1:
2:
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6: \newcommand{\ord}{{\cal O}}
7: \newcommand{\slip}{\vspace*{5mm}}
8: \newcommand{\step}{\vspace*{3mm}}
9: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
10: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray*}}
12: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray*}}
13: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
15: \newcommand{\imlt}{\IM\lambda_t}
16: \newcommand{\RE}{{\rm Re}}
17: \newcommand{\IM}{{\rm Im}}
18: \newcommand{\Lms}{\Lambda_{\overline{\rm MS}}}
19:
20: \def\eps{\varepsilon}
21: \def\epe{\varepsilon'/\varepsilon}
22: \def\as{\alpha_s}
23: \def\OEE{\Omega_{\rm IB}}
24:
25:
26: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.5}
27:
28: \newcommand{\id}
29: {1 \hspace{-1mm}\raisebox{0.8mm}{$\scriptstyle |$}}
30:
31: \textheight22cm
32: \textwidth15cm
33: \hoffset-20mm
34: %\voffset-25mm
35: \voffset-5mm
36: \oddsidemargin2.5cm
37: \evensidemargin2.5cm
38:
39:
40:
41: \begin{document}
42:
43:
44:
45: \begin{titlepage}
46: \begin{flushright}
47: TUM-HEP-420/01 \\
48: UCL-IPT-01-08 \\
49: June 2001
50: \end{flushright}
51:
52:
53: \vspace*{15mm}
54:
55:
56: \begin{center}
57: {\LARGE \bf What is
58: the \boldmath{$(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp}$}
59: Telling Us?}
60: \end{center}
61:
62: \vspace*{5mm}
63:
64: \begin{center}
65: {\large{\bf Andrzej J. Buras}}$^{\mbox a}$ {\large{\bf and
66: Jean-Marc G\'erard}}$^{\mbox b}$
67: \end{center}
68:
69:
70:
71: \vspace*{10mm}
72:
73: \hspace*{40mm}
74: \begin{minipage}{70mm}\baselineskip0.5cm
75: $^{\mbox a}$ Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen
76: \\
77: Physik Department
78: \\
79: D-85748 $\ \ $ Garching, Germany
80: \end{minipage}
81:
82: \vspace*{10mm}
83:
84: \hspace*{40mm}
85: \begin{minipage}{70mm}\baselineskip0.5cm
86: $^{\mbox b}$ Universit\'e catholique de Louvain
87: \\
88: Physics Department
89: \\
90: B-1348 $\ \ $ Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
91: \end{minipage}
92:
93:
94:
95: \vspace*{10mm}
96:
97:
98: %\begin{abstract}
99: \centerline{\bf Abstract}
100: Nature might be kinder than previously thought as far
101: as $\epe$ is concerned. We show that the recently
102: obtained experimental value for $\epe$ does not
103: require sizeable 1/N and isospin-breaking
104: corrections. We propose to display the theoretical
105: results for $\epe$ in a $(P^{1/2}, P^{3/2})$ plane
106: in which the experimental result is represented by a
107: $(\epe)_{\rm exp}$--path. This should allow to exhibit
108: transparently the role of 1/N and isospin-breaking
109: corrections in different calculations of
110: $\epe$. From now on theorists are allowed to walk only
111: along this $(\epe)_{\rm exp}$--path.
112: %\end{abstract}
113:
114: \end{titlepage}
115:
116:
117:
118: \newpage
119:
120: \section{Introduction}
121:
122: The totally unexpected observation \cite{1} of a sizeable CP-violation
123: in the $K^0 - \bar K^0$ oscillations immediately triggered
124: theoretical speculations about a new superweak interaction \cite{2}
125: obeying the strict $|\Delta S | = 2$ selection rule. The large value of
126: the associated $\varepsilon$-parameter was then justified by the huge
127: amplification due to the tiny $K_L - K_S$ mass difference. Following this
128: rather simple picture, it was absolutely unlikely that CP-violation would
129: show up somewhere else in weak processes.
130:
131: %\par\noindent
132:
133: Almost exactly 37 years later, we know that superweak models have been
134: definitely ruled out by the new generation of high-precision experiments
135: on the $|\Delta S | = 1$ neutral $K$-decays. Indeed, the most recent
136: measurements of the associated
137: $\varepsilon'$-parameter that allows us to distinguish between
138: $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi^0\pi^0$ final states in $K_L$ decays give
139: \begin{equation}\label{eprime1}
140: \RE(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon) =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
141: (15.3 \pm 2.6)\cdot 10^{-4} &{\rm (NA48)}~ \cite{NA48}~,\\
142: (20.7 \pm 2.8)\cdot 10^{-4} & {\rm (KTeV)}~\cite{KTEV}~.
143: \end{array} \right.
144: \end{equation}
145: Combining these results with earlier measurements by
146: NA31 collaboration at CERN $ ((23.0\pm 6.5)\cdot 10^{-4})$
147: \cite{barr:93} and by the
148: E731 experiment at Fermilab $ ((7.4\pm 5.9)\cdot 10^{-4})$
149: \cite{gibbons:93} gives
150: the grand average
151: \be
152: \RE(\epe) = (17.2 \pm 1.8)\cdot 10^{-4}~.
153: \label{ga}
154: \ee
155:
156:
157: %\par\noindent
158:
159:
160: The Standard Model for electroweak
161: and strong gauge interactions accomodates, in principle, both
162: $\varepsilon$ and $\varepsilon'$-parameters in terms of a single
163: CP-violating phase.
164: Rather early theoretical
165: attempts \cite{EGN} have
166: predicted $\epe$ between $10^{-2}$ and $10^{-4}$.
167: During the last decade a considerable progress in
168: calculating $\epe$ has been done by several groups.
169: These papers are reviewed in
170: \cite{REV} where all relevant references can be
171: found. The short distance contributions to $\epe$ are
172: fully under control \cite{BJLW1} but
173: the presence of considerable long distance hadronic
174: uncertainties precludes a precise value of $\epe$ in the Standard
175: Model at present. Consequently, while theorists were
176: able to predict the sign and the order of magnitude
177: of $\epe$, the range
178: \be\label{2}
179: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\rm th} = (5 \ \mbox{to} \
180: 30)\cdot 10^{-4}
181: \ee
182: shows that the present status of $(\epe)_{\rm th}$
183: cannot match the experimental one.
184:
185:
186: %\par\noindent
187: Though really expected this time, the non-vanishing value of a second
188: CP-violating parameter has once again been determined
189: by our experimental colleagues. However, one should
190: not forget the tremendous efforts made by theorists to
191: calculate $\epe$ in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa
192: paradigm \cite{CKM} of the Standard
193: Model. Simultaneously, one should not give up the
194: hope that one day theorists will be able to calculate
195: $\epe$ precisely. It is therefore important to have a
196: transparent presentation of different theoretical
197: estimates of
198: $\epe$ in order to be able to identify the patterns
199: of various contributions. On the other hand, having
200: for the first time the definite precise number for
201: $(\epe)_{\rm exp}$ it is crucial to learn what Nature is
202: trying to tell us about theory. In this note, we
203: intend to make first steps in both directions.
204:
205:
206: \section{Basic Formulae}
207: The standard parametrization for the hadronic $K$-decays into two pions :
208: \ba
209: A(K^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-) &=& A_0 e^{i\delta} + {1\over \sqrt{2}} A_2
210: \nonumber \\
211: A(K^0 \to \pi^0\pi^0) &=& A_0 e^{i\delta} - \sqrt{2} A_2 \\
212: A(K^+ \to \pi^+\pi^0) &=& {3\over 2} A_2 \nonumber
213: \ea
214: contains the necessary ingredients to produce non-vanishing asymmetries.
215: For illustration consider
216: \ba
217: a_{CP} &\equiv& {\Gamma (K^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-) - \Gamma (\bar K^0 \to
218: \pi^+\pi^-)\over \Gamma (K^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-) + \Gamma (\bar K^0 \to
219: \pi^+\pi^-)} \nonumber\\
220: &=& {\sqrt{2}\sin \delta \over(1+\sqrt{2} \omega \cos \delta +
221: \omega^2/2)} \mbox{Im} \ \left({A_2\over A_0}\right)
222: \ea
223: where
224: \be
225: \omega \equiv {\mbox{Re} \ A_2\over \mbox{Re} \ A_0}~.
226: \ee
227: In order that $a_{CP}$ is non-vanishing
228: the two partial isospin amplitudes $A_0$ and
229: $A_2$ must have a relative CP-conserving phase
230: (extracted from $\pi\pi$ scattering) which turns out
231: to be roughly equal to the phase of the
232: $\varepsilon$-parameter :
233: \be\label{COIN}
234: \delta \approx \phi_\varepsilon \approx \pi/4
235: \ee
236: and a relative CP-violating phase
237: \be
238: \mbox{Im} \left({A_2\over A_0}\right) \neq 0.
239: \ee
240: These phases are nicely factorized in the physical parameter measuring
241: direct CP-violation in hadronic $K$-decays
242: \be\label{8}
243: \varepsilon' = {i\over \sqrt{2}} e^{-i\delta} \ \mbox{Im} \
244: \left({A_2\over A_0}\right)
245: \ee
246: if one defines
247: \ba
248: \eta_{+-} &\equiv& {A(K_L \to \pi^+\pi^-)\over A(K_S \to \pi^+\pi^-)}
249: \equiv \varepsilon + {\varepsilon'\over 1+{\omega\over \sqrt{2}}
250: e^{-i\delta}} \nonumber \\
251: &&\\
252: \eta_{00} &\equiv& {A(K_L \to \pi^0\pi^0)\over A(K_S \to \pi^0\pi^0)}
253: \equiv \varepsilon - {2\varepsilon'\over 1-\sqrt{2}\omega
254: e^{-i\delta}}~.
255: \nonumber
256: \ea
257: This allows to measure $\RE(\epe)$ through
258:
259: \begin{equation}\label{BASE}
260: \RE(\epe)=\frac{1}{6}(1-\frac{\omega}{\sqrt{2}}
261: \cos\delta)
262: \left(1-\left|{{\eta_{00}}\over{\eta_{+-}}}\right|^2\right)
263: \end{equation}
264: where we have kept the small $\ord(\omega)$ correction usually dropped
265: by experimentalists but kept by theorists in the evaluation of
266: $\varepsilon'$ using (\ref{8}).
267: Notice that the coincidence displayed in (\ref{COIN})
268: implies an almost real $\epe$ so that, already at this level, Nature is
269: kind to
270: us.
271:
272:
273:
274:
275: In the Standard Model, CP-violation only arises from the arbitrary quark
276: mass matrices. A straightforward diagonalization shifts then the unique
277: physical phase into the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) unitary mixing
278: matrix $V$ associated with the $V-A$ hadronic charged current
279: \be
280: J^{ab}_\mu = \bar q^a \gamma_\mu (1-\gamma_5)q^b \equiv (\bar q^a q^b).
281: \ee
282: In this physical basis, we therefore have to start
283: with the classical current-current $\Delta S = 1$
284: Hamiltonian
285: \ba
286: {\cal H}^{\Delta S = 1} &\div& \sum_{q=u,c,t} \lambda_q J^{sq}_\mu
287: J^\mu_{qd} \hspace*{10mm} (\lambda_q \equiv V^\ast_{qs} V_{qd}) \nonumber
288: \\ &=& \lambda_u [(\bar s u)(\bar u d)-(\bar s c) (\bar c d)]_{\Delta I =
289: 1/2, 3/2} \nonumber \\
290: &+& \lambda_t [(\bar s t)(\bar t d) - (\bar s c) (\bar c d)]_{\Delta I =
291: 1/2}
292: \ea
293: to estimate the $A_0$ and $A_2$ partial decay amplitudes.
294:
295:
296:
297:
298: The $\Delta I = 1/2,3/2$ current-current operator
299: involving only the light $u, d$ and $s$ quarks is
300: just proportional to $\lambda_u$. A tree-level
301: hadronization into $K$ and $\pi$ mesons fields would
302: therefore imply $A_0 = \sqrt{2} A_2$, i.e. a vanishing
303: $\varepsilon'$-parameter (see (\ref{8})). In other
304: words, a non-zero
305: $\varepsilon'$-parameter is a pure quantum-loop effect in the Standard
306: Model. Notice that these loop effects are also welcome to explain the
307: empirical $\Delta I = 1/2$ rule :
308: \be
309: \omega_{\exp} \approx {1\over 22} \ll {1\over \sqrt{2}}.
310: \ee
311:
312: The quantum transmutation of the heavy $t\bar t$ and $c\bar c$ quark
313: paires into light $u\bar u$ and $d\bar d$ ones which, eventually,
314: hadronize into final pion states allows now the pure $\Delta I = 1/2$
315: current-current operator proportional to $\lambda_t$ to contribute to
316: the $\Delta S = 1$ $K$-decays. In the most convenient CKM phase
317: convention, we have
318: \be\label{13}
319: \mbox{Im} \lambda_u = 0
320: \ee
321: such that CP-violation only appears in the $A_0$
322: partial amplitude as long as isospin is strictly
323: respected in the ``heavy-to-light" transmutation
324: process. But in the Standard Model, neutral
325: transmutations are possible through heavy quark
326: annihilations into gluons, $Z^0$ or photon that are
327: represented by the so--called penguin diagrams.
328: While the latter electroweak contributions obviously
329: break isospin symmetry, the former may also do so
330: by producing first an off-shell iso-singlet mesonic
331: state (mainly $\eta$ or $\eta'$) which then turns
332: into an iso-triplet pion. These isospin-breaking (IB) effects respectively
333: induced by the electric charge difference $\Delta e = e_u - e_d$
334: and the mass splitting $\Delta m = m_u - m_d$ between
335: the up and the down quarks are usually expected to
336: show up at the percent level in weak decays. However,
337: a CP-violating
338: $\Delta I = 3/2$ amplitude turns out to be enhanced
339: by the famous
340: $\Delta I = 1/2$ rule factor $\omega^{-1}$ since
341: \be
342: \IM \left(\frac{A_2}{A_0}\right)
343: = - {\omega\over \mbox{Re}A_0} (\mbox{Im} A_0 -
344: {1\over\omega}\ \mbox{Im} A_2).
345: \ee
346: From these quite general considerations, one concludes that
347: \be
348: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{th} = \mbox{Im} \lambda_t~ [P^{1/2} -
349: {1\over \omega} P^{3/2}]
350: \ee
351: with $P^{1/2}$ and $P^{3/2}$, two separately measurable quantities
352: defined with respect to the CKM phase convention defined in (\ref{13}).
353: Formally, $P^{1/2}$ and $P^{3/2}$ are given in terms of short distance
354: Wilson coefficients $y_i$ and the corresponding hadronic matrix
355: elements as follows
356: \begin{eqnarray}
357: P^{1/2} & = & r \sum y_i \langle Q_i\rangle_0~,
358: \label{eq:P12} \\
359: P^{3/2} & = &{r}
360: \sum y_i \left[\langle Q_i\rangle_2^{\Delta e}
361: + \omega^{\Delta m} \langle Q_i\rangle_0\right]
362: \label{eq:P32}
363: \end{eqnarray}
364: where $r$ is a numerical constant and
365: \begin{equation}
366: \omega^{\Delta m} = \frac{(\IM
367: A_2)^{\Delta m}}{\IM A_0}~.
368: \label{eq:Omegaeta}
369: \end{equation}
370:
371: \section{The \boldmath{$(\epe)_{exp}$}-Path}
372: Having all these formulae at hand, we can ask ourselves what the result in
373: (\ref{ga}) is telling us. The answer is simple. It allows us to walk
374: only along a
375: straight path in the $(P^{1/2},P^{3/2})$ plane, as illustrated in
376: Fig.\ref{BGPLOT}. The standard unitarity triangle analyses
377: \cite{C00} give typically
378: \be\label{TYP}
379: \IM \lambda_t = (1.2 \pm 0.2) 10^{-4}
380: \ee
381: and, combined with (\ref{ga}), already allow us to
382: draw a rather thin
383: $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp}$-path in the $(P^{1/2},P^{3/2})$ plane
384: (see Fig.\ref{BGPLOT}).
385: This path crosses the $P^{1/2}$--axis at
386: $(P^{1/2})_0$ = $14.3 \pm 2.8$.
387:
388:
389:
390: We are of course still far away from such a
391: precise calculation of $P^{1/2}$ and $P^{3/2}$.
392: These two factors are dominated by
393: the so-called strong $Q_6$ and electroweak $Q_8$ penguin
394: operators. The short-distance Wilson coefficients
395: $y_6$ and $y_8$ of these well-known density-density
396: operators are under excellent control \cite{BJLW1}. In particular,
397: the
398: $\Delta I = 3/2$ $Z^0$-exchange contribution to
399: $\epe$ exhibits a quadratic dependence on the top
400: quark mass which makes it to compete with the $\Delta
401: I = 1/2$ gluon-exchange one. Unfortunately, the
402: resulting destructive interference between $P^{1/2}$
403: and
404: $P^{3/2}$ strongly depends on the various hadronic
405: matrix elements. Long-distance effects are therefore
406: at the source of the large theoretical uncertainties
407: illustrated by (\ref{2}). Consequently, we advocate to
408: adopt (temporarily) a different strategy to learn
409: something from the new precise measurements of
410: $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$. The proposed exposition of $\epe$ in the
411: $(P^{1/2},P^{3/2})$ plane turns out to be useful in this context.
412:
413:
414: \begin{figure}[hbt]
415: \vspace{0.10in}
416: \centerline{
417: \epsfysize=3.0in
418: \epsffile{BGPLOT.eps}
419: }
420: \vspace{0.02in}
421: \caption{$(\epe)_{exp}$--path in the
422: $(P^{1/2},P^{3/2})$ plane.}
423: \label{BGPLOT}
424: \end{figure}
425:
426:
427:
428: \section{A simple observation}
429:
430:
431: It is well-known that isospin-symmetry and large-$N$
432: limit represent two powerful approximations to study
433: long-distance hadronic physics. Here, these
434: well-defined approximations would allow us to neglect
435: $P^{3/2}$ and to express the hadronic matrix elements
436: of the surviving strong penguin operators responsible for
437: $P^{1/2}$ in terms of measured form factors.
438: Earlier attempts \cite{bardeen:87} to go beyond such
439: a zero-order approximation provided us already with
440: some insight about the sign of the $1/N$ and IB
441: corrections to
442: $\epe$. Recent works including further ${1/ N}$
443: \cite{Prades} and IB
444: \cite{ECKER99} corrections confirm their tendancy to
445: increase $P^{1/2}$ and $P^{3/2}$ respectively.
446: We illustrate these generic trends
447: \be
448: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\rm th} =
449: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0 \{ 1 + {\cal O}
450: (1/N)-{1\over \omega} {\cal O} (IB)\}.
451: \ee
452: as $(1/N)$ and (IB) arrows in Fig.~\ref{BGPLOT}.
453: A systematic calculation of all 1/N and IB corrections is not yet
454: available, but a direct comparison
455: between the
456: measured value
457: $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp}$ and the zero-order approximation
458: $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0$ should already tell us something
459: about their magnitudes within the Standard Model.
460: Indeed, if the experimental value quoted in
461: (\ref{ga}) is larger than the zero-order theoretical approximation, one
462: needs $1/N$ corrections along the
463: $P^{1/2}$ axis :
464: \be
465: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp} > (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0
466: \Rightarrow 1/N \ \mbox{corrections}.
467: \ee
468: On the other hand, an experimental value smaller than the zero-order
469: approximation would be an indication for sizeable IB corrections along
470: the $P^{3/2}$ axis :
471: \be
472: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp} < (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0
473: \Rightarrow IB \ \mbox{corrections}.
474: \ee
475: And here comes the surprise ! It turns out that
476: $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0$ lies on the
477: $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp}$-path in
478: Fig.~\ref{BGPLOT}. It is the crossing of this
479: path with the $P^{1/2}$ axis.
480:
481: Indeed $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0$ can easily be estimated.
482: In the large-N limit, the non-perturbative parameter
483: $\hat B_K$ relevant for the usual analysis of the
484: unitarity triangle equals
485: $3/4$ \cite{MBW}. This implies
486: \be
487: \IM\lambda_t=(1.24 \pm 0.06)\cdot 10^{-4}
488: \ee
489: to be compared with (\ref{TYP}) that uses $\hat B_K=0.85\pm 0.15$.
490: Moreover, in the large-N limit the hadronic
491: matrix element of the strong penguin density-density
492: operator $Q_6$ factorizes $(B_6=1)$. A simple dependence on the
493: inverse of the strange quark mass squared arises then
494: to cancel the scale dependence of $y_6$ \cite{BUGE}.
495: Taking the central values of the strange quark mass
496: $m_s(2 GeV) = 110~{\rm MeV}$ and of the QCD coupling
497: $\alpha_s (M_Z) = 0.119$ relevant for $y_6$, we obtain
498: \be\label{BG0}
499: (\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0 = (17.4\pm 0.7) \ 10^{-4}
500: \ee
501: where the error results from the error in
502: $\IM\lambda_t$.
503: In obtaining (\ref{BG0}) we have taken also into account the contribution
504: of the other ($Q_4$) surviving QCD penguin operator in the large-N limit.
505: Without this contribution we would find
506: $18.4\pm 0.7$, still within the $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_{\exp}$-path.
507: Clearly, as $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0$ is roughly proportional
508: to $(\Lms^{(4)})^{0.8}/m_s^2$ with $\Lms^{(4)}=340\pm 40~{\rm MeV}$
509: and $m_s(2 GeV) = (110\pm 20)~{\rm MeV}$, improvements on these input
510: parameters are mandatory.
511:
512:
513:
514: Although this rather intriguing
515: coincidence between (\ref{ga}) and (\ref{BG0}) seems to indicate small
516: $1/N$ and IB corrections, one cannot rule out a somewhat
517: accidental conspiracy between sizeable corrections
518: canceling each other
519: \be
520: {\cal O} (1/N) - {1\over \omega} {\cal O} (IB) \approx 0~.
521: \ee
522: The latter equation describes the walking along
523: the $(\epe)_{\exp}$--path.
524:
525:
526: At this point, it is also worth noticing that CP-violation
527: in the simplest extensions of the Standard Model, the
528: models with minimal flavour-violation, might behave
529: just like an IB correction along the $P^{3/2}$ axis.
530: The reason is that the $Z^0$-penguin maximally
531: violates the decoupling theorem. Consequently, it
532: depends quadratically on the top quark mass and is
533: also quite sensitive to new physics
534: \cite{BS00}. If such is the
535: case, one will have a hard time to disentangle new
536: sources of CP-violation beyond the Standard Model
537: from ordinary IB corrections.
538:
539: Finally the $(\epe)_{\exp}$--path can be shifted vertically in the
540: $(P^{1/2}, P^{3/2})$ plane by new physics contributions to the
541: quantities used for the determination of $\imlt$ but this is
542: a different story.
543:
544: \section{Conclusion}
545:
546:
547:
548: Nature might be kinder than previously thought as far as
549: $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ is concerned. Indeed, present data do not
550: require sizeable $1/N$ and IB corrections. Improvements on the input
551: parameters $\alpha_s (M_Z)$ and $m_s$ leading to our estimate of
552: $(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon)_0$ are mandatory.
553: We have proposed to display the theoretical results
554: in a $(P^{1/2}, P^{3/2})$ plane in which the
555: experimental result is represented by a
556: $(\epe)_{exp}$--path. This plot should allow to
557: exhibit transparently the role of 1/N and isospin-breaking corrections in
558: different theoretical results for
559: $\epe$.
560:
561:
562: \section*{Acknowledgments}
563:
564:
565: J.-M. G. appreciates the kind hospitality of the
566: Max-Planck-Institute for Physics in Munich where this work has been
567: initiated.
568:
569: \par\noindent
570: This work has been supported in part by the German Bundesministerium f\"ur
571: Bildung und Forschung under the contract 05HT1WOA3.
572:
573: \newpage
574:
575: \begin{thebibliography}{80}
576: \bibitem{1}
577: { J.H. Christenson, J.W. Cronin, V.L. Fitch and R. Turlay},
578: { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 13} (1964) 138. Paper received on
579: July 10, 1964.
580: \bibitem{2}
581: L.Wolfenstein, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf13} (1964) 562.
582: \bibitem{NA48} V. Fanti et al.,
583: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B465} (1999) 335; G. Unal,
584: {\it A New Measurement of Direct CP Violation by NA48}, CERN
585: Particle Physics Seminar (May 10, 2001),
586: http://www.cern.ch/NA48/Welcome.html.
587: \bibitem{KTEV} A. Alavi-Harati et al.,
588: { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 83} (1999) 22;
589: J. Graham, Fermilab Seminar (June 8, 2001),
590: http://kpasa.fnal.gov:8080/public/ktev.html.
591: \bibitem{barr:93}
592: H. Burkhardt et al., { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B206} (1988) 169;
593: { G.D. Barr} { et~al.},
594: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B317} (1993) 233.
595: \bibitem{gibbons:93}
596: { L.K. Gibbons} { et~al.},
597: { Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 70} (1993) 1203.
598: \bibitem{EGN}
599: J. Ellis, M.K. Gaillard and D.V. Nanopoulos,
600: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B109} (1976) 213.\\
601: { F.J. Gilman and M.B. Wise,} { Phys. Lett.} {\bf
602: B83} (1979) 83.\\
603: { B. Guberina and R.D. Peccei,} {
604: Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B163} (1980) 289.
605: \\
606: { F.J. Gilman and J.S. Hagelin}, { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B126} (1983) 111.\\
607: { A.J. Buras, W. Slominski and H. Steger,} { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B238}
608: (1984) 529.
609: \\
610: { A.J. Buras} and { J.-M. G{\'e}rard},
611: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B203} (1988) 272.
612: \\
613: { J.M. Flynn} and { L. Randall},
614: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B224} (1989) 221; erratum ibid.\ { Phys.
615: Lett.} {\bf B235} (1990) 412.\\
616: { G.~Buchalla}, { A.J. Buras}, and { M.K. Harlander},
617: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B337} (1990) 313.
618: \bibitem{REV}
619: S. Bosch, A.J. Buras, M. Gorbahn, S. J\"ager, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher
620: and L.
621: Silvestrini, Nucl. Phys {\bf B565} (2000) 3.
622: \\
623: A.J. Buras, hep-ph/0101336. \\
624: M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, L. Gusti, V. Lubicz and G. Martinelli,
625: hep-ph/9910237. \\
626: M. Ciuchini and G. Martinelli, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.
627: {\bf 99} (2001) 27. \\
628: S. Bertolini, hep-ph/0101212.\\
629: T. Hambye and P.H. Soldan, hep-ph/0009073.\\
630: A. Pich, hep-ph/0010181, hep-ph/0106057.
631: \bibitem{BJLW1}
632: { A.J. Buras, M. Jamin, M.E. Lautenbacher and P.H.
633: Weisz,} { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B370} (1992) 69;
634: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B400} (1993) 37.\\
635: %\bibitem{BJLW2}
636: { A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and M.E. Lautenbacher,}
637: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B400} (1993) 75;
638: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B408} (1993) 209.\\
639: { M. Ciuchini, E. Franco, G. Martinelli and L. Reina,}
640: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B301} (1993) 263;
641: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B415} (1994) 403.\\
642: A.J. Buras, P. Gambino and U.A. Haisch, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B570} (2000) 117.
643: \bibitem{CKM}
644: N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 10} (1963) 531.\\
645: { M. Kobayashi and K. Maskawa},
646: { Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 49} (1973) 652.
647: \bibitem{C00}
648: M. Ciuchini et al., hep-ph/0012308.\\
649: A. H\"ocker, H. Lacker, S. Laplace, F. Le Diberder, hep-ph/0104062.\\
650: A. Ali and D. London, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C18} (2001) 665.
651: \bibitem{bardeen:87}
652: { W.A. Bardeen}, { A.J. Buras} and { J.-M. G{\'e}rard},
653: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B180} (1986) 133;
654: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B293} (1987) 787;
655: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B192} (1987) 138.\\
656: J. Bijnens and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett. {\bf B137} (1984) 245.\\
657: J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich, B.R. Holstein and J. Trampetic, Phys. Lett. {\bf
658: B179} (1986) 361.
659: \\
660: { A.J. Buras} and { J.-M. G{\'e}rard},
661: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B192} (1987) 156.\\
662: H.-Y. Cheng, Phys. Lett. {\bf B201} (1988) 155.\\
663: M. Lusignoli, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B325} (1989) 33.\\
664: { J.M. Flynn} and { L. Randall}, in ref. \cite{EGN}.
665: \bibitem{Prades}
666: J. Bijnens and J. Prades, JHEP {\bf 06} (2000) 035;
667: hep-ph/0010008.\\
668: S. Bertolini, M. Fabbrichesi and J.O. Eeg,
669: { Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 72} (2000) 65;
670: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63} (2001) 056009.
671: \\
672: T. Hambye, G.O. K\"ohler, E.A. Paschos and
673: P.H. Soldan, { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B564} (2000) 391;
674: hep-ph/0001088; Y.-L. Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64} (2000) 016001.\\
675: E. Pallante and A. Pich, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} (2000) 2568; Nucl. Phys.
676: {\bf B592} (2000) 294; E. Pallante, A. Pich and I. Scimemi, hep-ph/0105011.
677: \bibitem{ECKER99}
678: G. Ecker, G. M\"uller, H. Neufeld and A. Pich,
679: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B477} (2000) 88;
680: G. Ecker, G. Isidori, G. M\"uller, H. Neufeld and A. Pich,
681: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B591} (2000) 419.\\
682: S. Gardner and G. Valencia,
683: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B466} (1999) 355;
684: { Phys. Rev.} {\bf D62} (2000) 094024.\\
685: K. Maltman and C.E. Wolfe, Phys. Lett. {\bf B482} (2000) 77; Phys. Rev. {\bf
686: D63} (2001) 014008.\\
687: V. Cirigliano, J. F. Donoghue and E. Golowich, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61} (2000)
688: 093001; ibid 093002; Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C18} (2000) 83;
689: { Phys. Lett.} {\bf B450} (1999) 241.\\
690: M. Suzuki, hep-ph/0102108.
691: \bibitem{MBW}
692: A.J. Buras and J.-M. G\'erard, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B264} (1986) 371.
693: \bibitem{BUGE}
694: A.J. Buras and J.-M. G\'erard, in ref.\cite{bardeen:87}.
695: \bibitem{BS00}
696: A.J. Buras and L. Silvestrini,
697: { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B546} (1999) 299.\\
698: G. Colangelo and G. Isidori, JHEP 09 (1998) 009.\\
699: A.J. Buras, G. Colangelo, G. Isidori, A. Romanino and
700: L. Silvestrini, { Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B566} (2000) 3.
701: \end{thebibliography}
702: \vfill\eject
703:
704: \end{document}
705:
706: *********************************************************************
707: END
708: *********************************************************************
709:
710:
711:
712: