1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%
3: %% ws-p10x7.tex : 07-12-98 ver. 1.0.
4: %% This Latex2e file rewritten by R. Sankaran from various sources for use
5: %% in the preparation of the two-column proceedings volume, for trim
6: %% size [10x7] to be published by World Scientific by with acknowledgements
7: %% to Susan Hezlet and Lukas Nellen.
8: %%
9: %% Please forward modifications required and comments to:rsanka@wspc.com.sg
10: %%
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: %%
13: %
14: \documentclass{ws-p10x7}
15:
16:
17: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.0}
18: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
20: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
21: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
22: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
23: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
24: \newcommand{\dis}{\displaystyle}
25: \newcommand{\cL}{{\cal L}}
26: \newcommand{\cH}{{\cal H}}
27: \newcommand{\cD}{{\cal D}}
28: \newcommand{\cA}{{\cal A}}
29: \newcommand{\cO}{{\cal O}}
30: \newcommand{\cM}{{\cal M}}
31: \newcommand{\Br}{{\cal B}}
32: \newcommand{\da}{^\dagger}
33: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
34: \newcommand{\lsim}{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}
35: \newcommand{\gsim}{\stackrel{>}{_\sim}}
36: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
37: \newcommand{\epsp}{\varepsilon'}
38: \newcommand{\tq}{{\tilde q}}
39: \newcommand{\tl}{{\tilde l}}
40: \newcommand{\td}{{\tilde d}}
41: \newcommand{\tu}{{\tilde u}}
42: \newcommand{\tg}{{\tilde g}}
43: \newcommand{\ts}{{\tilde s}}
44: \newcommand{\ttop}{{\tilde t}}
45: \newcommand{\susy}{{\rm SUSY}}
46: \newcommand{\SM}{{\rm SM}}
47: \newcommand{\op}{Q}
48: \newcommand{\pk}{p_{_K}}
49: \newcommand{\Ks}{{K^*}}
50: \newcommand{\cne}{C_9^{\rm eff}}
51: \renewcommand{\Im}{{\rm Im}}
52: \renewcommand{\Re}{{\rm Re}}
53: \newcommand{\ct}{C_{10}}
54:
55: %---------------- abbreviated journal names ------------------------
56:
57: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
58: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
59: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B #1}, #3 (#2)}
60: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B #1}, #3 (#2)}
61: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D #1}, #3 (#2)}
62: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
63: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
64: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
65: \def\ppnp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
66: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
67: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Zeit. f{\"u}r Physik }{\bf C #1}, #3 (#2)}
68: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A #1}, #3 (#2)}
69: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
70: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
71: \def\nc#1#2#3{ {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
72: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{ {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
73: \def\epjc#1#2#3{ {\it Eur. Phys. J. }{\bf C #1}, #3 (#2)}
74: \def\ibid#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
75: \def\jhep#1#2#3{ {\it JHEP }{\bf #1}, #3 (#2)}
76:
77: %----------------- Gudrun's abbreviations --------------------------
78:
79: \def\o{{\cal O}}
80: \def\c{{C}}
81: \def\cs{{\c_7}}
82: \def\cn{{\c_9}}
83: \def\cse{\cs^{\rm eff}}
84: \def\sh{\hat{s}}
85: \def\mh{\hat{m}}
86: \def\mvh{\mh_{K^*}}
87: \def\mxh{\mh_X}
88: \def\mlh{\mh_\ell}
89: \def\uh{{\hat{u}}}
90:
91:
92:
93: \begin{document}
94:
95: \title{$Z$ penguins and rare B decays}
96:
97: \author{Gino Isidori}
98:
99: \address{INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati,
100: I-00044 Frascati, Italy \\E-mail: isidori@lnf.infn.it}
101: %
102: %\author{ + Gudrun \& Gerhard ?}
103: %
104: %\address{ (CERN \& SLAC) }
105: %
106:
107: \twocolumn[\maketitle\abstract{
108: Rare $B$ decays of the type $b \to s~\ell^+\ell^-(\nu\bar\nu)$
109: are analyzed in a generic scenario where New Physics effects
110: enter predominantly via $Z$ penguin contributions. We show that
111: this possibility is both phenomenologically allowed and
112: well motivated on theoretical grounds.
113: The important role played in this context
114: by the lepton forward-backward
115: asymmetry in $B\to K^*\ell^+\ell^-$ is emphasized.
116: }]
117:
118: \section{Introduction}
119:
120: Flavour-changing neutral-current (FCNC) processes provide a powerful tool in
121: searching for clues about non-standard flavour dynamics. Being generated only at the
122: quantum level and being additionally suppressed, within the Standard Model (SM),
123: by the smallness of the off-diagonal entries of the
124: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix,\cite{CKM}
125: their observation is very challenging. This suppression, however,
126: ensures a large sensitivity to possible non-standard effects,
127: even if these occur at very high energy scales,
128: rendering their experimental search highly valuable.
129:
130: In the present talk we focus on a specific class of non-standard
131: $\Delta B=1$ FCNC transitions: those mediated by
132: the $Z$-boson exchange and contributing to rare $B$ decays
133: of the type $b \to s~\ell^+\ell^-(\nu\bar\nu)$.
134: As we shall show, these
135: are particularly interesting for two main reasons:
136: i) there are no stringent experimental bounds
137: on these transitions yet;
138: ii) it is quite natural to conceive extensions of
139: the SM where the $Z$-mediated FCNC amplitudes
140: are substantially modified, even taking into
141: account the present constraints on $\Delta B=2$
142: and $b \to s\gamma$ processes.
143:
144:
145: In a generic extension of the Standard Model where new
146: particles appear only above some high scale $M_X > M_Z$,
147: we can integrate out the new degrees of freedom and generate
148: a series of local FCNC operators already at the electroweak scale.
149: Those relevant for $b \to s~\ell^+\ell^- (\nu\bar{\nu})$
150: transitions can be divided into three wide classes:
151: generic dimension-six operators, magnetic penguins and
152: FCNC couplings of the $Z$ boson.\cite{BHI}
153: The latter are dimension-four operators of the type
154: $\bar{b}_{L(R)} \gamma^\mu s_{L(R)} Z_\mu$, that we are allowed to
155: consider due to the spontaneous breaking of $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$.
156: Their coefficients must be proportional to some symmetry-breaking
157: term but do not need to contain any explicit $1/M_X$ suppression
158: for dimensional reasons,
159: contrary to the case of dimension-six operators and magnetic penguins.
160: This naive argument seems to suggest that
161: FCNC couplings of the $Z$ boson are particularly
162: interesting and worth to be studied independently of the other effects.
163: It should be noticed that the requirement of naturalness in the size of
164: the $SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ breaking terms implies that also
165: the adimensional couplings of the
166: non-standard $Z$-mediated FCNC amplitudes must vanish
167: in the limit $M_X/M_Z \to \infty$. Nonetheless, as we will illustrate
168: below with an explicit example,
169: the above naive dimensional argument remains a strong indication
170: of an independent behaviour of these couplings with respect
171: to the other FCNC amplitudes.
172:
173: \section{FCNC $Z$ penguins in generic SUSY models}
174: An explicit example where the largest deviations from the
175: SM, in the sector of FCNC, are generated by the $Z$ boson exchange
176: can be realized within supersymmetric models
177: with generic flavour couplings. Within this context,
178: assuming $R$ parity conservation and
179: minimal particle content, FCNC amplitudes
180: involving external quark fields turn out to
181: be generated only at the quantum level.
182: Moreover, assuming the natural
183: link between trilinear soft-breaking terms
184: and Yukawa couplings, sizable $SU(2)_L$- and flavour-breaking
185: effects can be expected in the up sector due
186: to the large Yukawa coupling of the third generation.
187: Thus the potentially dominant non-SM effects
188: in the effective $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex turn out to be
189: generated by chargino-up-squarks loops
190: and have a pure left-handed structure,
191: like in the SM.\cite{LMSS}
192:
193: Similarly to the $Z\bar{s}d$ case,\cite{CI}
194: the first non-vanishing contribution appears
195: to the second order in a simultaneous expansion of
196: chargino and squark mass matrices in the basis of
197: electroweak eigenstates. The potentially
198: largest effect arises when the necessary $SU(2)_L$ breaking
199: ($\Delta I_W =1$) is equally shared by the
200: $ \ttop_R -\tu^{s}_L $ mixing
201: and by the chargino-higgsino mixing,
202: carrying both $\Delta I_W =1/2$.
203: For a numerical evaluation,
204: normalizing the SUSY result to the SM one
205: (evaluated in the 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge) and varying
206: the parameters in the allowed ranges, leads to:\cite{BHI,LMSS}
207: \beqa
208: \left| \frac{ Z_{sb}^{\rm SUSY} }{ Z_{sb}^{\rm SM} } \right|
209: &\lsim& \frac{ 0.1}{|V_{ts}|} \left| \frac{( M^2_{\tilde U})_{t_R s_L} }{ M^2_{\tu_L} } \right|
210: \left( {M_W \over M_2} \right) \no \\
211: &=& 2.5 \left| (\delta^U_{RL})_{32} \right| \left( {M_W \over M_2} \right)~.
212: \label{eq:Zsusynum}
213: \eeqa
214: The coupling $(\delta^U_{RL})_{32}$, which represents the analog of the
215: CKM factor $V_{ts}$ in the SM case, is not very constrained
216: at present and can be of $\cO(1)$
217: with an arbitrary $CP$-violating phase.
218: Note, however, that vacuum stability bounds\cite{Casas}
219: imply $| (\delta^U_{RL})_{32} | \lsim \sqrt{3} m_t/M_S$, where
220: $M_S$ denotes the generic scale of sparticle masses.
221: Therefore the SUSY contribution to the $Z$ penguin decouples
222: as $(M_Z/M_S)^2$ in the limit $M_S/M_Z \to \infty$.
223:
224: As it can be checked by the detailed analysis of
225: Lunghi {\it et al.},\cite{LMSS}
226: in the interesting scenario where the left-right
227: mixing of up-type squarks is the only non-standard
228: source of flavour mixing, $Z$ penguins
229: are largely dominant with respect to other supersymmetric
230: contributions to $b\to s~\ell^+\ell^-$.
231: Indeed, due to the different $SU(2)_L$ structure,
232: the $\ttop_R -\tu^{s}_L $ mixing contributes to magnetic penguins
233: only to the third order in the mass expansion discussed above.
234: Therefore in this scenario the magnetic-penguin contribution to
235: $b\to s~\ell^+\ell^-$ is additionally suppressed by $M_Z/M_S$
236: with respect to the $Z$-penguin one.
237: Similarly, in the case of box diagrams the $\ttop_R -\tu^{s}_L $ mixing
238: alone leads to a contribution that decouples like $M^4_Z/M^4_S$.
239: %
240: %appears with a further suppression of $M^2_Z/M^2_S$.
241: %
242:
243: \section{Experimental bounds on the $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex}
244: An extended discussion of other non-standard scenarios
245: where large deviations form the SM occur in the
246: $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex can be found elsewhere.\cite{BHI}
247: We proceed here analyzing the experimental information
248: on this FCNC amplitude in a model-independent way.
249:
250: The dimension-four effective FCNC couplings of the $Z$ boson
251: relevant for $b\to s$ transitions can be
252: described by means of the following effective Lagrangian
253: \beqa
254: \label{eq:Zsb}
255: && \cL^{Z}_{FC} = \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{e}{ \pi^2} M_Z^2
256: \frac{\cos \Theta_W}{\sin \Theta_W} Z^\mu \no\\
257: && \times \left(
258: Z^L_{sb}~\bar b_L \gamma_\mu s_L
259: + Z^R_{sb}~\bar b_R \gamma_\mu s_R \right) \,+\, {\rm h.c.}, \quad\
260: \eeqa
261: where $Z^{L,R}_{sb}$ are complex couplings.
262: Evaluated in the 't~Hooft-Feynman gauge,
263: the SM contribution to $Z^{L,R}_{sb}$ is given by
264: \beq
265: \label{eq:SMZsb}
266: Z^R_{sb}\vert_{\rm SM} = 0~,\ \
267: Z^L_{sb}\vert_{\rm SM} = V_{tb}^* V_{ts} C_0(x_t)~,
268: \eeq
269: where $x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2$ and $C_0(x)$ is a loop
270: function\cite{IL,BBL} of $O(1)$.
271: Although $Z^{L}_{sb}\vert_{\rm SM}$ is not gauge invariant, we recall
272: that the leading contribution to both $b \to s~\ell^+\ell^- $ and
273: $b \to s~\nu\bar\nu $ amplitudes in the limit $x_t \to \infty$
274: is gauge independent and is generated by the
275: large $x_t$ limit of $Z^{L}_{sb}\vert_{\rm SM}$
276: ($C_0(x_t) \to x_t/8$ for $x_t\to\infty$).
277:
278: Constraints on $|Z^{L,R}_{sb}|$ can be obtained from the experimental
279: upper bounds on exclusive and inclusive $b \to s~\ell^+\ell^- (\nu\bar\nu)$
280: transitions. The latter are certainly more clean form the theoretical
281: point of view (especially the $b \to s~\nu\bar\nu$ one\cite{GLN}) although
282: their experimental determination is quite difficult. At present the
283: most significant information from exclusive decays is given by\cite{CLEO}
284: $\Br(B\to X_s \ell^+ \ell^- ) < 4.2 \times 10^{-5}$
285: and leads to\cite{BHI}
286: \beq
287: \left( \left| Z^L_{sb} \right|^2 + \left| Z^R_{sb} \right|^2 \right)^{1/2}
288: \lsim 0.15~.
289: \label{eq:Zsblim}
290: \eeq
291: Within exclusive channels the most stringent information
292: can be extracted from $B\to K^* \mu^+\mu^-$, where the
293: experimental upper bound\cite{CDF} on the non-resonant branching
294: ratio ($\Br^{\rm n.r.} < 4.0 \times 10^{-6}$) lies only about
295: a factor two above the SM expectation.\cite{ABHH99}
296: Taking into account the uncertainties on the hadronic form
297: factors, this implies\cite{BHI}
298: \beq
299: \label{eq:ZsblimCDFLR}
300: \left| Z^{L,R}_{bs} \right| \lsim 0.13~.
301: \eeq
302:
303: Additional constraints on the $ Z^{L,R}_{bs}$ couplings
304: could in principle be obtained by the direct limits
305: on $\Br(Z\to b \bar s)$ and by $B_s- \bar B_s$ mixing,
306: but in both cases these are not very significant.
307:
308: Interestingly the bounds (\ref{eq:Zsblim}-\ref{eq:ZsblimCDFLR})
309: leave open the possibility of large deviations from
310: the SM expectation in (\ref{eq:SMZsb}).
311: In the optimistic case where $Z^L_{bs}$
312: or $Z^R_{bs}$ were close to saturate these bound, we
313: would be able to detect the presence of non-standard
314: dynamics already by observing sizable rate enhancements
315: in the exclusive modes. In processes like
316: $B\to K^* \ell^+ \ell^-$ and $B\to K \ell^+ \ell^-$,
317: where the standard photon-penguin diagrams provide a
318: large contribution, the enhancement could be at most of a factor 2-3.
319: On the other hand, in processes like
320: $B\to K^* \nu \bar{\nu}$, $B\to K \nu \bar{\nu}$
321: and $B_s \to \ell^+ \ell^-$, where the photon-exchange
322: amplitude is forbidden, the maximal enhancement could reach a
323: factor 10.
324:
325: \section{Forward-backward asymmetry in
326: $B\to K^*\mu^+\mu^-$}
327: If the new physics effects do not produce sizable
328: deviations in the magnitude of the
329: $b \to Z^* s$ transition, it will be hard to
330: detect them from rate measurements,
331: especially in exclusive channels.
332: A much more interesting observable in this respect
333: is provided by the forward-backward (FB) asymmetry of the
334: emitted leptons, also within exclusive modes.
335: In the $\bar B\to \bar K^* \mu^+\mu^-$ case this is defined as
336: \beqa
337: && \cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s)=\frac{1}{d\Gamma(\bar B\to \bar K^* \mu^+\mu^- )/ds}
338: \int_{-1}^1 \!\!\! d\cos\theta
339: \no\\
340: &&
341: \label{eq:asdef} \qquad
342: \frac{d^2 \Gamma(\bar B\to \bar K^* \mu^+\mu^- )}{d s~ d\cos\theta}
343: \mbox{sgn}(\cos\theta)~,
344: \eeqa
345: where $ s =m_{\mu^+\mu^-}^2/m_B^2$ and
346: $\theta$ is the angle between the momenta of
347: $\mu^+$ and $\bar B$ in the dilepton center-of-mass frame.
348: Assuming that the leptonic current has only a
349: vector ($V$) or axial-vector ($A$) structure, then the
350: FB asymmetry provides a direct measure of
351: the $A$-$V$ interference.
352: Since the vector current is largely dominated by
353: the photon-exchange amplitude and the axial one is
354: very sensitive to the $Z$ exchange,
355: $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}$ and $\cA^{(B)}_{FB}$
356: provide an excellent tool
357: to probe the $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex.
358:
359: Employing the usual notations for the Wilson coefficients of the
360: SM effective Hamiltonian relevant to $b\to s~\ell^+\ell^-$
361: transitions,\cite{BBL} $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s)$ turns out to be
362: proportional to\footnote{~To simplify the notations we have
363: introduced the parameter $\cne(s)$ that is not a Wilson
364: coefficient but it can be identified with $C_9$ at the
365: leading-log level.\cite{BHI}}
366: \beq
367: {\rm Re}\left\{ \ct^* \left[ s~\cne(s)
368: + \alpha_+(s) \frac{m_b C_7}{m_B} \right] \right\},
369: \label{eq:dfbabvllex}
370: \eeq
371: where $\alpha_+(s)$ is an appropriate ratio
372: of hadronic form factors.\cite{BHI,burdman0}
373: The overall factor ruling the magnitude of $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s)$
374: is affected by sizable theoretical
375: uncertainties. Nonetheless there are at least
376: three features of this observable
377: that provide a clear short-distance information:
378:
379: i) Within the SM $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s)$ has a zero
380: in the low $s$ region ($s_0|_{\rm SM} \sim 0.1$).\cite{burdman0}
381: The exact position of $s_0$ is not free from
382: hadronic uncertainties at the $10\%$ level,
383: nonetheless the existence of the zero itself is
384: a clear test of the relative sign between
385: $C_7$ and $C_9$. The position of $s_0$ is
386: essentially unaffected by possible
387: new physics effects in the $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex.
388:
389:
390: \begin{figure}
391: \centerline{\epsfysize=2.5in{\epsffile{afbrightmuSD.ps}}}
392: \caption{ \it FB asymmetry of
393: $\bar B\to \bar K^* \mu^+\mu^-$ within the SM.
394: The solid (dotted) curves have been
395: obtained employing the Krueger-Sehgal\protect\cite{ks96} approach
396: (using the perturbative end-point effective
397: Hamiltonian\protect\cite{BHI}).
398: The dashed lines show the effect of varying the
399: renormalization scale of the Wilson Coefficients
400: between $m_b/2$ and $2 m_b$,
401: within the Krueger-Sehgal approach. }
402: \label{fig:AFB}
403: \end{figure}
404:
405: ii) The sign of $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s)$ around the zero
406: is fixed unambiguously in terms of the relative sign
407: of $C_{10}$ and $C_9$:\cite{BHI} within the SM one
408: expects $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s) > 0$ for $s>s_0$,
409: as in Fig.~\ref{fig:AFB}.
410: This prediction is based on a model-independent
411: relation among the form factors\cite{LEET}
412: that has been overlooked in most of the recent
413: literature. Interestingly, the sign of $C_{10}$
414: could change in presence of a non-standard
415: $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex leading to a striking signal
416: of new physics in $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s)$,
417: even if the rate of $\bar B \to \bar K^* \ell^+\ell^-$
418: was close to its SM value.
419:
420: iii) In the limit of $CP$ conservation one expects
421: $\cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s) = - \cA^{(B)}_{FB}(s)$.
422: This holds at the per-mille level within the
423: SM, where $C_{10}$ has a negligible $CP$-violating phase,
424: but again it could be different in presence
425: of new physics in the $Z\bar{b}s$ vertex.
426: In this case
427: the ratio $[ \cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s) + \cA^{(B)}_{FB}(s)]/
428: [ \cA^{(\bar B)}_{FB}(s) - \cA^{(B)}_{FB}(s)]$
429: could be different from zero, for $s$ above the charm threshold,
430: reaching the $10\%$ level in realistic models.\cite{BHI}
431:
432:
433: \section*{Acknowledgements}
434: I am grateful to G. Buchalla and G. Hiller for the
435: enjoyable collaboration on this subject.
436: % and useful comments on the manuscript.
437:
438: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
439: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
440: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
441: % SPIRES CITATION FORMAT
442: %-------------------------------------------------------------------
443:
444: \bibitem{CKM}
445: N. Cabibbo, \prl{10}{63}{531};
446: %%CITATION = PRLTA,10,531;%%
447: M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, \ptp{49}{73}{652}.
448: %%CITATION = PTPKA,49,652;%%
449: \bibitem{BHI}
450: G. Buchalla, G. Hiller, G. Isidori, hep-ph/0006136.
451: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006136;%%
452: \bibitem{LMSS}
453: E. Lunghi, A. Masiero, I. Scimemi and L. Silvestrini, \npb{568}{2000}{120};
454: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906286;%%
455: E. Lunghi and I. Scimemi, \npb{574}{2000}{43}.
456: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912430;%%
457: \bibitem{CI}
458: G. Colangelo and G. Isidori, \jhep{09}{1998}{009}.
459: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808487;%%
460: \bibitem{Casas}
461: J.A. Casas and S. Dimopoulos, \plb{387}{96}{107}.
462: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9606237;%%
463: \bibitem{IL}
464: T. Inami and C.S. Lim, \ptp{65}{81}{297}.
465: %%CITATION = PTPKA,65,297;%%
466: \bibitem{BBL}
467: G. Buchalla, A.J. Buras and M.E. Lautenbacher, \rmp{68}{1996}{1125}.
468: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9512380;%%
469: \bibitem{GLN}
470: Y. Grossman, Z. Ligeti and E. Nardi, \npb{465}{1996}{369};
471: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9510378;%%
472: G. Buchalla, G. Isidori and S.J. Rey, \npb{511}{1998}{594}.
473: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705253;%%
474: % \bibitem{BI}
475: % G. Buchalla and G. Isidori, \npb{525}{1998}{333}.
476: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9801456;%%
477: \bibitem{CLEO}
478: S. Glenn {\it et al.} (CLEO Collaboration), \prl{80}{1998}{2289}.
479: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9710003;%%
480: \bibitem{CDF}
481: T. Affolder {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), \prl{83}{1999}{3378}.
482: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9905004;%%
483: \bibitem{ABHH99}
484: A. Ali, P. Ball, L.T. Handoko and G. Hiller, \prd{61}{2000}{074024}.
485: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910221;%%
486: \bibitem{burdman0}
487: G. Burdman, \prd{57}{1998}{4254}.
488: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710550;%%
489: \bibitem{LEET}
490: J. Charles {\it et.al.}, \prd{60}{1999}{014001}.
491: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812358;%%
492: \bibitem{ks96}
493: F. Kr{\"u}ger and L.M.\ Sehgal, \plb{380}{1996}{199}.
494: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603237;%%
495:
496: \end{thebibliography}
497: \end{document}
498:
499:
500:
501:
502:
503: