1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: % INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS PUBLISHING %
3: % %
4: % `Preparing an article for publication in an Institute of Physics %
5: % Publishing journal using LaTeX' %
6: % %
7: % LaTeX source code `ioplau2e.tex' used to generate `author %
8: % guidelines', the documentation explaining and demonstrating use %
9: % of the Institute of Physics Publishing LaTeX preprint files %
10: % `iopart.cls, iopart12.clo and iopart10.clo'. %
11: % %
12: % `ioplau2e.tex' itself uses LaTeX with `iopart.cls' %
13: % %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}
16: \usepackage{epsfig}
17: \usepackage{citesort}
18: % Uncomment next line if AMS fonts required
19: %\usepackage{iopams}
20: \begin{document}
21: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber\\}
22: \def\tgb{\mbox{$\tan{\beta}~$}}
23: \def\bsg{$b\to s \gamma$~}
24: \def\eps{$\varepsilon$~}
25: \def\epspeps{$\varepsilon^{\prime}/\varepsilon$~}
26: \def\Lsoft{${\cal L}_{SB}$~}
27: \def\mch{$m_{\chi^{\pm}}$~}
28: \def\mneu{$m_{\chi^{0}}$~}
29: \def\mglu{$m_{\tilde{g}}$~}
30: \def\stop{$m_{\tilde{t}}$~}
31: \def\mgrav{$m_{3/2}$~}
32: \def\Ibanez{Iba\~{n}ez~}
33: \def\Munoz{Mu\~{n}oz~}
34: \def\al{\alpha}
35: \def\be{\beta}
36: \newcommand{\BXcenu}{B\rightarrow X_c e \nu}
37: \newcommand{\mub}{\mu_b}
38: \newcommand{\mb}{m_b}
39: \newcommand{\alphas}{\alpha_s}
40: \newcommand{\alphae}{\alpha_e}
41: \newcommand{\BRg}{{\rm BR}(B\to X_s \gamma)}
42: \newcommand{\BR}{{\rm BR}}
43: \newcommand{\Bsg}{B\to X_s \gamma}
44:
45: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
46: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
47: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
48: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
49: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
50: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}
51: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}
52: \def\Frac#1#2{\frac{\displaystyle{#1}}{\displaystyle{#2}}}
53: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}}
54: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$\;>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim\;$}}}
55: \renewcommand{\O}{{\cal O}}
56: % --------------- abbreviated journal names -------------------------
57: \def\ap#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Phys. (NY) }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
58: \def\arnps#1#2#3{ {\it Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
59: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
60: \def\npbps#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }(Proc. Suppl.){\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
61: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B #1} (#2) #3}
62: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D #1} (#2) #3}
63: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
64: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
65: \def\ptp#1#2#3{ {\it Prog. Theor. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
66: \def\rmp#1#2#3{ {\it Rev. Mod. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
67: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Zeit. f\"ur Physik }{\bf C #1} (#2) #3}
68: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A #1} (#2) #3}
69: \def\sjnp#1#2#3{ {\it Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
70: \def\yf#1#2#3{ {\it Yad. Fiz. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
71: \def\nc#1#2#3{ {\it Nuovo Cim. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
72: \def\jetpl#1#2#3{ {\it JETP Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
73: \def\ibid#1#2#3{ {\it ibid. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
74:
75: \title[]{FCNC in SUSY models with non-universal A-terms}
76:
77:
78: \author{Shaaban Khalil}
79:
80: \address{Centre for Theoretical Physics, University of Sussex, Brighton
81: BN1 9QJ,~~~U.~K.}
82:
83: \address{Ain Shams University, Faculty of Science, Cairo, 11566, Egypt.}
84:
85:
86: \begin{abstract}
87: We study the inclusive branching ratio for $\Bsg$
88: in a class of string-inspired SUSY models with
89: non--universal soft-breaking $A$--terms.
90: We show that \bsg do not severely constrain the non--universality
91: of these models and the parameter regions which are important for generating
92: sizeable contribution to \epspeps, of order $2 \times 10^{-3}$, are not
93: excluded. We also show that the CP asymmetry of this decay is predicted to be
94: much larger than the standard model prediction in a wide region of the
95: parameter space. In particular, it can be of order $10-15\%$ which can be
96: accessible at $B$ factories.
97: \end{abstract}
98:
99: %\maketitle
100:
101: \section{Introduction}
102:
103: The inclusive radiative decay $\Bsg$ is known to provide a valuable constraint on
104: any new physics beyond the standard model (SM).
105: The most recent result reported by CLEO collaboration
106: for the total (inclusive) B meson branching ratio $\Bsg$ is~ \cite{CLEO}
107: \be
108: {\rm BR}(B\to X_s\gamma)=(3.15\pm 0.35\pm 0.32\pm 0.26)\times 10^{-4}
109: \label{bsgCLEO1}
110: \ee
111: where the first error is statistical, the second systematic, and the
112: third one accounts for model dependence. From this result the following
113: bounds (each of them at 95\% C.L.) are obtained
114: \be
115: 2.0\times 10^{-4} <
116: {\rm BR}(B\to X_s\gamma)< 4.5 \times 10^{-4}.
117: \label{bsgCLEO2}
118: \ee
119: In addition the ALEPH collaboration at LEP reported a compatible measurement
120: of the corresponding branching ratio for b hadrons at the Z resonance
121: \cite{ALEPH}.
122:
123: It is well known that these experimental limits on
124: \bsg cause a dramatic reduction of the allowed
125: parameter space in case of universal soft terms \cite{bsgSUSY,BBMR}.
126: However, it has been emphasized recently that the non-degenerate
127: $A$--terms can generate the experimentally observed CP violation $\varepsilon$ and
128: $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ even with a vanishing
129: $\delta_{CKM}$~\cite{barr,khalil1,khalil2,vives}, i.e., fully supersymmetric CP violation
130: in the kaon system is possible in a class of models with non--universal
131: $A$--terms. So one may worry if these constraints would be even more severe in the case
132: of the non-degenerate $A$--terms.
133: The non--universal $A$--terms could enhance the gluino contribution to \bsg decay
134: which is usually very small in the universal case, being
135: proportional to the mass insertions $(\delta_{LR}^d)_{23}$. It could also give large
136: contributions to the chargino amplitude through the $(\delta_{LR}^u)_{23}$.
137: Therefore a careful analysis of the \bsg predictions, including
138: the full SUSY contributions, is necessary in this scenario.
139:
140: In most of analysis universal or degenerate $A$-terms have
141: been assumed, i.e., $(A_{U,D,L})_{ij}=A$ or $(A_{U,D,L})_{ij}=A_{U,D,L}$.
142: This is certainly a nice simplifying assumption,
143: but it removes some interesting degrees of freedom.
144: For example, every $A$-term would, in general have an independent CP
145: phase, and in principle we would have $27(=3 \times 3 \times 3)$ independent
146: CP phases. However, in the universal assumption only one independent CP phase
147: is allowed. The situation drastically changes if we are to allow for non-degenerate
148: {A} terms with different and independent CP phases.
149: For example, the off-diagonal element of the squark (mass)$^2$ matrix,
150: say $(M_Q^2)_{12}$, includes the term proportinal to
151: $(A_U)_{1i}(A_U^{\dag})_{i2}$. However, in the universal or the degenerate case this term
152: is always real. Furthermore, these off-diagonal elements play an important
153: role in \eps and \epspeps~\cite{khalil1,khalil2,vives}.
154:
155: The major bulk of this talk will be devoted to the discussion of the \bsg constraints for the
156: SUSY models with non--universal $A$--terms studied in Refs.~\cite{khalil1,khalil2,vives}
157: following the work down in Ref.~\cite{emidio}.
158: We will also mention to the effect of the flavour--dependent phases of the $A$--terms on
159: the CP asymmetry in the inclusive $\Bsg$ decay~\cite{david}.
160:
161: \section{String inspired models with non-degenerate $A$--terms}
162: In this work we consider the class of string inspired model which
163: has been recently studied in
164: Refs.~\cite{khalil1,khalil2,vives}. In
165: this class of models, the trilinear $A$--terms of the soft SUSY
166: breaking are non--universal. It was shown that this
167: non--universality among the $A$--terms plays an important role on
168: CP violating processes. In particular, it has been shown that
169: non-degenerate $A$-parameters can generate the experimentally
170: observed CP violation $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$
171: even with a vanishing $\delta_{\mathrm{CKM}}$.
172:
173: Here we consider two models for non-degenerate $A$--terms. The
174: first model (model A) is based on weakly coupled heterotic strings,
175: where the dilaton and the moduli fields contribute to SUSY
176: breaking~\cite{ibanez1}. The second model (model B) is based on type
177: I string theory where the gauge group $SU(3) \times U(1)_Y$ is
178: originated from the $9$ brane and the gauge group $SU(2)$ is
179: originated from one of the $5$ branes~\cite{ibanez2}.
180:
181: \subsection{Model A}
182: We start with the weakly coupled string-inspired supergravity
183: theory.
184: In this class of models, it is assumed that the superpotential of
185: the dilaton ($S$) and moduli ($T$) fields is
186: generated by some non-perturbative mechanism and
187: the $F$-terms of $S$ and $T$ contribute to the SUSY breaking.
188: Then one can parametrize the $F$-terms as~\cite{ibanez1}
189: \be
190: F^S = \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} (S+S^*) \sin\theta,\hspace{0.75cm} F^T
191: =m_{3/2} (T+T^*) \cos\theta .
192: \ee
193: Here $m_{3/2}$ is the gravitino mass, $n_i$ is the modular weight
194: and $\tan \theta$ corresponds to the ratio between the $F$-terms of $S$
195: and $T$.
196: In this framework, the soft scalar masses $m_i$ and the gaugino masses
197: $M_a$ are given by~\cite{ibanez1}
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: m^2_i &=& m^2_{3/2}(1 + n_i \cos^2\theta), \label{scalar}\\ M_a
200: &=& \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} \sin\theta .\label{gaugino}
201: \end{eqnarray}
202: The $A^{u,d}$-terms are written as
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: (A^{u,d})_{ij} &=& - \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} \sin\theta- m_{3/2}
205: \cos\theta (3 + n_i + n_j + n_{H_{u,d}}), \label{trilinear}
206: \end{eqnarray}
207: where $n_{i,j,k}$ are the modular weights of the fields
208: that are coupled by this $A$--term.
209: If we assign $n_i=-1$ for the third family and $n_i=-2$
210: for the first and second
211: families (we also assume that $n_{H_1}=-1$ and $n_{H_2}=-2$) we find the following
212: texture for the $A$-parameter matrix at the string scale
213: \begin{equation}
214: A^{u,d} = \left (
215: \begin{array}{ccc}
216: x_{u,d} & x_{u,d} & y_{u,d}\\
217: x_{u,d} & x_{u,d} & y_{u,d} \\
218: y_{u,d} & y_{u,d} & z_{u,d}
219: \end{array}
220: \right),
221: \label{AtermA}
222: \end{equation}
223: where
224: \begin{eqnarray}
225: x_u&=& m_{3/2}(-\sqrt{3} \sin\theta + 3 \cos\theta),\\
226: x_d&=&y_u= m_{3/2}(-\sqrt{3} \sin\theta + 2 \cos\theta),\\
227: y_d&=&z_u= m_{3/2}(-\sqrt{3} \sin\theta + \cos\theta),\\
228: z_d&=&-\sqrt{3}m_{3/2}\sin\theta.
229: \end{eqnarray}
230:
231: The non--universality of this model is
232: parameterized by the angle $\theta$ and the value $\theta =\pi/2$
233: corresponds to the universal limit for the soft terms. In order to
234: avoid negative mass squared in the scalar masses we restrict
235: ourselves to the case with $\cos^2 \theta < 1/2$. Such
236: restriction on $\theta$ makes the non--universality in the whole
237: soft SUSY breaking terms very limited. However, as shown in
238: \cite{khalil1,khalil2}, this small range of variation for the
239: non--universality is enough to generate sizeable SUSY CP violations
240: in K system.
241:
242: \subsection{Model B}
243: This model is based on type I string theory and like model A, it is a good candidate for
244: generating sizeable SUSY CP violations. In type I string theory, non--universality
245: in the scalar masses, $A$--terms and gaugino masses
246: can be naturally obtained~\cite{ibanez2}. Type I models contain
247: either 9 branes and three types of $5_i (i=1,2,3)$ branes or $7_i$
248: branes and 3 branes. From the phenomenological point of view there
249: is no difference between these two scenarios. Here we consider the
250: same model used in Ref.~\cite{vives}, where the gauge group
251: $SU(3)_C \times U(1)_Y$ is associated with 9 brane while $SU(2)_L$
252: is associated with $5_1$ brane.
253:
254: If SUSY breaking is analysed, as in model A,
255: in terms of the vevs of the dilaton and moduli fields \cite{ibanez2}
256: \be
257: F^S = \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} (S+S^*) \sin\theta,\hspace{0.75cm} F^{T_i}
258: =m_{3/2} (T_i+T_i^*) \Theta_i \cos\theta~,
259: \ee
260: where the angle $\theta$ and the parameter $\Theta_i$ with
261: $\sum_i \left|\Theta_i\right|^2=1$, just parametrize the direction of the
262: goldstino in the $S$ and $T_i$ fields space .
263: Within this framework, the gaugino masses are~\cite{ibanez2}
264: \bea
265: M_1 &=& M_3 = \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} \sin\theta ,\\ M_2 &=& \sqrt{3}
266: m_{3/2} \Theta_1 \cos \theta .\label{m2}
267: \label{gauginoB}
268: \eea
269: In this case the quark doublets and the Higgs fields are assigned to
270: the open string which spans between the $5_1$ and $9$ branes.
271: While the quark singlets correspond to the open string which starts
272: and ends on the $9$ brane, such open string includes three sectors
273: which correspond to the three complex compact dimensions. If we
274: assign the quark singlets to different sectors we obtain
275: non--universal $A$--terms. It turns out that in this model the
276: trilinear couplings $A^u$ and $A^d$ are given
277: by~\cite{ibanez2,vives}
278: \begin{equation}
279: A^u=A^d = \left (
280: \begin{array}{ccc}
281: x & y & z\\
282: x & y & z \\
283: x & y & z
284: \end{array}
285: \right),
286: \label{AtermB1}
287: \end{equation}
288: where
289: \begin{eqnarray}
290: x &=& - \sqrt{3} m_{3/2}\left(\sin\theta + (\Theta_1 - \Theta_3) \cos\theta
291: \right),\\
292: y &=& - \sqrt{3} m_{3/2}\left(\sin\theta + (\Theta_1 - \Theta_2) \cos\theta
293: \right),\\
294: z &=& - \sqrt{3} m_{3/2} \sin\theta.
295: \label{AtermB2}
296: \end{eqnarray}
297: The soft scalar masses for quark-doublets and Higgs fields
298: $(m^2_L)$, and the quark-singlets $(m^2_{R_i})$ are given by
299: \bea
300: m^2_L &=& m_{3/2}^2 \left( 1- \frac{3}{2} (1-\Theta_1^2) \cos^2
301: \theta\right) ,\\ m^2_{R_i} &=& m_{3/2}^2 \left( 1- 3 \Theta_i^2 \cos^2
302: \theta\right),
303: \label{scalarB}
304: \eea
305: where $i$ refers to the three families.
306: For $\Theta_{i} = 1/\sqrt{3}$ the $A$--terms and the
307: scalar masses are universal while the gaugino masses could be
308: non--universal. The universal gaugino masses are obtained at
309: $\theta=\pi/6$.
310:
311: In models with non-degenerate $A$--terms we have to fix the Yukawa
312: matrices to completely specify the model.
313: Here we assume that the Yukawa texture has the following form
314: \be
315: \hspace{-1.5cm}Y^u=\frac{1}{v\cos{\beta}} {\rm diag}\left(
316: m_u,m_c,m_t\right)~,~~
317: Y^d=\frac{1}{v\sin{\beta}} V^{\dagger} \cdot {\rm diag }
318: \left(m_d, m_s, m_b\right) \cdot V
319: \label{Yuk2}
320: \ee
321:
322: \section{\bsg constraints vs. non--universality}
323:
324: Theoretical study of \bsg decay is given by the effective Hamiltonian
325: \be
326: H_{eff}=-\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{32}^{\star}V_{33}\sum_{i=1}^{8}
327: C_i(\mu_b) Q_i(\mu_b)
328: \label{Heff}
329: \ee
330: where the complete basis of operators in the SM can be found in
331: Ref.~\cite{bsgNLO}. Recently the main theoretical uncertainties present in the previous
332: leading order (LO) SM calculations have been reduced by including the
333: NLO corrections to the \bsg decay, through
334: the calculation of the three-loop anomalous dimension matrix of the
335: effective theory \cite{bsgNLO}.
336: The relevant SUSY contributions to the effective Hamiltonian in Eq.(\ref{Heff})
337: affect only the $Q_7$ and $Q_8$ operators,
338: the expression for these operators are given (in the usual notation) by
339: \bea Q_7&=&\frac{e}{16 \pi^2}m_b\left(
340: \bar{s}_L\sigma^{\mu\nu} b_R\right) F_{\mu\nu}~,
341: \no
342: Q_8&=&\frac{g_s}{16
343: \pi^2}m_b\left( \bar{s}_L\sigma^{\mu\nu} T^a b_R\right) G^a_{\mu\nu}~.
344: \label{operators}
345: \eea
346: The Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu)$ are evaluated at the renormalization scale
347: $\mu_b\simeq O(m_b)$ by including the
348: NLO corrections \cite{bsgNLO}.
349: They can be formally decomposed as follows
350: \be
351: C_i(\mu)=C_i^{(0)}(\mu)+\frac{\alphas(\mu)}{4\pi}C_i^{(1)}(\mu) +
352: \O(\alphas^2).
353: \ee
354: where $C_i^{(0)}$ and $C_i^{(1)}$ stand for the LO and NLO order
355: respectively.
356: The SUSY contributions to the Wilson coefficients $C_{7,8}^{(0,1)}$
357: are obtained by calculating
358: the \bsg and $b\to s g$ amplitudes at EW scale respectively.
359: The LO contributions to these amplitudes are given by the 1-loop
360: magnetic-dipole and chromomagnetic dipole penguin diagrams respectively,
361: mediated by charged Higgs boson, chargino, gluino, and neutralino exchanges.
362: The corresponding results for these amplitudes can be found in Ref.\cite{BBMR}.
363: We point out that
364: the SUSY models with non--universal $A$--terms may induce non-negligible
365: contributions to the dipole operators $\tilde{Q}_{7,8}$
366: which have opposite chirality with respect to $Q_{7,8}$.
367: It is worth mentioning that
368: these operators are also induced in the SM and in the MSSM with supergravity
369: scenario, but their contributions
370: are negligible being suppressed by terms of order $\O(m_s/m_b)$.
371: In particular in MSSM, due to the universality of the $A$--terms,
372: the gluino and chargino contributions
373: to $\tilde{Q}_{7,8}$ turn out to be of order $\O(m_s/m_b)$.
374: This argument
375: does not hold in the models with non--universal $A$--terms and in
376: particular in our case.
377: It can be simply understood by using the mass insertion method \cite{GGMS}.
378: For instance, the gluino contributions to $Q_7$ and $\tilde{Q}_7$
379: operators are proportional to $(\delta_{LR}^d)_{23}\simeq
380: (S_{D_L}Y^{A\star}_d S_{D_R}^{\dag})_{23}/m_{\tilde{q}}^2$
381: and $(\delta_{RL}^d)_{23}\simeq
382: (S_{D_R}Y^{A}_d S_{D_L}^{\dag})_{23}/m_{\tilde{q}}^2$ respectively.
383: Since the $A^D$ matrix is symmetric in model A and
384: $A^D_{ij}\simeq A^D_{ji}$ in model B, then
385: $(\delta_{LR}^d)_{23}\simeq (\delta_{RL}^d)_{23}$.
386: Then in our case we should
387: consistently take into account the SUSY contributions to $\tilde{Q}_{7}$ in
388: \bsg.
389: Analogous considerations hold for the operator $\tilde{Q}_{8}$.
390:
391: By taking into account the above considerations regarding the
392: operators $\tilde{Q}_{7,8}$,
393: the new physics effects in \bsg
394: can be parametrized in a model independent way
395: by introducing the so called $R_{7,8}$ and $\tilde{R}_{7,8}$
396: parameters defined at EW scale as
397: \be
398: R_{7,8}=\frac{\left(C^{(0)}_{7,8}-C^{(0)SM}_{7,8}\right)}
399: {C_{7,8}^{(0)SM}},~~~
400: \tilde{R}_{7,8}=\frac{\tilde{C}_{7,8}^{(0)}}{C_{7,8}^{(0)SM}},
401: \label{R78}
402: \ee
403: where $C_{7,8}$ include the total contribution while $C_{7,8}^{SM}$ contains
404: only the SM ones.
405: Note that in $\tilde{C}_{7,8}$, which are the corresponding Wilson coefficients
406: for $\tilde{Q}_{7,8}$ respectively,
407: we have set to zero the SM contribution.
408: In Ref.~\cite{BBMR} only the expressions for the $R_{7,8}$ are given,
409: the corresponding expressions for $\tilde{R}_{7,8}$ are given in Ref.~\cite{emidio}.
410: The general parametrization of the branching ratio in terms
411: of the new physics contributions is given by \cite{gabsarid}.
412: \bea
413: \hspace{-2.5cm}BR(B\to X_s\gamma)&=&(3.29\pm 0.33)\times 10^{-4}
414: \biggl(1 + 0.622 Re[R_7] + 0.090\bigl(\vert R_7 \vert^2 + \vert \tilde{R}_7
415: \vert^2\bigr) +\no
416: &&\hspace{-1cm}0.066Re[R_8]+ 0.019 \bigl(Re[R_7 R_8^*] + Re[\tilde{R}_7 \tilde{R}_8^*]\bigr) +
417: 0.002 \bigl(\vert R_8 \vert^2+\vert \tilde{R}_8 \vert^2\bigr)\biggr),
418: \label{bsgPAR}
419: \eea
420: where the overall SM uncertainty has been factorized outside.
421: We have checked explicitly that the result in Eq.(\ref{bsgPAR}) is
422: in agreement with the corresponding one used in Ref.~\cite{DTV}.
423: \begin{figure}[htcb]
424: \centerline{
425: \begin{tabular}{c}
426: \epsfig{figure=bsa1.eps,height=7cm,width=10.5cm}\\
427: \end{tabular}
428: }
429: \caption{The BR($\Bsg$) versus $\sin\theta$ in model A,
430: for $\mu>0$, $m_{3/2}=150$ GeV and \tgb=2, 15, 40.}
431: \label{BRA1}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: In Figs. [\ref{BRA1}] we plot the results
435: for the branching ratio BR($\Bsg$), in model A, versus $\sin{\theta}$
436: for different values of \tgb, $m_{3/2}=150$ and $\mu >0$
437: (for $\mu <0$, as in MSSM,
438: almost the whole range of the parameter space is excluded).
439: The main message arising from these results
440: is that the sensitivity of BR($\Bsg$) respect to $\sin \theta$
441: increases with \tgb. In particular for the low \tgb region the \bsg result
442: does not differ significantly from the universal case. In the large
443: \tgb region, $\tgb=15-40$, the CLEO measurement of \bsg set severe
444: constraints on the angle $\theta$ for low gravitino masses.
445:
446: \begin{figure}[tbc]
447: \centerline{
448: \begin{tabular}{c}
449: \epsfig{figure=bsb1.eps,height=7cm,width=10.5cm,angle=0}\\
450: \end{tabular}
451: }
452: \caption{The branching ratio BR($\Bsg$) versus
453: $\tan \beta$ in model B, for $\mu > 0$, $m_{3/2}=150$ GeV,
454: and for some values of $(\Theta_1,\Theta_2)=
455: (1/\sqrt{3},1/\sqrt{3}),~(0.9,0.2),~(0.6,0.2)$, corresponding to the
456: continuos, dashed, and dot-dashed lines respectively.}
457: \label{BRB1}
458: \end{figure}
459:
460: In Fig.[\ref{BRB1}] we
461: plot the branching ratio BR($\Bsg$), in model B, versus \tgb for three different
462: values of $\Theta_1,\Theta_2$ (see the figure caption)
463: which are representative examples for universal and highly non--universal cases.
464: From these figures it is clear that BR($\Bsg$) is not very sensitive to the
465: values of $\Theta_i$'s parameters, even at very large \tgb, unlike model A.
466: The constraints from CLEO measurement are almost the same in the
467: universal and non--universal cases. For $\mu > 0$
468: the branching ratio is constrained from the lower bound of CLEO only
469: at very large \tgb, while for $\mu < 0$ the branching ratio is
470: almost excluded except at low \tgb.
471:
472: \section{SUSY phases and CP asymmetry in $B \to
473: X_s \gamma$ decays}
474:
475: Direct CP asymmetry in the inclusive radiative decay $B \to X_s \gamma$ is measured
476: by the quantity
477: \bea
478: A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma} = \Frac{\Gamma(\bar{B} \to X_s \gamma) - \Gamma(B \to
479: X_{\bar{s}}
480: \gamma)}{\Gamma(\bar{B} \to X_s \gamma) + \Gamma(B \to X_{\bar{s}}
481: \gamma)}.
482: \eea
483: The Standard Model (SM) prediction for this asymmetry is very small, less than
484: $1\%$. Thus, the observation of sizeable asymmetry in the decay $B \to X_s \gamma$
485: would be a clean signal of new physics.
486:
487: The most recent result reported by CLEO collaboration for the CP asummetry in these
488: decays is \cite{cleo2}
489: \begin{equation}
490: -9\% < A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma} < 42 \%~,
491: \end{equation}
492: and it is expected that the measurements of $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ will be
493: improved in the next few years at the $B$--factories.
494:
495: Supersymmetric predictions for $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ are strongly dependent
496: on the flavour structure of the soft breaking terms. It was shown that in the
497: universal case,
498: as in the minimal supergravity models, the prediction
499: of the asymmetry is less than $2\%$, since in this case the electric dipole moments
500: (EDM) of the electron and neutron constrain the SUSY CP--violating phases to be very
501: small~\cite{Goto,Aoki}. we explore the effect of these large flavour--dependent
502: phases on inducing a direct CP violation in $B \to X_s \gamma$ decay. We will show
503: that the values of the asymmetry $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ in this class of models
504: are much
505: larger than the SM prediction in a wide region of the parameter space allowed by
506: experiments, namely the EDM experimental limits and the bounds on the branching
507: ratio
508: of $B \to X_s \gamma$ . The enhancement of $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ is due to the
509: important contributions from gluino--mediated diagrams, in this
510: scenario, in addition to the usual chargino and charged Higgs contributions.
511:
512: The expression for the asymmetry $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$, corrected to
513: next--to--leading order is given by \cite{Neubert}
514: \bea
515: A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma} &=&\Frac{4\al_s(m_b)}{9 \vert C_7 \vert^2} \biggl\{
516: \biggl[\frac{10}{9} - 2 z~ (v(z)+b(z,\delta))\biggr] Im[C_2 C_7^*]\no
517: &+& Im[C_7 C^*_8] + \frac{2}{3} z~b(z,\delta) Im[C_2 C_8^*] \biggr \},
518: \label{asymmetry}
519: \eea
520: where $z=m_c^2/m_b^2$. The functions $v(z)$ and $b(z,\delta)$ can be found in
521: Ref.\cite{Neubert}. The parameter $\delta$ is related to the experimental cut
522: on the photon
523: energy, $E_{\gamma} > (1-\delta) m_b/2$, which is assumed to be 0.9. We neglect the
524: very small effect of the CP--violating phase in the CKM matrix.
525: As mentioned above, SUSY models with non--universal $A$--terms may induce
526: non--negligible contributions
527: to the dipole operators $\tilde{Q}_{7,8}$ which have opposite chirality to $Q_{7,8}$.
528: In the MSSM these contributions are suppressed by terms of order ${\cal O}(m_s/m_b)$
529: due to the universality of the $A$--terms. However, in our case we should take them into
530: account. Denoting by $\tilde{C}_{7,8}$ the Wilson coefficients multiplying the new
531: operators $\tilde{Q}_{7,8}$ the expression for the asymmetry in Eq.(\ref{asymmetry})
532: will be modified by making the replacement
533: \be
534: C_i C_j^* \to C_i C_j^* + \tilde{C}_i \tilde{C}_j^*.
535: \label{chirality}
536: \ee
537: The expressions for $\tilde{C}_{7,8}$ are given in
538: Ref.\cite{emidio} and $\tilde{C}_2=0$ (there is no operator similar to $Q_2$
539: containing right--handed quark fields).
540:
541: Note that including these modifications (\ref{chirality})
542: may enhance the branching ratio of $B \to X_s \gamma$ and reduce the CP asymmetry,
543: since $\vert C_7 \vert^2$ is replaced by $\vert C_7 \vert^2 + \vert \tilde{C}_7
544: \vert^2$ in the denominator of Eq.(\ref{asymmetry}). If so, neglecting this
545: contribution could lead to an incorrect conclusion.
546:
547: In this class of models we consider here, the relevant and
548: important phase for the CP asymmetry is the phase of the off--diagonal element
549: $A_{23}$ ($\phi_b$).
550: In Fig.1 we show the dependence of $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ on
551: $\phi_b$ for $m_{3/2} =150$ GeV and $\tan\beta=3$ and $10$.
552:
553: %-----------------------
554: \begin{figure}[htcb]
555: \centerline{
556: \begin{tabular}{c}
557: \epsfig{figure=cpa1.eps,height=7cm,width=10.5cm}\\
558: \end{tabular}
559: }
560: \caption{CP asymmetry $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ as a
561: function of the flavour--dependent phase $\phi_b$, for $m_{3/2} \simeq 150$ GeV and
562: $\tan \beta =3$ and $10$.}
563: \label{CPA}
564: \end{figure}
565: %-----------------------
566: We see from Fig.[\ref{CPA}] that the CP asymmetry $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ can be as
567: large as $\pm 15\%$, which
568: can be accessible at the B--factories. Also this result does not require a light chargino
569: as in the case considered in Ref.~\cite{Ko}.
570:
571: It is important to emphasize that the gluino contribution in this model gives the
572: dominant contribution to the CP asymmetry $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$. We found
573: that although the real parts of the gluino contributions to both of $C_{7,8}$ and
574: $\tilde{C}_{7,8}$ are smaller than the real parts of the other
575: contributions (but not negligible as in the case of universal $A$--terms), their
576: imaginary parts are dominant and give with the imaginary parts
577: of the chargino contribution the main contributions to $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$. It
578: is clear that these contributions vanish for $\phi_b$ equal to a multiple of $\pi$
579: and $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ in this case is identically zero as Fig.1 shows.
580: We also noted~\cite{david} that large
581: values of CP asymmetry $A_{CP}^{b\to s \gamma}$ prefer small values for the
582: branching ratio $BR(B\to X_s \gamma)$. This correlation is also found in
583: Ref.~\cite{Aoki}.
584:
585: \section{Conclusions}
586: We analysed the constraints set by the \bsg decay
587: on a class of string inspired SUSY models with non--universal soft breaking $A$--terms. We found that the recent CLEO measurements on the total inclusive
588: B meson branching ratio BR($\Bsg$) do not set severe constraints on the
589: non--universality of these models.
590: In this respect we have found that the parameter regions
591: which are important for generating sizeable contributions to
592: $\varepsilon^{\prime}/\varepsilon$ \cite{khalil1,khalil2,vives},
593: in particular the low \tgb regions, are not excluded by \bsg decay.
594:
595: we have also considered the possible supersymmetric contribution
596: to CP asymmetry in the inclusive $B\to X_s \gamma$ decay in model with
597: non--universal $A$--terms. Contrary to the universal scenario, we
598: find that the CP asymmetry in this class of models is predicted to be large
599: in sizeable regions of the parameter space allowed by the experimental bounds,
600: and may be possibly to be detected at B factories We have shown that the
601: flavour--dependent phases
602: are crucial for this enhancing with respecting the severe bounds on the electric
603: dipole moment of the neutron and electron.
604:
605: \section*{ Acknowledgement}
606: I would like to thank D. Bailin, E. Gabrielli, and E. Torrente-Lujan for their
607: collaboration in this project. I also would like to thank the organizers for such
608: a nice and stimulating atmosphere in which the workshop took place.\\
609:
610:
611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
612:
613: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
614:
615: \bibitem{CLEO}
616: S. Ahmed {\it et al.}, (CLEO Collaboration), CLEO-CONF-99-10,
617: hep-ex/9908022.
618: %------------------
619: \bibitem{ALEPH}
620: R. Barate {\it et al.} (ALEPH Collaboration), \plb{429}{1998}{169}.
621: %-----------------------
622: \bibitem{bsgSUSY}
623: W. S. Hou and R.S. Willey \plb{202}{1988}{591};
624: T. G. Rizzo \prd{38}{1988}{820};
625: V. Barger, M.S. Berger, and R.J.N. Phillips, \prl{70}{1993}{1368};
626: J. L. Hewett, \prl{70}{1993}{1045};
627: R. Barbieri and G.F. Giudice, \plb{309}{1993}{86};
628: J. L. Lopez, D. V. Nanopoulos, and G. T. Park, \prd{48}{1993}{974};
629: Y. Okada, \plb{315}{1993}{119};
630: R. Garisto and J.N. Ng, \plb{315}{1993}{372};
631: M.A. Diaz, \plb{322}{1994}{207}; F.M. Borzumati, Z. Phys.
632: {\bf C 63} (1994) 291;
633: P. Nath and R. Arnowitt, \plb{336}{1994}{395};
634: S. Bertolini and F. Vissani, Z. Phys. {\bf C 67} (1995) 513;
635: N.G. Deshpande, B. Dutta, and S. Oh, \prd{56}{1997}{519};
636: S. Khalil, A. Masiero, and Q. Shafi, \prd{56}{1997}{5754};
637: T. Blazek and S. Raby,\prd{59}{1999}{095002}.
638:
639: %------------------------%----------------------
640: \bibitem{BBMR}
641: S. Bertolini, F. Borzumati, A. Masiero, and G. Ridolfi,
642: \npb{353}{1991}{591}.
643: %------------------------
644: \bibitem{barr}
645: S.~Barr and S.~Khalil, \prd{61}{2000}{035005}.
646: %------------------------
647: \bibitem{khalil1}
648: S.~Khalil, T.~Kobayashi, and A.~Masiero, \prd{60}{1999}{075003}.
649: %-----------------------
650: \bibitem{khalil2}
651: S.~Khalil and T.~Kobayashi, \plb{460}{1999}{341}.
652: %-----------------------
653: \bibitem{vives}
654: S. Khalil, T. Kobayashi, and O. Vives, \npb{580}{2000}{275}.
655: %----------------------
656: \bibitem{emidio}
657: E. Gabrielli, S. Khalil, and E. Torrente-Lujan, hep-ph/0005303.
658: %----------------------
659: \bibitem{david}
660: D.Bailin and S. Khalil, hep-ph/0010058 .
661: %----------------------
662: \bibitem{ibanez1}
663: A. Brignole, L. E. \Ibanez, and C. \Munoz, \npb{422}{1994}{125},
664: Erratum-ibid. {\bf B 436}~(1995) 747.
665: %-----------------------
666: \bibitem{ibanez2}
667: L. E. \Ibanez, C. \Munoz, and S. Rigolin, \npb{553}{1999}{43}.
668: %-----------------------
669: \bibitem{bsgNLO}
670: K. Chetyrkin, M. Misiak, and M. Munz, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 400}, 206 (1997);
671: A. J. Buras, A. Kwiatkowski, and N. Pott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 414}, 157 (1997);
672: C. Greub and T. Hurth, \prd{54}{1996}{3350}; \prd{56}{1997}{2934}.
673: %-----------------------
674: \bibitem{GGMS}
675: F. Gabbiani, E. Gabrielli, A. Masiero, and L. Silvestrini,
676: \npb{477}{1996}{321}.
677: %-----------------------
678: \bibitem{gabsarid}
679: E. Gabrielli and U. Sarid \prd{58}{1998}{115003}; \prl{79}{1997}{4752}.
680: %------------------------
681: \bibitem{DTV}
682: M. A. Diaz, E. Torrente-Lujan, and J.W.F. Valle, \npb{551}{1999}{78}.
683: %-----------%------------------------
684: \bibitem{cleo2}
685: CLEO Collaboration, S. Ahmed et al., hep-ex/9908022.
686: %-----------------------
687: \bibitem{Goto}
688: T. Goto, Y. Keum, T. Nihei, Y. Okada and Y. Shimizu, \plb{460}{99}{333};
689: %-----------------------
690: \bibitem{Aoki}
691: M. Aoki, G. Cho and N. Oshimo, \npb{554}{99}{50}.
692: %-----------------------
693: \bibitem{Neubert}
694: A. Kagan and M. Neuber, \prd{58}{98}{094012}.
695: %-----------------------
696: \bibitem{Ko}
697: S. Baek and P. Ko, \prl{83}{99}{488}.
698: %-----------------------
699:
700: \end{thebibliography}
701:
702: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
703:
704: \end{document}
705:
706:
707:
708: %----------------------
709: \bibitem{CP1}
710: A. Alavi--Harati {\it et al.} (KTeV Coll.), \prl{83}{1999}{22}.
711: %-----------------------
712: \bibitem{CP2}
713: V. Fanti {\it et al.} (NA48 Coll.), \plb{465}{1999}{335}.
714: %----------------------
715: \bibitem{CP3}
716: G. D'Agostini, hep-ex/9910036.
717: %-----------------------
718: \bibitem{epsp1}
719: A. Buras, M. Jamin, and M.E: Lautenbacher, \npb{408}{1993}{209};
720: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli, and L. Reina, \npb{415}{1994}{403};
721: S. Bosh, A.J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, S. Jager, M. Jamin,
722: M.E. Lautenbacher, and L. Silvestrini, \npb{565}{2000}{3};
723: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Giusti, V. Lubicz, and
724: G. Martinelli, hep-ph/9910237; M. Jamin, hep-ph/9911390.
725: %-----------------------
726: \bibitem{epsp2}
727: S. Bertolini, M. Fabbrichesi, and J.O. Eeg, {\it Rev. Mod. Phys.}{\bf 72} (2000) 65;
728: T. Hambye, G.O. Kohler, E.A. Paschos, and P.H. Soldan,\npb{564}{2000}{391};
729: J.Bijnens, and J.Prades, JHEP 01, (1999) 023;
730: E. Pallante and A. Pich, \prl{84}{2000}{2568}.
731: %-----------------------
732: \bibitem{GG}
733: E. Gabrielli and G.F. Giudice, \npb{433}{1995}{3};
734: Erratum-ibid. {\bf B~507} (1997) 549.
735: %-----------------------
736: \bibitem{abel}
737: S.~Abel and J.~Frere, \prd{55}{1997}{1623}.
738: %-----------------------
739:
740:
741: \bibitem{khalil2}
742: S.~Khalil and T.~Kobayashi, \plb{460}{1999}{341}.
743: %-----------------------
744: \bibitem{vives}
745: S. Khalil, T. Kobayashi, and O. Vives, \npb{580}{2000}{275}.
746: %----------------------
747:
748: \bibitem{branco}
749: G.C.~Branco, G.C.~Cho, Y.~Kizukuri and N.~Oshimo,
750: \npb{449}{95}{483}.
751: %-----------------------
752: \bibitem{masieromur}
753: A. Masiero and H. Murayama, \prl{83}{1999}{907}.
754: %-----------------------
755: \bibitem{non-u}
756: R.~Barbieri, R.~Contino and A.~Strumia, \npb{578}{2000}{153};\\
757: K.~Babu, B.~Dutta and R.N.~Mohapatra, \prd{61}{2000}{091701}.
758: %------------------------
759:
760: \end{thebibliography}
761:
762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
763:
764: \end{document}
765: