1: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{article}
2: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
3: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
4: \def \bo{B^0}
5: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
6: \def \dz{D^0}
7: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
8: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
9: \def \epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
10: \def \hp{\hat{p}}
11: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
12: \def \ko{K^0}
13: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
14: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
15: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
16: \def \of{\overline{f}}
17: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
18: \def \ot{\overline{t}}
19: \def \pr{\parallel}
20: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
21: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
22: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
23: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
24: \begin{document}
25: %
26: \begin{titlepage}
27:
28: \large
29: \centerline {\bf Factorization vs. Flavor SU(3) in Charmless $B$ Decays
30: \footnote{ Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 2000-41, hep-ph/0011183.
31: To be published in Proceedings of Beauty 2000, Kibbutz Maagan, Israel,
32: September 13--18, 2000, edited by S. Erhan, Y. Rozen, and P. E. Schlein,
33: Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth. A, 2001.}}
34: \normalsize
35:
36: \vskip 2.0cm
37: \centerline {Jonathan L. Rosner~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}
38: \centerline {\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
39: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
40: \vskip 4.0cm
41:
42: \centerline {\bf Abstract}
43: \vskip 1.0cm
44: Two types of predictions for charmless $B$ decays are compared.
45: One involves estimates based on factorization and models for form
46: factors, while the other involves the use of flavor SU(3), sometimes
47: with assumptions about the smallness of certain amplitudes.
48: After a comparison of some factorization
49: predictions with recent data, specific decays of $B$ mesons to two charmless
50: mesons are discussed.
51: \bigskip
52:
53: \noindent
54: PACS Categories: 13.25.Hw, 14.409.Nd, 14.65.Fy, 12.39.Hg
55:
56: \vfill
57: \end{titlepage}
58:
59: \newpage
60: \section{Introduction}
61:
62: The weak decays of hadrons are simpler when the weak current couples to a
63: lepton pair than when it couples to a hadron, which
64: can re-interact with the rest of the system.
65: However, the effects of this re-interaction in some cases can be
66: neglected or evaluated, permitting the calculation of the decay rate
67: and individual helicity amplitudes. In such cases one is employing the {\it
68: factorization hypothesis}. An early version of this hypothesis \cite{BJ}
69: has recently been justified for certain classes of decays \cite{BBNS}.
70:
71: We shall contrast applications of factorization,
72: which often require models for form
73: factors, with a more general approach based on flavor SU(3) in which data
74: are used to evaluate a set of reduced matrix elements but no assumptions are
75: made about form factors.
76: We review in Section 2 some successes of factorization in
77: final states containing a {\it heavy} meson. Present data are compared
78: with early predictions \cite{JRFM}, and found
79: consistent with them. The successful predictions involve
80: {\it color-favored} cases, in which
81: weak currents couple to a quark pair ending up in the same meson.
82: By contrast, when the weak current produces a pair of quarks which end up in
83: {\it different} mesons ({\it color-suppressed} processes),
84: as well as for penguin diagrams, we shall question the applicability
85: of factorization.
86:
87: We compare factorization and flavor SU(3) for $B$ meson decays
88: to charmless final states: $B \to PP$ in Section 3 and $B \to PV$ in Section
89: 4, where $P$ is a light pseudoscalar
90: meson ($\pi$, $K$, $\eta$, or $\eta'$) and $V$ is a light vector meson ($\rho$,
91: $\omega$, $K^*$, or $\phi$).
92: For $B \to PP$ we discuss the possible origin of the small $B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
93: branching ratio. We then mention recent applications of flavor SU(3) to
94: $B \to PP$ decays, and remark upon the large branching ratios for the decays
95: $B \to K \eta'$. For $B \to PV$ we compare an updated
96: flavor-SU(3) analysis \cite{GRPV} with others more
97: dependent upon factorization and explicit form factors
98: \cite{He,Hou,Xiao,Cheng,CYYY}. We conclude in Section 5.
99:
100: \section{Some successes of factorization}
101:
102: \subsection{Semileptonic decays}
103:
104: {\it Semileptonic} $b \to \ell \nu u$ or $b \to \ell \nu c$ decays
105: are tractable for several reasons.
106: (1) The weak current is a color singlet, so its effect
107: ``factorizes.'' The leptons to which it couples can be treated in isolation
108: from the rest of the problem. (2) When both the initial
109: and final hadrons are heavy, the decays are characterized by a single universal
110: (``Isgur-Wise'') form factor \cite{IW}. (3) The form factors are
111: measurable via the effective mass distribution
112: of the lepton pair and the angular distributions of the decay products.
113:
114: \subsection{Nonleptonic decays}
115:
116: {\it Nonleptonic} decays involve
117: final-state interactions between the hadronic systems comprising
118: the two interacting weak currents. The corresponding form factors are not
119: always measurable. Nevertheless, in some cases these
120: nonleptonic decays can be treated by a factorization hypothesis.
121:
122: \underline{Color-favored nonleptonic decays} of a $\bar b q$ meson
123: involve such subprocesses as
124: $\bar b \to \pi^+ \bar c$ or $\bar b \to \pi^+ \bar u$. The coupling of
125: the weak current to the $\pi^+$ (or another light meson)
126: is described by a directly-measurable decay constant,
127: while the amplitude for the $\bar c$ or $\bar u$ quark to form a
128: hadron with the spectator quark $q$ is described by one or more measurable
129: form factors. The interaction of the light meson with the rest of the
130: system is an effect of order $\Lambda_{QCD}/m_b$ and may be neglected for a
131: lowest-order estimate; a framework for calculating corrections has
132: recently been established \cite{BBNS}.
133:
134: \underline{Color-favored decays with current coupling to heavy mesons}
135: satisfy factorization (at least for $D_s$ and $D_s^*$ production), though
136: there is no corresponding theoretical justification. In contrast to the
137: case in which the weak current produces a light meson, the heavy meson
138: produced by the weak current does not escape the interaction rapidly enough to
139: avoid significant interaction with the rest of the system \cite{BJ,BBNS}.
140:
141: \underline{Color-suppressed or penguin amplitudes} are not of leading
142: order in $1/N_c$, where $N_c$ is the number of quark colors, or involve the
143: application of perturbative QCD under questionable circumstances. The
144: corresponding factorization predictions for helicity amplitudes are not
145: obeyed, and the corresponding form factors are not directly measurable since
146: they involve an effective flavor-changing neutral current.
147:
148: \subsection{Application to $D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ and $D^{(*)} \pi$ decays}
149:
150: The decays $B \to \bar D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ and $B \to \bar D^{(*)} \pi$
151: involve a universal \cite{IW} form factor which is a function of the
152: dimensionless variable $z^2 \equiv (v - v')^2$, where $v$ and $v'$ are the
153: four-velocities of the initial and final heavy meson. [One often speaks of the
154: variable $w = v \cdot v'$, related to $z$ by $z^2 = 2(1-w)$.]
155: Defining the four-momentum of the lepton pair or hadron to which the weak
156: current couples as $q$, and the dimensionless variable $y = q^2/m_B^2$, we can
157: write, adopting a single-pole \cite{JRFM} universal form factor:
158: \beq \label{eqn:ff}
159: z^2 = \frac{q^2 - (m_B - m_D)^2}{m_B m_D}~~,~~~
160: \frac{d \Gamma(B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu)}
161: {d y} \sim \frac{{\rm kinem.~factor}}{[1 - (z^2/z_0^2)]^2}~~~,
162: \eeq
163: where $z_0$ is related to the slope
164: parameter $\rho^2$ (see, e.g., \cite{COV}) by $\rho^2 = 2/z_0^2$.
165:
166: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:D} we plot some predictions \cite{JRFM} of rates for $B
167: \to \bar D^{(*)} \ell \nu$ and $B \to \bar D^{(*)} \pi$ decays as a
168: function of $\rho^2$. Horizontal bands denote $\pm 1 \sigma$
169: error bars based on present averages \cite{PDG}. The corresponding vertical
170: bands are consistent with a value of $\rho^2$ around 2 or $z_0$ around 1,
171: not far from the value $z_0 = 1.12 \pm 0.17$ found in Ref.\ \cite{JRFM}
172: (where the variable we now call $z$ was denoted by $w$). Also shown is a
173: recent branching ratio, ${\cal B}(B^0 \to D^{*-} \ell^+ \nu) = (5.66 \pm 0.29
174: \pm 0.33)\%$, and a value $\rho^2 = 1.67 \pm 0.11$ reported by the CLEO
175: Collaboration \cite{CLEOVcb}.
176:
177: \subsection{Current producing $D_s^{(*)}$ in $\ob$ decays}
178:
179: In Table 1 we compare some factorization predictions \cite{JRFM} of light-meson
180: and $D_s^{(*)}$ production with experiment \cite{PDG,BaO}. The $D_s^{(*)}$
181: predictions are as well obeyed as those for the light mesons.
182:
183: An additional prediction involving heavy meson production by the weak current
184: \cite{JRFM} is that ${\cal B}(\bo \to D^{*+} D^{*-})/{\cal B}(\bo \to D^{*+}
185: D_s^-) = 0.13(f_D/f_{D_s})^2 \simeq 0.09$, where $f_D$ and $f_{D_s}$ are
186: the decay constants for the nonstrange and strange $D$ mesons. The
187: experimental value for this ratio \cite{CLEODD} is $0.06^{+0.04}_{-0.03}$.
188:
189: The decays of spinless particles to two
190: vector mesons are describable \cite{DDLR} by amplitudes
191: $A_0$ (longitudinal polarization), $A_\parallel$ (linear parallel polarization)
192: and $A_\perp$ (linear perpendicular polarization), normalized such that
193: $|A_0|^2 + |A_\parallel|^2 + |A_\perp|^2 = 1$. Factorization predicts
194: $(|A_0|^2, |A_\parallel|^2, |A_\perp|^2) = (88,10,2)\%$ for $\ob \to D^{*+}
195: D_s^{*-}$ and (55,39,6)\% for $\ob \to D^{*+} \rho^-$. Experimental values
196: are only quoted for $|A_0|^2$: $(87.8 \pm 3.4 \pm 3.0)\%$ for $\ob \to D^{*+}
197: D_s^{*-}$ \cite{CLEODD} and $(50.6 \pm 13.9 \pm 3.6)\%$ for $\ob \to D^{*+}
198: \rho^-$ \cite{dr}. These agree with the predictions, as does the
199: intermediate case of $\rho'(1418)$ production \cite{rhop}.
200:
201: \subsection{Color-suppressed and penguin amplitudes}
202:
203: The subprocess $\bar b \to \bar c c \bar s \to J/\psi \bar s$ is
204: is an example of color-suppression since the $\bar c c$ pair is not
205: automatically produced in a color singlet. It is responsible for
206: the decays $B \to J/\psi K^{(*)}$.
207: The application of factorization to such decays is risky.
208: (1) There is no independent measurement of the $B \to K^{(*)}$ form factor,
209: which would involve a flavor-changing neutral current. (2)
210: Factorization does not predict the helicity amplitudes properly in
211: $B \to J/\psi K^*$ \cite{facthel}. (3) Final-state phases observed between
212: different helicity amplitudes for $B \to D^* \rho$ \cite{dr} and $B \to J/\psi
213: K^*$ \cite{psks} are not predictable by factorization, and may indicate the
214: importance of non-perturbative effects. (4) QCD corrections to
215: color-suppressed amplitudes are important. For example, the amplitude for $B^0
216: \to D^- \pi^+$ is purely color-favored, while that for $B^- \to \od \pi^-$
217: contains also a color-suppressed contribution which interferes constructively
218: with the color-favored amplitude. This is in contrast to
219: charmed particle decays, where the color-suppressed and color-favored decays
220: interfere destructively.
221:
222: Similar cautionary remarks apply to the use of factorization for penguin
223: amplitudes. (1) Perturbative calculations of penguin contributions to
224: processes such as $B \to K \pi$, where they seem to be dominant, fall short of
225: actual measurements \cite{Ciu}. One possible explanantion is the
226: presence of a $c \bar c$ loop with substantial enhancement from on-shell
227: states, equivalent to strong rescattering from such states as
228: $D_s \bar D$ to charmless meson pairs. In this case,
229: penguin amplitudes could have different final-state phases from tree
230: amplitudes, enhancing the possibility of observing direct CP violation.
231: (2) Other hints that $c \bar c \to q \bar q$ rescattering may be important
232: include the suppression of the $B$ semileptonic
233: branching ratio with respect to theoretical expectations, the deficit
234: of charmed particles in $B$ decays, and the large rate for inclusive and
235: exclusive $\eta'$ production \cite{fs}.
236:
237: \subsection{Further $B \to VV$ information}
238:
239: For decays of a spinless particle to two vector mesons, the
240: amplitudes $A_0$ and $A_{\parallel}$ are linear combinations
241: of partial waves $\ell = 0,2$, while the amplitude $A_\perp$ corresponds
242: to $\ell = 1$. In decays to CP eigenstates, the even- and odd-$\ell$
243: partial waves correspond to opposite CP-parities: e.g., for $B_s \to J/\psi
244: \phi$, to even and odd CP, respectively. The decay $B \to
245: J/\psi K^*$ is related to $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ by flavor SU(3) \cite{DDLR},
246: so the helicity structures of the two decays should be the same. In
247: Table 2 we compare CDF information on helicities for both decays \cite{psks}
248: with CLEO \cite{CLhel} and BaBar \cite{BaH} results on $B \to J/\psi K^*$.
249: In all cases the parity-odd fraction $|A_\perp|^2$ is small, indicating that
250: $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$ occurs mostly from the CP-even mixture of
251: $B_s$ and $\overline{B}_s$. This will help in searching for lifetime
252: differences between the CP-even and CP-odd states \cite{DDLR,JRTASI}.
253: \medskip
254:
255: A 1998 CLEO analysis \cite{dr} suggested non-zero relative final state
256: phases between partial waves in $B \to D^* \rho$. Such final-state
257: phases are of interest in the more general context of final-state
258: interactions, which are usually thought to be small at a c.m. energy
259: of $m_b c^2$. The existence of three partial waves (S,P,D) for such $B \to VV$
260: decays, as well as for final states with light mesons such as
261: $\bo \to \phi K^{*0}$, means that helicity analyses can detect the presence
262: of final-state interactions which could be relevant to the question of
263: rescattering and final-state interactions in decays such as $B \to PP$
264: \cite{fs}.
265:
266: \section{Decays to two light pseudoscalars}
267:
268: A flavor-SU(3) decomposition of the decays $B \to PP$, where $P$ denotes a
269: light pseudoscalar meson, is given in Table 3 \cite{etapx}. Here $T,~C,~P$,
270: and $P_{EW}$ denote color-favored tree, color-suppressed tree, penguin, and
271: color-favored electroweak penguin (EWP) amplitudes, respectively. We
272: omit exchange, annihilation, and color-suppressed EWP amplitudes. The
273: ``singlet-penguin'' term $S'$ is needed whenever one final meson (such as
274: $\eta,\eta'$) has a flavor-singlet component. These amplitudes
275: describe the decays in Table 4,
276: based on reports by CLEO \cite{CLEOkpi,CL2K}, BaBar \cite{BaO}, and
277: BELLE \cite{BEO} at the 2000 Osaka Conference,
278: and some earlier values \cite{GRVP}. Remarks:
279:
280: (1) The $K \pi$ rates should be dominated by penguin amplitudes.
281: Expanding to lowest order in the remaining amplitudes yields the sum
282: rule \cite{LSR}
283: \beq \label{eqn:LSR}
284: {\cal B}(K^+ \pi^-) + \frac{\tau^0}{\tau^+} {\cal B}(K^0 \pi^+) =
285: 2 \left[ {\cal B}(K^0 \pi^0) + \frac{\tau^0}{\tau^+} {\cal B}(K^+ \pi^0)
286: \right]~~~,
287: \eeq
288: where $\tau^0/\tau^+ = 0.94 \pm 0.03$ is the ratio of $B^0$ and $B^+$
289: lifetimes.
290: The left-hand side is $32 \pm 4$, while the right-hand side is $57 \pm 11$.
291: The rates involving $\pi^0$ production may have
292: been overestimated experimentally; little could go
293: wrong with the sum rule unless penguin dominance turns out to have been a
294: very poor approximation.
295:
296: (2) For now, complete penguin dominance of the amplitudes for $B \to K \pi$ is
297: as good as the sum rule (\ref{eqn:LSR}). One doesn't see any compelling
298: pattern of the subsidiary (tree and EWP) amplitudes.
299:
300: (3) The ratio $\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)/2\Gamma(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)$ is
301: $0.69 \pm 0.22$. Its value
302: can provide a constraint on the weak phase $\gamma = {\rm Arg}(V^*_{ub})$
303: \cite{NR}.
304:
305: (4) The ratio $\Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)/\Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)$ is
306: $0.92 \pm 0.24$, compatible with 1. If it were less than 1, one could
307: establish an upper bound on $\sin^2 \gamma$ \cite{FM}. For any value,
308: one can learn about $\gamma$ with the help of additional
309: information such as the CP-violating rate asymmetry in $\bo \to K^+ \pi^-$
310: and $\ob \to K^- \pi^+$ \cite{GR98}.
311:
312: Several $B \to PP$ decays are amenable to a flavor-SU(3) treatment.
313:
314: \subsection{Tree-penguin interference in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$?}
315:
316: We shall quote all rates in units of ($\bo$ branching ratio $\times
317: 10^6$). Thus, the average of $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching
318: ratios in Table 5 implies (updating \cite{GRVP})
319: \beq
320: |T|^2 + |P|^2 - 2 |TP| \cos \alpha \cos \delta = 5.6 \pm 1.3~~~,
321: \eeq
322: where $\alpha$ is a CKM phase and $\delta$ is a strong phase difference
323: between tree and penguin amplitudes. From $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ one infers
324: $|T+C|^2/2 = (4.6 \pm 2.0)(\tau^0/\tau^+)$
325: (see Tables 3 and 4), and with Re($C/T) = 0.1$
326: (cf.\ \cite{BBNS}) one estimates $|T| = 2.7 \pm 0.6$. Meanwhile the penguin
327: amplitude can be estimated from $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$: $|P'|^2 = (17.9 \pm
328: 4.1)(\tau^0/\tau^+)$,
329: $|P'| = 4.1 \pm 0.5$, $|P| = \lambda|P'| = 0.9 \pm 0.1$, where
330: $\lambda \simeq 0.22$ is a parameter \cite{WP}
331: describing the hierarchy of CKM matrix elements. Combining these results,
332: we find $\cos \alpha \cos \delta = 0.5 \pm 0.7$, less than $1 \sigma$
333: evidence for destructive interference. Our conclusion is thus more
334: guarded than some based on factorization and explicit form factors
335: \cite{He,Hou}.
336:
337: \subsection{Information on $K \eta'$ decays}
338:
339: Given estimates of $|P'|$ and
340: $|P'_{EW}|$, and constructive $S'$--$P'$ interference, one needs a
341: modest singlet-penguin contribution $|S'| = (0.6 \pm 0.2)|P'|$ to account for
342: the large branching ratios for $B^+ \to K^+ \eta'$ and $\bo \to \ko \eta'$.
343: Its size may be a problem for explicit models (e.g.,
344: \cite{Xiao,Ali}), but not for flavor SU(3).
345: The $K \eta'$ rate is also large as a result of constructive interference
346: between nonstrange and strange quark contributions of $\eta'$ to the
347: ordinary penguin amplitude $P'$ \cite{HJLeta}. Both
348: the singlet penguin and ordinary penguin contributions are much smaller
349: for the $K \eta$ final states \cite{etapx}, which are so far not observed.
350:
351: \subsection{Measuring $\gamma$ with $K \pi$ decays}
352:
353: The Fermilab Tevatron and the CERN Large Hadron Collider will produce
354: large numbers of $\pi^+ \pi^-$, $\pi^\pm K^\mp$, and $K^+ K^-$ pairs from
355: neutral $B$ mesons.
356: (1) The processes $B^0 \to K^+ K^-$ and $B_s \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ involve only
357: the spectator-quark amplitudes $E$ and $PA$, and thus should be suppressed.
358: They are related to one another by a flavor SU(3) ``U-spin'' reflection $s
359: \leftrightarrow d$ \cite{MGU}.
360: (2) The decays $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^+ K^-$ also are related to
361: each other by a U-spin reflection. Time-dependent studies of both processes
362: allow one to distinguish strong and weak interaction information
363: and to measure the angle $\gamma$ \cite{DuFl}. This appears
364: to be a promising method for Run II at the Fermilab Tevatron \cite{Wurt}. (3)
365: The decays of non-strange and strange neutral $B$ mesons to $K^\pm \pi^\mp$
366: provide another source of information on $\gamma$ when combined
367: with information on $B^+ \to \ko \pi^+$ \cite{bskpi}. An error of $10^\circ$
368: on $\gamma$ seems feasible, and a relation between the CP-violating rate
369: asymmetries for the strange and nonstrange decays to $K^\pm \pi^\mp$ provides
370: a check of the flavor-SU(3) assumption.
371:
372: \section{Decays to one pseudoscalar and one vector meson}
373:
374: \subsection{Flavor SU(3) and $B \to PV$ decays}
375:
376: For decays $B \to PV$ there are twice as many amplitudes as for $B \to PP$
377: since the spectator quark can end up either in the pseudoscalar meson or
378: the vector meson. We label amplitudes with a subscript $P$ or $V$
379: corresponding to the meson containing the spectator, using small
380: letters to denote amplitudes corrected for EWP contributions.
381: Present data from CLEO \cite{CL2K,CLEOVP}, BaBar \cite{BaO}, and BELLE
382: \cite{BEO}) provide partial information on individual amplitudes.
383:
384: One neglects special amplitudes associated with the flavor-singlet
385: components of the $\omega$ and $\phi$. In contrast to the $\eta$ and $\eta'$,
386: these mesons couple to other matter only through connected quark
387: diagrams, respecting the Okubo--Zweig--Iizuka (OZI) rule. The decay $B^+ \to
388: \pi^+ \omega$ is then dominated by $t_V$, while both $B \to \phi
389: K$ charge states are dominated by $p'_P$ (including a non-negligible
390: EWP contribution). If the penguin amplitude involves an intermediate state
391: including only a quark-antiquark pair, Lipkin has argued that one must have
392: $p_V = -p_P$ \cite{GRVP,LipCC}. In factorization models $p_V$
393: tends to be smaller in magnitude than this estimate. This is a
394: key difference between the flavor-SU(3) and factorization approaches.
395:
396: It is harder to learn $t_P$, which is expected to dominate $B^0 \to \rho^+
397: \pi^-$. That decay must be distinguished via flavor-tagging
398: from $\ob \to \rho^+ \pi^-$, dominated by $t_V$.
399: Present data quote only the sum of the two modes \cite{CL2K,CLEOVP}.
400: Nonetheless, within wide errors it is possible to estimate $|t_P|^2$ and
401: $|t_V|^2$ separately.
402:
403: \subsection{Comparison of data and predictions}
404:
405: In Tables 5 and 6 we compare $B^+ \to PV$ and $B^0 \to PV$ data with
406: predictions of the flavor-SU(3) scheme \cite{GRVP} and factorization
407: models \cite{CYYY}. The range of SU(3) predictions is given neglecting
408: tree-penguin interference, but rates can exceed or be less than the italicized
409: values if $\gamma > 90^\circ$ or $\alpha < 90^\circ$ and strong final-state
410: phase differences are small. In the opposite cases of $\gamma < 90^\circ$
411: or $\alpha > 90^\circ$ the rates can exceed or be less than the bold-faced
412: values.
413:
414: The data must improve in accuracy to distinguish flavor-SU(3)
415: predictions from explicit models. One needs to separate
416: $B^0 \to \rho^+ \pi^-$ from $\ob \to \rho^+ \pi^-$ in order to separate
417: $t_P$ from $t_V$ adequately. Both approaches agree
418: on which ``signals'' should be real and which are statistical fluctuations.
419:
420: There is hope of learning whether tree and penguin amplitudes
421: are interfering constructively (e.g., in $B^0 \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ and $B^+ \to
422: K^{*+} \eta$) or destructively in specific processes, but one cannot yet do
423: this reliably. Let us see where present data stand on the first of these.
424:
425: \subsection{Tree-penguin interference in $\bo \to K^{*+} \pi^-$}
426:
427: The branching ratio for $\bo \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ quoted in Table 6 implies that
428: \beq \label{eqn:kpbr}
429: |p'_P|^2 + |t'_P|^2 - 2|t'_P p'_P| \cos \delta \cos \gamma =
430: 22^{+9}_{-8} > 12~(90\% {\rm~c.l.})~~~,
431: \eeq
432: where we are using units of (b.r.$\times 10^6$). At the same time, averaging
433: charged and neutral modes, ${\cal B}(B \to \phi K)$ implies
434: \beq
435: |p'_P - \frac{1}{6}p'_P|^2 = 6.2^{+2.0+0.7}_{-1.8-1.7}~~,~~~
436: |p'_P| = 3.0^{+0.5}_{-0.7}~~~,
437: \eeq
438: where the term $-(1/6)p'_P$ is an estimate of EWP effects \cite{GRVP,EWP}.
439: To estimate $|t'_P|$ we must use $B^+ \to (\rho^0,\omega) \pi^+$
440: and $\bo \to \rho^\mp \pi^\pm$ \cite{GRVP}, finding $|t_P| \le 4.5$,
441: $|t'_P| \le 1$. Thus the inequality (\ref{eqn:kpbr}) weakly favors
442: constructive $t'_P$--$p'_P$ interference in $\bo \to K^{*+} \pi^-$. For
443: $\cos \delta > 0$ this would require $\cos \gamma <0$, as has been claimed
444: in several factorization-based calculations \cite{He,Hou}. Within
445: the more general flavor-SU(3) treatment a firm conclusion
446: requires many of the input branching ratios to be better measured.
447:
448: \section{Conclusions}
449:
450: \begin{itemize}
451:
452: \item Na\"{\i}ve factorization works well for color-favored processes,
453: including some for which it is ``not proven.''
454:
455: \item Be wary of ``factorization'' results for color-suppressed or penguin
456: amplitudes. They actually contain considerable phenomenological input.
457:
458: \item Flavor SU(3), supplemented with electroweak penguin calculations
459: and assumptions about rescattering (such as the neglect of
460: exchange and annihilation contributions) can lead to many useful relations,
461: e.g., between $B \to \pi \pi$ and
462: $B_s \to K \bar K$, and between $B \to K \pi$ and $B_s \to K \pi$.
463:
464: \item There is no problem in describing $B \to K \eta'$ decays as long as one
465: allows a singlet penguin amplitude, whose magnitude is probably a
466: nonperturbative effect.
467:
468: \item $B \to PV$ decays are consistent with flavor SU(3) but more data will
469: be needed to test the predictions incisively and to compare them with those
470: of factorization and form-factor models.
471:
472: \item Some interferences (e.g., in $B^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-$, $\bo \to K^{*+}\pi^-$,
473: and $B \to \eta K^*$) suggest $\gamma > 90^\circ$ or $\alpha < 90^\circ$ if
474: final-state phases are small, but the pattern is not yet compelling.
475:
476: \end{itemize}
477:
478: The wealth of forthcoming data from experiments at
479: Cornell, SLAC, KEK, and the hadron machines will make substantial progress on
480: these questions in the next few years. At the same time we look forward to
481: more progress on proving the validity and limits of factorization.
482:
483: \section*{Acknowledgments}
484:
485: I thank Yoram Rozen, Peter Schlein, and
486: the other organizers of Beauty 2000 for
487: an enjoyable and informative conference, and
488: Prof.\ K. T. Mahanthappa at the University of Colorado
489: and colleagues at Cornell University, the University of Hawaii,
490: and the Technion for gracious hospitality
491: and fruitful interactions. I am indebted to
492: Amol Dighe, Isard Dunietz, Michael Gronau, Harry J. Lipkin, Zumin Luo,
493: and Matthias Neubert for pleasant collaborations on these subjects.
494: This work was supported in part by the United
495: States Department of Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560, and in part
496: by the U. S. -- Israel Binational Science Foundation through Grant No.\
497: 98-00237.
498:
499: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
500: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
501: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
502: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
503: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
504: \def \art{and references therein}
505: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
506: \def \cn{Collaboration}
507: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
508: Singapore, 1989)}
509: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
510: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
511: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
512: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
513: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
514: Batavia, IL, 1979}
515: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
516: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
517: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
518: Amsterdam, 1988)}
519: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
520: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1} (#3) #2}
521: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
522: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
523: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
524: IL, 1972)}
525: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
526: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
527: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
528: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
529: \def \kaon{{\it Kaon Physics}, edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein,
530: University of Chicago Press, 2000}
531: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
532: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
533: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
534: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
535: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
536: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
537: 1987)}
538: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
539: No.\ #2 (#3)}
540: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
541: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
542: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
543: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
544: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
545: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
546: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
547: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
548: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
549: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
550: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
551: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
552: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2 [JETP
553: Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #4]}
554: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
555: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
556: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
557: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
558: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
559: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
560: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
561: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
562: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
563: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
564: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
565: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
566: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
567: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
568: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
569: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
570: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
571: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
572: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
573: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
574: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
575: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
576: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
577: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass,
578: Colorado),
579: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
580: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
581: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
582: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
583: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
584: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1} (#3) #2 [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
585: {\bf #1} (#3) #4]}
586: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1} (#3) #2 [Sov.\
587: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4} (#6) #5]}
588: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
589: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1} (#3) #2}
590:
591: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
592:
593: \bibitem{BJ} J. D. Bjorken, in {\it New Developments in High-Energy Physics},
594: Proc.~IV International Workshop on High-Energy Physics, Orthodox Academy of
595: Crete, Greece, 1--10 July 1988, edited by E. G. Floratos and A. Verganelakis,
596: \npbps{11}{325}{1989}.
597:
598: \bibitem{BBNS} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. Sachrajda,
599: \prl{83}{1914}{1999}; CERN report CERN-TH-2000-159, hep-ph/0006124.
600:
601: \bibitem{JRFM} J. L. Rosner, \prd{42}{3732}{1990}.
602:
603: \bibitem{GRPV} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{1999}.
604:
605: \bibitem{He} X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K. C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100}{1999}.
606:
607: \bibitem{Hou} W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, hep-ex/9910014.
608:
609: \bibitem{Xiao} Z. Xiao, C. S. Li, and K.-T. Chao, Peking University
610: preprint, hep-ph/0010326 (unpublished).
611:
612: \bibitem{Cheng} H.-Y. Cheng and K.-C. Yang, \prd{59}{092004}{1999}.
613:
614: \bibitem{CYYY} H. Y. Cheng and K. C. Yang, National Taiwan University report,
615: hep-ph/9910291 v2, March, 2000;
616: M.-Z. Yang and Y.-D. Yang, Ochanomizu University report
617: OCHA-PP-161, hep-ph/0007038 v2 (unpublished).
618:
619: \bibitem{IW} N. Isgur and M. B. Wise, \plb{232}{113}{1989};
620: \ibj{237}{527}{1990}.
621:
622: \bibitem{COV} T. Coleman, M. G. Olsson, and S. Veseli, University of
623: Wisconsin report MADPH-00-1189, hep-ph/0009103 (unpublished).
624:
625: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
626:
627: \bibitem{CLEOVcb} CLEO \cn, J. P. Alexander \ite, CLEO-CONF 00-3,
628: presented at \os.
629:
630: \bibitem{BaO} BaBar \cn, D. Hitlin, Osaka Conf.\ \cite{CLEOVcb}.
631:
632: \bibitem{CLEODD} CLEO \cn, M. Artuso \ite, \prl{82}{3020}{1999}.
633:
634: \bibitem{DDLR} A. S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H. J. Lipkin, and J. L. Rosner,
635: \plb{369}{144}{1996}.
636:
637: \bibitem{dr} CLEO \cn, CLEO report CLEO CONF 98-23, ICHEP98 852,
638: submitted to XXIX International Conference on High Energy Physics,
639: Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 1998.
640:
641: \bibitem{rhop} CLEO \cn, M. Artuso \ite, CLEO report CLEO CONF 00-01,
642: ICHEP00-78, hep-ex/0006018, presented at Osaka Conf.\ \cite{CLEOVcb}.
643:
644: \bibitem{facthel} See the discussion and references in CLEO \cn, C. P. Jessop
645: \ite, \prl{79}{4533}{1997}. Some later discussions (e.g., \cite{Cheng}) use
646: helicity ratios as an input and thus cannot be regarded as predictive.
647:
648: \bibitem{psks} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, CDF report CDF/PHYS/
649: BOTTOM/PUBLIC/5281, hep-ex/0007034 (unpublished).
650:
651: \bibitem{Ciu} See, e.g., M. Ciuchini \ite, \np{B501}{271}{1997}; \ibj{B512}
652: {3}{1998}; \ibj{B531}{656(E)}{1998}; \nima{408}{28}{1998}; hep-ph/9909530,
653: to be published in \kaon.
654:
655: \bibitem{fs} J. L. Rosner, \prd{60}{074029}{1999}.
656:
657: \bibitem{CLhel} Jessop \ite~\cite{facthel}.
658:
659: \bibitem{BaH} BaBar \cn, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-8679, hep-ph/0010067, presented
660: by G. Raven at Osaka Conf. \cite{CLEOVcb}.
661:
662: \bibitem{JRTASI} J. L. Rosner, in Proceedings of the TASI-2000 Summer School,
663: Boulder, CO, June 5--30, 2000, to be published by World Scientific.
664:
665: \bibitem{etapx} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{53}{2516}{1996};
666: A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \plb{367}{357}{1996};
667: \ibj{377}{325}{1996}; \prl{79}{4333}{1997}; A. S. Dighe, \prd{54}{2067}{1996}.
668:
669: \bibitem{CLEOkpi} CLEO \cn, D. Cronin-Hennessy \ite, \prl{85}{515}{2000}.
670:
671: \bibitem{CL2K} CLEO \cn, D. Cinabro, Osaka Conf.\ \cite{CLEOVcb}.
672:
673: \bibitem{BEO} BELLE \cn, H. Aihara, Osaka Conf.\ \cite{CLEOVcb}.
674:
675: \bibitem{GRVP} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
676:
677: \bibitem{LSR} H. J. Lipkin, \plb{445}{403}{1999}.
678:
679: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403}{1998};
680: \prl{81}{5076}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999}.
681:
682: \bibitem{FM} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752}{1998}.
683:
684: \bibitem{GR98} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
685:
686: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
687:
688: \bibitem{Ali} A. Ali, G. Kramer, and C.-D. Lu, \prd{58}{094009}{1998}.
689:
690: \bibitem{HJLeta} H. J. Lipkin, \prl{46}{1307} {1981}; \plb{254}{247}{1991};
691: \plb{415}{186}{1997}; \ibj{433}{117}{1998}.
692:
693: \bibitem{MGU} M. Gronau, CERN report CERN-TH-2000-250, hep-ph/0008292.
694:
695: \bibitem{DuFl} R. Fleischer, \plb{459}{306}{1999};
696: DESY preprint DESY 00-014, hep-ph/0001253. See also I. Dunietz, Proceedings of
697: the Workshop on $B$ Physics at Hadron Accelerators, Snowmass, CO, 1993, p. 83;
698: D. Pirjol, \prd{60}{054020}{1999}.
699:
700: \bibitem{Wurt} F. W\"urthwein and R. Jesik, talks presented at Workshop on B
701: Physics at the Tevatron -- Run II and Beyond, Fermilab, February 2000
702: (unpublished).
703:
704: \bibitem{bskpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{482}{71}{2000}.
705:
706: \bibitem{LipCC} H. J. Lipkin, private communication.
707:
708: \bibitem{CLEOVP} CLEO \cn, C. P. Jessop \ite, Cornell University report
709: CLNS 99-1652, hep-ex/0006008, submiteed to Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.
710:
711: \bibitem{EWP} A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, in {\it Heavy Flavours II},
712: edited by A. J. Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998),
713: p.~65, \art.
714:
715: \end{thebibliography}
716:
717: \newpage
718:
719: \begin{table}
720: \caption{Comparison of predictions for ratios of decay rates in
721: light-meson and $D_s^{(*)}$
722: production by the weak current in $\ob$ decays. \label{tab:ds}}
723: \begin{center}
724: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|} \hline
725: Subprocess & $b \to c \bar u d$ & $b \to c \bar c s$ \\ \hline
726: Ratio & $D^{*+} \pi^-/D^+ \pi^-$ & $D^{*+} D_s^-/D^+ D_s^-$ \\
727: Experiment & $0.93 \pm 0.14$ & $1.2 \pm 0.5$ \\
728: Prediction & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
729: Ratio & $D^+ \rho^-/D^{*+}\pi^-$ & $D^+D_s^{*-}/D^{*+}D_s^-$ \\
730: Experiment & $2.8 \pm 0.5$ & $0.97 \pm 0.54$ \\
731: Prediction & 1.9 & 1 \\ \hline
732: Ratio & $D^{*+}\rho^-/D^{*+}\pi^-$ & $D^{*+}D_s^{*-}/D^{*+}D_s^-$ \\
733: Experiment & $3.4 \pm 0.8$ & $2.2 \pm 0.6$ \\
734: Prediction & 2.2 & 2.6 \\ \hline
735: \end{tabular}
736: \end{center}
737: \end{table}
738:
739: \begin{table}
740: \caption{Comparison of helicity amplitudes for $\bo \to J/\psi K^{*0}$ and
741: $B_s \to J/\psi \phi$. \label{tab:pshel}}
742: \begin{center}
743: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline
744: Amp.\ & CLEO ($\bo$) & CDF ($\bo$) \\ \hline
745: $|A_0|^2$ & $0.52 \pm 0.08$ & $0.59 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.01$ \\
746: $|A_\perp|^2$ & $0.16 \pm 0.09$ & $0.13^{+0.12}_{-0.09} \pm 0.06$ \\ \hline
747: Amp.\ & BaBar ($\bo$) & CDF ($B_s$) \\ \hline
748: $|A_0|^2$ & $0.60 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.04$ & $0.61 \pm 0.14 \pm 0.02$ \\
749: $|A_\perp|^2$ & $0.13 \pm 0.06 \pm 0.02$ & $0.23 \pm 0.19 \pm 0.04$ \\ \hline
750: \end{tabular}
751: \end{center}
752: \end{table}
753:
754: \begin{table}
755: \caption{Flavor-SU(3) decomposition of some amplitudes for $B \to PP$, where
756: $P$ denotes a light pseudoscalar meson. Unprimed amplitudes denote
757: strangeness-preserving decays; primed amplitudes denote strangeness-changing
758: decays. \label{tab:PP}}
759: \begin{center}
760: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline
761: Mode & Amplitude \\ \hline
762: $\pi^+ \pi^-$ & $-(T + P)$ \\
763: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ & $-(T + C + P_{EW})/\s$ \\
764: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $-(T' + P')$ \\
765: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $-(T' + P' + C' + P'_{EW})/\s$ \\
766: $\ko \pi^+$ & $P'$ \\
767: $\ko \pi^0$ & $(P'-C'-P'_{EW})/\s$ \\
768: $K^+ \eta'$ & $(3P'+4S'+T'+C'-\frac{1}{3}P'_{EW})/\sx$ \\
769: $\ko \eta'$ & $(3P'+4S'+C'-\frac{1}{3}P'_{EW})/\sx$ \\ \hline
770: \end{tabular}
771: \end{center}
772: \end{table}
773:
774: \begin{table}
775: \caption{Branching ratios for some $B \to PP$ decays, in units of $10^{-6}$.
776: \label{tab:PPex}}
777: \begin{center}
778: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
779: Mode & CLEO & BaBar & BELLE & Average \\ \hline
780: $\pi^+ \pi^-$ & $4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.4} \pm 0.5$ & $9.3 \pm 2.8$ & $6.3 \pm 4.0$ &
781: $5.6 \pm 1.3$ \\
782: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ & $5.4 \pm 2.6$ & & $3.3 \pm 3.2$ & $4.6 \pm 2.0$ \\
783: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $17.2 \pm 2.7$ & $12.5 \pm 3.2$ & $17.4 \pm 5.9$ &
784: $15.4 \pm 2.0$ \\
785: $\ko \pi^+$ & $18.2 \pm 4.6$ & & $16.6 \pm 9.1$ & $17.9 \pm 4.1$ \\
786: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $11.2 \pm 3.2$ & & $18.8 \pm 5.7$ & $13.0 \pm 2.8$ \\
787: $\ko \pi^0$ & $14.6 \pm 6.2$ & & $21.0 \pm 8.9$ & $16.7 \pm 5.1$ \\
788: $K^+ \eta'$ & $80 \pm 12$ & $62 \pm 20$ & & $75 \pm 10$ \\
789: $\ko \eta'$ & $89 \pm 19$ & & & $78 \pm 9$ (a) \\ \hline
790: \end{tabular}
791: \end{center}
792: \leftline{(a) Average for $K^+ \eta'$ and $K^0 \eta'$ modes.}
793: \end{table}
794:
795: \begin{table}
796: \caption{Comparison of $B^+ \to PV$ data with predictions of flavor SU(3)
797: and factorization models. Numbers denote predicted branching ratios in
798: units of $10^{-6}$. See text for explanation of italicized and
799: bold entries. \label{tab:bpvp}}
800: \begin{center}
801: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
802: Mode & CLEO & Flavor SU(3) & Fact.\ models \\ \hline
803: $\rho^+ \pi^0$ & $< 43$ & {\it 4}--{\bf 15} & 10--13 \\
804: $\rho^0 \pi^+$ & $10.4^{+3.3}_{-3.4} \pm 2.1$ & {\bf 8}--{\it 17} & 9--13 \\
805: $\omega \pi^+$ & $11.3^{+3.3}_{-2.9} \pm 1.4$ & Input & 10--11 \\
806: $\rho^+ K^0$ & $< 48$ & 5--12 & \\
807: $\rho^0 K^+$ & $8.4^{+4.0}_{-3.4} \pm 1.8$ & {\it 1}--{\bf 2} & $\sim 1$ \\
808: $\omega K^+$ & $<7.9$ & {\it 2}--{\bf 4} & 1--2 \\
809: $\phi K^+$ & $6.4^{+2.5+0.5}_{-2.1-2.0}$ & Input & \\
810: $K^{*0} \pi^+$ & $7.6^{+3.5}_{-3.0} \pm 1.6$ & 5--12 & $\sim 4$ \\
811: $K^{*+} \pi^0$ & $< 31$ & {\bf 4}--{\it 7} & 4--6 \\
812: $K^{*+} \eta$ & $26.4^{+9.6}_{-8.2} \pm 3.3$ & {\bf 13}--{\it 22} & \\ \hline
813: \end{tabular}
814: \end{center}
815: \end{table}
816:
817: \begin{table}
818: \caption{Comparison of $B^0 \to PV$ data with predictions of flavor SU(3)
819: and factorization models. Numbers denote predicted branching ratios in
820: units of $10^{-6}$. See text for explanation of italicized and
821: bold entries. \label{tab:bzvp}}
822: \begin{center}
823: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline
824: Mode & CLEO & Flavor SU(3) & Fact.\ models \\ \hline
825: $\rho^- \pi^+$ & $27.6^{+8.4}_{-7.4} \pm 4.2$ & {\bf 15}--{\it 32} & $\sim 14$
826: \\
827: $\rho^+ \pi^-$ & (combined b.\ r.) & {\it 6}--{\bf 30} & $\sim 18$ \\
828: $\rho^- K^+$ & $16.0^{+7.6}_{-6.4} \pm 2.8$ & {\it 6}--{\bf 10} & 1--4 \\
829: $\rho^0 K^0$ & $< 27$ & 6--14 & \\
830: $\omega K^0$ & $10.0^{+5.4}_{-4.2} \pm 1.5$ & 2--3 & $0.4$ --2 \\
831: $\phi K^0$ & $5.9^{+4.0+1.1}_{-2.9-0.9}$ & Input & \\
832: $K^{*+} \pi^-$ & $22^{+8+4}_{-6-5}$ & {\bf 5}--{\it 10} & \\
833: $K^{*0} \pi^0$ & $< 3.6$ & 1--2 & 0.6--4 \\
834: $K^{*0} \eta$ & $13.8^{+5.5}_{-4.4} \pm 1.7$ & Input & \\ \hline
835: \end{tabular}
836: \end{center}
837: \end{table}
838:
839: \newpage
840:
841: \begin{figure}
842: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5in \epsffile {D.ps}}
843: % \vspace{5.5in}
844: \caption{Factorization predictions for branching ratios (in percent) for some
845: $B$ decays based on the universal form factor (\ref{eqn:ff}), plotted
846: as functions of $\rho^2 = 2/z_0^2$. Solid line: $10 {\cal B}
847: (B^0 \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+)$; dashed line: ${\cal B} (B^0 \to D^{*-} \ell^+
848: \nu)$; dotted line: ${\cal B} (B^0 \to D^- \ell^+ \nu)$. Horizontal bands
849: denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental limits; vertical bands denote corresponding
850: range of $\rho^2$. Plotted point denotes value from Ref.\ \cite{CLEOVcb}.
851: \label{fig:D}}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: \end{document}
855: #!/bin/csh -f
856: # this uuencoded Z-compressed file created by csh script uufiles
857: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
858: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
859: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., D.uu
860: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
861: # then say csh D.uu
862: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
863: # uudecode D.uu ; uncompress D.ps.Z ;
864: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
865: # filename in "begin" line below to D.ps_Z , then execute
866: # uudecode D.uu
867: # compress -d D.ps_Z
868: #
869: uudecode $0
870: chmod 644 D.ps.Z
871: uncompress D.ps.Z
872: rm $0
873: exit
874:
875: