1: \documentstyle[psfig]{article}
2:
3: \textwidth 460pt
4: \textheight 650pt
5: \oddsidemargin 5pt
6: \evensidemargin 5pt
7: \topmargin -20pt
8: \baselineskip 30pt
9: \parindent 20pt
10: %\pagestyle{empty}
11: %\usepackage{psfig}
12:
13: \def\pslash{p \hspace{-0.4em}/}
14: \def\qslash{q \hspace{-0.4em}/}
15: \def\lam{\lambda}
16: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
17: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
18: %\newcommand{\Rsl}{{\not \! \!{R}}}
19: \newcommand{\sqm}{m_{\tilde{q}}}
20: \newcommand{\slm}{m_{\tilde{l}}}
21: \newcommand{\ms}{\widetilde{m}}
22: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e., }}
23: \def\lapp{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
24: \def\gapp{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
25: \newcommand{\Rsl}{{\not \!{R}}}
26:
27:
28: \def\bra {\langle}
29: \def\ket {\rangle}
30:
31:
32: \def\l {\lambda}
33: \def\b {\beta}
34: \def\g {\gamma}
35: \def\G {\Gamma}
36: \def\r {\rightarrow}
37: \def\R {\longrightarrow}
38: \def\dphi {\Delta \phi}
39: \def\dalfa {\Delta \alpha}
40: \def\ljpsi {\lambda_{J/\psi}}
41: \def\brpsik {B_d\rightarrow J/\psi K_S}
42: \def\bbrpsik {\bar{B}_d\rightarrow J/\psi K_S}
43: \def\tpsik {B_d (t)\rightarrow J/\psi K_S}
44: \def\tbarpsik {\bar{B}_d (t)\rightarrow J/\psi K_S}
45: \def\brpsikpl {B^+\rightarrow J/\psi K^+}
46: \def\brpsikmi {B^-\rightarrow J/\psi K^-}
47: \def\brpsikplmi {B^\pm\rightarrow J/\psi K^\pm}
48: \def\brphik {B_d\rightarrow \phi K_S}
49: \def\bbrphik {\bar{B}_d\rightarrow \phi K_S}
50: \def\brphikpl {B^+\rightarrow \phi K^+}
51: \def\brphikmi {B^-\rightarrow \phi K^-}
52: \def\brphikplmi {B^\pm\rightarrow \phi K^\pm}
53: \def\apsi {A_{J/\psi}}
54: \def\aphi {A_{\phi}}
55: \def\acp {a_{\rm CP}}
56: \def\acppl {a_{\rm CP}^+}
57: \def\acpdir {a_{\rm CP}^{\rm d}}
58: \def\acpmix {a_{\rm CP}^{\rm m}}
59: \def\rnot {R\!\!\!/}
60: \def\bar {\overline}
61: \def\mslsq {m^2_{\tilde{e}_{iL}}}
62: \def\msnsq {m^2_{\tilde{\nu}_{iL}}}
63: \def\msl {m_{\tilde{e}_{iL}}}
64:
65: \def\be {\begin{equation}}
66: \def\ee {\end{equation}}
67: \def\bea {\begin{eqnarray}}
68: \def\eea {\end{eqnarray}}
69: \def\n {\nonumber}
70: \def\bc {\begin{center}}
71: \def\ec {\end{center}}
72:
73:
74: \title{
75: \begin{flushright}
76: \small
77: SINP/TNP/01-10\\
78: {\tt hep-ph/0105057}
79: \end{flushright}
80: %
81: {\bf Can {\boldmath $R$}-parity violation
82: lower {\boldmath $\sin 2\beta$?}}
83: }
84:
85: \author{
86: {\sf Gautam Bhattacharyya $^{a,}$}%
87: \thanks{Electronic address: gb@theory.saha.ernet.in}~,
88: {\sf Amitava Datta $^{b,}$}%
89: \thanks{Electronic address: adatta@juphys.ernet.in. On leave of absence
90: from Jadavpur University, Kolkata 700032, India.} ~~and
91: {\sf Anirban Kundu $^{c,}$}%
92: \thanks{Electronic address: akundu@juphys.ernet.in}
93: \\ [2.5mm]
94: %
95: $^a$ {\small Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan
96: Nagar, Kolkata 700064, India}\\
97: $^b$ {\small Department of Physics,
98: Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan 731235, India} \\
99: $^c$ {\small Department of Physics, Jadavpur University,
100: Kolkata 700032, India}
101: }
102:
103: \date{}
104:
105:
106:
107:
108: \begin{document}
109:
110: \maketitle
111:
112:
113: \begin{abstract}
114: Recent time-dependent CP asymmetry measurements in the $B_d\rightarrow
115: J/\psi K_S$ channel by the BaBar and Belle Collaborations yield
116: somewhat lower values of $\sin 2\beta$ compared to the one obtained
117: from the standard model fit. If the inconsistency between these
118: numbers persists with more statistics, this will signal new physics
119: contaminating the $B_d\rightarrow J/\psi K_S$ channel, thus disturbing
120: the extraction of $\beta$. We show that the $R$-parity-violating
121: interactions in supersymmetric theories can provide extra new phases
122: which play a role in significantly reducing the above CP asymmetry,
123: thus explaining why BaBar and Belle report lower values of $\sin
124: 2\beta$. The same couplings also affect the $B_d\rightarrow \phi K_S$
125: decay rate and asymmetry, explain the $B\rightarrow\eta' K$ anomaly,
126: and predict nonzero CP asymmetry in dominant $B_s$ decays. The
127: scenario will be tested in the ongoing and upcoming $B$ factories.
128:
129: \vskip 5pt \noindent
130: \texttt{PACS number(s)}: 11.30.Er, 13.25.Hw, 12.60.Jv, 11.30.Fs \\
131: \noindent
132: \texttt{Keywords:} CP violation, $B$ decays, supersymmetry, $R$-parity
133: violation
134: \end{abstract}
135:
136: \vskip 20pt
137:
138: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
139: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
140: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
141: Long after its discovery in the $K$ system, evidence of CP violation
142: is now being substantiated also in the $B$ system, in particular, via
143: the CP asymmetry measurement in the `gold-plated' $\brpsik$ channel
144: \cite{sanda}. The CP asymmetry in the above channel is proportional to
145: $\sin 2\beta$ in the standard model (SM), where $\beta = {\rm Arg}~
146: (V^*_{td})$ is an angle of the unitarity triangle of the
147: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix. Any non-zero determination of
148: $\beta$ would be a signal of CP violation. The BaBar and Belle
149: Collaborations, operating at the asymmetric $B$ factories at SLAC and
150: KEK respectively, have recently reported
151: \bea
152: \label{bfac}
153: \sin 2\beta =
154: \left\{
155: \begin{array}{ll}
156: 0.34 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.05 ~~({\rm BaBar ~\cite{babar}}), \\
157: 0.58 {}^{+0.32}_{-0.34} {}^{+0.09}_{-0.10} ~~({\rm Belle ~\cite{belle}}).
158: \end{array}
159: \right.
160: \eea
161: When these are combined with the previous measurements,
162: namely, $\sin 2\beta = 0.84 \pm 1.05$ (ALEPH \cite{aleph}) and $\sin
163: 2\beta = 0.79 \pm 0.44$ (CDF \cite{cdf}), the global average reads
164: \bea
165: \label{global}
166: \sin 2\beta = 0.48 \pm 0.16.
167: \eea
168: On the other hand, using the experimental constraints from the
169: measurement of $|\epsilon|$, $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$, $\Delta m_d$, and
170: from the limit of $\Delta m_s$, the fitted value of $\sin 2\beta$,
171: {\em strictly} within the framework of the SM, has been obtained as
172: \be
173: \label{smfit}
174: \sin 2\beta =
175: \left\{
176: \begin{array}{ll}
177: 0.75 \pm 0.06 ~\cite{parodi},\\
178: 0.73 \pm 0.20 ~\cite{alilondon}.
179: \end{array}
180: \right. \ee
181: %
182: The two numbers in Eqs.~(\ref{global}) and (\ref{smfit}) are at
183: present consistent within errors, though their central values, as it
184: should be noted, are fairly seperated. This separation may turn out to
185: be an ideal new physics hunting ground. With an expected reduction of
186: uncertainties of the parameters that go into the SM fit, and with an
187: improved determination of the CP asymmetry in $\brpsik$ as the
188: statistics accumulates\footnote{The BaBar goal is to bring down the
189: accuracy of $\sin 2\b$ measurement to $\pm 0.06$ with 30 fb$^{-1}$
190: data \cite{babar-hb}.}, the inconsistency between Eqs.~(\ref{global})
191: and (\ref{smfit}) may persist or may become even more prominant. In
192: that case, a possible intervention of new physics with a new phase
193: affecting the CP asymmetry in the $\brpsik$ channel cannot be ignored.
194:
195: \vskip 5pt
196:
197: In the SM, the asymmetry in the $\brpsik$ channel is almost entirely
198: mixing-induced. The time-dependent CP asymmetry is proportional to
199: $\sin 2\beta$, where $\beta$ appears in the phase of $B_d$-$\bar{B}_d$
200: mixing. The decay amplitude of $\brpsik$ does not carry any weak
201: phase at leading order in the Wolfenstein parametrization. New
202: physics might change the scenario in two ways. It can add a new weak
203: phase in $B_d$-$\bar{B}_d$ mixing and/or it can generate a new diagram
204: for $b \r c\bar{c}s$ decay amplitude that carries a new weak
205: phase. Since the decay is Cabibbo-favoured, one usually tends to
206: overlook the latter possibility. In this paper we examine the
207: situation in which the decay is indeed affected by new physics, but
208: the mixing amplitude is not. The point to note is that this scenario
209: also induces a new physics amplitude in $\brpsikpl$. Now two things
210: can happen. First, direct CP asymmetry may be induced\footnote{An
211: observation of direct CP violation even at a few percent level will
212: constitute a definite signal of new physics.} in both $\brpsik$ and
213: $\brpsikpl$, which is non-existent in the SM. Indeed, for this to
214: happen there must also exist a strong phase difference between the SM
215: and new physics diagrams. Second, the mixing-induced CP asymmetry now
216: depends not only on $\beta$, it involves a new weak phase as well. As
217: a result, equating the CP asymmetry to $\sin 2\beta$ would be
218: misleading. A combination of the `true' $\beta$, the angle of the
219: unitarity triangle, and other new parameters should now be related to
220: the experimental CP asymmetry in the $\brpsik$ channel. This way it
221: may be possible to explain why Eqs.~(\ref{global}) and (\ref{smfit})
222: may disagree.
223:
224: \vskip 5pt
225:
226: Since the values of $\sin 2\b$ extracted from the CP asymmetry
227: measurements in the asymmetric $B$ factories have a tendency to be
228: somewhat lower than the SM fit value, one is prompted to look for
229: models where such tendency is favoured. In models of minimal flavour
230: violation, where there are no new operators beyond those in the SM and
231: no new weak phase beyond the one in the CKM matrix, a conservative
232: scanning of all relevant input parameters in a standard CKM-like
233: analysis yields an absolute lower bound on $\b$. The SM, several
234: versions of the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM), and the
235: two Higgs doublet models are examples of this class. The most
236: conservative lower bound, as noted by the authors of
237: Ref.~\cite{buras-buras,buras-fl} is\footnote{The bounds are
238: conservative in the sense that they have been obtained by
239: independently scanning all parameters under consideration.}
240: \be
241: \label{l-bound}
242: \sin (2\b)_{\rm min} =
243: \left\{
244: \begin{array}{ll}
245: 0.42 ~({\rm Present}),\\
246: 0.48 ~({\rm Future}).
247: \end{array}
248: \right. \ee
249: In particular, it has been shown in \cite{buras-buras} that
250: in the MSSM and in the minimal Supergravity (mSUGRA) models, the
251: minimum $\sin 2\b$ are
252: \be
253: \label{mssm-bound}
254: \sin (2\b)_{\rm min} =
255: \left\{
256: \begin{array}{ll}
257: 0.40~(0.49) ~({\rm MSSM}),\\
258: 0.53~(0.62) ~({\rm mSUGRA}),
259: \end{array}
260: \right. \ee
261: where the numbers within brackets correspond to future measurements of
262: input parameters. In the context of supersymmetry, if CP violation in
263: the $K$ system is purely supersymmetric, i.e. $\epsilon$ and
264: $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ are completely explained by new phases of
265: supersymmetric origin, then the CKM phase will be constrained from the
266: charmless semileptonic $B$ decays and $B_d$-$\bar{B}_d$
267: mixing. Only in that case, as the authors of Ref.~\cite{masiero} have
268: argued, the CKM phase could be quite small leading to a very low
269: $\acp$. The implications of a low $\acp$ in the context of a generic
270: new physics scenario have been discussed in Refs.~\cite{nir1,nir2}.
271:
272:
273: \vskip 5pt
274:
275: The thrust of this paper is to examine the r\^{o}le of supersymmetry
276: with broken $R$-parity \cite{rpar} in the context outlined above. This
277: brand of supersymmetry does not fall into the minimal flavour
278: violating class, as it introduces new tree-level flavour changing
279: operators. The essential points are outlined below. Recall that in the
280: MSSM gauge invariance ensures neither the conservation of lepton
281: number ($L$) nor that of baryon number ($B$). Using these quantum
282: numbers $R$-parity is defined as $R = (-1)^{(3B+L+2S)}$, where $S$ is
283: the spin of the particle. $R$ is +1 for all SM particles and $-1$ for
284: their superpartners. In a general supersymmetric model one should in
285: principle allow $R$-parity-violating ($\Rsl$) interactions. Tight
286: constraints on the strength of these interactions exist in the
287: literature \cite{review}. Even though any concrete evidence for the
288: existence of $\Rsl$ terms is still lacking, the observation of
289: neutrino masses and mixings in solar and atmospheric neutrino data
290: suggests that it would be premature to abandon the $L$-violating
291: interactions \cite{rp-nu}. Indeed, to avoid rapid proton decay one
292: cannot simultaneously switch on both $L$- and $B$-violating
293: interactions and for this reason we impose $B$ conservation by
294: hand. The $L$-violating superpotential that we consider here is
295: $\lambda'_{ijk} L_i Q_j D^c_K$, where $L_i$ and $Q_i$ are lepton and
296: quark doublet superfields, and $D_i^c$ is down quark singlet
297: superfields. The essential point is that the $\lambda'$-interactions
298: can contribute to non-leptonic $B$ decays at the tree level via
299: slepton/sneutrino mediated graphs. In this paper we focus on $\Rsl$
300: effects arising at the $\brpsik$ decay amplitude level rather than
301: through $B_d$-$\bar{B}_d$ mixing\footnote{Indeed, we respect the
302: constraints on $\lambda'$ couplings from $\Delta m_d$.}.
303:
304: \vskip 5pt
305:
306: A detailed analysis of $R$-parity violation on $\brpsik$ and $\brphik$
307: decay modes have earlier been carried out in Ref.~\cite{guetta}. We
308: have extended the formalism of \cite{guetta}, which was based on
309: mixing induced CP violation only, by incorporating the effects of the
310: strong phase difference between the interfering amplitudes (an
311: essential ingredient of direct CP violation). The latter constitutes
312: the main source of CP violation in charged $B$ decays and is present
313: even in neutral $B$ decays. The current availability of CLEO data on
314: charged $B$ decays together with the isospin symmetry enable us to
315: extract quantitative results on the strong phase difference within
316: this generalised framework. We also find that our essential conclusion
317: regarding $\b$ extraction from $\brpsik$ channel is different from
318: \cite{guetta}; the reason is explained later.
319:
320:
321: \vskip 5pt
322:
323:
324: In the SM, the matrix element of the effective Hamiltonian for
325: $\bbrpsik$ ($b \r c\bar{c} s$ at the quark level) is a combination of
326: tree and penguin contributions, given by
327: \bea
328: \label{hsm}
329: \bra J/\psi K_S|H_{\rm SM}|\overline{B_d}\ket
330: & = & -\frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2} \left(A_{\rm SM}^{\rm tree} +
331: A_{\rm SM}^{\rm peng}\right), ~~ {\rm where} \n,\\
332: A_{\rm SM}^{\rm tree} & = & V_{cb} V^*_{cs} (C_1 + \xi C_2) \apsi
333: ~~~ (\xi = 1/N_c), \\
334: A_{\rm SM}^{\rm peng} & = & -V_{tb} V^*_{ts} (C_3 + \xi C_4
335: + C_5 + \xi C_6 + C_7 + \xi C_8 + C_9 + \xi C_{10}) \apsi \n.
336: \eea
337: Here $C_i$'s are the Wilson coefficients of the operators $O_1$-$O_{10}$
338: defined as in \cite{bu-fl} and evaluated at the factorization scale $\mu=
339: m_b$, and
340: \bea
341: \label{apsi}
342: \apsi & = & f_{J/\psi} F_0^{B\r K} f(m_B, m_K, m_{J/\psi}), \\
343: {\rm with}~~f(x,y,z) & = & \sqrt{x^4+y^4+z^4-2x^2y^2-2z^2y^2-2x^2z^2} \n.
344: \eea
345: For numerical evaluation, we take the $J/\psi$ decay constant
346: $f_{J/\psi} = 0.38$ GeV \cite{ns} and the $B\rightarrow K$ decay form
347: factor $F_0^{B\r K} = 0.42$ \cite{bsw}.
348:
349: \vskip 5pt
350:
351:
352: The $\lambda'$-induced interactions contribute to $b \r c\bar{c} s$
353: via slepton-mediated tree-level graphs. The matrix element of the
354: effective $\Rsl$ Hamiltonian is given by
355: \bea
356: \label{hr}
357: \bra J/\psi K_S|H_\Rsl|\overline{B_d}\ket & = &
358: -\frac{1}{4} u^R_{222}~ \xi~ \apsi, \\
359: \label{u}
360: {\rm where,}~~ u^R_{jnk} &= & \sum_{i=1}^3
361: \frac{\lambda^{\prime *}_{in3} \lambda'_{ijk}}{2 \mslsq}.
362: \eea
363: Due to the QCD dressing to the above operator, the expression in
364: Eq.~(\ref{hr}) should be multiplied by a factor $\sim 2$
365: at the scale $m_b$ \cite{singer}, which we have taken into account in
366: all our numerical calculations.
367:
368:
369: \vskip 5pt
370:
371:
372: The presence of $\Rsl$ terms modifies the expression for CP
373: asymmetry in the $\brpsik$ channel in the following way.
374: The key parameter of course is
375: \be
376: \ljpsi = e^{-2i\b} {{\langle J/\psi K_S|\bar{B}_d\rangle}
377: \over{{\langle J/\psi K_S|{B}_d\rangle}}}
378: \equiv e^{-2i\b} {\bar{A} \over A},
379: \ee
380: \be
381: \label{a}
382: {\rm where,} ~~ A = A_{\rm SM} (1+ r e^{i\dphi} e^{i\dalfa})
383: ~~[{\rm with}~ r = A_{\Rsl}/A_{\rm SM}],
384: \ee
385: \be
386: \label{abar}
387: \bar{A} = A_{\rm SM} (1+ r e^{-i\dphi} e^{i\dalfa}).
388: \ee
389: In the above expressions, $A_{\rm SM}$ and $A_{\Rsl}$ denote the
390: signed magnitudes of the SM and $\Rsl$ amplitudes
391: respectively\footnote{$A_{\rm SM}$ contains both the tree and penguin
392: amplitudes of the SM. Notice that the CKM factors in Eq.~(\ref{hsm})
393: are both real to a very good approximation. We also neglect the strong
394: phase difference, expected to be small, that may appear between the
395: tree and the $I = 1$ part of the electroweak penguin amplitudes. Among
396: the different penguin contributions, only the dominant QCD part is
397: included in our numerical estimates.}, and we have ignored the overall
398: phases in the expressions of $A$ and $\bar{A}$. Here $\dphi$ and
399: $\dalfa$ are relative weak and strong phases between the SM and $\Rsl$
400: diagrams. The mixing induced CP asymmetry is given by
401: \be
402: \label{acpm}
403: \acpmix \equiv {{2 {\rm Im} \ljpsi} \over {1+|\ljpsi|^2}}
404: = -{{2\rho}\over {1+\rho^2}} \sin({2\beta +\zeta}),
405: \ee
406: \be
407: \label{rho}
408: {\rm where,}~~ \rho = {|\bar{A}| \over |A|} =
409: \left({{1+r^2+2r\cos(-\dphi + \dalfa)}\over
410: {1+r^2+2r\cos(\dphi + \dalfa)}}\right)^{1/2},
411: \ee
412: \be
413: {\rm and,}~~ \zeta =
414: \tan^{-1} \left(\frac{2r\sin \dphi (\cos \dalfa + r \cos
415: \dphi)}{1+r^2\cos(2\dphi)+2r\cos \dphi\cos\dalfa} \right).
416: \ee
417: The direct CP asymmetry is given by
418: \be
419: \label{acpd}
420: \acpdir \equiv \frac{1-|\ljpsi|^2}{1+|\ljpsi|^2}
421: = -\frac{2r \sin \dphi \sin \dalfa}{1+r^2+2r \cos\dphi \cos\dalfa}.
422: \ee
423: The time-dependent CP asymmetry,
424: \be
425: a_{\rm CP}(t) = {{B(\tpsik) - B(\tbarpsik)}\over
426: {B(\tpsik) + B(\tbarpsik)}},
427: \ee
428: is given by
429: \be
430: \label{acpt}
431: a_{\rm CP}(t) = \acpdir \cos(\Delta m_d t) + \acpmix \sin(\Delta m_d t).
432: \ee
433: After time integration, one obtains
434: \be
435: \label{acptot}
436: a_{\rm CP} = \frac{1}{1+x^2} \left[\acpdir + x \acpmix \right];
437: ~~{\rm where}~ x = (\Delta M/\Gamma)_{B_d, B_s}.
438: \ee
439:
440:
441: \vskip 5pt
442:
443:
444: Side by side, a measurement of direct CP asymmetry in the $\brpsikpl$
445: channel, which is the charged counterpart of $\brpsik$, yields
446: important information about new physics. The asymmetry is defined by
447: \be
448: \acppl = {{B(\brpsikpl) - B(\brpsikmi)}\over
449: {B(\brpsikpl) + B(\brpsikmi)}}.
450: \ee
451: To a good approximation, $\acppl = \acpdir$ (see Ref.~\cite{fm1} for
452: details). CLEO has measured \cite{cleo1}
453: \be
454: \label{acppl}
455: \acppl = (-1.8 \pm 4.3 \pm 0.4)\%.
456: \ee
457:
458:
459: \vskip 5pt
460:
461:
462: The operators that mediate $\brpsik$ can have isospin $I$ either 0 or
463: 1. In fact, one can write the effective Hamiltonian in the $I = 0$ and
464: $I = 1$ pieces in a model independent manner \cite{fm1}. In the SM the
465: $I = 1$ contribution suffers a dynamical suppression. Recall that a
466: sizable $\acpdir$ necessarily requires a large strong phase difference
467: (see Eq.~(\ref{acpd})), which can result only from the interference
468: between $I = 0$ and $I = 1$ amplitudes of comparable magnitude. In the
469: SM, the former is far more dominant than the latter. As a result,
470: $\acpdir$ in the SM is vanishingly small. In some extensions beyond
471: the SM, the $I = 1$ piece may be slightly enhanced. A large
472: enhancement however requires the presence of large rescattering
473: effects, which is not a likely scenario \cite{fm1}. In the present
474: context, new physics contributes only to the $I = 0$ sector by
475: inducing a set of slepton mediated tree diagrams in the $b \r
476: c\bar{c}s$ channel, for various combinations of $\lambda'$
477: couplings. Thus in the absence of any possible enhancement of the $I =
478: 1$ part, the most likely scenario is that the strong phase difference
479: ($\dalfa$) is still vanishingly small, and so is the direct CP
480: asymmetry. Yet, as we will see below, there is a significant impact of
481: non-zero $\dphi$ on the extraction and correct interpretation of $\b$.
482:
483:
484: \vskip 5pt
485:
486:
487: Following Eq.~(\ref{rho}), $\rho$ is identically equal to unity when
488: $\dalfa = 0$. Thus new physics can contaminate CP asymmetry only
489: through
490: \be
491: \label{zetaspecial}
492: \zeta =
493: \tan^{-1} \left(\frac{2r\sin \dphi (1 + r \cos
494: \dphi)}{1+r^2\cos(2\dphi)+2r\cos \dphi} \right).
495: \ee
496:
497:
498: \vskip 5pt
499:
500:
501: To determine the maximum allowed size of $r$, we have to find out the
502: experimental constraints on $\lambda^{\prime
503: *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}$. The best constraints come from the
504: measurements of $\brphikplmi$ branching ratio, which we will derive in
505: this paper. The essential formalism \cite{fm2} is described
506: below. First note that due to the isospin structure of the
507: interaction, the above product couplings contribute both to $b \r
508: c\bar{c} s$ (i.e. $\bbrpsik$ and $\brpsikplmi$) and $b \r s\bar{s} s$
509: (i.e. $\bbrphik$ and $\brphikplmi$) at tree level. While for the
510: former the diagram is slepton mediated, for the latter it is sneutrino
511: mediated. For simplicity we assume that both the slepton and sneutrino
512: are degenerate. Again note that for $\brphikplmi$ the leading SM
513: diagram is a penguin, while the $\Rsl$ interaction, as mentioned
514: before, proceeds at the tree level. The SM and $\Rsl$ effective
515: Hamiltonians for $\brphikmi$ lead to the following amplitudes:
516: \bea
517: \label{hpsm}
518: \bra \phi K^-|H'_{\rm SM}|B^-\ket & = &
519: \frac{G_F}{\sqrt 2} V_{tb} V^*_{ts}\times\nonumber\\
520: &{ }&\left[(C_3 + C_4)(1+\xi) + C_5 + \xi C_6
521: -0.5\{C_7 + \xi C_8 + (C_9 + C_{10})(1+\xi)\}\right]
522: \aphi, \\
523: \label{hpr}
524: \bra \phi K^-|H'_\Rsl|B^-\ket & = &
525: -\frac{1}{4} \left(d^R_{222} + d^L_{222}\right) \xi~ \aphi,
526: \eea
527: where $\aphi$ may be obtained analogously to the way $\apsi$ was
528: determined via Eq.~(\ref{apsi}), and
529: \be
530: d^R_{jkn} = \sum_{i=1}^3
531: \frac{\lambda^{\prime *}_{in3} \lambda'_{ijk}}{2 \msnsq}, ~~~
532: d^L_{jkn} = \sum_{i=1}^3
533: \frac{\lambda^{\prime *}_{inj} \lambda'_{i3k}}{2 \msnsq}.
534: \ee
535: The most recent measurements of $\brphikplmi$ branching ratio are
536: \be
537: \label{brphik}
538: B (\brphikplmi) =
539: \left\{
540: \begin{array}{ll}
541: \left(7.7 {}^{+1.6}_{-1.4} \pm 0.8\right) \times 10^{-6}
542: ~~({\rm BaBar}~\cite{babar2}),\\
543: \left(13.9 {}^{+3.7}_{-3.3} {}^{+1.4}_{-2.4}\right) \times 10^{-6}
544: ~~({\rm Belle}~\cite{belle2}),\\
545: \left(5.5 {}^{+2.1}_{-1.8} \pm 0.6\right) \times 10^{-6}
546: ~~({\rm CLEO}~\cite{cleo2}).
547: \end{array}
548: \right. \ee
549: Now for simplicity we assume that only one of $d^R_{222}$ and
550: $d^L_{222}$ is non-zero, i.e. we do not admit unnatural cancellations
551: between them. Since we are interested to put bounds on
552: $\lambda^{\prime *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}$, we assume $d^R_{222}$ to be
553: non-zero. We further simplify the situation by assuming that only one
554: combination, say the one corresponding to $i = 3$, is non-zero,
555: i.e. the exchanged scalar is a tau-sneutrino. We also observe that
556: the weak phase associated with this product coupling is totally
557: arbitrary. In other words, $\lambda^{\prime *}_{323}\lambda'_{322}$
558: can take either sign, and $\dphi$ is completely unconstrained. Note
559: that the SM prediction for the $\brphikplmi$ varies in a wide range
560: $(0.7 - 16)\times 10^{-6}$ (see Table I of Ref.~\cite{cleo2}). To
561: appreciate how much new physics effect we can accommodate, we assume
562: that the SM contribution is close to the lower edge of the above
563: range, and then saturate the 2$\sigma$ CLEO upper limit in
564: Eq.~(\ref{brphik}) {\em entirely} by $\Rsl$ interactions. This
565: way we obtain\footnote{While deriving the bound in
566: Eq.~(\ref{lpbound}), we have multiplied the effective Hamiltonian in
567: Eq.~(\ref{hpr}) by a QCD enhancement factor of 2, as was done with
568: Eq.~(\ref{hr}).}
569: \be
570: \label{lpbound}
571: |\lambda^{\prime *}_{323}\lambda'_{322}|
572: ~\ltap ~1.5 \times 10^{-3},
573: \ee
574: for an exchanged tau-sneutrino mass of 100 GeV. In fact, the above
575: constraint is valid for any lepton family index $i$. This is the best
576: constraint on the above combination\footnote{Notice that the
577: individual limits on $\lambda'_{i23}$ and $\lambda'_{i22}$ have been
578: extracted from squark mediated processes assuming a mass of 100 GeV
579: for whichever squark is involved \cite{review}. While a 100 GeV
580: slepton is very much consistent with all current data, the lower limit
581: on a generic squark mass is presently pushed up to around 300 GeV from
582: direct searches at Fermilab. Therefore, the $\lambda'$ limits derived
583: from squark mediated processes should be properly scaled while
584: comparing them with those extracted from slepton exchanged diagrams.},
585: which we have derived for the first time in this paper.
586:
587:
588: \vskip 5pt
589:
590: To translate the limit in Eq.~(\ref{lpbound}) into a limit on $r$, we
591: need to decide in which regularization scheme $A_{\rm SM}$ will be
592: computed. If the Wilson coefficients are computed in the 't
593: Hooft-Veltman (HV) scheme\footnote{We have adapted the Wilson
594: coefficients from Table 26 of Ref.~\cite{bu-fl}. The uncertainties in
595: evaluating those coefficients arise from regularization scheme
596: dependence, choice of $\Lambda^5_{\bar{\rm MS}}$, the factorization
597: scale $\mu$, and the long distance corrections. The Wilson
598: coefficients we have used have been computed using
599: $\Lambda^5_{\bar{\rm MS}} = 225$ MeV, $\mu = \bar{m}_b (m_b) = 4.4$
600: GeV and $m_t = 170$ GeV.}, $r$ lies in the range
601: \be
602: \label{r}
603: -0.3 ~\ltap~ r ~\ltap ~0.3.
604: \ee
605: (There is no qualitative change in the result if we use other schemes
606: like Naive Dimensional Regularization (NDR).)
607: It is the negative value of $r$, which corresponds to a negative value
608: of the $\Rsl$ product coupling, that has got an interesting
609: implication in the extraction of $\b$. As an illustration, putting $r
610: = - 0.3$ and $\dphi = 90^\circ$ (say), it follows from
611: Eq.~(\ref{zetaspecial}) that $\zeta \sim -33^\circ $.
612: Since our choices of $\lambda'$ couplings do not contribute to
613: $\Delta m_d$ or any other observables that go into the SM fit, the
614: latter still implies $\b \sim 22^\circ$ (see
615: Eq.~(\ref{smfit})), which we accept as the `true' value of $\b$. As a
616: result, the mixing induced CP
617: asymmetry in the $\brpsik$ channel, as conceived via Eq.~(\ref{acpm}),
618: now becomes $\sim 0.2$, as opposed to the SM expectation $\sim
619: 0.7$. The crucial point is that a sizable negative $\zeta$ tends to
620: cancel the `true' $2\b$ in the argument of the sine function in the
621: expression of $\acpmix$. This example demonstrates that $\brpsik$ need
622: not be a `gold-plated' channel for the determination of $\b$. Rather,
623: it could provide a window for new physics to manifest. Note that no
624: drastic assumption, like large rescattering effects, etc, parametrized
625: by a large $\sin \dalfa$, was required to arrive at the above
626: conclusion. In Figure 1, we demonstrate the variation of $\sin 2\b$
627: with $r$ for different values of $\dphi$ and fixed $\dalfa =
628: 0$. The $\dphi = 0$ curve corresponds to the SM reference value $\sin
629: 2\b = 0.7$. The minimum $\sin 2\b$ we obtain in our scenario is
630: \be
631: \label{rp-bound}
632: \sin (2\b)_{\rm min} = 0.2,
633: \ee
634: which should be compared with Eqs.~(\ref{l-bound}) and
635: (\ref{mssm-bound}).
636:
637: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
638: \begin{figure}[htb]
639: \centerline{
640: \psfig{file=fig1.ps,width=12cm,angle=270}
641: }
642: \caption{\small \sf Variation of $(\sin 2\beta)_{J/\psi K_S}$ as a
643: function of $r$ and the weak phase difference $\Delta \phi$ (defined
644: in the text). The values of $\Delta \phi$ (in degree) are indicated
645: adjacent to the lines. The strong phase difference $\Delta \alpha$ is
646: set to zero.}
647: \label{fig:figure1}
648: \end{figure}
649: %\end{document}
650: %%-----------------------------------------------------------------
651:
652:
653: \vskip 5pt
654:
655: If we admit a fine-tuned situation $d^R_{222} = - d^L_{222}$ in
656: Eq.~(\ref{hpr}), then the $\brphikplmi$ branching ratio constraints
657: will not apply. But this product coupling will contribute to
658: $B_s$-$\bar{B}_s$ mixing on which there is only an experimental lower
659: limit. If we assume that in future the $B_s$-$\bar{B}_s$ mixing value
660: settles, say, close to its present lower limit, then one requires
661: $|\lambda^{\prime *}_{323}\lambda'_{322}| ~\sim ~2.7 \times 10^{-3}$
662: (via sneutrino mediated box graphs \cite{br}) to saturate the entire
663: mixing by $\Rsl$ interaction. This is a conservative approach, as for
664: a larger mixing one needs a larger value of the $\Rsl$ product
665: coupling. With the above value of the product coupling, it is possible
666: to arrange an even larger negative $\zeta$, than obtained using
667: Eq.~(\ref{r}), that can completely cancel the `true' $2\b$ inside the
668: sine function of $\acpmix$, which renders the latter almost
669: zeroish. It must be admitted, though, that such a delicate fine-tuning
670: is a very unlikely scenario.
671:
672:
673: \vskip 5pt
674:
675: So far we have worked putting $\dalfa = 0$, i.e. by turning off any
676: possible strong phase difference between the interfering amplitudes
677: that might arise from long distance effects. Our approach has been a
678: conservative one. However, leaving aside any theoretical argument, one
679: can put an experimental constraint on $\dalfa$ for a given value of
680: $r$ and $\dphi$. To do this we first take $r = -0.3$ and $\dphi =
681: 90^\circ$ as a reference point, which yielded the minimum $\sin 2\b$
682: in our model. We then put these values in Eq.~(\ref{acpd}) and
683: constrain $\dalfa$ from the 2$\sigma$ lower limit of the CLEO
684: measurement of direct CP asymmetry in Eq.~(\ref{acppl}). We obtain
685: $|\dalfa| ~\ltap ~11^\circ$. This should be seen as an experimental
686: constraint on long distance contributions for given values of the
687: other parameters. Indeed, the BaBar and Belle collaborations can
688: measure the sine and cosine time profiles of CP asymmetry in
689: Eq.~(\ref{acpt}). The hadronic machines, on the other hand, are
690: sensitive only to the time-integrated $\acp$ (see
691: Eq.~(\ref{acptot})). In the latter, the presence of a non-zero
692: $\acpdir$ can further disturb the extraction of $\b$ which resides
693: inside $\acpmix$.
694:
695:
696: \vskip 5pt
697:
698: The experimental branching ratio $B(\brpsik) = (9.5 \pm 1.0) \times
699: 10^{-4}$ \cite{gao} is a factor of three to four higher than what one
700: obtains from pure short distance effects involving naive
701: factorization \cite{ruckl}. We do not attempt to solve this puzzle in
702: this paper. We only make a remark that if the long distance
703: contributions for short distance SM and $\Rsl$ operators behave
704: similarly, then the long distance effects on $\acp$ will be
705: minimal. Since the SM and $\Rsl$ operator structures are different, a
706: separate study in this hitherto unexplored area is required. We do not
707: get into those details in this paper.
708:
709:
710:
711: \vskip 5pt
712:
713:
714: A few comments on a previous analysis \cite{guetta} of $\Rsl$ effects
715: on $\brpsik$ are now in order. The bounds on $\Rsl$ couplings used in
716: \cite{guetta} are $|\lambda^{\prime *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}| ~\ltap
717: ~1.4 \times 10^{-4}$ $(m_{\tilde{d}_R}/100 ~{\rm GeV})^2$ derived in
718: \cite{agashe}. As a result of such a strong constraint, the amplitude
719: of $\brpsik$ changes only marginally. The above analysis led to a
720: conclusion that the determination of $\b$ via $\brpsik$ was rather
721: robust. In this paper, we counter this conclusion on the following
722: ground. We notice that the bounds derived in \cite{agashe} are
723: `basis-dependent', whose meaning is explained below. If only one
724: $\lambda'$ coupling in the weak basis is non-zero, more than one such
725: coupling becomes non-zero in the mass basis, which are related to one
726: another by the CKM elements. This way one can generate
727: flavour-changing neutral currents (FCNCs) either in the down quark
728: sector or in the up quark sector, depending on whether the CKM mixing
729: is in the down sector or in the up sector respectively. Strong
730: constraints on the $\lambda'$ couplings emerge if one considers FCNCs
731: completely in the down sector. If one chooses the other extreme,
732: namely FCNCs entirely in the up sector, the constraints are not that
733: tight. Since the choice of this basis is completely arbitrary, we
734: prefer not to use such basis-dependent bounds in our analysis mainly
735: because the conclusion depends heavily on this choice. Moreover, if
736: one duly scales the exchanged down-squark mass to 300 GeV in view of
737: its collider constraints, the limit used in \cite{guetta} gets relaxed
738: by an order of magnitude, and becomes closer to our limit in
739: Eq.~(\ref{lpbound}). A general study of CP violating $B$ decays in
740: nonleptonic modes in supersymmetric models with broken $R$-parity can
741: also be found in Ref.~\cite{jang-lee}.
742:
743: \vskip 5pt
744:
745: The couplings $\lambda^{\prime *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}$ we have used in
746: our analysis to reproduce a low $(\b)_{J/\psi K_S}$ may have
747: nontrivial impact on other processes as well. If a correlation is
748: observed among the phenomena ocurring in these processes, it will
749: certainly provide a strong motivation for the kind of new physics
750: interactions we have advocated in our paper. These benchmark tests are
751: listed below:
752: %\begin{enumerate}
753: \vskip 2pt
754:
755: \noindent {\bf 1.}~ The SM amplitude of $B_s$-$\bar{B}_s$ mixing
756: involves $V_{tb} V^*_{ts}$, and is real to a very good
757: approximation. Hence we can expect the $b \r c\bar{c}s$ decays of the
758: $B_s$ meson (e.g. $B_s \r D_s^+ D_s^-$, $B_s \r J/\psi \phi$) to be CP
759: conserving. But as mentioned before, the $\lambda^{\prime
760: *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}$ couplings can contribute to $B_s$-$\bar{B}_s$
761: mixing through slepton mediated box graphs, which can interfere with
762: the SM diagram. The same combinations, we have seen before, also
763: affect the $b \r c\bar{c} s$ decay amplitude. The magnitude and the
764: weak phase of the above product coupling needed to produce a low CP
765: asymmetry in $\brpsik$ channel would necessarily give rise to a
766: sizable CP asymmetry in the $B_s \r D_s^+ D_s^-$ and $B_s \r J/\psi
767: \phi$ modes \cite{bdk}. Note that neither $R$-parity conserving SUSY
768: nor any other minimal flavour violating models can induce CP violation
769: in the latter channels. In some sense, therefore, its observation will
770: provide a necessary test for our scenario. The non-observation, on the
771: other hand, will rule out our explanation of low $\acp$ in
772: $\brpsik$. In any case, to observe CP violation in $B_s$ decays, we
773: have to wait till the second generation $B$ factories, namely the
774: LHC-b and BTeV, start taking data.
775:
776: \vskip 2pt
777:
778: \noindent {\bf 2.}~ We have put constraints on the magnitude of the
779: $\lambda^{\prime *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}$ couplings from the
780: experimental $\brphikplmi$ branching ratio. In fact, the CP asymmetry
781: in its neutral counterpart, namely the $\brphik$ channel, is again
782: expected to be proportional to $\sin 2\b$ in the SM. Now since the SM
783: amplitudes for $\brpsik$ and $\brphik$ are quite different, it is
784: quite apparent that in new physics inspired scenario, the CP
785: asymmetries measured in those two processes could yield values of $\b$
786: not only different from the `true' $\b$ but also different from each
787: other \cite{guetta}. In other words, $\sin (2\b)_{J/\psi K_S} \neq
788: \sin (2\b)_{\phi K_S} \neq \sin (2\b)_{\rm SM ~fit}$. Again, to verify
789: these non-equalities, we have to depend on the results from the second
790: generation $B$ factories.
791:
792: \vskip 2pt
793:
794: \noindent {\bf 3.}~ It has been pointed out in Ref.~\cite{cdk} that
795: the same $\lambda^{\prime *}_{i23}\lambda'_{i22}$ couplings can
796: successfully explain the $B \r \eta' K$ anomaly \cite{cleo-eta'}. It
797: is noteworthy that the magnitude and phase of the above couplings
798: required to produce a low $(\b)_{J/\psi K_S}$ explains the anomaly by
799: enhancing the SM branching ratio of $B \r \eta' K$ to its experimental
800: value. Note again that none of the minimal flavour violating models
801: can do this job.
802:
803: \vskip 2pt
804:
805: \noindent {\bf 4.}~ It has been claimed that $\sin 2\b$ can be
806: determined very cleanly from the branching ratio measurements of the
807: rare decays $K^+ \r \pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ and $K_L^0 \r \pi^0 \nu
808: \bar{\nu}$ \cite{buchalla}. These processes, unlike those previously
809: mentioned, will not be affected by our choice of $\Rsl$
810: couplings. Comparison of $\beta$ extracted from these rare $K$ decay
811: processes with those obtained from several $B$ decay channels may
812: offer a powerful tool for probing physics beyond the SM.
813:
814:
815: %\end{enumerate}
816:
817:
818: \vskip 5pt
819:
820: To conclude, we have demonstrated that the distinctly lower central
821: value of the BaBar measurement of CP asymmetry in the $\brpsik$ channel
822: can be explained in models of supersymmetry with broken $R$-parity. In
823: the process, we have derived new upper limits on the relevant $\Rsl$
824: couplings from the experimental $\brphikplmi$ branching ratio. It should
825: be admitted though that the ability of the $\Rsl$ interactions to
826: lower $(\b)_{J/\psi K_S}$ is indeed shared by a few minimal flavour
827: violating models, e.g. MSSM or mSUGRA. Thus if the disagreement
828: between $(\b)_{J/\psi K_S}$ and $(\b)_{\rm SM ~fit}$ persists, this
829: will signal new physics no doubt, but just with this single piece of
830: information one cannot distinguish betwen the different models. What
831: makes our scenario special is that it can do certain other jobs what
832: the minimal flavour violating models cannot. We have outlined them
833: above. Some of these tests can be carried out only in the second
834: generation $B$ factories. These tests can either boost our scenario or
835: can rule it out.
836:
837: \section*{Acknowledgments}
838: The work of AD has been supported by the DST, India (Project No.\
839: SP/S2/k01/97) and the BRNS, India (Project No.\ 37/4/97 - R \& D
840: II/474). AK's work has been supported by the BRNS grant
841: 2000/37/10/BRNS of DAE, Govt.\ of India, and by the grant F.10-14/2001
842: (SR-I) of UGC, India. We thank A. Raychaudhuri for reading the
843: manuscript.
844:
845:
846: \begin{thebibliography}{[W]}
847:
848: \bibitem{sanda} A.B. Carter and A.I. Sanda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980)
849: 952; Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 1567; I.I. Bigi and A.I. Sanda,
850: Nucl. Phys. B 193 (1981) 85.
851:
852: \bibitem{babar} B. Aubert {\em et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),
853: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2515.
854:
855: \bibitem{belle} A. Abashian {\em et al.} (Belle Collaboration),
856: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 2509.
857:
858: \bibitem{aleph} R. Barate {\em et al.} (ALEPH Collaboration),
859: Phys. Lett. B 492 (2000) 259; K. Ackerstaff {\em et al.} (OPAL
860: Collaboration), Eur. Phys. J C5 (1998) 379.
861:
862: \bibitem{cdf} T. Affolder {\em et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D
863: 61 (2000) 072005.
864:
865: \bibitem{parodi} F. Caravaglios, F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi,
866: hep-ph/0002171.
867:
868: \bibitem{alilondon} A. Ali and D. London, hep-ph/0002167.
869:
870: \bibitem{babar-hb} The BaBar Physics Book: Physics at an asymmetric
871: $B$ factory; {\em eds:} P.F. Harrison and H.R. Quinn, SLAC Report
872: SLAC-504, 1998.
873:
874: \bibitem{buras-buras} A. Buras and R. Buras, Phys. Lett. B 501 (2001)
875: 223.
876:
877: \bibitem{buras-fl} A. Buras and R. Fleischer, hep-ph/0104238. See
878: also, D. Atwood and A. Soni, hep-ph/0103197.
879:
880: \bibitem{masiero} A. Masiero and O. Vives, hep-ph/0104027; A. Masiero,
881: M. Piai and O. Vives, hep-ph/0012096.
882:
883: \bibitem{nir1} G. Barenboim, G. Eyal and Y. Nir,
884: Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4486.
885:
886: \bibitem{nir2} Y. Nir, hep-ph/0008226;
887: G. Eyal, Y. Nir and G. Perez, JHEP 0008 (2000) 028;
888: J.P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 056001;
889: S. Bergmann and G. Perez, hep-ph/0103299.
890:
891: \bibitem{rpar} G. Farrar and P. Fayet, Phys. Lett. B 76 (1978) 575;
892: S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 287;
893: N. Sakai and T. Yanagida, Nucl. Phys. B 197 (1982) 533;
894: C. Aulakh and R. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B 119 (1982) 136.
895:
896:
897: \bibitem{review} For recent reviews, see G. Bhattacharyya, Nucl.
898: Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 52A (1997) 83; hep-ph/9709395; H. Dreiner,
899: hep-ph/9707435; R. Barbier {\it et al.}, hep-ph/9810232.
900:
901: \bibitem{rp-nu} R. Hempfling, Nucl. Phys. B 478 (1996) 3; H. Nilles
902: and N. Polonsky, {\em ibid.} B 484 (1997) 33; E.J. Chun. S.K. Kang,
903: C.W. Kim and U.W. Lee, Nucl. Phys. B 544 (1999) 89, E.J. Chun and J.S.
904: Lee, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 075006; S.Y. Choi, E.J. Chun, S.K. Kang
905: and J.S. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 075002; A. Joshipura and
906: S. Vempati, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 095009; S. Rakshit,
907: G. Bhattacharyya and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 091701;
908: G. Bhattacharyya, H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and H. P\"{a}s,
909: Phys. Lett. B 463 (1999) 77.
910:
911: \bibitem{guetta} D. Guetta, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 116008.
912:
913: \bibitem{bu-fl} A. Buras and R. Fleischer, in `Heavy
914: Flavours II', {\em eds}: A. Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific,
915: 1997).
916:
917: \bibitem{ns} For a discussion, see M. Neubert and B. Stech, in `Heavy
918: Flavours II', {\em eds}: A. Buras and M. Lindner (World Scientific,
919: 1997).
920:
921: \bibitem{bsw} M. Bauer, B. Stech and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C 34 (1987)
922: 103.
923:
924: \bibitem{singer} K. Huitu, C.-D. Lu, P. Singer and D.-X. Zhang,
925: Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 4313.
926:
927: \bibitem{fm1} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, Phys. Lett. B 506 (2001) 311.
928:
929: \bibitem{cleo1} G. Bonvicini {\em et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
930: Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 5940.
931:
932: \bibitem{fm2} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, hep-ph/0103121.
933:
934: \bibitem{babar2} B. Aubert {\em et al.} (BaBar Collaboration),
935: hep-ex/0105001.
936:
937: \bibitem{belle2} A. Bozek (Belle Collaboration), talk at 4th
938: International Conference on B Physics and CP violation, Ise, Japan,
939: Feb 2001, hep-ex/0104041.
940:
941: \bibitem{cleo2} R.A. Briere {\em et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
942: Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 3718.
943:
944: \bibitem{br} G. Bhattacharyya and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. D 57
945: (1998) 3837.
946:
947: \bibitem{gao} Y. Gao, Talk given at DPF 2000 on behalf of the CLEO
948: Collaboration, hep-ex/0011003.
949:
950: \bibitem{ruckl} For a discussion, see A. Khodjamirian and
951: R. R\"{u}ckl, in `Heavy Flavours II', {\em eds}: A. Buras and
952: M. Lindner (World Scientific, 1997).
953:
954: \bibitem{agashe} K. Agashe and M. Graesser, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996)
955: 4445.
956:
957: \bibitem{jang-lee} J.-H. Jang and J.S. Lee, hep-ph/9808406.
958:
959: \bibitem{bdk} G. Bhattacharyya, A. Datta and A. Kundu, in
960: preparation.
961:
962: \bibitem{cdk} D. Choudhury, B. Dutta and A. Kundu, Phys. Lett. B 456
963: (1999) 185.
964:
965: \bibitem{cleo-eta'} For the present status of the $B \r \eta' K$
966: anomaly, see S.J. Richichi {\em et al.} (CLEO Collaboration),
967: Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 520.
968:
969: \bibitem{buchalla} G. Buchalla and A. Buras, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994)
970: 221; Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 6782.
971:
972: \end{thebibliography}
973:
974: \end{document}
975: