1: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,epsfig,psfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Analysis of the Decays $B\rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $\pi K$
8: with QCD Factorization in the Heavy Quark Limit
9: \footnote{Supported in part by National Natural Science
10: Foundation of China and State Commission of Science and
11: Technology of China}}
12: \vspace{2cm}
13:
14: \author{
15: Dongsheng Du${}^{1,2}$, Deshan Yang${}^{2}$ and Guohuai Zhu${}^{2}$
16: \footnote{Email: duds@hptc5.ihep.ac.cn, yangds@hptc5.ihep.ac.cn,
17: zhugh@hptc5.ihep.ac.cn} }
18: \address{${}^1$ CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O.Box 8730, Beijing
19: 100080, China\\
20: ${}^2$ Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
21: P.O.Box 918(4), Beijing 100039, China
22: \footnote{Mailing address}}
23:
24: \date{\today}
25:
26: \maketitle
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: \indent
30:
31: In this work, we calculate the branching ratios and CP asymmetries of
32: the decays of $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $\pi K$ with the frame of QCD
33: factorization in the heavy quark limit. We also compare the results with the
34: estimates by using generalized factorization and experimental measurements.
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38: \vspace{1.5cm}
39:
40: {\bf PACS numbers 13.25.Hw 12.38.Bx}
41:
42: \newpage
43:
44: \narrowtext
45: %------------------------------------------------
46: \tighten
47:
48: %\section*{introduction}
49: %-----------------
50: In the past two years, the CLEO collaborations\cite{CLEO} had improved
51: their measurements for the branching ratios of $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$
52: and $\pi K$ for several times. The latest results of branching ratios of
53: these modes are:
54: \begin{eqnarray}
55: Br(B^{\pm} \rightarrow \pi^{0} \pi^{\pm}) &<& 12.7 \times 10^{-6}
56: ~,\nonumber\\
57: Br(B^0 \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}) &=& (4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.4} \pm 0.5)
58: \times 10^{-6} ~,\nonumber \\
59: Br(B^{\pm} \rightarrow K^{\pm} \pi^{0})&=&(11.6^{+3.0+1.4}_{-2.7-1.3})
60: \times 10^{-6} ~,\nonumber \\
61: Br(B^{\pm} \rightarrow K^{0} \pi^{\pm})&=&(18.2^{+4.6}_{-4.0}\pm 1.6)
62: \times 10^{-6} ~,\nonumber \\
63: Br(B^0 \rightarrow K^{\pm} \pi^{\mp})&=&(17.2^{+2.5}_{-2.4}\pm 1.2) \times
64: 10^{-6} ~,\nonumber \\
65: Br(B^0 \rightarrow K^{0} \pi^{0})&=&(14.6^{+5.9+2.4}_{-5.6-3.3}) \times
66: 10^{-6}~.
67: \end{eqnarray}
68: These two-body non-leptonic charmless B decay modes play a very
69: important role in studying CP violation and the heavy flavor physics.
70: Theoretically, due to our ignorance of hadronization, it is difficult
71: to relate CP violations with the parameters of fundamental theory.
72: Effective Hamiltonian is our basic tool, but we do not know how to
73: calculate hadronic matrix element from first principles.
74: Conventionally we resort to naive factorization assumption\cite{BSW},
75: which expresses the hadronic matrix element in terms of various meson decay
76: constants and form factors. However, it is well known that non-factorizable
77: contribution really exists and can not be neglected numerically. To
78: remedy factorization hypothesis, Ref.\cite{chy,Ali} introduced a
79: phenomenological parameter $N_{eff}$, which is commonly called generalized
80: factorization. Because in principle $N_{eff}$ is process-dependent, it is
81: still not a satisfactory approach.
82:
83: In last year, Beneke {\it et al.} \cite{Beneke} gave a NLO calculation
84: of $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ in heavy quark limit. In this limit, the
85: hadronic matrix elements for $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$
86: can expanded by the powers of $\alpha_s$ and $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ as follows:
87:
88: \begin{equation}
89: \langle \pi \pi \vert Q \vert B \rangle = \langle \pi \vert j_1 \vert
90: \vert B\rangle \langle \pi \vert j_2 \vert 0\rangle \cdot
91: [1+\Sigma r_n \alpha_s^n + {\cal{O}}(\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b)],
92: \end{equation}
93: where $Q$ is a local four quark operator in the weak effective
94: Hamiltonian and $j_{1,2}$ are bilinear quark currents. Neglecting
95: the power contribution of $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$, they pointed
96: out that in the heavy quark limit the radiative corrections at the order
97: of $\alpha_s$ can be calculable with PQCD method. Furthermore,
98: the 'non-factorizable' contributions from hard scattering with
99: spectator quark in B meson can also be calculable within the frame of PQCD.
100: Then the decay amplitude can be expressed by the convolutions of the
101: hard-scattering kernels and several light-cone distribution amplitudes
102: of the mesons. So all of these can be summarized into a factorization
103: formula for $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ as follows:
104:
105: \begin{equation}
106: \langle \pi(p^{\prime}) \pi(q) \vert Q_i \vert B(p) \rangle =
107: F^{B \rightarrow \pi}(q^2) \int \limits_0^1 dx T^I_i(x) \Phi_{\pi}(x)
108: +\int \limits_0^1 d\xi dx dy T^{II}(\xi,x,y) \Phi_B(\xi) \Phi_{\pi}(x)
109: \Phi_{\pi}(y).
110: \end{equation}
111: We call this factorization formalism as QCD factorization.
112: In the above formula, $\Phi_B(\xi)$ and $\Phi_{\pi}(x)$ are the
113: leading-twist light-cone distribution amplitudes of B and pion mesons
114: respectly, and the $T^{I,II}_i$ denote hard-scattering kernels which are
115: calculable in perturbative theory. Beneke {\it et al.} regarded
116: the spectator quark as a soft quark translated to one pion in final state
117: unless it undergoes a hard interaction,
118: so the transition form factor $F^{B \rightarrow \pi}(q^2)$ can not be
119: calculated in the perturbative frame, and it will be survived as a free
120: nonperturbative parameter in QCD factorization. $T^I_i$ at the order of
121: $\alpha_s$ includes two topological classes, one is hard gluon scattering
122: like vertex corrections which is described by the first four diagrams in
123: Fig.1, and we call it as hard-scattering corrections below; the other is
124: called penguin correction, which is described by diag.(e) and (f) in
125: Fig.1. $T^{II}_i$ denotes the hard spectator scattering contribution
126: which is described by the last two diagrams in Fig.1. In this frame,
127: they neglected W-annihilation and W-exchange topologies, so they
128: show that 'non-factorizable' contributions in the conventional
129: factorization are calculable in heavy quark limit. Then we do
130: not need to employ a phenomenological parameter $N_{eff}$ to compensate
131: the 'non-factorizable' effects in principle. Thus we will apply this
132: approach to calculate the branching ratios and CP asymmetries for the decays
133: $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $\pi K$ in this paper.
134: Furthermore, since the effects of electroweak penguins can not be
135: neglected in some decay modes of $B \rightarrow \pi K$, we
136: will use full effective weak Hamiltonian including electroweak penguin
137: operators and add some one-loop QED penguin correction to the calculation
138: of hadronic matrix elements of effective operators which can also be
139: described by diag.(e) and diag.(f) (replacing gluon with photon) in Fig.1
140: in our computation.
141:
142: %\section{calculational framework}
143: The $\vert\Delta B\vert=1$ effective Hamiltonian is given by\cite{buras}
144: \begin{equation}
145: {\cal{H}}_{eff}= \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
146: \left[ \sum_{q=u,c} v_q \left( C_1(\mu) Q^q_1(\mu)+ C_2(\mu)Q^q_2(\mu)
147: + \sum_{k=3}^{10} C_k(\mu)Q_k(\mu) \right) \right]+h.c.,
148: \end{equation}
149: where
150: $v_q=V_{qb}V_{qd}^{*}$(for $b\rightarrow d$ transition) or
151: $v_q=V_{qb}V_{qs}^{*}$(for $b\rightarrow s$ transition)
152: and $C_i(\mu)$ are Wilson coefficients which have been evaluated to
153: next-to-leading order approximation.
154: In the Eq.(1), the four-quark operators $Q_i$ are given by
155: \begin{equation}
156: \begin{array}{l}
157: \begin{array}{ll}
158: Q^u_1= ( \bar{u}_{\alpha} b_{\beta} )_{V-A}
159: ( \bar{q}_{\beta} u_{\alpha} )_{V-A}&
160: Q^c_1= ( \bar{c}_{\alpha} b_{\beta} )_{V-A}
161: ( \bar{q}_{\beta} c_{\alpha} )_{V-A}\\
162: Q^u_2= ( \bar{u}_{\alpha} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
163: ( \bar{q}_{\beta} u_{\beta} )_{V-A}&
164: Q^c_2= ( \bar{c}_{\alpha} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
165: ( \bar{q}_{\beta} c_{\beta} )_{V-A}\\
166: Q_3= (\bar{q}_{\alpha} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
167: \sum\limits_{q'}
168: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\beta} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V-A}&
169: Q_4= (\bar{q}_{\beta} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
170: \sum\limits_{q'}
171: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\alpha} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V-A}\\
172: Q_5= (\bar{q}_{\alpha} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
173: \sum\limits_{q'}
174: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\beta} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V+A}&
175: Q_6= (\bar{q}_{\beta} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
176: \sum\limits_{q'}
177: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\alpha} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V+A}\\
178: Q_7= \frac{3}{2} (\bar{q}_{\alpha} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
179: \sum\limits_{q'} e_{q'}
180: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\beta} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V+A}&
181: Q_8=\frac{3}{2} (\bar{q}_{\beta} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
182: \sum\limits_{q'} e_{q'}
183: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\alpha} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V+A}\\
184: Q_9= \frac{3}{2} (\bar{q}_{\alpha} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
185: \sum\limits_{q'} e_{q'}
186: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\beta} q^{'}_{\beta} )_{V-A}&
187: Q_{10}=\frac{3}{2} (\bar{q}_{\beta} b_{\alpha} )_{V-A}
188: \sum\limits_{q'} e_{q'}
189: ( \bar{q}^{'}_{\alpha} q^{'}_{\beta})_{V-A}\\
190: \end{array} \\
191:
192: \end{array}
193: \end{equation}
194: with $Q^q_1$ and $Q^q_2$ being the tree operators, $Q_3-Q_6$ the QCD
195: penguin operators and $Q_7-Q_{10}$ the electroweak penguin operators.
196: With the renormalization group method, we can evolve the Wilson coefficients
197: $C_i(\mu)$ from the scale $\mu=m_W$ to $\mu \approx m_B$. Because we will give
198: a NLO calculation here, $b\rightarrow s(d) g$ and $b \rightarrow s(d) \gamma$
199: effective Hamiltonian must be included. They are
200: \begin{equation}
201: {\cal{H}}_{eff}^{\prime} =
202: -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} v_t
203: [C_{7\gamma} Q_{7\gamma} +
204: C_{8G}Q_{8G}] + h.c.,
205: \end{equation}
206: where
207: \begin{equation}
208: Q_{7\gamma}=\frac{e}{8\pi^2} m_b \bar{q}_{\alpha} \sigma^{\mu\nu}
209: (1+\gamma_5) b_{\alpha} F_{\mu\nu}, ~~
210: Q_{8G}=\frac{g}{8\pi^2} m_b \bar{q}_{\alpha} \sigma^{\mu\nu}
211: t^{a}_{\alpha \beta} b_{\beta} G^a_{\mu\nu}, ~~(q=d~ {\rm or} ~s).
212: \end{equation}
213:
214: Following the method of Ref.\cite{Beneke}, we try to evaluate
215: the matrix elements of $Q_i$ to the order of $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_{em}$.
216: In fact, this work is to calculate hadronic matrix
217: elements of $Q_i$ to one loop. In quark level, Ref\cite{fleischer} gives an
218: expression
219:
220: \begin{equation}
221: \langle \bf{Q} \rangle =
222: [\hat{\bf{1}}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \hat{m}_s
223: +\frac{\alpha_{em}}{4\pi} \hat{m}_{e}]\cdot \langle \bf{Q} \rangle_0.
224: \end{equation}
225: Here $\hat{m}_s$ and $\hat{m}_e$ represent the one loop corrections of
226: QCD and QED respectly. These corrections are divided into two classes.
227: One is hard-scattering correction, the other is penguin correction. While
228: the external quarks are on mass-shells, the hard-scattering corrections
229: bring infrared divergences which can not vanish after summing over all
230: this kind of perturbative diagrams no matter with gluon or photon exchange.
231: However, in hadron level, with QCD factorization in the heavy quark
232: limit, these infrared divergences from hard-scattering exchanging with
233: gluon can be canceled after summing over all this kind of perturbative
234: diagrams (the first four diagrams in Fig.1). This has been shown in
235: Ref.\cite{Beneke}. But for the case of QED hard-scattering
236: (exchanging photon), the infrared divergences can not be canceled
237: after summing over all diagrams even in the heavy quark limit. It is
238: because that the color structure of QED hard-scattering corrections is
239: different from that of QCD. We expect that those divergences could be
240: canceled by soft photon radiative corrections. However, nobody knows how
241: to include these radiative corrections in exclusive decay channels. As
242: $\alpha_{em}$ is very small, we will neglect QED hard-scattering
243: corrections in our computation.
244: On the other hand, the penguin corrections are calculable
245: not only for the case of QCD but also for that of QED. In quark level,
246: considering only the contributions from tree operators, the penguin
247: corrections can be written in NDR scheme as\cite{fleischer}
248: \begin{eqnarray}
249: (\hat{m}_s(\mu))_{13}=(\hat{m}_s(\mu))_{15}=
250: \frac{1}{2N}[-\frac{2}{3} + G(m_q, q, \mu)], \\
251: (\hat{m}_s(\mu))_{14}=(\hat{m}_s(\mu))_{16}=
252: -\frac{1}{2}[-\frac{2}{3} + G(m_q, q, \mu)], \\
253: (\hat{m}_e(\mu))_{27}=(\hat{m}_e(\mu))_{29}=
254: -\frac{4}{3}[-\frac{2}{3} + G(m_q, q, \mu)], \\
255: (\hat{m}_e(\mu))_{17}=(\hat{m}_e(\mu))_{19}=
256: -\frac{4}{9}[-\frac{2}{3} + G(m_q, q, \mu)],
257: \end{eqnarray}
258: with
259: \begin{equation}
260: G(m_q,q,\mu)=-4\int \limits_{0}^{1} dx ~x(1-x)
261: \ln \frac{m_q^2-x(1-x)q^2-i \epsilon}{\mu^2}.
262: \end{equation}
263: Here, $q^2$ in $G(m_q, q, \mu)$ remains uncertain for the
264: calculation of exclusive B decays. However, if we take
265: $q^2$ around $\frac{m_b^2}{2}$ in computations with conventional
266: factorization scheme, this variation does not change the results too
267: much\cite{Ali}. With the frame of QCD factorization in the heavy quark
268: limit, there will be no uncertainty for $q^2$, this will be shown below.
269: So, similar to what done in Ref.\cite{Beneke}, we will take both QCD and
270: QED penguin corrections into account. Surely, for the importance of
271: electroweak penguins in the decays $B\rightarrow \pi K$, we must take QED
272: penguin corrections into account as well.
273:
274: Then in heavy quark limit, the amplitude for the decay of B to two light
275: pseudoscalar mesons $P$ and $P^{\prime}$ can be written as follows:
276: \begin{equation}
277: A(B\rightarrow P P^{\prime})=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}
278: \sum \limits_{p=u,c} \sum \limits_{i=1,10} v_p a^p_i
279: \langle P P^{\prime} \vert Q_i \vert B \rangle_F,
280: \end{equation}
281: where $v_p$ is CKM factor and
282: $\langle P P^{\prime} \vert Q_i \vert B \rangle_F$ is the factorized
283: matrix elements which can be expressed by the product of the relevant
284: decay constant and form factor. Taking $a^c_1=a^c_2=0$ and assuming the
285: distribution amplitudes of light pseudoscalar mesons symmetric, we obtain
286: the QCD
287: coefficients $a^p_i$ at next-to-leading order (NLO) in naive dimension
288: regularization (NDR) scheme (except $a_6$ and $a_8$ which read at leading
289: order here for some special reasons). In order to cancel the scheme
290: dependence in our calculation, we must take Wilson coefficients $C_i$ in
291: NDR scheme as well. Then the explicit formulas of $a^p_i$ can be written
292: as
293: \begin{eqnarray}
294: a_1^u&=&C_1+\frac{C_2}{N} + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{C_F}{N} C_2 F, \\
295: a_2^u&=&C_2+\frac{C_1}{N} + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{C_F}{N} C_1 F,\\
296: a_3&=&C_3+\frac{C_4}{N} + \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{C_F}{N} C_4 F, \\
297: a_4^p&=&C_4+\frac{C_3}{N} -\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{C_F}{N}
298: [(\frac{4}{3} C_1 +\frac{44}{3} C_3 + \frac{4f}{3} (C_4+C_6))
299: \ln \frac{\mu}{m_b}
300: \nonumber \\
301: &&+ (G_P(s_p)-\frac{2}{3})C_1
302: +(G_P(0)+G_P(1)-f_P^{I} - f_P^{II}+\frac{50}{3})C_3
303: - \frac{2f}{3} C_4 \nonumber \\
304: &&+(3G_P(0)+G_P(s_c)+G_P(1))(C_4+C_6)+G_{P,8} C_{8G}],
305: \\
306: a_5&=&C_5+\frac{C_6}{N}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\frac{C_F}{N} C_6(-F-12),
307: \\
308: a_6&=&C_6+\frac{C_5}{N},\\
309: a_7&=&C_7+\frac{C_8}{N}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi}\frac{C_F}{N} C_8(-F-12),
310: \\
311: a_8&=&C_8+\frac{C_7}{N}, \\
312: a_9&=&C_9+\frac{C_{10}}{N}+\frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{C_F}{N} C_{10} F, \\
313: a_{10}^{p}&=&C_{10}+\frac{C_9}{N}+
314: \frac{\alpha_s}{4\pi} \frac{C_F}{N}C_{9} F \nonumber \\
315: &&+\frac{\alpha_{em}}{9\pi} [(-\frac{2}{3} (2(C_2+\frac{C_1}{N})+
316: (C_3+\frac{C_4}{N})+(C_5+\frac{C_6}{N}))\ln\frac{\mu}{m_b} \nonumber \\
317: &&+(\frac{2}{3}-G_P(s_p))(C_2+\frac{C_1}{N})
318: +(\frac{1}{3}-G_P(s_c)+\frac{G_P(1)}{2})(C_3+\frac{C_4}{N}) \nonumber \\
319: &&+(-G_P(s_c)+\frac{G_P(1)}{2})(C_5+\frac{C_6}{N})
320: -\frac{1}{2}C_{7\gamma} G_{P,8}].
321: \end{eqnarray}
322: Here $N=3$ ($f=5$) is the number of color (flavor), and
323: $C_F=\frac{N^2-1}{2N}$ is the factor of color. We define the symbols in
324: the above expressions as the same as Beneke's, which are
325: \begin{eqnarray}
326: &&F=-12 \ln \frac{\mu}{m_b} -18+f_P^{I}+f_P^{II}, \\
327: &&f_P^{I}=\int \limits_{0}^{1}~ dx~g(x)\Phi_P(x),
328: ~G_{P,8}=\int \limits_{0}^{1}~ dx~G_8(x) \Phi_P(x), \\
329: &&G_P(s)=\int \limits_{0}^{1}~ dx~G(s,x) \Phi_P(x),
330: \end{eqnarray}
331: with
332: \begin{eqnarray}
333: &&g(x)=3 \frac{1-2x}{1-x} \ln x - 3 i \pi, ~~G_8(x)=\frac{2}{1-x}, \\
334: &&G(s,x)=-4 \int \limits_{0}^{1}~ du~u(1-u) \ln (s-u(1-u)(1-x)-i
335: \epsilon).
336: \end{eqnarray}
337: Here $\Phi_{P}(x)$ is the leading twist distribution amplitude of the
338: light meson, and $s_i=m_i^2/m_b^2$. ($m_i$ is the mass of quark appearing
339: in the penguin loop.) The contribution from the hard spectator scattering
340: are reduced into the factor $f_P^{II}$ which is written as
341:
342: \begin{equation}
343: f_P^{II}=\frac{4 \pi^2}{N}
344: \frac {f_{P^{\prime}}f_B}{F^{B\rightarrow P^{\prime}}_{+}(0) m_B^2}
345: \int \limits_{0}^{1}~ d\xi \frac{\Phi_B(\xi)}{\xi}
346: \int \limits_{0}^{1}~ dx~ \int \limits_{0}^{1}~ dy~
347: \frac{\Phi_P(x) \Phi_{P^{\prime}}(y) } {xy}.
348: \end{equation}
349: In above expression, $f_{P^{\prime}}$ ($f_B$) is the pseudoscalar meson
350: (B meson) decay constant, $m_B$ the B meson mass, $F^{B\rightarrow
351: P^{\prime}}_{+}(0)$ the $B\rightarrow P^{\prime}$ form factor at zero
352: momentum transfer, and $\xi$ the light-cone momentum fraction of the
353: spectator in the B meson.
354:
355: One can find that our expressions are a little bit different from those in
356: Ref.\cite{Beneke}.
357: We think that there is an extra term $-\frac{2f}{3}C_4$ in Eq.(18)
358: which is missed in Eq.(8)
359: of Ref.\cite{Beneke}, but this difference is not large enough to make the
360: numerical results change too much.
361: In addition, in the modes
362: $B \rightarrow \pi K$, $f_P^{II}$ should be changed with the corresponding
363: meson which contains the spectator quark. But numerically the ratio
364: $\frac{f_{\pi}}{F_{+}^{B\rightarrow \pi}}$ is nearly equal to
365: $\frac{f_{K}}{F_{+}^{B\rightarrow K}}$, so $f_{K}^{II}\simeq
366: f_{\pi}^{II}$, we will
367: not distinguish them in computation below.
368:
369: For the coefficients $a_6$ and $a_8$, we want to give some comments.
370: One can see that the singularity of the hard-scattering function $G_8 (x)$
371: is at the endpoint $x=1$. If the distribution amplitudes did not
372: fall off fast enough at the endpoints to suppress
373: these singularities in hard-scattering functions, our calculations would
374: not be infrared safe. For the case of $a_{1-5}$ and $a_{7,9,10}$, we
375: might use the twist-2 distribution amplitudes for pion or kaon which can
376: cancel the
377: infrared divergences. Unfortunately, for the case of $a_{6,8}$, we must
378: employ the twist-3 distribution amplitudes. As pointed in
379: Ref.\cite{Beneke,t3}, the
380: twist-3 distribution amplitudes for pion and kaon do not fall off at endpoints.
381: So if this was true, the infrared divergences could not cancel in the
382: calculation. Therefore, as mentioned at the end of Ref.
383: \cite{Beneke}, the factorization formula breaks down in this case.
384: We also noticed that in recent papers\cite{lihn,lucd},
385: the authors employed the twist-3 distribution amplitudes for pion and
386: kaon which fall off fast enough at the endpoints, but that is just a
387: model and not
388: a prediction from QCD sum rule or other non-perturbative approaches. So we
389: still employ the asymptotic twist-3 distribution amplitudes of pion and kaon as
390: $\Phi_P^3(x)=1$, then the singularities at the endpoints in
391: hard-scattering kernels can not be suppressed by the distribution amplitudes
392: in the case of $a_6$ and $a_8$. Like what Beneke {\it et al.} do,
393: we take $a_6$ and $a_8$ at leading order here.
394:
395: %\section{Numerical Results}
396: In the B rest frame, the two body decay width is
397: \begin{equation}
398: \Gamma(B\rightarrow PP')=\frac {1}{8\pi}
399: \vert A(B\rightarrow P P') \vert ^2
400: \frac{\vert p \vert}{m_B^2},
401: \end{equation}
402: where
403: \begin{equation}
404: \vert p \vert =\frac
405: {\left[(m_B^2-(m_P+m_{P'})^2)(m_B^2-(m_P-m_{P'})^2)\right]^{\frac {1}{2}}}
406: {2m_B}
407: \end{equation}
408: is the magnitude of the momentum of the particle $P$ or $P'$. The
409: corresponding branching ratio is given by
410: \begin{equation}
411: BR(B\rightarrow PP')
412: =\frac{\Gamma(B\rightarrow PP')}{\Gamma_{tot}}.
413: \end{equation}
414: The direct CP asymmetry ${\cal{A}}_{CP}$ for $B$ meson decays into $PP^{'}$
415: is defined as
416: \begin{equation}
417: {\cal{A}}_{CP}=\frac {\vert A(B\rightarrow PP') \vert ^2
418: -\vert A(\bar{B}\rightarrow \bar{P}\bar{P}')\vert ^2 }
419: {\vert A(B\rightarrow PP')\vert ^2
420: +\vert A(\bar{B}\rightarrow \bar{P}\bar{P}')\vert ^2 }~.
421: \end{equation}
422: Here we do not consider $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ mixing just for simplification.
423:
424: Because the momentum fraction distribution of the spectator quark
425: in B meson is peaked at $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_B$, we will take the distribution
426: amplitude for B meson as
427: \begin{equation}
428: \Phi_B(\xi)=\delta(\xi-\epsilon_B).
429: \end{equation}
430: $\frac{1}{\epsilon_B}$ is equal to the parameter $m_B/\lambda_B$ in
431: Ref.\cite{Beneke}. Here we take $\epsilon_B=0.05$. For simplification, we will
432: take the asymptotic form for the leading twist distribution amplitudes
433: of pion and kaon as same as Ref\cite{Beneke}:
434: \begin{equation}
435: \Phi_{\pi}(x)=6x(1-x), ~~~~\Phi_{K}(y)=6y(1-y).
436: \end{equation}
437:
438: After straightforward calculations,
439: we carry out the branching ratios and direct CP
440: asymmetries for the decays $B\rightarrow \pi \pi$ and $\pi K$ at two
441: different renormalization scales $\mu=5.0 ~GeV$ and $2.5~GeV$ which are
442: listed in Tab.2 and Tab.3 respectly. (Wilson coefficients in NDR scheme
443: \cite{Ali,ymz,buras} at two scales are listed in Tab.1.)
444: As a comparison, we also show the results with the
445: conventional factorization (BSW factorization and $N_{eff}=2$) in the
446: last two tables. In our computation, we take the Wolfenstein parameters
447: of CKM matrix as follows: $A=0.8$, $\lambda=0.22$, $\rho=-0.12$,
448: $\eta=0.34$. The corresponding decay constants and form factors are taken
449: as follows\cite{Ali}: $f_{\pi}=0.13$ GeV, $f_K=0.16$ GeV;
450: $F^{B\rightarrow\pi}(0)=0.33$ and $F^{B \rightarrow K}(0)=0.38$.
451: Quark masses are taken as: $m_b=4.8~GeV$, $m_c=1.4~GeV$ and $m_s=105~MeV$.
452:
453: From both Tab.2 and Tab.3, we find that QCD factorization enhance
454: the contributions from penguins so much that the branching ratios of
455: $B\rightarrow \pi K$ become larger nearly by a factor of 2 than the
456: estimate of the generalized factorization. It is because that the QCD
457: and QED corrections are constructive to the amplitudes with the generalized
458: factorization and they enhance the branching ratios. One also see that
459: the contributions from electroweak penguins can not be neglected in the decays
460: $B_u^- \rightarrow \pi^0 K^-$ and $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$
461: no matter with the generalized factorization or QCD factorization,
462: because the amplitudes of these two modes contain a term of the coefficient
463: $a_9$ which is large enough to compare with the coefficients of QCD penguins.
464: For the case of $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$,
465: the differences between these two factorization
466: schemes are not too apparent because that this decay mode is
467: dominated by the coefficient $a_1$. The radiative correction to $a_1$ at the
468: order of $\alpha_s$ is very small comparing with the leading order part
469: of $a_1$. This is similar to that the effective coefficient
470: $a^{eff}_1=C_1+C_2/N_{eff}$ in generalized factorization is unsensitive
471: to the variation of the phenomenological parameter $N_{eff}$. But for the
472: coefficient $a_2$, it is very different for its small leading order
473: part. So for the modes $B_u^- \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^-$ and
474: $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0$, the differences between these two
475: factorization schemes are very large.
476:
477: For the case of ${\cal{A}}_{CP}$, the differences between generalized
478: factorization and QCD factorization in the heavy quark limit are quite
479: large because in QCD factorization the imaginary parts enter the decay
480: amplitudes through hard scattering kernels contribution. Then the strong
481: phases of some $a_i$ (i=even number) dominant
482: processes may be changed very much, then CP asymmetries of these modes
483: can be dramatically large. One can see that CP asymmetries of
484: $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0$ is about 80\%,
485: but this magnificent direct CP asymmetry is very hard to observe for
486: its small branching ratio. For the modes $B \rightarrow \pi K$,
487: the CP asymmetries change much as well. In the modes of
488: $B \rightarrow\pi K$, the signs and magnitudes of
489: CP asymmetries are changed comparing with the results of the generalized
490: factorization.
491:
492:
493: The authors of Ref.\cite{Beneke} pointed out that the amplitudes
494: derived from the QCD factorization in the heavy quark limit are
495: independent of the renormalization scale physically. Numerically, we still
496: find that the dependences in our results of the branching ratios for the
497: decays $B \rightarrow \pi K$ are visible. Comparing the results at the
498: scale $\mu=5.0~GeV$ and $\mu=2.5 ~GeV$, this variation brings about
499: $\pm 20\%$ uncertainty to the estimates for the branching ratios of
500: $B \rightarrow \pi K$. As shown in Ref.\cite{Beneke} and
501: our paper, the scale dependences of the results $B \rightarrow \pi \pi$ are
502: small. In recent calculation of $\bar{B} \rightarrow D^{(\star)} \pi^-$ in
503: the heavy quark limit\cite{korea}, the scale dependences are also small.
504: Maybe for the case of pure tree or tree dominant processes, the computation
505: with the frame of the QCD factorization cancels the dependence of the
506: renormalization scale very well. But for some pure penguin or penguin
507: dominant processes, the scale dependences are visible. However, these
508: dependences are smaller than the estimates with the generalized
509: factorization.
510:
511: We also show the dependences of the branching ratios and
512: direct CP asymmetries on the weak phase
513: $\gamma=\arg V_{ub}^{\star}$ respectly in Fig.2 and Fig.3.
514: In both Fig.2 and Fig.3, the results of (a) and (b) are
515: carried out with the QCD factorization in the heavy
516: quark limit at the scale $\mu=2.5~GeV$.
517:
518: From Fig.2 and Fig3, we find that the results are in favor of the
519: experimental measurements when $90^{\circ}<\gamma<270^{\circ}$ because the
520: branching ratio of $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ becomes small and
521: the branching ratios of
522: $B_u^- \rightarrow \pi^{0} K^{-}$,
523: $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^{-} \bar{K}^{0}$ and
524: $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^{+} K^{-}$
525: are closer in that region. This is consistent with the fit for $\gamma$ of
526: CLEO and other researchers\cite{CLEO,hxg}.
527:
528: We note that our estimate of branching ratio of $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow
529: \pi^+ \pi^-$ seems larger than the experimental measurement even if we take
530: $\gamma>90^{\circ}$. And the branching ratio of
531: $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ is about 3 times smaller than the
532: central value of experimental result and unsensitive to the variation of
533: $\gamma$. Due to uncertainties
534: of the form factors $F_{+}^{B\rightarrow \pi}$ and $F_{+}^{B\rightarrow K}$,
535: we try to vary these form factors in a relevant region to make the
536: branching
537: ratio $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ smaller while that of
538: $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ is larger.
539: We find the branching ratios of $B\rightarrow \pi \pi$ and
540: $\pi K$ are rather sensitive to the form factor $F_{+}^{B\rightarrow \pi}$
541: than $F_{+}^{B\rightarrow K}$. And both of them increase with
542: $F_{+}^{B\rightarrow \pi}$. So our attempt faces a failure.
543: But now the errors in present measurements of CLEO are still large, and
544: some uncertainties remain in theoretical frame, such as, the light-cone
545: distribution amplitudes of the mesons, the heavy to light transition form
546: factors and etc. Therefore, the disagreement between our prediction and
547: the present experimental measurement is not so significant. It needs us
548: more detailed study with the improved experimental measurements and theoretical
549: approaches in future.
550:
551:
552: In conclusion, QCD factorization can give an estimate of
553: strong phases in B charmless decays from final state hard scattering.
554: This might be beneficial to extracting the weak phases from CP asymmetries
555: in B decays. But due to the theoretical uncertainties such as meson
556: light-cone distribution amplitudes and heavy to light transition form factors,
557: the prediction for branching ratios within the frame of QCD factorization
558: remains a little bit ambiguous. On the other hand, since that $m_b$ is not
559: a very large scale, maybe the corrections at the order of
560: $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ are needed. So,
561: how to develop a complete perturbative frame of heavy quark expansion in
562: heavy to light decays will be a potentially interesting and beneficial work.
563:
564: \section*{Acknowledgement}
565: We thank Dr. Z.T. Wei for helpful discussions.
566:
567: \narrowtext
568: \tighten
569:
570: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
571:
572: \bibitem{BSW}
573: M.Wirbel, B,Stech, and M.Bauwe, Z.Phys. C $\bf{29}$, 2637(1985);
574: $\bf{34}$, 103(1987).
575:
576: \bibitem{Beneke}
577: M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C.T. Sachrajda, \\
578: Phys.Rev.Lett.83:1914-1917,1999.
579:
580: \bibitem{CLEO}
581: CLEO Collaboration, Y. Kwon {\it et al.}, hep-ex/9908039; \\
582: CLEO Collaboration, D. Cronin {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0001010.
583:
584: \bibitem{fleischer}
585: R. Fleischer, Phys. Lett. B $\bf{321}$, 259 (1994);
586: Phys. Lett. B $\bf{332}$, 419 (1994); Z. Phys. C $\bf{62}$, 81 (1994).
587:
588: \bibitem{chy}
589: H.Y. Cheng, Phys.Lett.B, $\bf{335}$, 428 (1994); Phys.Lett.B, $\bf{395}$,
590: 345 (1997).
591:
592: \bibitem{Ali}
593: A. Ali, G. Kramer and C.D. Lu, Phys.Rev. D $\bf{59}$, 014005 (1999)
594: and Phys.Rev. D $\bf{58}$, 094009 (1998).
595:
596: \bibitem{ymz}
597: D.S. Du, M.Z. Yang and D.Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D $\bf{53}$, 249 (1996);
598: \\
599: D.S. Du, D.S. Yang and G.H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D $\bf{60}$, 054015 (1999).
600:
601: \bibitem{lihn}
602: Y.Y. Keum, H.N. Li and A.I. Sanda, hep-ph/0004004; hep-ph/0004173.
603:
604: \bibitem{lucd}
605: C.D. Lu, K. Ukai and M.Z. Yang, hep-ph/0004213.
606:
607: \bibitem{buras}
608: G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys.
609: $\bf{68}$, 1125 (1996).
610:
611: \bibitem{glb}
612: L.B. Guo, D.S. Du and L.S. Liu, J. Phys. G $\bf{25}$, 1-10 (1999).
613:
614: \bibitem{t3}
615: V.M. Braun and I.B. Filyanov, Z. Phys. C $\bf{48}$, 239 (1990); \\
616: V.L. Chernyak and A.R. Zhinisky, Phys. Rep. $\bf{112}$, 173 (1983).
617:
618: \bibitem{korea}
619: J. Chay, Phys.Lett.B $\bf{476}$, 339 (2000).
620:
621: %\bibitem{talk}
622: %M. Beneke, talk presented at the "International Europhysics Conference on
623: %High Energy Physics"(EPS99), CERN-TH/99-319 (hep-ph/9910505).
624:
625: \bibitem{hxg}
626: X.G. He, W.S. Hou and K.C. Yang, Phys.Rev.Lett.$\bf{83}$, 1100-1103 (1999);
627: X.G. He, C.L. Hsueh and J.Q. Shi, Phys.Rev.Lett.$\bf{84}$, 18-21 (2000).
628:
629: \end{thebibliography}
630:
631: %--------------Tab.I Wilson Coefficients
632:
633: \begin{table}
634: \vspace*{1cm}
635: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccc}
636: $~$ & $C_1$ & $C_2$ & $C_3$ & $C_4$ & $C_5$ & $C_6$ \\ \hline
637: $\mu=5.0 ~GeV$ & $1.150$ & $-0.313$ & $0.016$ & $-0.033$ & $0.009$ &
638: $-0.042$ \\ \hline
639: $\mu=2.5 ~GeV$ & $1.117$ & $-0.257$ & $0.017$ & $-0.044$ & $0.011$ &
640: $-0.056$
641: \end{tabular}
642:
643: \vspace{0.5cm}
644: \begin{tabular}{c|cccccc}
645: $~$ & $C_7$ & $C_8$ & $C_9$ & $C_{10}$ & $C_{7\gamma}$ & $C_{8G}$ \\ \hline
646: $\mu=5.0 ~GeV$ & $-2 \times 10^{-5}$ & $38 \times 10^{-5}$ & $-0.0103$ &
647: $0.0021$ & $-0.300$ & $-0.144$ \\ \hline
648: $\mu=2.5 ~GeV$ & $-1 \times 10^{-5}$ & $50\times 10^{-5}$ & $-0.010$
649: & $0.002$ & $-0.336$ & $-0.158$
650: \end{tabular}
651: \vspace{0.5cm}
652:
653: \caption{Wilson coefficients in NDR scheme}
654:
655: \end{table}
656:
657: %---------------------------------Tab.II Br. & Acp at 5.0GeV
658: \begin{table}
659:
660: \vspace*{1cm}
661:
662: \begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
663: $\mu=5.0~GeV$ &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Branching~ Ratios} &
664: \multicolumn{2}{c}{CP~Asymmetries} \\
665: Decay Modes & Generalized FA & QCD FA& Generalized
666: FA & QCD FA\\\hline
667: $B_u^{-}\rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^{-}$ & $6.33(6.71)$ & $4.30(4.60)$ &
668: $-0.1(0)$ & $0(0)$ \\
669: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ & $7.36(7.45)$ & $7.93(7.97)$ &
670: $2.4(2.5)$ & $-3.2(-3.6)$ \\
671: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0$ & $0.38(0.49)$ & $0.14(0.21)$ &
672: $-7.5(-5.7)$ & $78.4(64.7)$ \\
673: \hline
674: $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^0 K^{-}$& $6.00(3.81)$ & $10.2(7.10)$ &
675: $-4.5(-7.1)$ & $4.1(5.7)$ \\
676: $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^{-} \bar{K}^0$& $5.50(5.81)$ & $12.3(11.1)$ &
677: $-0.1(-0.1)$ & $0.4(0.4)$
678: \\
679: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^{+} K^{-}$ & $7.80(7.01)$ & $15.0(13.9)$ &
680: $-5.4(-6.1)$ & $2.4(3.0)$\\
681: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ & $1.47(2.7)$ & $3.90(5.20)$ &
682: $3.8(4.0)$ & $-3.2(-2.8)$
683: \end{tabular}
684: \vspace*{0.5cm}
685: \caption{In this table, branching ratios are in the unit of $10^{-6}$ and CP
686: asymmetries are in the unit of one percent.
687: And the values in the brackets are the results without considering the
688: contributions of EW penguins.}
689:
690: \end{table}
691:
692: %----------------------Tab.III Br & Acp at 2.5 GeV
693:
694: \begin{table}
695:
696: \begin{tabular}{l|cccc}
697: $\mu=2.5~GeV$ &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Branching~ Ratios} &
698: \multicolumn{2}{c}{CP~Asymmetries} \\
699: Decay Modes & Generalized FA & QCD FA & Generalized
700: FA &QCD FA \\\hline
701: $B_u^{-}\rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^{-}$ & $6.07(7.08)$ & $4.41(4.65)$ &
702: $-0.1(0)$ & $0(0)$ \\
703: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^{+} \pi^{-}$ & $6.94(7.02)$ & $7.54(7.50)$ &
704: $2.8(2.8)$ & $-3.2(-3.8)$ \\
705: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^0$ & $0.63(0.77)$ & $0.26(0.37)$ &
706: $-5.4(-4.4)$ & $73.4(61.1)$ \\
707: \hline
708: $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^0 K^{-}$& $8.50(5.89)$ & $11.9(9.30)$ &
709: $-3.2(-4.7)$ & $4.3(5.3)$ \\
710: $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^{-} \bar{K}^0$& $9.08(9.44)$ & $15.2(15.1)$ &
711: $-0.1(-0.1)$ & $0.4(0.4)$
712: \\
713: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^{+} K^{-}$ & $11.90(11.07)$ & $17.9(18.1)$ &
714: $-3.5(-3.9)$ & $1.9(2.2)$\\
715: $\bar{B}^0_d \rightarrow \pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ & $2.78(4.41)$ & $5.00(7.00)$ &
716: $2.2(1.3)$ & $-3.8(-3.2)$\
717: \end{tabular}
718: \vspace*{0.5cm}
719: \caption{In this table, branching ratios are in the unit of $10^{-6}$ and CP
720: asymmetries are in the unit of one percent.
721: And the values in the brackets are the results without considering the
722: contributions of EW penguins.}
723:
724: \end{table}
725:
726: %---------------Fig.1
727:
728: \begin{figure}[tb]
729: \vspace*{1cm}
730: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=combine.eps,height=6cm,width=15cm,angle=0}}
731: \vspace*{1.cm}
732: \caption{Order of $\alpha_s$ corrections to hard-scattering kernels $T^I$
733: and $T^{II}$. The upward quark lines represent the ejected quark pairs
734: from b quark weak decays.}
735: \end{figure}
736:
737:
738: %------------Fig.2
739: \begin{figure}[htb]
740: \vspace*{2cm}
741: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=Brpipi.eps,height=5cm,width=8cm,angle=0}
742: \epsfig{figure=Brpik.eps,height=5cm,width=8cm,angle=0}}
743: \centerline{(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(b)}
744: \vspace*{1cm}
745: \caption{
746: $Br(B \rightarrow \pi \pi) \times 10^{6}$ vs.
747: $\gamma=\arg{V^{\star}_{ub}}$ (Fig1.(a)) and
748: $Br(B \rightarrow \pi K) \times 10^6$ vs. $\gamma$ (Fig.(b)).
749: In Fig.(a), solid, dashed curves are for
750: $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_u^-\rightarrow \pi^0 \pi^-$
751: respectly;
752: in Fig.(b), solid, dashed, dotted and
753: dot-dashed curves are for $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^{0} K^{-}$,
754: $\pi^{-} \bar{K}^0$ and $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^{+} K^{-}$,
755: $\pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ respectly.}
756:
757: \end{figure}
758:
759: %--------------Fig.3
760:
761: \begin{figure}[htb]
762: \vspace*{2cm}
763: \centerline{\epsfig{figure=cppipi.eps,height=5cm,width=8cm,angle=0}
764: \epsfig{figure=cppik.eps,height=5cm,width=8cm,angle=0}}
765: \centerline{(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(b)}
766: \vspace*{1cm}
767: \caption{$A_{CP}(B \rightarrow \pi \pi) \times 10^{2}$ vs.
768: $\gamma=\arg{V^{\star}_{ub}}$ (Fig1.(a)) and $A_{CP}(B \rightarrow \pi K)
769: \times 10^2$ vs. $\gamma$ (Fig.(b)).
770: In Fig.(a), solid, dashed curves are
771: for $\bar{B}_d^0 \rightarrow \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_u^-\rightarrow \pi^0
772: \pi^-$ respectly;
773: in Fig.(b), solid, dashed, dotted and dot-dashed curves are for
774: $B_u^{-} \rightarrow \pi^{0} K^{-}$, $\pi^{-} \bar{K}^0$ and $\bar{B}_d^0
775: \rightarrow \pi^{+} K^{-}$, $\pi^0 \bar{K}^0$ respectly.}
776: \end{figure}
777:
778: \end{document}
779:
780:
781:
782: