1: \documentstyle[epsfig,12pt]{article}
2: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
3: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
4: \def \bo{B^0}
5: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
6: \def \dz{D^0}
7: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
8: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
9: \def \epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
10: \def \hp{\hat{p}}
11: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
12: \def \ko{K^0}
13: \def \lp{\lambda_{\pi \pi}}
14: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
15: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
16: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
17: \def \of{\overline{f}}
18: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
19: \def \ot{\overline{t}}
20: \def \pr{\parallel}
21: \def \ras{\rho_{A_1}^2}
22: \def \rfas{\rho_{F_A}^2}
23: \def \rfvs{\rho_{F_V}^2}
24: \def \rs{\rho^2}
25: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
26: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
27: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
28: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
29: \textwidth 6in
30: \hoffset -0.2in
31: \voffset -0.5in
32: \textheight 9in
33: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
34: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
35: \begin{document}
36: %
37: \Large
38: \centerline {\bf Information on $B \to \pi \pi$ Provided by}
39: \centerline{\bf the Semileptonic Process $B \to \pi \ell \nu$
40: \footnote{Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 01-28, hep-ph/0108024.
41: Submitted to Physical Review D.}}
42: \normalsize
43:
44: \vskip 2.0cm
45: \centerline {Zumin Luo~\footnote{zuminluo@midway.uchicago.edu} and
46: Jonathan L. Rosner~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}
47: \centerline {\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
48: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
49: \vskip 4.0cm
50:
51: \begin{quote}
52:
53: Analysis of the present data on the semileptonic process $B \to \pi \ell \nu$
54: indicates that they have not yet reached the precision to provide adequate
55: information on the $B \to \pi$ form factor $F_+(q^2)$, which for $q^2 =
56: m_\pi^2$ is known to be related to the factorized color-favored (``$T$'', or
57: ``tree'') contribution to $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. It is shown here that
58: with around 500 $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ events in
59: which rate and spectrum are measured one can improve the accuracy of $T$ by a
60: significant amount. A recent CLEO determination of
61: the $D^* D \pi$ coupling constant is compared with an earlier prediction,
62: and its role in the description of the $B \to \pi$ form factors is noted.
63: When combined with an estimate of the penguin amplitude (``$P$'') obtained
64: using flavor SU(3) symmetry from $B \to K \pi$ decays, information on $T$
65: allows one to gauge the effects of the penguin amplitude on
66: extraction of the weak phase $\alpha = \phi_2$ from the time-dependent
67: CP-violating rate asymmetry in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. The constraint on
68: $\alpha$ implied by a recent experimental result on this asymmetry is described.
69:
70: \end{quote}
71: \bigskip
72:
73: \noindent
74: PACS Categories: 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd, 14.65.Fy, 11.30.Er
75:
76: \vfill
77: \newpage
78:
79: \section{Introduction}
80:
81: The semileptonic process $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ is known to provide information
82: on the $B \to \pi$ form factor $F_+(q^2)$, which for $q^2 = m_\pi^2$ is related to the factorized color-favored (``$T$'', or ``tree'') contribution to $B^0 \to
83: \pi^+ \pi^-$. In the present paper we show that while present semileptonic data
84: have not yet reached adequate precision, with around 500 $B \to \pi \ell \nu$
85: events in which rate and spectrum are measured one can improve the accuracy of
86: $T$ by a significant amount. We then discuss the benefits of such a
87: determination.
88:
89: A connection between the decays $B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+ \nu_l$ and $B^0 \to
90: \pi^+ \pi^-$ was noted some time ago by Voloshin \cite{Vol}, who
91: derived the relation
92: \beq \label{eqn:Vol}
93: \frac{\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e)}{\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}
94: = \frac{M_B^2}{12 \pi^2 f_\pi^2} \simeq 13.7~~~(f_\pi = 131~{\rm MeV})~~~,
95: \eeq
96: using a pole model for the $B \to \pi$ form factor $F_+(q^2)$. This relation
97: assumes the dominance of a ``tree'' ($T$) contribution to $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
98: in the notation of Ref.\ \cite{GHLR}. The CLEO \cite{CLEOSL} and Belle
99: \cite{BelleSL} Collaborations have measured the branching
100: ratio for the semileptonic process. Averaging their results yields
101: \beq \label{eqn:BSL}
102: {\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e) = (1.4 \pm 0.3) \times 10^{-4}~~,
103: \eeq
104: while an average of CLEO \cite{CLPP}, Belle \cite{BePP}, and BaBar \cite{BaPP}
105: ($B^0$ and $\ob$-averaged) branching ratios \cite{JRTASI} gives
106: \beq \label{eqn:ppav}
107: {\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = (4.4 \pm 0.9) \times 10^{-6}~~~.
108: \eeq
109: The experimental ratio of these two branching ratios is $\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^-
110: e^+ \nu_e)/\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = 32 \pm 9$, a factor of 2.3 above
111: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Vol}), which indicates either that the
112: ``tree'' contribution is substantially overestimated in (\ref{eqn:Vol}),
113: or that some other process is interfering destructively with the tree amplitude
114: to reduce the $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ decay rate. A prime candidate for this
115: amplitude is the ``penguin'', or $P$ amplitude in the notation of \cite{GHLR}.
116: If this amplitude were sufficiently important to reduce the expected $B^0 \to
117: \pi^+ \pi^-$ rate by roughly a factor of 2.3, it could have important effects
118: on the extraction of the weak phase $\alpha = \phi_2$ entering the
119: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix \cite{penpol}. This question has now
120: acquired particular urgency as a result of the first report of results on
121: CP-violating parameters in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ \cite{Bapipi}.
122:
123: Many attempts have been made to use data to estimate the ``penguin pollution''
124: of the $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ amplitude, including an isospin analysis requiring
125: the measurement of $B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ and $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ decays
126: \cite{GL} (we assume charge-conjugate processes are measured when required),
127: methods which use only a partial subset of the above information
128: \cite{GQChGLSS}, and numerous methods based on flavor SU(3)
129: \cite{GHLR,SilWoSU}. Earlier data hinted that the penguin amplitude was
130: interfering destructively with the tree in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
131: \cite{GRdest,Hdest}.
132:
133: In the present paper we describe measurements of $B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e$
134: decays which can significantly improve information on the magnitude of the
135: tree ($T$) contribution to $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. Such an improvement is
136: needed to tell whether tree and penguin amplitudes are really interfering
137: destructively in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. We discuss the role of the $B^*$ pole
138: in this process, whose contribution is related through heavy quark symmetry to
139: a recent CLEO measurement of the $D^* D \pi$ coupling constant \cite{CLg}.
140: We then show how information on $T$ helps to determine the weak phase $\alpha$
141: using limits on CP violation in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$.
142:
143: Our approach differs from that advocated in Refs.\ \cite{GRdest,GRVP,Neubert},
144: in which the tree amplitude is estimated from the rate
145: for $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$. In that process, there is an additional
146: color-suppressed amplitude (called $C$ in the language of Ref.\ \cite{GHLR}),
147: whose magnitude and phase with respect to $T$ cannot be independently estimated
148: using present data but must be calculated. One then has $A(B^+ \to \pi^+
149: \pi^0) = -(T+C)/\sqrt{2}$, and with $C \simeq 0.1T$, one arrives at estimates
150: rather similar to those in the present paper. (The $C$ amplitude was neglected
151: altogether in Ref.~\cite{GRdest}.) The semileptonic process avoids
152: dependence on the theoretical calculation of $C/T$.
153:
154: In Section II we give some basic expressions for the $B^0 \to \pi^- e^+
155: \nu_e$ and $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ decays. Information
156: on the $B \to \pi$ form factors is reviewed in Section III. The
157: $D^* D \pi$ measurement and its implications for the $B^* B \pi$ coupling
158: and the $B^*$ pole in the $B \to \pi$ form factor are described in
159: Section IV. We then bracket the possible magnitudes of the tree amplitude $T$
160: depending on measurements of the spectrum in $B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e$
161: (Section V). The extraction of the penguin amplitude from $B \to K \pi$
162: decays with the help of flavor SU(3) allows us to determine the
163: extent to which $P$ and $T$ are interfering destructively in $B^0 \to
164: \pi^+ \pi^-$, and hence to determine the correction to the weak phase
165: $\alpha$ which is needed when extracting it from CP-violating
166: asymmetries in that process (Section VI). We summarize in Section VII.
167:
168: \section{Semileptonic and nonleptonic tree decays}
169:
170: For a generic heavy-to-light decay $H \to \pi$, the non-perturbative
171: matrix element is parametrized by two independent form factors:
172: \beq
173: \bra{\pi(p)} \bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}b \ket{H(p+q)} =
174: \left(2p+q-q\frac{m_H^2-m_{\pi}^2}{q^2}\right)_{\mu}F_+(q^2) +
175: q_{\mu}\frac{m_H^2-m_{\pi}^2}{q^2}F_0(q^2)~ ,
176: \eeq
177: with $H$ being a $B$ or $D$ pseudoscalar meson. The subscript $H$ has
178: been suppressed in the two form factors. In the case of massless
179: leptons
180: (which is an excellent approximation for $\ell=e, \mu$), only $F_+(q^2)$
181: contributes to the differential decay rate
182: \beq \label{eqn:diff}
183: \frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}(H^0 \to \pi^-\ell^+ \nu_{\ell}) =
184: \frac{G_F^2|V_{qQ}|^2}{24\pi^3}|\vec{p}_{\pi}|^3|F_+(q^2)|^2~~ ,
185: \eeq
186: where $V_{qQ}$ is the relevant CKM matrix element. We will take
187: $|V_{cd}|=0.224 \pm 0.016$ and $|V_{ub}|=0.0036 \pm 0.0010$ from
188: Ref.~\cite{PDG}. To obtain the total width, one should integrate Eq.\
189: (\ref{eqn:diff}) over the entire physical region, \mbox{$0 \le q^2 \le
190: (m_H-m_{\pi})^2$}, which requires the precise knowledge of the
191: normalization [i.e., $F_+(0)$] and $q^2$ dependence of the form factor.
192:
193: The lepton pair can be replaced with a pion, as shown in
194: Fig.~\ref{fig:utrees} for the decay of a $B^0$ meson. The resulted diagram
195: is the ``tree'' contribution to
196: the nonleptonic decay $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. In the limit of small
197: $m_{\pi}$, the two diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:utrees} are related by the
198: Bjorken relation \cite{BJ}
199: \beq \label{eqn:pipi}
200: \Gamma_{\mathrm{tree}}(B^0 \to \pi^+
201: \pi^-)=6\pi^2f_{\pi}^2|V_{ud}|^2|a_1|^2\left.\frac{d\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^-
202: \ell^+ \nu_{\ell})}{dq^2}\right|_{q^2=m_{\pi}^2} .
203: \eeq
204: where $|a_1|$ is the QCD correction. We shall take $|a_1|=1.0$, which is
205: a sufficiently good approximation for our present purpose.
206:
207: % This is Figure 1
208: \begin{figure}[t]
209: \centerline{\epsfysize = 2in \epsffile{utrees.ps}}
210: \caption{Feynman diagrams for semileptonic and nonleptonic tree decays of
211: a $B^0$ meson.
212: \label{fig:utrees}}
213: \end{figure}
214:
215: \section{$H \to \pi$ form factors}
216:
217: In the absence of a spectrum measurement, one cannot directly employ
218: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:pipi}) to calculate $T$. Present extraction of $T$ using this
219: relation relies on assumptions of particular form factor shapes.
220: One can test such assumptions using data on the $B^* B \pi$ coupling
221: extracted using heavy quark symmetry from the corresponding $D^* D \pi$
222: coupling, and using present information from lattice gauge theories.
223: Form factors parametrized in a manner consistent with such constraints can then
224: be used to anticipate the number of events necessary to extract $T$ from
225: (\ref{eqn:pipi}) in a model-independent way.
226:
227: Lacking experimental measurements of the form factors $F_+(q^2)$ and
228: $F_0(q^2)$, people have proposed \cite{models} several models to describe
229: their behavior, among which is the single-pole model:
230: \beq \label{eqn:monopole}
231: F_+(q^2)=\frac{f_{H^*}}{2m_{H^*}}\frac{g_{H^*H\pi}}{1-q^2/m_{H^*}^2}~~ ,
232: \eeq
233: where we adopt the following convention:
234: \bea
235: \bra{0} V_{\mu} \ket{H^*(p,\epsilon)} & = & f_{H^*}m_{H^*}\epsilon_{\mu}~,\\
236: \mat{H^-(p)\pi^+(q)}{H^{*0}(p+q,\epsilon)} & = & g_{H^*H\pi}(q\cdot\epsilon)~.
237: \eea
238: However, this form factor gives total widths of \mbox{$D^0 \to \pi^-
239: \ell^+ \nu_{\ell}$} and \mbox{$B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+
240: \nu_{\ell}$} which are both larger than the experimental
241: values, as will be shown in Section IV. So the monopole form factors are
242: not enough to describe the physics involved in the $H \to \pi$ decays.
243:
244: Multipole form factors naturally become our next choice.
245: On the basis of lattice gauge theory calculations,
246: Becirevic and Kaidalov \cite{BK} proposed a simple parametrization
247: which is essentially a dipole for $F_+(q^2)$,
248: \bea
249: F_+(q^2) &=& \frac{c_H(1-\alpha_H)}{(1-q^2/m_{H^*}^2)(1-\alpha_H
250: q^2/m_{H^*}^2)}~~, \label{eqn:dipole}\\
251: F_0(q^2) &=& \frac{c_H(1-\alpha_H)}{1-q^2/(\beta_H m_{H^*}^2)}~~.
252: \eea
253: In the infinite quark mass limit, the quantities $(c_H\sqrt{m_H},
254: (1-\alpha_H)m_H, (\beta_H-1)m_H)$ should scale as constants. $c_H$ is
255: related to the coupling constant $g_{H^*H\pi}$ as
256: \beq
257: c_H = \frac{f_{H^*}g_{H^*H\pi}}{2m_{H^*}}~~ .
258: \eeq
259: This parametrization has enough freedom to describe lattice results, which
260: typically are obtained for values of $q^2$ above about 13 GeV$^2$
261: \cite{BK,Abada,FermLat}. We shall employ it to judge the statistical accuracy
262: needed in extrapolating the $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ spectrum to
263: $q^2 = m_\pi^2$, where the Bjorken factorization relation (\ref{eqn:pipi})
264: provides an estimate of $T$. A similar problem arises when one wishes to
265: extrapolate to the zero-recoil limit in estimating the CKM matrix element
266: $|V_{cb}|$ from the exclusive process $B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$, since both
267: the normalization and shape of the spectrum have to be determined.
268:
269: It should be pointed out that $f_{D^*}$, $f_{B^*}$ and $g_{B^*B\pi}$ are
270: far from being determined, though $g_{D^*D\pi}$ has been measured \cite{CLg}.
271: Very different values of $f_{D^*}$ and $f_{B^*}$ have been obtained on the
272: lattice and in various models (see Table \ref{tab:decayconstants}
273: \cite{Becirevic,Bowler,Hwang,Wang,Huang}). We will discuss $g_{B^*B\pi}$ in
274: Section IV.
275:
276: %This is Table I.
277: \begin{table}
278: \caption{Vector meson decay constants (MeV) from different
279: calculations. \label{tab:decayconstants}}
280: \begin{center}
281: \begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
282: & $f_{D^*}$ & $f_{B^*}$ \\ \hline
283: Becirevic {\it et al.} \cite{Becirevic} & $245 \pm 20 ^{+3}_{-2}$ & $196
284: \pm 24 ^{+39}_{-2}$ \\
285: UKQCD \cite{Bowler} & $268 ^{+32}_{-40}$ & $236 ^{+45}_{-39}$ \\
286: Hwang \& Kim \cite{Hwang} & $327 \pm 13$ & $252 \pm 10$ \\
287: Wang \& Wu \cite{Wang} & $354 \pm 90$ & $206 \pm 39$ \\
288: Huang \& Luo \cite{Huang} & & $190 \pm 30$ \\ \hline \hline
289: \end{tabular}
290: \end{center}
291: \end{table}
292:
293: \section{Implications of $g_{D^* D \pi}$ measurement}
294:
295: We now describe the CLEO measurement of the $D^* D \pi$ coupling constant
296: \cite{CLg} and review its significance in the light of earlier predictions
297: \cite{JRD,Amun,Drev}. The observed value of the total $D^{*+}$ width is
298: $\Gamma(D^{*+}) = (96 \pm 4 \pm 22)$ keV, in satisfactory agreement with a
299: prediction of 84 keV made some time ago by comparison with $K^* \to
300: K \pi$ and $K^* \to K \gamma$ decays \cite{JRD}. Other predictions of
301: \cite{JRD} are compared with the current experimental situation
302: \cite{PDG} in Table \ref{tab:Dstars}. The agreement is not bad, and can
303: be improved by assuming about a 30\% increase in the absolute square of
304: the matrix element for the magnetic dipole transitions $D^* \to D \gamma$
305: with respect to the value in Refs.\ \cite{JRD}. The experimental
306: branching ratios at the time of these predictions differed from them much
307: more significantly.
308:
309: % This is Table II
310: \begin{table}
311: \caption{Predictions for decays $D^* \to D \pi$ and $D^* \to D \gamma$ based
312: on comparison with $K^* \to K \pi$ and $K^* \to K \gamma$ decays.
313: \label{tab:Dstars}}
314: \begin{center}
315: \begin{tabular}{r r r c} \hline \hline
316: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Predicted} & Experimental \\
317: & Partial Width & Branching Ratio & Branching Ratio \\
318: Decay & (keV) & (\%) & (\%) \\ \hline
319: $D^{*+} \to D^+ \pi^0$ & 25.9 & 30.9 & $30.7 \pm 0.5$ \\
320: $ \to D^0 \pi^+$ & 56.9 & 67.8 & $67.7 \pm 0.5$ \\
321: $ \to D^+ \gamma$ & \underline{~~1.1} & 1.3 & $1.6 \pm 0.4$ \\
322: & 83.9 & & \\ \hline
323: $D^{*0} \to D^0 \pi^0$ & 39.7 & 70.6 & $61.9 \pm 2.9$ \\
324: $ \to D^0 \gamma$ & \underline{16.5} & 29.4 & $38.1 \pm 2.9$ \\
325: & 56.2 & & \\ \hline \hline
326: \end{tabular}
327: \end{center}
328: \end{table}
329:
330: A more detailed set of calculations was performed on the basis of
331: chiral and heavy quark symmetry \cite{Amun}, taking into account SU(3)
332: violating contributions of order $m_q^{1/2}$. The experimental values are
333: consistent with the predicted correlation between ${\cal B}(D^{*+} \to D^+
334: \gamma)$ and $\Gamma(D^{*+})$, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:correl}.
335:
336: The observed $D^{*+}$ width can be related to a dimensionless $D^* D \pi$
337: coupling constant $\hat g$ by the expression \cite{Amun,Ruckl}
338: \beq
339: \Gamma(D^{*+} \to D^0 \pi^+) = \frac{\hat g^2}{6 \pi f_\pi^2}
340: |\vec{p}_\pi|^3~~,
341: \eeq
342: where $f_\pi = 131$ MeV and $|\vec{p}_\pi| = 39$ MeV/$c$. Using the
343: branching
344: ratio in Table \ref{tab:Dstars} we find $\Gamma(D^{*+} \to D^0 \pi^+) =
345: 65 \pm 15$ keV and $\hat g = 0.59 \pm 0.07$. Therefore
346: \beq
347: g_{D^*D\pi}=\frac{2m_D^s}{f_{\pi}}\hat{g}=17.8 \pm 2.1~~,
348: \eeq
349: where $m_D^s=1973$~MeV is the spin-averaged mass of the $D^{(*)}$
350: meson. Taking this value of $g_{D^*D\pi}$ and $f_{D^*}=200$~MeV (which
351: is more than $1\sigma$ smaller than any determination in Table
352: \ref{tab:decayconstants}), we get ${\cal B}(D^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e) =
353: (4.9 \pm 1.2) \times 10^{-3}$, still larger than the experimental value
354: $(3.7 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-3}$ \cite{PDG}. Higher values of $f_{D^*}$
355: yield even larger branching ratios.
356:
357: Heavy quark symmetry (HQS) predicts
358: \beq
359: g_{B^*B\pi} = \frac{2m_B^s}{f_{\pi}}\hat{g} = 47.9 \pm 5.7~~.
360: \eeq
361: Again, even if we take a comparatively small value of $f_{B^*}$ (=160
362: MeV) and assume a large (e.g., 40\%) violation of HQS (so that
363: $g_{B^*B\pi}$ can be as small as 29.0), we will get a branching ratio
364: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e) = (2.6 \pm 1.4) \times 10^{-4}$ which
365: is still larger than Eq.~(\ref{eqn:BSL}). Thus we are justified to suspect
366: the single pole form factor (\ref{eqn:monopole}).
367:
368: % This is Figure 2
369: \begin{figure}
370: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4.3in \epsffile{correl.ps}}
371: \caption{Prediction of Ref.\ \cite{Amun} for $\Gamma(D^{*+})$ as a function of
372: the branching ratio for $D^{*+} \to D^+ \gamma$, including leading
373: SU(3)-breaking effects. Lines show predicted bounds. The plotted point shows
374: current data \cite{CLg,PDG}. \label{fig:correl}}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: \section{Information on $T$ from semileptonic decays}
378:
379: The Bjorken relation (\ref{eqn:pipi}) establishes a useful connection between
380: the semileptonic decays and the nonleptonic ``tree'' decays. Ideally,
381: $d\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+ \nu_{\ell})/dq^2$ at $q^2 = m_{\pi}^2$
382: provides the ``tree'' contribution to the branching ratio for $B^0
383: \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ (aside from QCD corrections, which have been
384: found to be a few percent in related processes). However, in practice one
385: must measure the semileptonic decay spectrum over a range of $q^2$ in order
386: to accumulate a sufficient number of events, and therefore must model the
387: spectrum shape, as in extracting $|V_{cb}|$ from the spectrum for
388: $B \to D^{(*)} \ell \nu$.
389:
390: The dipole form factor has enough parameters to allow
391: modeling both a normalization and a spectrum shape. We use it to gain an idea
392: of the statistical requirements for a useful spectrum measurement.
393: The experimental branching ratio (\ref{eqn:BSL}) for the semileptonic
394: decay $B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e$ puts a strong constraint on the dipole
395: parameters $c_B$ and $\alpha_B$, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_c}.
396: Accordingly, the ``tree'' branching ratio for $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ is
397: constrained to lie in a certain range (Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_br}).
398: It should be noted that Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_br} does not depend on $|V_{ub}|$,
399: though Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_c} can be
400: altered by any change in $|V_{ub}|$. We can always combine $|V_{ub}|$ with
401: $c_B$ and view $|V_{ub}|c_B$ as a single parameter. This observation
402: plays an important role in estimating $T$ from Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_br}.
403:
404: To determine $\alpha_B$ and hence $c_B$ and ${\cal B}_{\mathrm{tree}}(B^0
405: \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$, one can measure the normalized spectrum
406: ($\frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}$) for $B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+
407: \nu_{\ell}$. Note that $\frac{1}{\Gamma}\frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}$ is
408: independent of $c_B$ and $|V_{ub}|$. Thus measuring its dependence on
409: $q^2$ will give us very clean information about $\alpha_B$.
410: Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum1} shows us that a comparison of the spectrum in
411: the interval $0 \le q^2 \le 11$ GeV$^2$ with that for $11 \le q^2 \le
412: 26$ GeV$^2$ should be useful in determining $\alpha_B$.
413:
414: % This is Figure 3
415: \begin{figure}
416: \centerline{\epsfysize = 3.5in \epsffile{alpha_c_B.ps}}
417: \caption{The dependence of $c_B$ on $\alpha_B$ for given values of ${\cal
418: B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e)$. Solid line: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+
419: \nu_e)=1.4 \times 10^{-4}$; upper dashed line: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^-
420: e^+ \nu_e)=1.7 \times 10^{-4}$; lower dashed line: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to
421: \pi^- e^+ \nu_e)=1.1 \times 10^{-4}$.
422: \label{fig:alpha_c}}
423: \end{figure}
424:
425: % This is Figure 4
426: \begin{figure}
427: \centerline{\epsfysize = 3.5in \epsffile{alpha_br_B.ps}}
428: \caption{The dependence of ${\cal B}_{\mathrm{tree}}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$
429: on $\alpha_B$ for given values of ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+
430: \nu_e)$. Solid line: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e)=1.4 \times
431: 10^{-4}$; upper dashed line: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e)=1.7
432: \times 10^{-4}$; lower dashed line: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+
433: \nu_e)=1.1 \times 10^{-4}$.
434: \label{fig:alpha_br}}
435: \end{figure}
436:
437: A recent lattice calculation \cite{Abada} obtains values of $\alpha_B$
438: ranging from about 0.2 to 0.6, $c_B$ from about 0.3 to 0.6, and $F_+(0)$
439: around $0.27$ with a 25\% error.
440: A more recent analysis \cite{Ball} from QCD sum rules on the light-cone
441: obtains $F_+(0)=0.26 \pm 0.08$, in good agreement with the lattice
442: result. This implies that parameters are
443: within the ranges quoted in Figs.~\ref{fig:alpha_c}-\ref{fig:spectrum1},
444: and leads to values of ${\cal B}_{\rm tree}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ ranging
445: between about $4.5 \times 10^{-6}$ and $11 \times 10^{-6}$, as in
446: Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_br}.
447:
448: % This is Figure 5.
449: \begin{figure}
450: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4in \epsffile{spectrum1.ps}}
451: \caption{Normalized spectrum of $B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+
452: \nu_{\ell}$ for various values of $\alpha_B$. At low $q^2$, the
453: curves correspond to $\alpha_B=0.20, 0.30, 0.40, 0.50, 0.60$,
454: from top to bottom. \label{fig:spectrum1}}
455: \end{figure}
456:
457: Given the central value of ${\cal B}(B \to \pi \ell \nu)$,
458: Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha_br} implies that an error $\Delta \alpha_B = 0.1$ will
459: correspond to an error in $\Delta {\cal B}_{\mathrm{tree}}(B^0 \to \pi^+
460: \pi^-)$ of about 10\%, or an error in $T$ of about 5\%. An additional
461: error will be associated with the statistical error associated with ${\cal
462: B}(B \to \pi \ell \nu)$ itself. We shall determine the number of events
463: required to achieve an error of $\Delta \alpha_B = 0.1$, and estimate the
464: corresponding total error in $T$.
465:
466: In Table \ref{tab:fracts} we show the fraction $f$ of $B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+
467: \nu_{\ell}$ events below $q^2 = 11$ GeV$^2$ as a function of $\alpha_B$.
468: In order to obtain an error of $\Delta \alpha_B = 0.1$, one has to determine
469: $f$ to a precision of $\Delta f = 0.023$. For a
470: total of $N$ events in the spectrum, the error in $f$ is $\Delta f =
471: \sqrt{f(1-f)/N}$, which is about $0.5/\sqrt{N}$ for $f$ near 0.5. Thus, one
472: needs about $(0.5/0.023)^2 \simeq 470$ $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ events to
473: achieve this accuracy. Such a sample will be associated with an error in
474: the overall $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ rate of $1/\sqrt{470} \simeq
475: 4.6\%$. When added in quadrature with the 10\% error in ${\cal
476: B}_{\mathrm{tree}}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ associated with the spectrum
477: shape, this leads to an overall error of 11\% in $|T|^2$ or 5.5\% in
478: $T$. One will need considerably more than $470/{\cal B}(B \to \pi \ell
479: \nu) \simeq 3.4\times 10^6$ $B$ decays to obtain a sample of this size,
480: since the efficiency of reconstructing the semileptonic decay is
481: small (e.g., slightly under 2\% at Belle \cite{BelleSL}). The Belle
482: Collaboration has reported a signal of 107 events on the basis
483: of 21.2 fb$^{-1}$, but the background (148 events) is larger than the
484: signal, and the branching ratio is dominated by systematic
485: error. Thus a sample of about 4.4 times the present size would be the
486: minimum needed to achieve the stated goal, with a larger sample required if
487: background levels are to be reduced.
488:
489: % This is Table III
490: \begin{table}
491: \caption{Dependence of the fraction $f$ of $B^0 \to \pi^- \ell^+ \nu_{\ell}$
492: events below $q^2 = 11$ GeV$^2$ on the parameter $\alpha_B$.
493: \label{tab:fracts}}
494: \begin{center}
495: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
496: $\alpha_B$ & 0.2 & 0.3 & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.6 \\ \hline
497: $f$ & 0.618 & 0.595 & 0.568 & 0.538 & 0.503 \\ \hline
498: \hline
499: \end{tabular}
500: \end{center}
501: \end{table}
502:
503: \section{Information on $P$ and its interference with $T$}
504:
505: We shall use present and anticipated information on $T$ based on the
506: methods described in the previous section, and flavor SU(3) \cite{GHLR} to
507: obtain information on $P$ from the mainly-penguin process $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$.
508: In this manner we shall end up with an estimate $|P/T| = 0.26 \pm 0.08$, to be
509: compared to the value of $0.259 \pm 0.043 \pm 0.052$ quoted by Beneke
510: {\it et al.} \cite{BBNS} on the basis of a theoretical calculation. (The
511: inclusion of weak annihilation contributions in \cite{BBNS} raises this value
512: to $0.285 \pm 0.051 \pm 0.057$.) Improved input data will potentially
513: reduce the error on this ratio considerably, allowing for an estimate of direct
514: CP-violating effects in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ with less recourse to theory.
515: Furthermore, if $|T|$ turns out to be incompatible with
516: the experimental magnitude of the amplitude $A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = - (T+P)$,
517: we shall obtain a constraint on the product $\cos \alpha \cos \delta$,
518: where $\alpha$ is the CKM phase discussed previously and $\delta$ is the
519: relative strong phase between tree and penguin amplitudes. Our discussion
520: will be an updated version of that presented in \cite{GRVP}.
521:
522: We shall quote all rates in units of ($\bo$ branching ratio $\times
523: 10^6$). Thus, the average (\ref{eqn:ppav}) of $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
524: branching ratios implies
525: \beq \label{eqn:rat}
526: |T|^2 + |P|^2 - 2 |TP| \cos \alpha \cos \delta = 4.4 \pm 0.9~~~
527: \eeq
528: in these units.
529: With ${\cal B}_{\rm tree}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ ranging from (4.5 to 11)
530: $\times 10^{-6}$ we then estimate $|T| = 2.7 \pm 0.6$. This is identical to
531: the value obtained \cite{B2Kfact} from $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ with additional
532: assumptions about the color-suppressed amplitude.
533:
534: The penguin amplitude can be estimated from $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$. The average
535: of CLEO \cite{CLPP}, Belle \cite{BePP}, and BaBar \cite{BaPP} branching ratios
536: \cite{JRTASI} gives
537: \beq
538: {\cal B}(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) = (17.2 \pm 2.4) \times 10^{-6}~~~,
539: \eeq
540: leading to $|P'|^2 = (17.2 \pm 2.4)(\tau^0/\tau^+)$, $|P'| = 4.02 \pm 0.28$,
541: where we use the lifetime ratio $\tau_{B^+}/\tau_{B^0} = 1.068 \pm 0.016$
542: \cite{Blifes}. Here $P'$ refers to the strangeness-changing $\bar b \to \bar s$
543: penguin amplitude, which is dominated by the CKM combination $V_{ts} V^*_{tb}$.
544:
545: We now estimate the strangeness-preserving $\bar b \to \bar d$ amplitude by
546: assuming it to be dominated by the CKM combination $V_{td} V^*_{tb}$. This
547: may induce some uncertainty if the lighter intermediate quarks also play a
548: role \cite{BuFP}. (A slightly different definition of $P$ is used by
549: \cite{BBNS,GR01} and avoids this problem.) We find
550: \beq
551: |P/P'| \simeq \left| \frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}} \right| = \lambda |1 - \rho - i
552: \eta| \simeq 0.22(0.80 \pm 0.15)~~,~~~|P| = 0.71 \pm 0.14~~~,
553: \eeq
554: where $\lambda$, $\rho$, and $\eta$ are parameters \cite{WP}
555: describing the hierarchy of CKM matrix elements. Combining these results,
556: we find only that $-0.1 \le \cos \alpha \cos \delta \le 1$, so that destructive
557: interference is possible but not established. Reduced errors on $|T|$ and
558: $|P|$ will be needed for a more definitive conclusion. In particular, given
559: the present central values, reduction of the error on $|T|^2$ to
560: 11\%, as achievable with 470 $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ events, would allow one
561: to infer the presence of destructive interference at about the $2.8
562: \sigma$ level.
563:
564: With our present estimates of $|P|$ and $|T|$, we then find $|P/T| = 0.26 \pm
565: 0.08$. Errors on this quantity can be decreased by improving the
566: measurements of the branching ratio for $B \to \pi \ell \nu$, by measuring
567: its spectrum, and by reducing the error on $|1 - \rho - i \eta|$, which we
568: have taken to be greater than in some other determinations \cite{B2KCKM}.
569:
570: The presence of the $P$ amplitude can affect the determination of the
571: weak phase $\alpha$ using CP-violating asymmetries in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
572: decays. The BaBar Collaboration \cite{Bapipi} has recently reported the
573: first results for this process. The decay distributions $f_+~(f_-)$
574: in an asymmetric $e^+ e^-$ collider at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ when the tagging
575: particle (opposite to the one produced) is a $B^0$ ($\ob$) are given by
576: \cite{GL}
577: \beq
578: f_{\pm}(\Delta t) \simeq e^{-\Delta t/\tau}[ 1 \pm S_{\pi \pi} \sin
579: (\Delta m_d \Delta t) \mp C_{\pi \pi} \cos (\Delta m_d \Delta t) ]~~~,
580: \eeq
581: where
582: \beq
583: S_{\pi \pi} \equiv \frac {2 {\rm Im}(\lp)}{1 + |\lp|^2}~~,~~~
584: C_{\pi \pi} \equiv \frac{1 - |\lp|^2}{1 + |\lp|^2}~~~
585: \eeq
586: and
587: \beq
588: \lp \equiv e^{-2 i \beta} \frac{A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}
589: {A(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}~~~.
590: \eeq
591: Here
592: $$
593: A(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) \simeq -(|T|e^{i \delta_T} e^{i \gamma} +
594: |P| e^{i \delta_P} e^{-i \beta})~~~,
595: $$
596: \beq
597: A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-) \simeq -(|T|e^{i \delta_T} e^{- i \gamma} +
598: |P| e^{i \delta_P} e^{i \beta})~~~,
599: \eeq
600: where $\delta_T$ and $\delta_P$ are strong phases of the tree and penguin
601: amplitudes. To first order in $|P/T|$, using $\beta + \gamma = \pi - \alpha$
602: and defining $\delta \equiv \delta_P - \delta_T$, we then have
603: \beq
604: \lp \simeq e^{2 i \alpha} \left( 1 + 2i \left| \frac{P}{T} \right| e^{i \delta}
605: \sin \alpha \right)~~~.
606: \eeq
607:
608: In the limit of small $|P/T|$ and vanishing final-state phase $\delta$, the
609: $S_{\pi \pi}$ term is just $\sin(2 \alpha_{\rm eff})$, where
610: \beq
611: \alpha_{\rm eff} \simeq \alpha + \left| \frac{P}{T} \right| \sin \alpha~~~.
612: \eeq
613: A plot of this relation for $|P/T| = 0.26 \pm 0.08$ is shown in Fig.\
614: \ref{fig:alpha}. The BaBar Collaboration \cite{Bapipi} has reported $S_{\pi
615: \pi} = 0.03^{+0.53}_{-0.56} \pm 0.11$ on the basis of 30.4 fb$^{-1}$. The
616: corresponding central and $\pm 1 \sigma$ values of $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ and
617: $\alpha$ are shown as the solid and dashed lines on the figure.
618:
619: % This is Figure 6.
620: \begin{figure}
621: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4.6in \epsffile{alpha.ps}}
622: \caption{Relation between $\alpha_{\rm eff}$ as measured using $S_{\pi \pi} =
623: \sin(2 \alpha_{\rm eff})$ and the weak phase $\alpha$ for $|P/T| = 0.26$ and
624: $\delta = 0$ (solid curve). Dot-dashed curves correspond to $\pm 1 \sigma$
625: errors on $|P/T|$. The dotted line corresponds to $P=0$. The solid
626: and dashed lines correspond to the central and $\pm 1 \sigma$ values of $S_{\pi
627: \pi}$ recently reported by the BaBar Collaboration (allowing also for error
628: in $|P/T|$). We show only the range
629: associated with the region of CKM parameters consistent with other
630: measurements. \label{fig:alpha}}
631: \end{figure}
632:
633: To first order in $|P/T|$, the $C_{\pi \pi}$ term may be written
634: \beq
635: C_{\pi \pi} \simeq 2 |P/T| \sin \delta \sin \alpha~~~.
636: \eeq
637: The BaBar Collaboration's value \cite{Bapipi} $C_{\pi \pi} = -0.25^{+0.45}
638: _{-0.47} \pm 0.47$ is consistent with zero, as one might expect for a
639: small final-state phase $\delta$. This measurement in the future will serve
640: mainly to constrain $\delta$, given the limited range expected for $|P/T|$
641: and $\sin \alpha$. Such a constrained value of $\delta$ will then be useful
642: in interpreting the flavor-averaged branching ratio (\ref{eqn:ppav}) in terms
643: of the tree-penguin interference discussed previously. The combined
644: measurements of the flavor-averaged $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratio
645: and the coefficients $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $C_{\pi\pi}$, when combined with
646: independent determinations of $|T|$ and $|P|$, should allow us to dispense
647: with the assumptions that the final-state phase $\delta$ is small
648: and that the weak phase of $P$ is dominated by the top quark in the loop.
649:
650: % This is Figure 7.
651: \begin{figure}[t]
652: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4.5in \epsffile{CS.ps}}
653: \caption{Relation between $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $C_{\pi \pi}$ for fixed values of
654: $\alpha$ (solid curves) and $\delta$ (dashed curves). The values of $\alpha$
655: range in steps of $10^\circ$ from $50^\circ$ (right) to $100^\circ$ (left);
656: those of $\delta$ range in steps of $15^\circ$ from $-45^\circ$ (bottom)
657: to $45^\circ$ (top). Here $|P/T| = 0.26$ has been assumed.
658: \label{fig:CS}}
659: \end{figure}
660:
661: An example is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:CS} of how $S_{\pi \pi}$ and $C_{\pi\pi}$
662: measurements can be used to constrain $\alpha$ and $\delta$. Values extracted
663: from such plots can then be checked for consistency with Eq.~(\ref{eqn:rat})
664: to check our assumption that the phase and magnitude of $P$ is dominated by
665: the top quark.
666:
667: \section{Conclusions}
668:
669: We have discussed rate and spectrum requirements in $B \to \pi \ell \nu_l$
670: decays needed to reduce errors in the tree-amplitude contribution $T$ to
671: $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. Better knowledge of $T$ can be combined with an
672: estimate of the penguin amplitude $P$ to see if destructive tree-penguin
673: interference is occurring in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, and to evaluate the
674: correction to the time-dependent CP asymmetry parameters $S_{\pi \pi}$ and
675: $C_{\pi \pi}$. Present data lead to the estimate $|P/T| = 0.26 \pm 0.08$ but
676: substantial improvement will be possible once the semileptonic rate and
677: spectrum (particularly near $q^2 = 0$) are better measured. We have estimated
678: that at least 470 $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ events (about 4.4 times the present
679: sample size at Belle) are needed to reduce the error on $T$ to 5.5\%.
680: For $\alpha$ near $90^\circ$ we predict $\alpha_{\rm eff} - \alpha \simeq (15
681: \pm 5)^\circ$. Destructive tree-penguin interference in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
682: could be significant if $\alpha$ were closer to
683: the lower limit of about $56^\circ$ allowed by the present analysis.
684: The form factor $F_+(q^2)$ measured in $B \to \pi \ell \nu_l$ also can be
685: helpful in estimating
686: the ``wrong-sign'' amplitude in $B \to D^* \pi$ decays \cite{SCR}.
687:
688: \section*{Acknowledgments}
689:
690: We thank Martin Beneke, Michael Gronau, Andreas Kronfeld, Zoltan Ligeti,
691: Harry Lipkin, and Denis Suprun for helpful
692: suggestions and Aaron Roodman for discussions of experimental capabilities.
693: Part of this investigation was performed while one of us (J.L.R.) was at the
694: Aspen Center for Physics. This work was supported in part by the United
695: States Department of Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
696:
697: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
698: % Phys. Rev. D format
699: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
700: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
701: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
702: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
703: \def \art{and references therein}
704: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
705: \def \cn{Collaboration}
706: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
707: Singapore, 1989)}
708: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
709: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
710: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
711: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
712: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
713: Batavia, IL, 1979}
714: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
715: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
716: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
717: Amsterdam, 1988)}
718: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
719: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
720: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
721: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
722: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
723: IL, 1972)}
724: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
725: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
726: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
727: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
728: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
729: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
730: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
731: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
732: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
733: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
734: 1987)}
735: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
736: No.\ #2 (#3)}
737: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
738: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
739: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
740: \def \lpRoma{XX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions
741: at High Energies, Rome, Italy, July 23--27, 2001}
742: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
743: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
744: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
745: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
746: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
747: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
748: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
749: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
750: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
751: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
752: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
753: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
754: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
755: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
756: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
757: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
758: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
759: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
760: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
761: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
762: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
763: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
764: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
765: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
766: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
767: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
768: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
769: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
770: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
771: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
772: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
773: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
774: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
775: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
776: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
777: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
778: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
779: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
780: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
781: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
782: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
783: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
784: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
785: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
786: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
787: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
788: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
789:
790: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
791:
792: \bibitem{Vol} M. B. Voloshin, \yaf{50}{166}{1983}{105}.
793:
794: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
795: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}.
796:
797: \bibitem{CLEOSL} CLEO \cn, J. P. Alexander \ite, \prl{77}{5000}{1996};
798: B. H. Behrens \ite, \prd{61}{052001}{2000}:
799: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e) = (1.8 \pm 0.4 \pm 0.4) \times 10^{-4}$~~.
800:
801: \bibitem{BelleSL} Belle Collaboration, K. Abe {\it et al.},
802: http://bsunsrv1.kek.jp/conferences/LP01-EPS/, \mbox{BELLE-CONF-0124;}
803: H. Tajima, \lpRoma: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^- e^+ \nu_e) =
804: (1.28 \pm 0.20 \pm 0.26) \times 10^{-4}$ (preliminary).
805:
806: \bibitem{CLPP} CLEO \cn, D. Cronin-Hennessy \ite, \prl{85}{515}{2000};
807: D. Cinabro, presented at \os, hep-ex/0009045.
808:
809: \bibitem{BePP} Belle \cn, \prl{87}{101801}{2001}.
810:
811: \bibitem{BaPP} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, \prl{87}{151802}{2001}.
812:
813: \bibitem{JRTASI} J. L. Rosner, lectures at TASI-2000, Boulder, Colorado,
814: June 5--30, 2000, published in {\it TASI-2000: Flavor Physics for the
815: Millennium,} edited by J. L. Rosner (World Scientific, 2001), p.\ 431.
816:
817: \bibitem{penpol} D. London and R. Peccei, \plb{223}{257}{1989}; M. Gronau,
818: \prl{63}{1451}{1989}; B. Grinstein, \plb{229}{280}{1989}.
819:
820: \bibitem{Bapipi} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-9012,
821: hep-ex/0110062, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
822:
823: \bibitem{GL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381}{1990}.
824:
825: \bibitem{GQChGLSS} Y. Grossman and H. R. Quinn, \prd{58}{017504}{1998};
826: J. Charles, \prd{59}{054007}{1999}; M. Gronau, D. London, N. Sinha, and R.
827: Sinha, \plb{B514}{315}{2001}, \art.
828:
829: \bibitem{SilWoSU} J. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{1151}{1994};
830: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{76}{1200}{1996};
831: A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{3309}{1996};
832: A. S. Dighe and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{4677}{1996}.
833:
834: \bibitem{GRdest} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
835:
836: \bibitem{Hdest} W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, hep-ex/9910014;
837: X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K. C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100}{1999}.
838:
839: \bibitem{CLg} CLEO \cn, A. Anastassov \ite, Cornell University report
840: CLNS-01-1741, hep-ex/0108043, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
841:
842: \bibitem{GRVP} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
843:
844: \bibitem{Neubert} M. Neubert, talk given at 20th International Symposium on
845: Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies (Lepton Photon 01), Rome,
846: Italy, 23--28 July 2001, preprint hep-ph/0110301.
847:
848: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
849:
850: \bibitem{BJ} J. D. Bjorken, in {\it New Developments in High-Energy Physics},
851: Proc.~IV International Workshop on High-Energy Physics, Orthodox Academy of
852: Crete, Greece, 1--10 July 1988, edited by E. G. Floratos and
853: A. Verganelakis, \npbps{11}{325}{1989}.
854:
855: \bibitem{models} M. B. Voloshin, Ref.~\cite{Vol}; R. N. Faustov,
856: V. O. Galkin, and A. Yu. Mishurov, \prd{53}{1996}{6302},
857: [hep-ph/9508262]; A. Khodjamirian \ite, \prd{62}{114002}{2000}.
858:
859: \bibitem{BK} D. Becirevic and A. B. Kaidalov, \plb{478}{2000}{417}.
860:
861: \bibitem{Abada} A. Abada \ite, CERN report CERN-TH 99-186, hep-lat/0011065,
862: to be published in Nucl.\ Phys.\ B.
863:
864: \bibitem{FermLat} A. X. El-Khadra \ite, \prd{64}{014502}{2001}.
865:
866: \bibitem{Becirevic} D. Becirevic {\it et al.}, \prd{60}{074501}{1999}.
867:
868: \bibitem{Bowler} UKQCD Collaboration, K. C. Bowler {\it et al.}, Preprint,
869: Edinburgh 2000/14, IFUP-TH/2000-17, JLAB-THY-00-25, SHEP-00-08,
870: hep-lat/0007020.
871:
872: \bibitem{Hwang} D. S. Hwang and G. H. Kim, \prd{55}{6944}{1997}.
873:
874: \bibitem{Wang} W. Y. Wang and Y. L. Wu, \ijmpa{16}{377}{2001}.
875:
876: \bibitem{Huang} T. Huang and C. W. Luo, \prd{53}{5042}{1996}.
877:
878: \bibitem{JRD} J. L. Rosner, \cmts{16}{109}{1986}; L. Brekke and J. L. Rosner,
879: \cmts{18}{83}{1988}; J. L. Rosner, in {\it Particles and Fields 3},
880: Proceedings of the Banff Summer Institute (CAP) 1988, Banff, Alberta, 14--26
881: August 1988, edited by A. N. Kamal and F. C. Khanna (World Scientific,
882: Singapore, 1989), p.\ 395.
883:
884: \bibitem{Amun} J. F. Amundson, \ite, \plb{296}{415}{1992}.
885:
886: \bibitem{Drev} V. M. Belyaev, V. M. Braun, A. Khodjamirian, and R. R\"uckl,
887: \prd{51}{6177}{1995} \art; D. Guetta and P. Singer, \prd{61}{054014}{2000};
888: \npps{93}{134}{2001}; M. Di Pierro and E. Eichten, \prd{61}{114004}{2001}.
889:
890: \bibitem{Ruckl} Belyaev \ite~\cite{Drev}, as reviewed by R. R\"uckl,
891: WUE-ITP-98-011, CERN-TH/98-124, hep-ph/9810338.
892:
893: \bibitem{Ball} P. Ball and R. Zwicky, \jhep{0110}{019}{2001}.
894:
895: \bibitem{BBNS} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda,
896: \np{B606}{245}{2001}. For earlier
897: work see also \prl{83}{1914}{1999}; \np{B591}{313}{2000}.
898:
899: \bibitem{B2Kfact} J. L. Rosner, \nima{462}{44}{2001}.
900:
901: \bibitem{Blifes} K. Osterberg, talk presented at the International Europhysics
902: Conference on High-Energy Physics, Budapest, Hungary, 12--18 July 2001,
903: to appear in the Proceedings.
904:
905: \bibitem{BuFP} A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, \plb{341}{379}{1995}.
906:
907: \bibitem{GR01} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \efi 01-42, hep-ph/0109238,
908: to be published in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
909:
910: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
911:
912: \bibitem{B2KCKM} J. L. Rosner, \nima{462}{304}{2001}.
913:
914: \bibitem{SCR} D. A. Suprun, C.-W. Chiang, and J. L. Rosner, \efi 01-35,
915: hep-ph/0110159, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
916:
917: \end{thebibliography}
918: \end{document}
919: #!/bin/csh -f
920: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
921: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
922: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
923: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., sl.uu
924: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
925: # then say csh sl.uu
926: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
927: # uudecode sl.uu ; uncompress sl.tar.Z ;
928: # tar -xvf sl.tar
929: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
930: # filename in "begin" line below to sl.tar_Z , then execute
931: # uudecode sl.uu
932: # compress -d sl.tar_Z
933: # tar -xvf sl.tar
934: #
935: uudecode $0
936: chmod 644 sl.tar.Z
937: zcat sl.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
938: rm $0 sl.tar.Z
939: exit
940:
941: