \\
152:
153: \noindent
154: {\bf 2. Test new physics and $\sin 2\beta$ from
155: $B\to J/\psi K_S, J/\psi K_S \pi^0$}
156:
157: The usual $CP$ violation measure for $B$ decays to CP eigenstates
158: is ${\rm Im\,}\xi = {\rm Im\,}\{(q/p)(A^*\bar A/\vert A\vert ^2)\}$,
159: where $q/p = e^{-2i\phi_B}$ is from $B^0$--$\bar B^0$ mixing,
160: while $A$, $\bar A$ are
161: $B$, $\bar B$ decay amplitudes.
162: For $B\rightarrow J/\psi K_S$, the final state is $P$-wave hence $CP$ odd.
163: Setting the weak phase in the decay amplitude to be $2\phi_0=Arg(A/\bar A)$,
164: one has
165: , ${\rm Im\,}\xi(B\rightarrow J/\psi K_S) = -\sin(2\phi_B + 2 \phi_0)
166: \equiv - \sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S}$.
167:
168: For $B\rightarrow J/\psi K^*\rightarrow J/\psi K_S \pi^0$,
169: the final state has both $P$-wave ($CP$ odd) and
170: $S$- and $D$-wave ($CP$ even) components.
171: If $S$- and $D$-wave have a common weak phase $\tilde \phi_1$ and
172: P-wave has a weak phase $\phi_1$~\cite{5},
173: %
174: \begin{eqnarray}
175: {\rm Im\,}\xi(B\rightarrow J/\psi K_S \pi^0)
176: &=& {\rm Im\,} \{ e^{-2i\phi_B} [ e^{-2i\phi_1}\vert P \vert ^2
177: -e^{-2i\tilde \phi_1}(1-\vert P \vert ^2)]\}\nonumber\\
178: &\equiv& (1-2\vert P \vert ^2)\sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S\pi^0},
179: %\nonumber
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: where $|P|^2$ is the fraction of P-wave component.
182: In the SM
183: one has $\phi_B = \beta$ and $2\phi_0=2\phi_1 (2\tilde \phi_1)
184: = Arg[\{V_{cb}V_{cs}^*
185: \{c_1 +a(a') c_2\}\}/\{V_{cb}^*V_{cs}\{c_1+a(a')c_2\}\}] = 0$,
186: in the Wolfenstein phase convention. Here $a$ and $a'$ are
187: parameters which indicate the relative contribution
188: from $O_{2}^{c(s)}(L)$ compared with $O_1^{c(s)}(L)$ for the P-wave and
189: (S-, D-) wave. In the factorization approximation $1/a = 1/a' =N_c$
190: (the number of
191: colors).
192: Therefore
193: $\sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S}= \sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S\pi^0}= \sin2\beta$.
194: $|P|^2$ has been measured with a small value~\cite{14}
195: $0.16\pm 0.08\pm 0.04$ by CLEO which
196: implies that the measurement of $\sin 2\beta$ using $B\to J/\psi K_S \pi^0$
197: is practical although
198: there is a dilution factor of 30\%.
199:
200: When one goes beyond the SM,
201: $\sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S}= \sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S\pi^0}$ is not necessarily
202: true.
203: Let us now analyze the possible values for
204: $\Delta \sin 2\beta \equiv
205: \sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S}-\sin2\beta_{J/\psi K_S\pi^0}$.
206: Because $B\to J/\psi K_S,
207: J/\psi K^*$ are tree dominated processes, Models ii) and iii) would not
208: change the SM predictions significantly. $\Delta \sin 2\beta$ is not
209: sensitive to new physics in Models ii) and iii). However, for Model i),
210: the contributions can be large.
211: The weak phases are given by
212: $2\phi_0 = 2\phi_1(2\tilde \phi_1) = Arg[
213: \{V_{cb}V_{cs}^*\{c_1+a c_2 +(-)
214: c^{c(s)}\{1-a(a')\}\}\}
215: /\{V_{cb}^*V_{cs}\{c_1+a c_2 +(-)
216: c^{c(s)*}\{1-a(a')\}\}\}]$.
217: Taking the new contributions to be 10\% of the
218: SM ones, one obtains $\phi_0=\phi_1 \approx -\tilde \phi_1 \approx
219: 0.1\sin\delta^{c(s)}$. From this,
220: $\Delta \sin 2\beta \approx 4((1-|P|^2)/(1-2|P|^2))\cos 2\phi_B
221: (0.1\sin\delta^{c(s)})\approx 0.5 \cos 2\phi_B \sin\delta^{c(s)}$.
222: $\phi_B$ may be different
223: from the SM one due to new contributions. Using the central
224: value $\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi K_S} = 0.91$ measured from CDF and ALEPH~\cite{1},
225: $\Delta \sin 2\beta \approx 0.2\sin \delta^{c(s)}$ which
226: can be as large as 0.2. Such a large difference
227: can be measured at B factories. Information about new CP violating
228: phase $\delta^{c(s)}$ can be obtained.
229: \\
230:
231: \noindent
232: {\bf 3. Test new physics and rate differences between $B_d\to \pi^+ K^-,
233: \pi^+\pi^-$}
234:
235: I now show that hadronic model independent
236: information about CP violation can be obtained using SU(3) analysis for
237: rare hadronic B decays.
238:
239: The SM operators $O_{1,2}$, $O_{3-6, 11,12}$, and $O_{7-10}$ for
240: rare hadronic B decays transform under SU(3)
241: symmetry as $\bar 3_a + \bar 3_b +6 + \overline {15}$,
242: $\bar 3$, and $\bar 3_a + \bar 3_b +6 + \overline {15}$, respectively.
243: These properties enable one to
244: write the decay amplitudes for $B\to PP$ in only a few SU(3) invariant
245: amplitudes.
246: When small annihilation contributions are neglected, one has
247:
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: &&A(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-) = V_{ub}V_{ud}^* T + V_{tb}V_{td}^* P,\nonumber\\
250: &&A(B_d\to \pi^+ K^-) = V_{ub}V_{us}^* T + V_{tb}V_{ts}^* P.
251: \nonumber
252: \end{eqnarray}
253: From above one obtains, $\Delta(\pi^+\pi^-) =- \Delta(\pi^+ K^-)$.
254: This non-trivial equality dose not
255: depend on detailed models for hadronic physics
256: and provides test for the SM~\cite{6}.
257: Including SU(3) breaking effect from factorization calculation, one
258: has, $\Delta(\pi^+\pi^-) \approx - {f_\pi^2\over f_K^2}
259: \Delta(\pi^+ K^-)$. Although there is correction, the relative
260: sign is not changed.
261:
262: When going beyond the SM, there are new CP violating phases leading to
263: violation of the equality above.
264: For example Models i) and ii) can alter the equality significantly, while
265: Model iii) can not because the CP violating source is
266: the same as that in the SM. To illustrate how the situation is changed in Models
267: i) and ii), I calculate the normalized asymmetry
268: $A_{norm}(PP)=$$\Delta(PP)/\Gamma(\pi^+K^-)$ using factorization
269: approximation following Ref.~\cite{hhy}.
270: The new effects may come in such a way that only $B_d\to \pi^+ K^-$ is
271: changed but not
272: $B_d \to \pi^+\pi^-$. This scenario leads to maximal violation of the equality
273: discussed here.
274:
275: The results are shown in Figure 1.
276: The solid curve is the SM prediction for $A_{norm}(\pi^+ K^-)$
277: as a function of $\gamma$. For $\gamma_{best}$ $A_{norm}(\pi^+ K^0)
278: \approx 10\%$.
279: It is clear from Figure 1 that
280: within the allowed range of the parameters, new physics effects can
281: dramatically violate the equality discussed above.
282: \\
283:
284: \begin{figure}[htb]
285: \centerline{ \DESepsf(rate.eps width 6 cm) }
286: %\smallskip
287: \caption {$A_{norm}(\pi^+ K^-)$ vs.
288: phases $\gamma$, $\delta^{u(s)}$ and $\delta_{dipole}$ for
289: the SM (solid),
290: Models i) (dashed) and ii) (dotted).
291: For Models i) and ii), $\gamma = 59.9^\circ$ is used.
292: $A_{norm}(\pi^+ K^-) =$ $ -(f_\pi/f_k)^2
293: A_{norm}(\pi^+\pi^-)$ is satisfied in the SM. For Models i) and ii)
294: $-(f_\pi/f_k)^2A_{norm}(\pi^+\pi^-)$ is approximately the same as that in the
295: SM (dot-dashed curve).}
296: \end{figure}
297:
298: \noindent
299: {\bf 4. Test new physics and SU(3) relation for $B_u\to \pi^-\bar K^0,
300: \pi^0 K^-, \pi^0\pi^-$}
301:
302: I now discuss another method which provides important information about
303: new physics using $B_u\to \pi^- \bar K^0, \pi^0 K^-, \pi^0\pi^-$.
304: Using SU(3) relation and factorization estimate for
305: the breaking effects, one
306: obtains~\cite{7,8}
307:
308: \begin{eqnarray}
309: A(B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0) + \sqrt{2}A(B_u\to \pi^0 K^-)
310: &=&\epsilon A(B_u \to \pi^-\bar K^0)e^{i\Delta \phi}
311: (e^{-i\gamma}-\delta_{EW}),\nonumber\\
312: \delta_{EW} = -{3\over 2} {|V_{cb}||V_{cs}|\over |V_{ub}||V_{us}|}{c_{9}+c_{10}\over c_1+c_2},
313: &&\epsilon = \sqrt{2} {|V_{us}|\over |V_{ud}|} {f_K\over f_\pi}
314: {|A(\pi^+\pi^0)|\over |A(\pi^+ K^0)|},
315: \nonumber
316: \end{eqnarray}
317: where $\Delta \phi$ is the difference of the final state rescattering phases
318: for $I=3/2,1/2$ amplitudes.
319: For $f_K/f_\pi = 1.22$ and
320: $Br(B^\pm \to \pi^\pm \pi^0) = (0.54^{+0.21}_{-0.20}\pm 0.15)\times 10^{-5}$~\cite{4a},
321: one obtains $\epsilon = 0.21 \pm 0.06$.
322:
323: Neglecting small tree contribution to $B_u\to \pi^- \bar K^0$, one obtains
324: \begin{eqnarray}
325: \cos\gamma =\delta_{EW} -
326: {(r^2_++r^2_-)/2 -1 - \epsilon^2(1-\delta_{EW}^2)
327: \over 2 \epsilon (\cos \Delta \phi
328: + \epsilon \delta_{EW})},
329: \;\;r^2_+-r^2_- = 4\epsilon \sin \Delta \phi \sin \gamma,
330: \nonumber
331: \end{eqnarray}
332: where
333: $r_\pm^2 = 4Br(\pi^0 K^\pm)/[Br(\pi^+ K^0)
334: + Br(\pi^- \bar K^0)] = 1.33\pm 0.45$~\cite{4a}.
335:
336: It is interesting to note that although the above equation is complicated,
337: bound on $\cos\gamma$ can be
338: obtained~\cite{8}.
339: For $\Delta = (r^2_+ + r^2_-)/2 -1-\epsilon^2(1-\delta_{EW}^2)\ge (\le)>0$,
340: we have
341:
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: \cos\gamma \le (\ge) \delta_{EW}- {\Delta\over 2\epsilon (1+\epsilon \delta_{EW})}, \;\;
344: \mbox{or}\;\;\;
345: \cos\gamma \ge (\le)\delta_{EW}-{\Delta \over 2\epsilon (-1+\epsilon \delta_{EW})}.
346: \label{bound}
347: \end{eqnarray}
348:
349: The bounds on $\cos\gamma$ as a function of $\delta_{EW}$ are shown in Fig. 2
350: by the solid curves
351: for three representative cases:
352: a) Central values for $\epsilon$ and $r^2_\pm$;
353: b) Central values for $\epsilon$ and $1 \sigma$ upper bound $r^2_\pm=1.78$;
354: and c) Central value for $\epsilon$ and $1 \sigma$ lower
355: bound $r^2_\pm = 0.88$.
356: The bounds with $|\cos\gamma| \le 1$ for a), b) and c) are indicated by
357: the curves (a1, a2), (b)
358: and (c1, c2), respectively.
359: For cases a) and c) there are two allowed
360: regions,
361: the regions below (a1, c1) and the regions above (a2, c2).
362: For case b) the allowed range is below (b).
363:
364: \begin{figure}[htb]
365: \centerline{ \DESepsf(gamma.eps width 6 cm) }
366: %\smallskip
367: \caption {$\cos\gamma$ vs. $\delta_{EW}$.
368: The solutions for the cases a), b) and c) are
369: indicated by the dashed, dot-dashed and dotted curves
370: respectively.}
371: \end{figure}
372:
373: One also has
374: \begin{eqnarray}
375: (1-\cos^2\gamma) [ 1-({\Delta \over 2\epsilon(\delta_{EW} -\cos \gamma)}
376: -\epsilon \delta_{EW})^2] - {(r^2_+-r^2_-)^2\over 16 \epsilon^2} = 0.
377: \end{eqnarray}
378: To have some idea about the details, I analyze
379: the solutions of $\cos \gamma$ as a function of $\delta_{EW}$
380: for the three cases discussed earlier
381: with a given value for the asymmetry $A_{asy} = (r^2_+-r^2_-)/(r^2_++r^2_-)
382: =15\%$.
383:
384:
385: In the SM for $r_v=|V_{ub}|/|V_{cb}| = 0.08$ and $|V_{us}| = 0.2196$,
386: $\delta_{EW} = 0.81$. The central values for $r_\pm$ and $\epsilon$ prefers
387: $\cos\gamma < 0$ which is different from the result obtained in Ref.~\cite{2}
388: by fitting other
389: data. The parameter $\delta_{EW}$ is sensitive to new physics in the
390: tree and electroweak sectors. Model i) has large corrections to the tree level
391: contributions. However, the
392: contribution is proportional to the sum of the
393: coefficients of operators $O_{1,2}^{u(s)}(R)$ which is zero in Model i).
394: The above method does not provide information about new physics due to
395: Model i). This method would not provide information about new physics due to
396: Model ii) neither because the gluonic dipole interaction transforms
397: as $\bar 3$ which
398: does not affect $\delta_{EW}$. Model iii) can have large effect on
399: $\delta_{EW}$. In this model $\delta_{EW} = 0.81(1+ 4.33\Delta g_1^Z)$ which
400: can vary in the range $0.40\sim 1.25$.
401:
402: For case a), in the SM $\cos\gamma <0.18$ which is inconsistent
403: with $\cos\gamma_{best}\approx 0.5$ from other fit~\cite{2}.
404: In Model iii) $\cos \gamma$ can be consistent with $\cos\gamma_{best}$.
405: For case b), $\cos\gamma$ is less than zero in both the
406: SM and Model iii).
407: If this is indeed the case, other types of new physics is needed.
408: For case c) $\cos \gamma$ can be close to $\cos\gamma_{best}$
409: for both the SM and Model iii).
410: \\
411:
412: \noindent
413: {\bf 5. Conclusion}
414:
415: From discussions in previous sections, it is clear that using
416: $B_d\to J/\psi K_S$, $J/\psi K_S \pi^0$, $B_u\to \pi^- K^+, \pi^+\pi^-$
417: and $B^-\to \pi^0 K^-, \pi^- \bar K^0, \pi^0\pi^-$
418: important information free from uncertainties in hadronic physics about
419: the Standard Model and models beyond
420: can be obtained. These analyses should be carried out at B factories.
421: \\
422:
423: \noindent
424: {\bf Acknowledgements}
425:
426: This work was partially supported by National Science Council of
427: R.O.C. under grant number NSC 89-2112-M-002-016. I thank
428: Deshpande, Hou, Hsueh and Shi for collaborations on materials presented
429: in this talk.
430: \vspace{1cm}
431:
432:
433: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
434:
435:
436:
437: \bibitem{5} X.-G. He and W.-S. Hou, Phys. Lett. {\bf B445}, 344(1999).
438:
439: \bibitem{6} N. Deshpande, and X.-G. He,
440: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 3064(1995);
441: X.-G. He, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C9}, 443(1999);
442: M. Suzuki, hep-ph/9908420; N. Deshpande, X.-G. He and J.-Q. Shi,
443: hep-ph/0002260.
444:
445: \bibitem{7} M. Neubert and J. Rosner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B441}, 403(1998);
446: M. Neubert and J. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5074(1998);
447: M. Neubert, JHEP 9902:014 (1999); Y. Grosssman, M. Neubert and A. Kagan,
448: hep-hep/9909297
449:
450: \bibitem{8} X.-G. He, C.-L. Hsueh and J.-Q. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett.
451: {\bf 84}, 18(2000).
452:
453: \bibitem{9} N. Deshpande and X.-G. He, Phys. Lett. {\bf B336}, 471(1994).
454:
455: \bibitem{10} C. Carlson and M. Sher, Phys. Lett. {\bf B357}, 99(1995).
456:
457: \bibitem{11} M. Ciuchini, E. Gabrielli and G. Giudice, Phys. Lett.
458: B{\bf 388}, 353 (1996).
459:
460: \bibitem{12} X.-G. He and B. McKellar, Phys. Rev. {\bf D51}, 6484(1995);
461: X-G. He, Phys. Lett. {\bf B460}, 405(1999).
462:
463: \bibitem{13} ALEPH Collaboration, ALEPH 99/072, CONF 99/046.
464:
465: \bibitem{14} C.P. Jessop et al.,
466: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4533 (1997).
467:
468: \bibitem{1} R. Forty et al., ALEPH 99-099/CONF 99054;
469: G. Bauer, hep-ex/9908055.
470:
471: \bibitem{hhy} X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou and K.-C. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.
472: {\bf 81}, 5738(1999).
473: %
474: \bibitem{4a} Y. Kwon et al., CLEO CONF 99-14.
475:
476: \bibitem{2} F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, e-print hep-ex/9903063.
477: %
478: \end{thebibliography}
479:
480: \end{document}
481: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
482: % End of sprocl.tex %
483: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
484:
485:
486:
487:
488: