1:
2:
3: \documentstyle[aps,epsfig,prd,preprint]{revtex}
4: \tightenlines
5:
6: %================= Definitions =================================
7: \def \beq{\begin{equation}} \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
8: \def \beqa{\begin{eqnarray}} \def \eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
9: \def \bea{\begin{array}} \def \eea{\end{array}}
10:
11: \def\nomb{\nonumber}
12: \def \abs#1{\left| #1 \right|}
13: \def \lb{\left(} \def \rb{\right)}
14: %==================== reference ==================================
15: \def\npb#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf B#1} (#2) #3}
16: \def\npps#1#2#3{ {\it Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
17: \def\plb#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf B#1} (#2) #3}
18: \def\prd#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. }{\bf D#1} (#2) #3}
19: \def\prep#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rep. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
20: \def\prl#1#2#3{ {\it Phys. Rev. Lett. }{\bf #1} (#2) #3}
21: \def\ijm#1#2#3{ {\it Int. j. Mod. Phys.}{\bf A#1} (#2) #3}
22: \def\mpla#1#2#3{ {\it Mod. Phys. Lett. }{\bf A#1} (#2) #3}
23: \def\zpc#1#2#3{ {\it Zeit. f{\"u}r Physik }{\bf C#1} (#2) #3}
24: \def\report#1#2#3{{\it Phys. Rep}{\bf #1}(#2) #3}
25: \def\epj#1#2#3{{\it Eur. Phys. J.}{\bf C#1}(#2)#3}
26: \def\jhep#1#2#3{{\it JHEP.}{\bf C#1}(#2)#3}
27: %===================== Local ===============================
28: \def \V#1{V_{#1}}
29: \def \bfit {\beta_{fit}}
30: \def \bjp{\beta_{J/\psi}}
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32: \baselineskip 60pt
33: \begin{document}
34: \draft
35: \title{ Implication of $\sin 2\beta$ from global fit and $B\to J/\psi K_S$ }
36: \author{{ Yue-Liang Wu and Yu-Feng Zhou}\\
37: {\small \ Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of
38: Science, Beijing 100080, China }}
39: %\date{}
40: \maketitle
41:
42: \begin{abstract}
43: The measurement of $\sin 2 \beta$ is discussed within and beyond
44: the standard model. In the presence of new physics, the angle
45: $\beta$ extracted from the global fit(denoted by
46: $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$) and the one extracted from $B\to J/\psi K_S$
47: (denoted by $\beta_{J/\psi}$) are in general all different from
48: the 'true' angle $\beta$ which is the weak phase of CKM matrix
49: element $V^*_{td}$. Possible new physics effects on the ratio
50: $R_{\beta}=\sin2\beta_{J/\psi}/\sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ is studied
51: and parameterized in a most general form. It is shown that the
52: ratio $R_{\beta}$ may provide a useful tool in probing new
53: physics. The experimental value of $R_{\beta}$ is obtained
54: through an update of the global fit of the unitarity triangle with
55: the latest data and found to be less than unity at 1$\sigma$
56: level. The new physics effects on $R_{\beta}$ from the models
57: with minimum flavor violation (MFV) and the standard model with
58: two-Higgs-doublet (S2HDM) are studied in detail. It is found that
59: the MFV models seem to give a relative large value $R_{\beta}\geq
60: 1$. With the current data, this may indicate that this kind of new
61: physics may be disfavored and alternative new physics with
62: additional phases appears more relevant. As an illustration for
63: models with additional phase beyond CKM phase, the S2HDM effects
64: on $R_{\beta}$ are studied and found to be easily coincide with
65: the data due to the flavor changing neutral Higgs interaction.
66: \end{abstract}
67: \pacs{PACS numbers: 11.30.-j, 12.60.-i, 13.25.-k}
68:
69: \newpage
70:
71: %introduction
72: \section{Introduction}
73: Recently, the BaBar and Belle Collaborations have reported their new
74: results on the measurements of time dependent CP
75: asymmetry ${\cal A}_{CP}$ of decay mode $B\to J/\psi K_S$. The
76: definition of ${\cal A}_{CP}$ is given as follows
77: \beqa
78: {\cal A}_{CP}(t) &=& { \Gamma(\bar{B}^0(t)\to J/\psi K_S) - \Gamma(B^0(t)\to J/\psi K_S) \over
79: \Gamma(\bar{B}^0(t)\to J/\psi K_S) +\Gamma(B^0(t)\to J/\psi K_S)}\nomb \\
80: &\equiv& -\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi} \sin ( \Delta m_B t).
81: \eeqa
82:
83: In the framework of the Standard Model (SM), the angle
84: $\beta_{J/\psi}$ is expected to be equal to the angle $\beta$
85: which concerns the weak phase of Cabbibo-Kabayashi-Maskawa (CKM)
86: matrix element $V^*_{td}$ \beqa \beta \equiv -arg \left( { V_{td}
87: V^*_{tb} \over V_{cd} V^*_{cb} }\right) \eeqa
88: which is also one of the angles of the unitarity triangles
89: containing $d$ and $b$ quarks. The new measurements give the
90: following values \cite{babar,belle}:
91: \beqa
92: \sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}|_{exp} &=& 0.59\pm 0.14\pm 0.05 \mbox{\ \ (BaBar)}\nomb \\
93: \sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}|_{exp} &=& 0.58^{+0.32+0.09}_{-0.34-0.1} \mbox{\ \ (Belle)}.
94: \eeqa
95: Combining with the ones measured earlier by CDF and ALEPH Collaboration
96: $0.79^{+0.41}_{-0.44}$\cite{CDF}, and $0.84^{+0.82}_{-1.04}\pm 0.16 $\cite{ALEPH},
97: one arrives at the new world average value of $\sin 2\beta$
98:
99: \beqa \sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}|_{exp} = 0.59\pm 0.14 . \eeqa
100:
101: Although this result is consistent with the prediction of
102: Standard Model (SM),
103: the results from BaBar and Belle may imply a
104: possibility that the angle $\beta_{J/\psi}$ measured directly from the
105: time dependent CP asymmetry may be different than the one from the global
106: fit in SM ( denoted by $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$) which contains the indirect
107: CP violations of both neutral $K$ and $B$ meson mixings. This
108: possibility has aroused many discussions in the
109: literatures\cite{other,other1,other2,nir,buras1,buras2,buras3,Ali}. As has been
110: pointed out in Ref.\cite{nir}, a lower value of $\sin 2\beta$ less
111: than 0.5 may imply that some hadronic parameters are out of the
112: reasonable range. It may imply a large bag parameter $\hat{B}_K$ for
113: the matrix element $<K^0| H_{W}|\bar{K}^0>$, a large $SU(3)$ breaking
114: factor between $B^0$ and $B^0_s$ or a small value of $|V_{ub}|$.
115: %
116: In the SM, a lower bound of $\sin 2\beta$ can be derived from the
117: evaluation of $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta m_B$, a conservative bound
118: was found to be $\sin 2\beta>0.42$ \cite{buras1} which is compared
119: with $0.34$ in\cite{buras2} due to the use of different values of
120: hadronic parameters. The existence of a lower bound on $\sin
121: 2\beta$ also holds for new physics models with minimal flavor
122: violation (MFV), namely a class of models which has no new flavor
123: changing operators beyond those in the SM and no additional weak
124: phases beyond the CKM phase.
125:
126: In the SM, the angle $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ extracted from the global
127: fit should be the same as the one measured from the time dependent
128: CP asymmetry in the decay $B\to J/\psi K_S$. However, if there
129: exists new physics beyond the SM, the situation may be quite
130: different, the angle ``$\beta$'' extracted from two different
131: approaches are in general not equal. This is because $\epsilon_K$
132: and $\Delta m_B$ as well as $B\to J/\psi K_S$ will receive
133: contributions from new physics in a quite different manner
134: comparing to the ones from the SM. As a consequence, the extracted
135: ``$\beta$'' from two ways will become different. In the most
136: general case, one may find that $\beta^{SM}_{fit} \neq
137: \beta_{J/\psi}\neq \beta$ when new physics exists and the ratio
138: \beqa
139: R_{\beta}\equiv{\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi} \over \sin
140: 2\beta^{SM}_{fit}}
141: \eeqa
142: is therefore not equal to unity. It will be
143: shown in detail below that the true angle $\beta$ may not be
144: directly obtained from the measurement of $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ or
145: $\beta_{J/\psi}$.
146:
147: It is obvious that the deviation from $R_{\beta}=1$ provides a clean signal
148: of new physics. While the different new physics models may modify
149: its value in different ways. In the definition of $R_{\beta}$,
150: the value of $\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi} $ is model dependent, the
151: prediction of $\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi} $ may vary largely from
152: different new physics models. On the other hand, even when
153: $\sin2\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ is extracted via the same formulae as the
154: ones in the SM and its value only depends on the hadronic
155: parameters and the experimental data, namely it looks like model
156: independent, but possible existence of new physics implies that
157: $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ may not be necessarily equal to the true
158: $\beta$ in the SM. This is because the experimental data should
159: contain all contributions from both SM and beyond the SM if new
160: physics truly exists. Thus the relation between $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$
161: and $\beta$ depends on models. In this paper, we present a general
162: parameterization for possible new physics contributions to
163: $R_{\beta}$. For a detailed consideration, we investigate two
164: interesting and typical models, one is the model with MFV and
165: another is the simplest extension of SM with just adding one Higgs
166: doublet. For convenience of mention in our following discussions,
167: we may call such a minimal extension of the standard model with
168: two Higgs doublet as an
169: S2HDM\cite{TH1,TH2,TH3,TH4,WW,YLW,Wu-Zhou}, in which CP violation
170: could solely originate from the Higgs potential\cite{TDL,WW,YLW}.
171: The experimental value of $R_{\beta}$ is obtained from an update
172: of the global fit for the unitarity triangle (UT). It will be seen
173: that the ratio $R_{\beta}$ may provide a useful tool for probing
174: new physics. The current data lead to a low value of $R_{\beta}$
175: which is not likely to be accommodated by the models with MFV. If
176: the future experiments confirm such a low value of $R_{\beta}$,
177: the models involving new interactions with additional phases
178: beyond the CKM phase will be preferred. Taking the S2HDM as an
179: example, we illustrate that the new physics models with additional
180: CP phases can easily explain the current data.
181:
182: This paper is organized as follows: in section {\bf I$\!$I}, the ratio
183: $R_{\beta}$ with possible new physics effects is introduced and the new
184: physics effects on $R_{\beta}$
185: are parameterized in a most general form. In section {\bf
186: I$\!$I$\!$I}, the profile of the unitarity triangle is updated with the latest data
187: and the resulting value of $R_{\beta}$ is obtained. The new physics
188: effects of the models with MFV and the S2HDM are discussed in section {\bf I$\!$V}. Our
189: conclusions are made in the last section.
190:
191:
192: \section{ Neutral meson mixing within and beyond the SM}
193: In the study of quark mixing and CP violation, it is convenient to
194: use the Wolfenstein parameterization \cite{wolfen} in which the
195: CKM matrix elements can be parameterized by four parameters
196: $\lambda$, $A$, $\rho$ and $\eta$. The unitarity relation \beqa
197: V_{ud}V^*_{ub}+V_{cd}V^*_{cb}+V_{td}V^*_{tb}=0 \label{unitarity}
198: \eeqa can be depicted as a closed triangle in the $\rho$, $\eta$
199: plane (see Fig.\ref{triangle.eps}). The two sides of the triangle
200: can be written as:
201:
202: \beqa
203: \hat{R}_{u} &\equiv& -\frac{V_{ud}V^*_{ub}}{V_{cd}V^*_{cb}}
204: =R_u e^{i\gamma}
205: =\sqrt{\bar{\rho}^2+\bar{\eta}^2} e^{i\gamma}, \nomb \\
206: % =(1-\lambda^2/2) \frac{1}{\lambda} \abs{\frac{V_{ub}}{V_{cb}}}\nomb\\
207: \hat{R}_{t} &\equiv& -\frac{V_{td}V^*_{tb}}{V_{cd}V^*_{cb}}
208: =R_t e^{-i\beta}
209: =\sqrt{(1-\bar{\rho})^2+\bar{\eta}^2} e^{-i\beta},
210: % = \frac{1}{\lambda} \abs{\frac{V_{td}}{V_{cb}}}
211: \eeqa
212: with $\bar{\rho}\equiv (1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2})\rho$, and
213: $\bar{\eta}\equiv (1-\frac{\lambda^2}{2})\eta $.
214: The three angles of $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ of the triangle are defined as follows
215: \beqa
216: \sin 2\alpha &=& { 2 \bar{\eta} ( \bar{\eta}^2 +\bar{\rho}^2-\bar{\rho})
217: \over (\bar{\rho}^2+ \bar{\eta}^2)((1-\bar{\rho})^2+ \bar{\eta}^2)}, \nomb\\
218: \sin 2\beta &=& {2 \bar{\eta}(1-\bar{\rho}) \over
219: (1-\bar{\rho})^2+ \bar{\eta}^2 }, \nomb \\ \sin 2\gamma &=& { 2
220: \bar{\rho}\bar{\eta} \over \bar{\rho}^2+ \bar{\eta}^2 },
221: \label{angle-def}
222: \eeqa
223: with $\alpha+\beta+\gamma=180^\circ$. One
224: of the important goals in the modern particle physics is to
225: precisely determine those angles and to test the unitarity
226: relation of Eq.(\ref{unitarity}). Many efforts have been done for
227: that purpose and the current data have constrained the apex of the
228: triangle in a small region. For example, the values of $\lambda$,
229: $|V_{cb}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$ are extracted from the semileptonic $K$
230: and $B$ decays. Besides the semileptonic decays, the important
231: constraint may come from the neutral meson mixings, such as
232: $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ and $B^0_{(s)}-\bar{B}^0_{(s)}$ mixings.
233:
234: %%%%%%%%%% definition of sin 2 beta_fit %%%%%%%
235: There are two important observables in neutral meson mixings:
236: the indirect CP violating parameter $\epsilon_K$ of kaon and
237: the mass difference of neutral $B$ meson $\Delta m_{B_{(s)}} $.
238: In the SM, their expressions read
239: \beqa
240: \epsilon^{SM}_K&=&\left\{\bar{\eta}
241: \left[(1-\bar{\rho})A^2 \eta_2 S_0(x_t)+P_{\epsilon}\right]
242: A^2 \hat{B}_K C_{\epsilon}\right\}e^{i {\pi \over 4}}
243: \label{SMepsilon} \nomb\\
244: \Delta m^{SM}_{B_{(s)}}&=&{G^2_F \over 6 \pi^2 } m^2_W m_{B_{(s)}}
245: \left(f_{B_{(s)}}\sqrt{B_{(s)}}\right)^2
246: \eta_B S_0(x_t) |\lambda^{B_{(s)}}_t|^2 .
247: \eeqa
248: where $S_0(x_i)$ with $(x_i=m^2_i/M^2_W)$ are the integral
249: function arising from the box diagram\cite{I-L} and $\eta_i$s are the QCD
250: corrections with the values \cite{S0}
251: $\eta_1=1.38\pm0.20, \; \; \eta_2=0.57\pm0.01, \; \; \eta_3=0.47\pm0.04$
252: and $ \eta_B=0.55\pm 0.01$,
253: $G_F=1.16\times 10^{-5} $ GeV$^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling constant, $f_B$ and $B_K, B$ are
254: the decay constant and bag parameter for kaon and $B$ meson respectively.
255: The two constants
256: $C_\epsilon$ and $P_\epsilon$ have the values
257: \cite{buras1,buras2}:
258: \[
259: C_{\epsilon}={G_F^2 F^2_K m_K m^2_W }\lambda^{10}/({6\sqrt{2}\pi^2 \Delta m_K})
260: =0.01
261: \] and
262: \[
263: P_{\epsilon}=\left[\eta_3 S_0(x_c,x_t)-\eta_1 S_0(x_c)\right]/{\lambda^4}
264: =0.31\pm 0.05
265: \]
266:
267:
268: In the global SM fit of UT, one usually assumes that the SM is
269: fully responsible for the observed experimental data. This
270: scenario, however may be invalid if there are new contributions
271: beyond the SM. If new physics effects exist, then
272: $\epsilon_K^{exp.} \neq \epsilon_K^{SM}(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$
273: and
274: $\Delta m^{exp}_{B}\neq \Delta m^{SM}_{B}(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta})$ . In
275: general, one may write
276: \beqa
277: \epsilon_K^{exp.} & = & \epsilon_K^{SM}(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta}) [1 + \delta
278: \epsilon_K ] \equiv
279: \epsilon_K^{SM}(\bar{\rho}_{fit}^{SM},\bar{\eta}_{fit}^{SM}) \nonumber \\
280: \Delta m^{exp}_{B} & = & \Delta m^{SM}_{B}(\bar{\rho},\bar{\eta}) [1 + \delta m_B]
281: \equiv \Delta m^{SM}_{B}(\bar{\rho}_{fit}^{SM},
282: \bar{\eta}_{fit}^{SM})[1 + \delta \tilde{m}_B ]
283: \eeqa
284: where $ \delta\epsilon_K$ and $\delta m_B$ ( $\delta \tilde{m}_B$) represent possible new
285: physics contributions. Therefore the parameters $\rho$ and $\eta$ extracted
286: from the fit are in general the effective ones which may
287: significantly deviate from their true values in the SM . The
288: effective values $\rho^{SM}_{fit}$ and $\eta^{SM}_{fit}$ are
289: defined as follows:
290: \beqa
291: & & \epsilon^{exp}_K = \left\{\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}
292: \left[(1-\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit})A^2 \eta_2
293: S_0(x_t)+P_{\epsilon}\right] A^2 \hat{B}_K
294: C_{\epsilon}\right\}e^{i {\pi \over 4}} \label{SMepsilonfit}
295: \nomb\\
296: & & \Delta m^{exp}_{B}/[1 + \delta \tilde{m}_B ] = {G^2_F \over 6 \pi^2 }
297: (1-{\lambda \over 2})^2 A^2 \lambda^4 m^2_W m_{B} \left( f_B
298: \sqrt{B}\right)^2 \eta_B S_0(x_t)
299: \left( (1-\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit})^2+(\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit})^2 \right) .
300: \eeqa
301: where, $\epsilon^{exp}_K$ and $\Delta m^{exp}_B$ are the values
302: measured from the experiments \cite{PDG}. It is seen that in the
303: existence of unknown new physics, one may even not be able to extract
304: the effective parameters $\bar{\rho}_{fit}^{SM}$ and
305: $\bar{\eta}_{fit}^{SM}$ from the data $\epsilon^{exp}_K$ and $\Delta
306: m^{exp}_{B}$. Only when the new physics contributions to the term $
307: \delta \tilde{m}_B$ are neglected, the two effective parameters
308: $\bar{\rho}_{fit}^{SM}$ and $\bar{\eta}_{fit}^{SM}$ can be determined
309: from the data $\epsilon^{exp}_K$ and $\Delta m^{exp}_{B}$. In our
310: following fit, due to the large uncertainties in both
311: theoretical parameters and the present data, we actually take $ \delta
312: \tilde{m}_B=0$ as an approximation, so that
313: the angle $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ can be extracted
314: via the same form as the one in Eq.(\ref{angle-def})
315: \beqa
316: \sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} \equiv {2
317: \bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}(1-\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit}) \over
318: (1-\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit})^2+ (\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit})^2 },
319: \label{SMfit-epsK-dmb}
320: \eeqa
321: From Eq.(\ref{SMfit-epsK-dmb}) , by eliminating $S_0(x_t)$ in the expression for $\epsilon_K$ and
322: $\Delta m_B$, the following relation holds
323: \beqa
324: \sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit}&=& C_K \left(1-\omega
325: \bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}\right). \label{beta-sm}
326: \eeqa
327: with
328: $C_K=\frac{G_F^2 m_B m_W^2 F_B^2 B_B \eta_B |\epsilon_K|}
329: {6\pi^2\Delta m_B A^4 \hat{B}_K \eta_2 C_\epsilon}$ and
330: $\omega = {C_\epsilon A^2 \hat{B}_K P_\epsilon /|\epsilon_K|}
331: %=0.79 \left({\hat{B}_K \over 0.85}\right)
332: % \left({P_\epsilon \over 0.31}\right)
333: % \left({A \over 0.83} \right)^2.
334: $.
335:
336: Before proceeding, we would like to emphasize that even if taking the
337: expressions satisfying the same relations as the ones in the SM, it is clear that
338: the resulting values for $\rho^{SM}_{fit}$ and $\eta^{SM}_{fit}$ are not
339: necessary to be the true ones in the SM if new physics beyond the SM truly exists.
340: In general, one has $\rho^{SM}_{fit}\neq \rho$ and
341: $\eta^{SM}_{fit}\neq \eta$. Only when there are no new
342: physics contributions to the $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ and
343: $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ mixings, i.e. $\epsilon^{exp}_K=\epsilon^{SM}_K$
344: and $\Delta m_B^{exp}=\Delta m_B^{SM}$, one can then get the true
345: values $\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit}=\bar{\rho}$ and
346: $\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}=\bar{\eta}$. Thus the fit can really probe
347: the true value of $\sin 2\beta$. However, if there exists new
348: physics beyond the SM, the relation between $\sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} $
349: and $\sin 2\beta$ will become complicated and depend strongly on new physics
350: models, which can explicitly be seen below. Note that
351: the values of $\rho^{SM}_{fit}$ and $\eta^{SM}_{fit}$ fitted in
352: such a way remain model independent though they may not be equal to
353: the true values of $\rho$ and $\eta$ in the SM.
354:
355:
356:
357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
358: It is noticed that in the SM neutral meson mixings only occur at loop level,
359: new physics contributions are expected to be considerable. If we
360: denote the transition matrix element $<f^0|H_{eff}|\bar{f}^0>$ of
361: neutral meson $f^0 (f^0=K^0,B^0_{(s)})$ by $M^f_{12}$, then the new
362: physics effects on $M^f_{12}$ can be parameterized in the following
363: general form:
364:
365: \beqa
366: M^f_{12}=\sum_{i,j=c,t} \lambda^f_i \lambda^f_j
367: M^{SM,f}_{12,ij}(1+r^f_{ij})
368: + \tilde{M}^f_{12}
369: \label{def}
370: \eeqa
371: where $\lambda^f_i ( i=c,t )$ are the products of CKM
372: matrix elements with the definitions
373: $
374: \lambda^{K}_i\equiv V^*_{id}V_{is} , \;
375: \lambda^{B}_i\equiv V^*_{id}V_{ib} , \; $
376: and $\lambda^{B_s}_i\equiv V^*_{is}V_{ib} .$
377: %
378: The matrix elements $M^{SM,f}_{12,ij}$ are the ones in SM. They
379: receive contributions from the internal $tt,cc$ and $ct$ quark
380: loops in the box diagrams which are responsible for the
381: $f^0-\bar{f}^0$ mixing. Real parameters $r^f_{ij}$ reflect the
382: possible new physics contributions to the corresponding loop
383: diagrams, which carry no additional weak phases besides
384: $\lambda^f_{ij}$. Models with such property include some versions
385: of SUSY models and type I and I$\!$I 2HDM. Obviously those models
386: belong to the ones with MFV since they carry no additional phases.
387: New physics contributions with new weak phases are all absorbed
388: into the last term $\tilde{M}^f_{12}$. This term may arise from
389: additional new interactions, such as the tree level Flavor
390: Changing Neutral Current (FCNC) and the superweak-type
391: interactions\cite{LW1} as well as interacting terms with new weak
392: phases.
393:
394: In evaluating $\epsilon_K$ in kaon system, although the
395: contribution of $tt$ quark loop is dominant, the effects of $cc$
396: and $ct$ quark loops are not negligible. While in the calculations
397: of the mass differences of $B^0_{(s)}$ meson, one may only
398: consider the $tt$ quark loop in the box diagram.
399:
400: By using the Wolfenstein parameterization for CKM matrix elements
401: and the parameterization of Eq.(\ref{def}), in the presence of new
402: physics, the expression of
403: $\epsilon_K$ is
404: \beqa
405: \epsilon_K=\left\{\bar{\eta}
406: \left[(1-\bar{\rho})A^2 \eta_2 S_0(x_t)\left(1+r^K_{tt}\right)+P_{\epsilon}(1+r_{ct})\right]
407: A^2 \hat{B}_K C_{\epsilon}\right\}e^{i {\pi \over 4}}
408: +\tilde{\epsilon}_K
409: \label{newepsilon}
410: \eeqa
411: with
412: \beqa
413: r_{ct}&\equiv&{ \eta_3 S_0(x_c,x_t)r^K_{ct}- \eta_1 S_0(x_c)r^K_{cc}
414: \over
415: \eta_3 S_0(x_c,x_t)- \eta_1 S_0(x_c)}\nomb \\
416: \tilde{\epsilon}_K &\equiv& { e^{i{\pi\over4}} \over \sqrt{2}
417: \Delta m_K} \mbox{Im}\tilde{M}^K_{12}
418: \eeqa
419: where the new physics effects with MFV have been expressed as the
420: corrections to the integral function $S_0(x_t)$ and $P_\epsilon$.
421: The effects with additional phases have been absorbed into
422: $\tilde{\epsilon}_K$.
423: The $B^0_{(s)}-\bar{B}^0_{(s)}$ mass difference is also modified as follows
424: \beqa
425: \Delta m_{B}&\simeq&\left| M^B_{12} \right|
426: =\Delta m^{SM}_{B}\left|1+r^{B}_{tt}\right|
427: \abs{ e^{-2i\beta}+\tilde{r}^{B} e^{2i\phi^{B}}}.
428: \label{newdmb} \\
429: \Delta m_{B_s}&\simeq&\left| M^{B_s}_{12} \right|
430: =\Delta m^{SM}_{B_s}\left|1+r^{B_s}_{tt}\right|
431: \abs{1+\tilde{r}^{B_s} e^{2i\phi^{B_s}}}.
432: \label{newdmbs}
433: \eeqa
434: Where we have kept only the $tt$ quark loop in the box diagrams, the
435: contributions from other loops with internal $cc$ and $ct$ quarks are
436: highly suppressed and can be safely neglected.
437:
438: From the definition of ${\cal A}_{CP}$, the $\beta_{J/\psi}$
439: measured from the time dependent CP asymmetry will be the total
440: phase of $M^B_{12}$. Thus in the presence of new physics, The
441: angle $\beta_{J/\psi}$ extracted from the time dependent CP
442: asymmetry ${\cal A}_{CP}(t)$ in decay $B\to J/\psi K_S$ is in
443: general different from the true value $\beta$ in SM. This can be
444: seen explicitly from the following relation
445: \beqa
446: \sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}
447: &=& { \sin 2\beta-\tilde{r}^B\sin 2 \phi^{B}
448: \over \sqrt{ 1+2 \tilde{r}^B \cos 2(\phi^{B}+\beta)+ (\tilde{r}^B)^2}}.
449: \label{betajpsi}
450: \eeqa
451:
452: The usual fit of the profile of the UT has also been made under
453: the assumption that there is no new physics beyond the SM. The
454: angle ``$\beta_{fit}^{SM}$'' which is obtained from the
455: measurement of $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ and $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ mixing is
456: usually assumed to be the true angle $\beta$ associated with the
457: phase of $V^*_{td}$. In general, one should not make any
458: assumption for purpose of new physics probing, since it may be
459: greatly modified when new physics effects come into the evaluation
460: of $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta m_{B_{(s)}}$. As we have discussed
461: before even if we still use the same formulae as the ones in SM to
462: extract the angle $\beta$, we may only get the effective values of
463: $\rho_{fit}^{SM}$, $\eta_{fit}^{SM}$, and $\beta_{fit}^{SM}$.
464: Their values may be far away from the true ones, this is because
465: the experiment measured results for $\epsilon_K$ and $\Delta
466: m_{B_{(s)}}$ are the total ones which actually include all
467: possible new physics contributions if new physics truly exists.
468:
469: Combining Eq.(\ref{newepsilon}) and (\ref{newdmb}) and using
470: the definition of $\sin 2\beta$ in Eq.(\ref{angle-def}), we come
471: to the following simple relation
472: \beqa
473: \sin 2\beta &=& C_K {1+r^B_{tt} \over 1+r^K_{tt}} \left[
474: \left|1-{\tilde{\epsilon}_K \over \epsilon_K } \right|
475: - \omega\bar{\eta} (1+r_{ct}) \right]
476: \sqrt{ 1+2 \tilde{r}^B \cos 2(\phi^{B}+\beta)+ (\tilde{r}^B)^2},
477: \label{true-beta}
478: \eeqa
479: The relation between $\beta_{fit}^{SM}$ and $\beta$ is straight forward,
480: \beqa
481: \sin 2\beta_{fit}^{SM}=
482: { (1-\omega \bar{\eta}_{fit}^{SM})\, \sin2\beta \over
483: \sqrt{ 1+2 \tilde{r}^B \cos 2(\phi^{B}+\beta)+ (\tilde{r}^B)^2}\,
484: [\left|1-\tilde{\epsilon}_K /\epsilon_K \right|
485: - \omega\bar{\eta} (1+r_{ct})] }
486: \left( {1+r^K_{tt}\over 1+r^B_{tt} }\right)
487: \label{betafit}
488: \eeqa
489:
490: To probe new physics effects, let us define the ratio $R_{\beta}$
491: between the two observables $\sin 2\beta _{J/\psi}$ and $\sin
492: 2\beta_{fit}$ as follows
493: \beqa
494: R_{\beta}&=& {\sin
495: 2\beta_{J/\psi}\over \sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit}} \nomb \\ &=&{1+r^B_{tt}
496: \over 1+r^K_{tt}}
497: \left[{ \left|1-\tilde{\epsilon}_K /\epsilon_K \right|
498: - \omega\bar{\eta} (1+r_{ct}) \over 1-\omega \bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit} } \right]
499: \left(1-\tilde{r}^B {\sin 2\phi_B \over \sin 2\beta}\right).
500: % \left| 1- {\tilde{\epsilon}_K \over \epsilon_K} \right| ^{-1}
501: \eeqa
502: Note that the factor $ \sqrt{ 1+2 \tilde{r}^B \cos 2(\phi^{B}+\beta)+
503: (\tilde{r}^B)^2}$ in Eq.(\ref{true-beta}) and (\ref{betajpsi}) cancel
504: each other in the expression of $R_{\beta}$. In the SM, $R_{\beta}$
505: is clearly equal to unity. From the above equation the deviation from
506: unity due to the new physics effects can be expressed as the products
507: of three terms:
508: %
509: (1) The ratio of new physics corrections to the $tt$ quark loop in the
510: box diagram between $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ and $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixings. Since
511: almost all the new physics models give similar contribution to
512: $B^0-\bar{B}^0$
513: and $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing, their effect may cancel in some extent.
514: %
515: (2) The corrections to the $cc$ and $ct$-quark loops in the box
516: diagram in kaon meson as well as the ones from the additional
517: contributions to $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing which contain new CP-violating
518: phases. The corrections from $cc$, $ct$ loops are suppressed due to the
519: small quark mass $m_c$ if the additional contributions come from the
520: new scalar particles such as the charged Higgs particle $H^\pm$ in some
521: models. However, in general case, the corrections may be considerable.
522: Although the small mass difference between $K^0$ and $\bar{K}^0$ has
523: imposed a strong constraint on the real part of $\tilde{M}_{12}$ , its
524: imaginary part can still be large and result in a sizable
525: $\tilde{\epsilon}_K$ such as the superweak-type interactions.
526: %
527: (3) The corrections from the additional contributions to
528: $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ with new CP-violating phases. It can be seen
529: that the corrections depend on the product of $\tilde{r}^B$ and $ \sin
530: \phi_B$. If $\phi^B=0$ the correction to $R_{\beta}$ disappears.
531: This is directly related to the cancelation of the factor
532: $ \sqrt{ 1+2 \tilde{r}^B \cos 2(\phi^{B}+\beta)+ (\tilde{r}^B)^2}$ in
533: the ratio $R_{\beta}$. Although the new physics with zero $\phi_B$ can affect
534: both $\beta_{J/\psi}$ and $\beta_{fit}$, their net effect on $R_{\beta}$
535: is diminished.
536: %
537:
538:
539:
540:
541:
542:
543:
544: % ----------- Global fit in SM -----------------------
545: \section{$R_{\beta}$ and $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ from the global fit}
546:
547: To get the value of $R_{\beta}$ from the data, one needs to know the
548: values of $\beta_{J/\psi}$ and $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$. Unlike the measurement
549: of $\beta_{J/\psi}$ which is theoretically clean, the extraction of
550: $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ seems to surfer from some uncertainties as it involves parameters with
551: large theoretical uncertainties. There is a long time debate on the
552: treatment of the theoretical errors. Basicly there are three different
553: approaches\cite{ciuch}.
554:
555: (1) Assuming all the errors, both experimental and theoretical ones are the
556: random variables which obey Gaussian distribution \cite{london}. The
557: most recent fitted results at $95\%CL$ are \cite{x.g.he}:
558: \beqa
559: -0.82\leq \sin 2\alpha^{SM}_{fit} \leq0.42, \;\;
560: 0.49\leq\sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} \leq0.94, \;\;
561: 42^\circ\leq \gamma^{SM}_{fit} \leq 83^\circ
562: \eeqa
563:
564:
565: (2) The distribution of experimental error is treated as Gaussian,
566: but one imposes a $prior$ flat distribution on the theoretical error,
567: i.e. assuming the theoretical parameters are the random variables which
568: are uniformly populated in some reasonable regions , then
569: by using the Bayesian approach, the distributions of the parameters can be
570: determined \cite{ciuch,flat}.
571: The recent fits using this
572: method give the results \cite{ciuch}
573: \beqa
574: -0.88\leq \sin 2\alpha^{SM}_{fit} \leq0.04, \;\;
575: 0.57\leq\sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} \leq0.83, \;\;
576: 42^\circ\leq \gamma^{SM}_{fit} \leq 67^\circ
577: \eeqa
578:
579: (3) The distribution of experimental error is treated as Gaussian,
580: but one $does \ not $ assume any distribution on the theoretical error,
581: since they are unknown parameters which should have a unique
582: value. their errors should be largely deduced with the improvement of
583: the theory and the experiments. To get a quantitative result, the
584: space of the allowed region for the theoretical parameters are scanned.
585: For each set of parameters a contour at some confidence level (
586: for example $68\%$ or $ 95\%$) is made, then the whole region
587: enveloping all the contours is considered as the allowed region at
588: some $overall $ confidence level. Note that in doing this , the
589: final results will have no clear probability explanation. The most
590: recent fit gives \cite{scanning1,scanning2}
591: \beqa
592: -0.95\leq \sin 2\alpha^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.5,\;\;
593: 0.5\leq\sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} \leq0.85, \;\;
594: 40^\circ \leq \gamma^{SM}_{fit} \leq 84^\circ
595: \eeqa
596:
597:
598: In this paper, to get a more conservative conclusion, we adopt the last
599: method and update the fit with the latest data on $\Delta m_B$ and
600: $\Delta m_{B_s}$
601:
602: Let us briefly describe the method and parameters used in the
603: fitting of the unitarity triangle (UT). The detailed description of the fitting procedure
604: can be found in Ref.\cite{babarbook}.
605:
606: Among the four Wolfenstein parameters $A, \rho, \eta$ and $\lambda$,
607: the value of $\lambda$ has been well determined with a relative high precision
608: through semileptonic kaon decays, $K^+\to \pi^0e^+\nu_e$ and
609: $K^0_L \to \pi^-e^+\nu_e$. In the fit, we quote the value of
610: $\lambda=0.2196$\cite{PDG} and take it as a fixed parameter.
611:
612: The constraints on the apex of UT can be obtained from various
613: experiments of the semileptonic $B$ decays. In $b\to c$ transition
614: such as $B\to X_c l \nu$ and $\overline{B^0}\to D^{*+} l^+
615: \bar{\nu _e}$, the value of $|V_{cb}|$ can be determined. Here we
616: quote the value of $V_{cb}$ from the most recent LEP
617: results\cite{LEPvcb}
618: \beqa
619: |V_{cb}|=(40.4\pm 1.8)\times 10^{-3}, \quad (A=0.850\pm 0.037)
620: \eeqa
621: which is an average of measurements between inclusive and
622: exclusive $B$ decays. From $B\to \rho l^+\bar{\nu_e}$ the value of
623: $|V_{ub}|$ could be extracted. However, in the determination of
624: $V_{ub}$, some model dependences have to be involved in the
625: evaluation of the ratio $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$, which results in a
626: considerable theoretical error. For a recent review of the
627: theoretical error in determining $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ , we refer to
628: the reference \cite{ural}. The recent measurements of $V_{ub}$
629: from LEP and CLEO collaboration give the following
630: values:\cite{LEPvub,CLEOvub}
631: \beqa
632: |V_{ub}|&=&(4.13^{+0.42}_{-0.47}(\mbox{stat.+det.})^{0.43}_{-0.48}
633: (b\to c \mbox{ syst.})^{+0.24}_{-0.25}(b\to u \mbox{ sys.})\nomb\\
634: &&\pm 0.02 (\tau_b)\pm 0.20 (\mbox{Model}) \times 10^{-3}. (\mbox{LEP})\\
635: |V_{ub}|&=&(3.25\pm 0.14(\mbox{stat.})^{+0.21}_{-0.29}
636: (\mbox{syst.})\pm0.55 (\mbox{model}) \times 10^{-3}. (\mbox{CLEO})
637: \eeqa
638: Note that both the determination of $|V_{ub}|$ and
639: $|V_{cb}|$ may still suffer from sizable theoretical
640: uncertainties\cite{WWY1,WWY2,WY}. In the fit, we take the central
641: value of $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ as a free theoretical parameter which
642: lies in the range
643: \beqa
644: <V_{ub}/V_{cb}>\in [0.07,0.1]
645: \eeqa
646: and the value of $|V_{ub}|$ has the following form
647: \beqa
648: |V_{ub}|=<V_{ub}/V_{cb}> |V_{cb}|\pm 0.14
649: \eeqa
650: It is noted that possible new physics contributions to the
651: semileptonic bottom meson decays are in general expected to be
652: small, the extracted CKM parameters $|V_{cb}|$ and $|V_{ub}|$ are
653: regarded as the true ones $|V_{cb}|=A\lambda^2$ and
654: $|V_{ub}|=\sqrt{\rho^2 + \eta^2}$.
655:
656: The other important constraint comes from the measurements of
657: $\epsilon_K$. The expression of $\epsilon_K$ has been discussed in
658: the previous section. From Eq.(\ref{newepsilon}), the major
659: theoretical error comes from the hadronic parameter $\hat{B}_K$,
660: and the QCD correction $\eta_1$, and $\eta_3$. the recent lattice
661: calculations give the result \cite{BK}
662: \beqa
663: 0.8 \leq \hat{B}_K \leq 1.1 .
664: \eeqa
665: The errors of $\eta_i$ can be
666: found in the previous section. There are also experimental errors
667: on the values of $c$ and $t$ running quark masses,
668: \beqa
669: \bar{m}_c(m_c)=1.25\pm 0.1 \;\mbox{GeV}, \;\;\;
670: \bar{m}_t(m_t)=165.0\pm 5.0 \;\mbox { GeV}
671: \eeqa
672:
673: The constraint of $R_t$ could arises from both $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ and
674: $B^0_{s}-\bar{B}^0_{s}$ mixing. Here the parameter with a large
675: uncertainty is $f_B\sqrt{B_B}$. In the fit, we take the
676: value\cite{fB}
677: \beqa
678: 160 \;\mbox{MeV} \leq f_B\sqrt{B_B} \leq
679: 240\; \mbox{MeV}
680: \eeqa
681:
682: Recently, the BaBaR and Belle Collaboration has reported their first measurements on
683: $\Delta m_{B_d}$. The combined result from the hadronic and
684: semileptonic decays is \cite{babar,belledmb} :
685: \beqa
686: \Delta m_{B_d}&=&0.512 \pm 0.017(\mbox{stat.}) \pm0.022 (\mbox{syst.}) \;ps^{-1} \;\; \mbox{(BaBaR)} \nomb\\
687: \Delta m_{B_d}&=&0.456 \pm 0.008(\mbox{stat.}) \pm0.030 (\mbox{syst.}) \;ps^{-1} \;\; \mbox{(Belle)}
688: \eeqa
689: comparing with the old world average value of $0.472\pm0.017 ps^{-1}$ \cite{PDG},
690: the result of BaBaR is slightly higher. Now the new world average is
691: \beqa
692: \Delta m_{B_d}=0.478\pm0.013 \; ps^{-1}
693: \eeqa
694:
695: Besides $\Delta m_B$, the mass difference of $B^0_{s}$ and $\bar{B}^0_{s}$
696: also imposes a strong constraint on the size of $R_t$. It is helpful to introduce
697: a $SU(3)$ breaking factor
698: $\xi^2\equiv(f_{B_s}\sqrt{B_{B_s}})^2/(f_{B}\sqrt{B_{B}})^2$ ,
699: the constraint on $R_t$ from $\Delta m_{B_s}$ reads
700: \beqa
701: R_t \leq {\xi \over \lambda}\sqrt{
702: \frac{m_{B_s}}{m_{B_d}}
703: \frac{\Delta m_{B_d}}{\Delta m_{B_s}|_{min}} }
704: \eeqa
705: In the fit , we take $\xi \in [1.08,1.2]$ \cite{BK}.
706: The lower bound of $\Delta m_{B_s}$ is now updated to $\Delta m_{B_s}>
707: 14.9\ \mbox{ps}^{-1}$ at $95\%$CL \cite{LEPsite} which is also higher
708: than the previous value of $14.3$ ps$^{-1}$. This bound is obtained
709: through the so called 'amplitude method' \cite{moser}. The latest data
710: indicate that $\Delta m_{B_s}\sim 17.7 $ ps$^{-1}$. If
711: this result can be confirmed by the future experiment, $\Delta
712: m_{B_s}$ will impose strong constraint on new physics models
713: \cite{london-dms}.
714:
715: The other two important CP-violation observables are the direct CP
716: violation parameter $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ and $\sin 2\beta$ from
717: the time dependent CP asymmetry of decay $B\to J/\psi K_S$. As
718: the measurements of $\sin 2\beta$ and $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ are now
719: preliminary, they are not considered in our present fitting .
720: However, it needs to emphasize that including the constraints from
721: $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ may impose a nontrivial lower bound of $\eta
722: >0.32$ \cite{scanning1}. It would be interesting to further
723: discuss its constraint with the improved prediction for
724: $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ \cite{wu-eps}.
725:
726: % ---- the chi-squre method ----
727: The basic idea of the fit is based on the least square method.
728: The first step of the procedure is to construct a quantity $\chi^2$ which
729: has the following form
730: \beqa
731: \chi^2=\sum_{i}\frac{(f_i(A,\rho,\eta)-<f_i>)^2}{\sigma_i^2}
732: \eeqa
733: where $<f_i>$ and $\sigma_i$ are the central values and
734: corresponding errors of the experimentally measured observables.
735: They contain $|V_{cb}|, |V_{ub}|, |\epsilon_K|,\Delta m_{B}$ and
736: $m_c, m_t$. $f_i(A,\rho, \eta)$ are the values calculated from the
737: theories. They are the functions of parameters $A,\rho, \eta$. The
738: set of $A, \rho, \eta$ which minimizes the $\chi^2$ will be
739: regarded as the best estimated values. On the determination of
740: $\Delta m_{B_s}$, the ' amplitude method' \cite{moser} is adopted,
741: which uses the amplitude curves measured from the experiments
742: \cite{LEPsite} and add a term $\chi^2_s$ to the total $\chi^2$:
743: \beqa
744: \chi^2_s=\frac{(1-{\cal A}(\Delta m_{B_s}))^2}{\sigma^2_{\cal A}
745: (\Delta m_{B_s})}
746: \label{amplitude}
747: \eeqa
748:
749: Note that there is an alternative approach to build the log-likelihood
750: function in which one uses the values relative to the ones at
751: $\Delta m_s=\infty$, i.e. use $[\frac{\left( {\cal A}-1
752: \right)^2}{\sigma_A^2}
753: -\frac{ {\cal{A}}^2}{\sigma_A^2}]$ instead of
754: $\frac{\left( {\cal A}-1 \right)^2}{\sigma_A^2}$
755: \cite{moser,ciuch,piotto}. The detailed
756: comparison between these two approaches can be found in
757: Ref.\cite{ciuch}. In the fit, we choose $A, \rho, \eta $ and $m_c,
758: m_t$ as free parameters to be fitted and scan the allowed range
759: for the theoretical parameters $<V_{ub}/V_{cb}>$, $\hat{B}_K,
760: f_B\sqrt{B_B}, \eta_s$, $\eta_1$, and $\eta_3$. For each set of
761: theoretical parameters, a $68\%(95\%)$ CL contour which
762: corresponds to $\chi^2=\chi^2_{min}+ 2.4(6.0)$ is made, then the
763: region enveloping all the contours is the allowed region for
764: $\rho$ and $\eta$ at an $overall \ 68\%(95\%)$ level. As usual, a
765: $\chi^2$ probability cut is used to reject the contours with
766: relative high $\chi^2_{min}$ which means that the fit is not
767: consistent.
768:
769: The fit is implemented by using the program package
770: MINUIT\cite{miniut}. The result is shown in Fig.\ref{contour.eps}.
771: From the figure, one can read off the allowed region for
772: $\rho$ and $\eta$. The results are
773: \beqa
774: & & 0.09\leq \rho^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.28\, , \quad 0.23 \leq \eta^{SM}_{fit}
775: \leq 0.46 \quad (at\ 68\%\ CL) \nonumber \\
776: & & 0.10\leq \rho^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.30\, , \quad 0.20 \leq \eta^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.49 \quad (at\
777: 95\%\ CL)
778: \eeqa
779:
780: or equivalently,
781: \beqa
782: & & -0.89 \leq \sin 2\alpha^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.37, \ \ 0.56 \leq \sin
783: 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.85, \ \ 41^\circ \leq \sin^2 \gamma^{SM}_{fit}
784: \leq 75^\circ , \quad (at\ 68\%\ CL) \nonumber \\
785: & & -0.95 \leq \sin 2\alpha^{SM}_{fit}
786: \leq 0.41, \ \ 0.48 \leq \sin 2\beta^{SM}_{fit} \leq 0.88, \ \
787: 38^\circ \leq \sin^2 \gamma^{SM}_{fit} \leq 76^\circ , \quad
788: (at\ 95\%\ CL)
789: \eeqa
790: and the range for the combination factor of the CKM matrix
791: elements, $Im \lambda_t A^2\lambda^5\ \eta$, used in the
792: calculation of direct CP-violating parameter
793: $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ in kaon decay\cite{wu-eps}, is given by
794: \beqa
795: & & 0.76\times 10^{-4} \leq Im \lambda_t = A^2\lambda^5\ \eta \leq 1.73\times
796: 10^{-4}\ , \quad (at\ 68\%\ CL) \nonumber \\
797: & & 0.66\times 10^{-4} \leq Im \lambda_t = A^2\lambda^5\ \eta \leq 1.84\times
798: 10^{-4}\ , \quad (at\ 95\%\ CL)
799: \eeqa
800:
801: As the allowed ranges for theoretical errors which are the
802: main sources of total errors are the same in both fits ,
803: the results at 68$\%$ and 95$\%$CL are quite similar,
804: It is needed to note that by using the scanning method, there is
805: no probability explanation of the contours. One can not get the
806: usual central value of the fitted parameters.
807:
808: In the fitting, the $\chi^2$ probability cut is set to be
809: $Prob(\chi^2) \leq 5\%$. The final results depend on the cut. We
810: have checked that a lower cut such as $2\%$ or $1\%$ will give a
811: larger allowed range, which allows the angle $\gamma$ to be
812: greater than $90^\circ$. The probability of large $\gamma$ has
813: been widely discussed in Refs..\cite{large-gamma} to meet the
814: recent CLEO data on hadronic charmless $B$ decays. However, the
815: model independent analysis show that in general there are two
816: solutions for $\gamma$ from the charmless $B$ decays. The one with
817: $\gamma<90^\circ$ and the other one with $\gamma>90^\circ$
818: \cite{wu-zhou-Bdecay}. The data of $\Delta m_B$ especially on
819: $\Delta m_{B_s}$ may strongly constrain $\gamma$ to be less than
820: $90^\circ$. From Fig.\ref{contour.eps}, with the cut of $5\%$,
821: there is no indication of $\gamma>90^\circ$.
822:
823: With the angle $\beta_{fit}$ obtained from the above fit and the
824: average value for $\beta_{J/\psi}$, the ratio $R_{\beta}$
825: is found to be
826: \beqa
827: 0.57 \leq R_{\beta}^{exp.} \leq 1.1\, \quad (at\ 68\%\ CL)\ , \quad
828: 0.31 \leq R_{\beta}^{exp.} \leq 1.36\, \quad (at\ 95\%\ CL)
829: \label{Rfit}
830: \eeqa
831: The present data prefer a small value of $R_{\beta}<1$ at
832: 1-$\sigma$ level. If it is confirmed by the future experiments, it
833: will of course be a signal of new physics. Further more,
834: $R_{\beta}$ may be used to distinguish different effects of new
835: physics. This will be discussed in the next section.
836:
837: %---------- 2HDM effects on R -------------
838: \section{ new physics effects on the ratio $R_{\beta}$ }
839: % --------------- MFV situation ---------------
840:
841: The contributions of new physics to $R_{\beta}$ depend on the models. In this
842: section, we choose two type of new physics models to
843: illustrate new physics effects. one of them is the model with MFV,
844: the other is the models with new CP-violating phases, such as the
845: S2HDM.
846: \subsection{$R_{\beta}$ in models with MFV}
847:
848: In a class of the models with MFV, the expression of $R_{\beta}$
849: may be greatly simplified. As MFV implies that there are no new
850: operators beyond the SM, the values of $r^B_{tt}$ and $r^K_{tt}$
851: which come from the same internal $tt$ quark loop in
852: $B^0-\bar{B}^0$ and $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixings must be the same
853: \cite{buras1,buras2,buras-mfv}. MFV also means that new
854: CP-violating phases must vanish. Thus the following conditions
855: hold \beqa r^B_{tt}=r^K_{tt}, \;\; \tilde{r}^B=0,\;\;
856: \phi^B=0,\;\; \mbox{and} \;\; \tilde{\epsilon}_K=0 \eeqa Thus one
857: has
858:
859: \beqa
860: \sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}=\sin 2\beta,
861: \label{beta in MFV}
862: \eeqa
863: which shows that in this case the angle $\beta_{J/\psi}$
864: measured from $B\to J/\psi K_S$ is the 'true' angle $\beta$ up to a
865: four fold ambiguity. Assuming that $r_{ct}$ is small, which is a good
866: approximation for many models \cite{buras-mfv}, the ratio $R_{\beta}$ has the following simple
867: form
868: \beqa
869: \left. R_{\beta}\right|_{MFV}={1-\omega \bar{\eta}\over
870: 1-\omega \bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}}
871: \eeqa
872:
873: Since the value of $|V_{ub}|$ is extracted from the semileptonic
874: $B\to \pi(\rho) e \nu_{e}$
875: decay dominated by the tree diagrams, it is widely believed
876: that its value is not likely to be affected by new physics. This may
877: result in the relation:
878: $\bar{\rho}^2+\bar{\eta}^2=(\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit})^2+(\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit})^2=R_u^2$.
879: Combining this relation with Eqs.(\ref{beta in MFV}) and
880: (\ref{angle-def}), the values of $\bar{\rho}$ and $\bar{\eta}$ can be solved as
881: functions of two obserbales $R_u$ and $\beta_{J/\psi}$.
882: \beqa
883: \bar{\rho}=R_u \cos \varphi_{\pm}, \;\;\;
884: \bar{\eta}=R_u \sin \varphi_{\pm} .
885: \eeqa
886: with $\varphi_{\pm}= \sin^{-1} ( {\sin \beta_{J/\psi} / R_u} )
887: \pm \beta_{J/\psi}$. Note that the
888: solution for $\varphi_{+}$ corresponds to $\bar{\rho}< 0$. This is
889: quite different from the value of $\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit}$ which
890: seems be positive under the constraint from the data of
891: $B^0_{s}-\bar{B}^0_{s}$ mixing. If one assumes that the difference
892: between true $\bar{\rho}$ and the fitted $\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit}$
893: caused by new physics effects is not too large, the solution for
894: $\varphi_{+}$ could be ignored. Taking the value of $R_u$ and
895: $\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}$, one may find at 1$\sigma$ level
896:
897: \beqa
898: 1.03\leq R_{\beta}|_{MFV}\leq 1.36\, \mbox{ for } \varphi_-\, .
899: \eeqa
900: For $\varphi_+$ solution, one gets a small value for $ R_{\beta}|_{MFV}$, i.e.,
901: $ \,0.90\leq R_{\beta}|_{MFV}\leq 1.21$. In obtaining these numerical values,
902: the errors of $\omega$ and $\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}$ are considered
903: to be independent for simplicity. In general, they may be treated
904: to be correlated as they all depend on the hadronic parameters.
905: For a more detailed analysis, it should be interesting to include
906: the correlation effects.
907:
908: Comparing $R_{\beta}|_{MFV}$ with the experimental values of $R^{exp.}_{\beta}$ in
909: Eq.(\ref{Rfit}) , it is found that the models with MFV prefer to
910: give a large value of $R_{\beta}$ which is not likely to agree
911: with the current data. If the disagreement is confirmed by the
912: future more precise data, all the models with MFV will be ruled
913: out. It implies that new physics effects with flavor changing
914: interactions beyond the CKM quark mixing must be involved to
915: explain the data.
916:
917:
918: %---------- General case of New physics ---------------
919: \subsection{$R_{\beta}$ in S2HDM}
920: The S2HDM without imposing discrete
921: symmetries\cite{TH1,TH2,TH3,TH4,WW,YLW,Wu-Zhou,soni-etc} is a good
922: example for models which can give nonzero value of
923: $\tilde{\epsilon}_K,\tilde{r}^B$ and $\phi^B$. In the S2HDM, the
924: tree level flavor changing neutral current can be induced from the
925: scalar interactions between neutral Higgs bosons and quarks. As
926: all the Yukawa couplings in the model are allowed to be complex,
927: the S2HDM can give rich sources of CP
928: violation\cite{WW,YLW,keung}. It is not difficult to find that the
929: values of $r^B_{tt}$, $ \tilde{r}^B$ and $\phi^B$ in S2HDM are
930: given by \beqa r^B_{tt}&=&
931: \frac{1}{4}\abs{\xi_t}^4 y_t\frac{\eta^{HH}_{tt}}{\eta_{B}}
932: \frac{ B^{HH}_V(y_t)}{B^{WW}(x_t)}
933: +2 \abs{\xi_t}^2 y_t \frac{\eta^{HW}_{tt}}{\eta_{B}}
934: \frac{ B^{HW}_V(y_t,y_W)}{B^{WW}(x_t)} \\
935: \tilde{r}^B \sin 2\phi^B&=&\frac{\tilde{B_B}}{B_B}\sum_{k}
936: \lb\frac{2\sqrt{3}\pi v m_B}{m_{H^0_{k}} m_t} \rb^2 \frac{m_d}{m_b}
937: \frac{1}{V^2_{td}} \frac{\mbox{Im}(Y^d_{k,13})^2}{\eta_{B}B^{WW}(x_t)}
938: \eeqa
939: where $\xi_q$ is the Yukawa coupling constant between charged Higgs
940: and $q$ quark. $B_{(V)}^{WW(HW,HH)}$ are the integral functions of the
941: box diagrams \cite{wise} with variable $x_t=m_t^2/m^2_W$, $y_t=m_t^2/m^2_H$
942: and $y_W=m_W^2/m^2_H$. $\eta^{HH}_{tt}$ is the QCD correction. It is
943: seen that the value of $r^B_{tt}$ is directly related to the coupling
944: $\xi_t$. In Fig.\ref{r1.eps}, $r^B_{tt}$ is plotted as a function of the
945: charged Higgs mass $m_{H^{\pm}}$ with different values of $\xi_t$. It
946: can be seen that the typical value of $r^B_{tt}$ is around $0.2$. For
947: large $\xi_t$ , $r^B_{tt}$ could become large.
948:
949: The value of $\tilde{r}^B$ depends on the imaginary part of $Y^f_{k,ij}$ which
950: is given by reduced Yukawa couplings between the $k$-th neutral Higgs boson and
951: quarks. $\tilde{B}_B$ and $B_B$ are the bag parameters for
952: $(S+P)\bigotimes(S-P)$ and $(V-A)\bigotimes(V-A)$ four quark operators
953: respectively.
954:
955:
956: Similar calculations can be made for the $K^0-\bar{K}^0$ mixing.
957: $r^K_{tt}, r_{ct}$ in S2HDM are given by
958: \beqa
959: r^K_{tt}&=& r^B_{tt} \\
960: r_{ct}&=&
961: { \sqrt{y_t y_c} ({x_t \over x_c}) {1 \over2} \eta^{HH}_{tt} |\xi_c\xi_t|^2
962: B^{HH}_{V}(y_c,y_t) +4 \eta^{HW}_{ct} Re(\xi_c\xi_t) B^{HW}_V(y_c,y_t,y_W)
963: \over
964: ({x_t \over x_c})\eta_B B^{WW}(x_c,x_t) -\eta_1 B^{WW}(x_c) } \\
965: \eeqa
966:
967: Since $x_t/x_c$ is of order ${\cal O}(10^4)$, $r^K_{ct}$ can be approximately
968: written as
969: \beqa
970: r^K_{ct}\approx {1 \over 2} \sqrt{y_t y_c} {\eta^{HH}_{tt} \over \eta_B}
971: { B^{HH}_{V}(y_c,y_t) \over B^{WW}(x_c,x_t) } |\xi_c\xi_t|^2
972: \eeqa
973: As the value of $\sqrt{y_t y_c}$ is of order $10^{-2}$ and $
974: |\xi_c\xi_t|^2 $ is typicly of order $1$, one may find
975: that $r_{ct}$ is relatively small and of order ${\cal
976: O}(10^{-2}\sim 10^{-1}) $.
977: The S2HDM contribution to $\tilde{\epsilon}_K$ is complicate,
978: it may arise from both short and long distance interactions. The
979: detailed discussion of $\tilde{\epsilon}_K$ can be found in Ref.
980: \cite{Wu-Zhou}
981:
982: If one ignores the $r^K_{ct}$ , the ratio
983: $R_{\beta}$ mainly depends on the value of $\tilde{\epsilon}_K$
984: , $Im Y^d_{k,13}$ and $ m_{H^0}$
985: as well as the true value of $\sin 2 \beta$ and $\bar{\eta}$. The ratio
986: $R_{\beta}$ has the following form
987:
988: \beqa
989: R_{\beta}={|1-\tilde{\epsilon_K}/\epsilon_K|-\omega \bar{\eta}\over
990: 1-\omega \bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}}
991: \left(1-
992: \frac{\tilde{B_B}}{B_B}\sum_{k}
993: \lb\frac{2\sqrt{3}\pi v m_B}{m_{H^0_{k}} m_t} \rb^2 \frac{m_d}{m_b}
994: \frac{1}{|V^2_{td}|} \frac{\mbox{Im}(Y^d_{k,13})^2}{\eta_{B}B^{WW}(x_t)}
995: \right)
996: \eeqa
997: Which shows that the new interactions between neutral Higgs and
998: quarks are the main sources for the changing of ratio $R_{\beta}$.
999: The value of $R_{\beta}$ as the function of neutral Higgs mass
1000: $m_{H^0}$ is plotted in Fig.\ref{r.eps} with different values of
1001: $Im Y^d_{k,13}$ and $\tilde{\epsilon}_K/\epsilon_K$. Where for
1002: simplicity we have taken $\bar{\eta} \simeq \bar{\eta}_{fit}=0.35$
1003: and $\tilde{B}_B \simeq B_B$. From the figure, the value of
1004: $R_{\beta}$ can be smaller than 1 for positive $Im(Y^d_{K,13})^2$
1005: or $\tilde{\epsilon}_K/\epsilon_K$. Thus the present data can be
1006: easily explained in the S2HDM.
1007: %----------- Conclusion ------------------
1008:
1009: \section{ conclusions }
1010: In conclusion, we have investigated the measurement of the UT
1011: angle $\beta$ within and beyond the SM. It has been shown that if
1012: new physics beyond the SM truly exists, the angle $\beta$
1013: extracted from the global fit(denoted by $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$) and
1014: the one extracted from $B\to J/\psi K_S$ (denoted by
1015: $\beta_{J/\psi}$) could be in general all different from the
1016: 'true' angle $\beta$ in the SM. The observable $R_{\beta}$, which
1017: is the ratio between the angle $\beta$ measured from the time
1018: dependent CP asymmetry of decay $B\to J/\psi K_S$ and the one
1019: extracted from the global fit, is introduced and studied in
1020: detail. By using the scanning method, the value of $R_{\beta}$ is
1021: obtained from an update of the fit of the UT with the latest data
1022: and it is found to lie in the range.
1023: \[
1024: 0.57 \leq R_{\beta}^{exp.} \leq 1.1\, \quad (at\ 68\%\ CL)\ , \quad
1025: 0.31 \leq R_{\beta}^{exp.} \leq 1.36\, \quad (at\ 95\%\ CL)
1026: \]
1027: As the SM calculation gives $R_{\beta}=1$, the deviation of
1028: $R_{\beta}$ from unity is a clean signal of new physics. On the
1029: study of new physics effects, we have given a general
1030: parameterization of $R_{\beta}$. By using this parameterization,
1031: the effects from the models with MFV and the S2HDM have been
1032: investigated in detail. It has been found that the MFV models seem
1033: to give a large $R_{\beta}$ relative to the current data.
1034: If it can be comfirmed by the future experiments,
1035: it will indicate that this kind of new physics are difficult to explain the
1036: small value of $R_{\beta}$. Such models
1037: include type I and type II 2HDM and some simple versions of
1038: SUSY. Thus new physics with additional phases should be considered.
1039: The most recent discussions on models with MFV.
1040: can also be found in Ref.\cite{Ali,buras3} .
1041: As an illustration for those models with additional phases beyond
1042: the one in the CKM matrix element, the S2HDM effects on
1043: $R_{\beta}$ has been studied, especially, if the superweak type
1044: contributions\cite{LW1} to $\epsilon_K$ are considered, it could
1045: easily coincide with the data.
1046:
1047:
1048:
1049: \centerline{ \bf acknowledgments } One of the authors (Y.L.Wu)
1050: would like to thank L. Wolfenstein for helpful discussions. This
1051: work is supported in part by NSFC under grant No. 19625514 and
1052: Chinese Academy of Sciences.
1053:
1054: % Note added: After this manuscript was accepted for publication, the BaBar Collaboration
1055: %reported their new results \cite{BaBar-new} on time dependednt CP asymetry $B\to J/\psi K_{S}$:
1056: %$\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}|_{exp}=0.59\pm{0.14}\pm{0.05}$. Now the word average value is changed into
1057: %$\sin 2\beta_{J/\psi}|_{exp}=0.59\pm 0.14$, which is consistent with the global
1058: %fit at the 1$\sigma$ level, $\sin 2\beta_{fit} = 0.71 \pm 0.15$. Thus the value of the ratio
1059: %is $R_{\beta}|_{exp}= 0.83\pm 0.26$. The value of $R_{\beta}$ in the models with
1060: %MFV is modefied as $R_{\beta}|_{MFV}=1.4\pm 0.14$ for $\vphi_{-}$ solution. Although
1061: %the constaints on models with MFV become weaker, the main conclusions remain to be
1062: %unchanged.}
1063:
1064:
1065:
1066: \begin{references}
1067: \bibitem{babar}B. Aubet, et al, BaBaR collaboration,hep-ex/0107013.
1068: \bibitem{belle}A. Abashian et. al, Belle Collaboration, hep-ex/0102018.
1069: \bibitem{CDF}T.Affolder et al, CDF Collaboration, \prd{61}{2000}{072005}.
1070: \bibitem{ALEPH}The ALEPH Collaboration, hep-ex/0009058.
1071: \bibitem{other}A. L. Kagan , M. Neubert, \plb{492}{2000}{115}.
1072: \bibitem{other1}J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein \prd{63}{2001}{056001}.
1073: \bibitem{other2} Z. Z. Xing, hep-ph/0008018.
1074: \bibitem{nir}G. Eyal, Y. Nir, G. Perez, JHEP 0008(2000)028.
1075: \bibitem{buras1} A. J. Buras, lecture given at the 38th course
1076: of the Erice International school of subnuclear physics,
1077: hep-ph/0101336.
1078: \bibitem{buras2}A. J. Buras, R. Buras hep-ph/0008273.
1079: \bibitem{TH1}T.P.Cheng and M.Sher, Phys.Rev.{\bf D35},3484(1987).
1080: \bibitem{TH2} A. Antaramian, L.J. Hall, and A. Rasin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 1871 (1992).
1081: \bibitem{TH3} W.S. Hou, Phys. Lett. {\bf B296}, 179 (1992); D.W. Chang, W.S. Hou and W.Y. Keung,
1082: Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 217 (1993).
1083: \bibitem{TH4} L.J. Hall and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. {\bf D48}, 979 (1993).
1084: \bibitem{WW} Y.L. Wu and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 1762 (1994);
1085: L. Wolfenstein and Y.L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 73}, 2809
1086: (1994).
1087: \bibitem{YLW} Y.L. Wu, in: Proceedings at 5th Conference on the Intersections of Particle
1088: and Nuclear Physics, St. Petersburg, FL, 31 May- 6 Jun 1994,
1089: pp338, edited by S.J. Seestrom (AIP, New York, 1995),
1090: hep-ph/9406306; hep-ph/9404241, 1994 (unpublished).
1091: \bibitem{Wu-Zhou}Y. L. Wu and Y. F. Zhou, \prd{61}{2000}096001.
1092: \bibitem{TDL} T.D. Lee, Phys. Rev. {\bf D8}, 1226 (1973); Phys. Rep. {\bf 9},
1093: 143 (1974).
1094: \bibitem{LW1}L. Wolfenstein, \prl{13}{1964}{562}
1095: \bibitem{wolfen}L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1983}{1945}.
1096: \bibitem{buras-mfv} A. J. Buras, P.Gambino, M. Gorbahn, S.Jager and
1097: L. Silvestrini , hep-ph/0007085.
1098: \bibitem{I-L} T. Inami, C.S.Lim, Progr. Theor. Phys. 65(1981)297.
1099: \bibitem{S0} A. J. Buras, M. Jamin, and P.H . Weisz, \npb{347}{1990}{491}
1100:
1101: \bibitem{ciuch}M. Ciuchini, et. al, hep-ph/0012308
1102: \bibitem{x.g.he} X. G. He, Y. K. Hsiao, J. Q. Shi, Y. L. Wu
1103: and Y. F. Zhou , hep-ph/0011337.
1104: \bibitem{london}A.Ali, D.London \epj{9}{1999}{687},
1105: A.Ali, D.London hep-ph/0002167.
1106: \bibitem{flat}F. Caravaglios, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi
1107: hep-ph/0002171.
1108: F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Nuovo Cim. 112A(1999)833.
1109: M.Ciuchini, et. al, \npb{573}{2000}{201}.
1110: \bibitem{scanning1}S. Plaszczynski, M. H. Schune hep-ph/9911280.
1111: \bibitem{scanning2}A. Falk, hep-ph/9908520.
1112: S. Stone, hep-ph/9910417.
1113: Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, S. Plaszczynski and M. H. Schune, \npb{511}{1998}{69}.
1114:
1115: \bibitem{babarbook}The BaBar Physics Book, P.F. Harrison and H.R. Quinn
1116: eds., SLAC-R-504(1998).
1117: \bibitem{PDG} Particl data Group, \epj{15}{2000}1.
1118: \bibitem{LEPvcb}http://lepvcb.web.cern.ch/LEPVCB/.
1119: \bibitem{moser}H.G. Moser and A. Roussarie, Nucl. Instr. and
1120: Methods A384(1997)491.
1121: \bibitem{LEPsite}http://www.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/.
1122: \bibitem{ural}N. Uraltsev, hep-ph/0010328.
1123: \bibitem{LEPvub} The LEP $V_{ub}$ working group, LEPVUB -00/01.
1124: \bibitem{CLEOvub} CLEO collabration, hep-ex/9905056.
1125: \bibitem{WWY1} W.Y. Wang, Y.L. Wu, Y.A. Yan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A15} 1817
1126: (2000).
1127: \bibitem{WWY2} Y.A Yan, Y.L. Wu, W.Y. Wang, Int .J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A15} 2735
1128: (2000).
1129: \bibitem{WY} Y.L. Wu and Y.A. Yan, hep-ph/0002261, Int .J. Mod. Phys. {\bf A16}
1130: 285 (2001).
1131: \bibitem{BK} T. Draper, hep-lat/9810065.
1132: S. Sharpe, hep-lat/9811006.
1133: S. Aoki, et. al ,JLQCD Collab,
1134: Nucl. Phys. B (proc. suppl)63A-C281(1998).
1135: \bibitem{fB}T. Draper,$Nucl.Phys. Proc. Suppl$ 73(1999)43.
1136: S. Sharpe, hep-lat/9811006.
1137: \bibitem{belledmb} Belle Collaboration, BELLE-CONF-0001.
1138: \bibitem{piotto}P.Checchia, E. Piotto, F. Simonetto, hep-ph/9907300.
1139: \bibitem{london-dms}A. Ali and D. London, hep-ph/0012155.
1140: \bibitem{wu-eps}Y. L. Wu, hep-ph/0012371, to be published in Phys. Rev. D..
1141: \bibitem{miniut}F. James and M.Roos, Commpu.Phys.Comm, 10(1975)343
1142: \bibitem{large-gamma} N. G. Deshpande, X. G. He, W. S. Hou and S. Pavaska \prl{82}{1999}{2240},
1143: X. G. He, W. S. Hou and K. C. Yang \prl{83}{1999}{1100},
1144: W. S. Hou and K. C. Yang, \prd{61}{2000}{073014}.
1145: \bibitem{wu-zhou-Bdecay} Y. L. Wu and Y. F. Zhou, \prd{62}{2000}{036007},\\
1146: Y. F. Zhou, Y. L. Wu, J. N. Ng and C. Q. Geng,
1147: \prd{63}{2001}{054011}.
1148: \bibitem{wise}L. F. Abbott, P. Sikivie and M. B. Wise, \prd{21}{1980}{1393}.
1149: \bibitem{soni-etc}D. Atwood, L. Reina, and A. Soni, \prd{55}{1997}{3156}.
1150: \bibitem{keung}D. B. Chao, K. Cheung, and W. Y. Keung, \prd{59}{1999}{115006}.
1151: \bibitem{buras3}A.J Buras, P. H. Chankowski, J. Rosiek and L. Slawianowska, hep-ph/0107048
1152: \bibitem{Ali}A. Ali and E. Lunghi, hep-ph/0105200.
1153: \end{references}
1154:
1155: \begin{figure}
1156: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=triangle.eps, width=12cm} }
1157: \caption{The unitarity triangle}
1158: \label{triangle.eps}
1159: \end{figure}
1160:
1161: \begin{figure}
1162: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=newphys.eps, width=12cm} }
1163: \caption{The new physics contribution to $M_{12}$}
1164: \label{newphys.eps}
1165:
1166: \end{figure}
1167:
1168: \newpage
1169: \begin{figure}
1170: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=contour.eps, width=12cm} }
1171: \caption{The allowed region for $\rho$ and $\eta$ from the global fit at 68$\%$CL (a)
1172: and 95$\%$CL (b). The individual constraints from $V_{ub}$, $\epsilon_K$ and
1173: $B^0_{(s)}-\bar{B}^0_{(s)}$ are also shown. }
1174: \label{contour.eps}
1175: \end{figure}
1176:
1177:
1178: \newpage
1179: \begin{figure}
1180: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=r1.eps, width=8cm} }
1181: \caption{$r^B_{tt}$ as a function of the charge Higgs mass $m_{H^\pm}$.
1182: The three cures correspond to $\xi_t$=0.6(solid),0.4(dash),0.2(dotted)
1183: respectively.}
1184: \label{r1.eps}
1185: \end{figure}
1186:
1187: \begin{figure}
1188: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=r.eps, width=8cm} }
1189: \caption{$R_{\beta}$ as a function
1190: of the mass of neutral Higgs mass $m_{h}$ with different values of
1191: $Im(Y^d_{1,13})^2$ and $\tilde{\epsilon_K}/\epsilon_K$. The shadowed
1192: band indicates the allowed region for $R_{\beta}$ at 68$\%$ CL.\\
1193: (a) $Im(Y^d_{1,13})^2$=0.01(solid), 0.02 (dashed), $-$0.01
1194: (dotted), $-$0.02 (dotted-dashed) with
1195: $|1-\tilde{\epsilon_K}/\epsilon_K|=0.9$.\\ (b) The same as (a)
1196: with $|1-\tilde{\epsilon_K}/\epsilon_K|=0.8$.\\ (c) The same as
1197: (a) with $|1-\tilde{\epsilon_K}/\epsilon_K|=1.1$.\\ (d) The same
1198: as (a) with $|1-\tilde{\epsilon_K}/\epsilon_K|=1.2$. }
1199: \label{r.eps}
1200: \end{figure}
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204: \end{document}
1205:
1206: --------------57059FCB23B37544E0E8F051
1207: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312;
1208: name="report.txt"
1209: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
1210: Content-Disposition: inline;
1211: filename="report.txt"
1212:
1213: Dear Editor,
1214:
1215: According to referee's report, we have made the following modifications:
1216:
1217: 1) We have clear given the definition of $\sin2\beta_{J/\psi}$, $\sin2\beta$
1218: and $\sin2 \beta^{SM}_{fit}$ in Eqs. (1) , (8)) and (12) respectively.
1219:
1220: We have emphasized ( in the middle of page 3 and the bottom of page 5)
1221: that the value of $\sin2\beta_{J/\psi}$ is defined as a theoretical
1222: one and is model dependent. On the other hand, the value of $\sin2
1223: \beta^{SM}_{fit}$ only depends on the hadronic parameters and the
1224: experimental data, namely it looks like model independent, but
1225: possible existence of new physics implies that $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ may
1226: not be necessarily equal to the true $\beta$ in the SM. This is
1227: because the experimental data should contain all contributions from
1228: both SM and beyond the SM if new physics truly exists. Thus the
1229: relation between $\beta^{SM}_{fit}$ and $\beta$ depends on models.
1230:
1231: The definition of $R_{\beta}$ is defined in Eq.(5), its theoretical value
1232: is therefore model dependent. The $R_{\beta}$ measured from the experiments
1233: is denoted by $R^{exp}_{\beta}$. The comparison between its theoretical and the
1234: experimental values may provide a useful tool to test the new physics models.
1235:
1236:
1237:
1238:
1239: 2) On the correlation between $\omega$ and $\bar{\eta}^{SM}{fit}$. We
1240: expressed ( in the middle of page 12) that
1241:
1242: " we have assumed for simplicity that the the errors of $\omega$ and
1243: $\bar{\eta}^{SM}_{fit}$ are independent. In fact, there
1244: may be correlations between them as they all depend on
1245: the hadronic parameters."
1246:
1247:
1248:
1249:
1250:
1251:
1252: 3) On the possible exclusion of one solution for $R_{beta}$ in the models with
1253: MFV, We have added a comment as followes
1254:
1255: " Note that the solution for $\varphi_{+}$ corresponds to
1256: $\bar{\rho}< 0$. This is quite different from the
1257: value of $\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit}$ which has to be positive
1258: under the constraint from the data of $B^0_{s}-\bar{B}^0_{s}$
1259: mixing. If one assume that the difference between $\bar{\rho}$
1260: and $\bar{\rho}^{SM}_{fit}$ can not be too large in the presence of
1261: new physics, the solution for $\varphi_{+}$ could be ignored."
1262:
1263:
1264: sincerely yours
1265:
1266: Y.L. Wu and Y.F. Zhou
1267:
1268: --------------57059FCB23B37544E0E8F051--
1269: