1: \documentstyle[12pt,epsfig]{article}
2: \textheight 9in
3: \textwidth 6in
4: \voffset -0.6in
5: \hoffset -0.3in
6: \def \b{{\cal B}}
7: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def \bo{B^0}
10: \def \bpb{\stackrel{(-)}{B^0}}
11: \def \cn{Collaboration}
12: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
14: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
15: \def \kpb{\stackrel{(-)}{K^0}}
16: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
17: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
18: \def \rt{r_{\tau}}
19: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \begin{flushright}
23: TECHNION-PH-2001-35\\
24: EFI 01-42 \\
25: hep-ph/0109238 \\
26: September 2001 \\
27: \end{flushright}
28:
29: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
30: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
31: \centerline{\bf IMPLICATIONS OF CP ASYMMETRY LIMITS}
32: \centerline{\bf FOR $B \to K \pi$ AND $B \to \pi \pi$}
33: \medskip
34: \centerline{Michael Gronau}
35: \centerline{\it Physics Department, Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology}
36: \centerline{\it 32000 Haifa, Israel}
37: \medskip
38: \centerline{Jonathan L. Rosner}
39: \centerline{\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
40: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637}
41: \bigskip
42:
43: \begin{quote}
44:
45: Recent experimental limits for the direct CP asymmetries
46: in $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$, $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$, $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, and $B^0 \to
47: \pi^+ \pi^-$, and for the indirect CP asymmetry in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$,
48: are combined with information on CP-averaged branching ratios to shed light on
49: weak and strong phases. At present such bounds favor $\gamma \ge 60^\circ$
50: at the $1 \sigma$ level. The prospects for further improvements are discussed.
51:
52: \end{quote}
53:
54: \leftline{\qquad PACS codes: 12.15.Hh, 12.15.Ji, 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd}
55:
56: \section{Introduction}
57:
58: The decays of $B$ mesons to the charmless final states $\pi \pi$ and
59: $K \pi$ are a rich source of information on the fundamental parameters of
60: the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, but the extraction of this
61: information from data requires the separation of weak interaction effects
62: from strong-interaction quantities such as magnitudes of operator matrix
63: elements and strong phases. A number of model-independent analyses of these
64: systems \cite{GRKpi,NR,GRpipi,PP} have shown that when one combines data on
65: CP asymmetries with branching ratios of CP-averaged final states, one can
66: separate the strong interaction effects from fundamental CKM parameters,
67: obtaining useful information on both sets of quantities.
68:
69: In the present paper we apply several of these analyses \cite{GRKpi,NR,GRpipi}
70: to the decays $B \to K \pi$ and $B \to \pi \pi$, using new upper limits quoted
71: by the CLEO \cite{CLEOasy}, BaBar \cite{BaBasy1,BaBasy2}, and Belle
72: \cite{Belasy} Collaborations for several CP-violating asymmetries in these
73: decays, as well as updated CP-averaged branching ratios for these states.
74: Comparison of the CP-averaged rate for $B^0
75: \to K^+ \pi^-$ with that for $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, given a small strong phase
76: difference, excludes $31^\circ \le \gamma \le 60^\circ$ for
77: the weak phase $\gamma \equiv {\rm Arg}(-V^*_{ub}V_{ud}/V^*_{cb}V_{cd})$,
78: while comparison of $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ with $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$
79: sets a $1 \sigma$ lower limit of $\gamma > 50^\circ$. Present $1 \sigma$
80: bounds on the asymmetry parameter $S_{\pi \pi}$ in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
81: exclude roughly half the CKM parameter space allowed by other measurements.
82:
83: We review the flavor decomposition of amplitudes in Section II and the
84: relevant data in Section III. The decays $B^+ \to K^0
85: \pi^+$, expected to be dominated by the penguin amplitude and thus to
86: have no CP-violating asymmetry, are discussed
87: in Section IV. We then analyze rates and CP asymmetries for $B^0
88: \to K^+ \pi^-$, normalizing amplitudes in terms of the pure-penguin
89: processes $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, in Section V. The process
90: $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ and its comparison with $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$
91: are treated in Section VI, while Section VII deals with $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$.
92: Section VIII concludes.
93:
94: \section{Flavor decomposition of amplitudes}
95:
96: In order to put the observed rates and asymmetries in theoretical context, we
97: review the SU(3) flavor-decomposition of $B \to PP$ amplitudes, where $P =
98: \pi,K$ \cite{GHLR}. Defining $t = T + P_{EW}^c$, $p = P - \frac{1}{3} P_{EW}^c
99: - \frac{1}{3}P^E_{EW}$, $c = C + P_{EW}$, $a = A + P^E_{EW}$, and
100: $e + pa = E + PA + \frac{1}{3}P^A_{EW}$, where $T$ is a color-favored
101: tree amplitude, $P$ is a penguin amplitude, $C$ is a color-suppressed
102: tree amplitude, $A$ is an annihilation amplitude, $E$ is an exchange
103: amplitude, $PA$ is a penguin annihilation amplitude, and $P_{EW}$, $P_{EW}^c$,
104: $P^E_{EW}$, and $P^A_{EW}$ are respectively color-favored, color-suppressed,
105: $(\gamma,Z)$-exchange, and $(\gamma,Z)$-direct-channel electroweak penguin
106: amplitudes \cite{EWVP}, we have
107: $$
108: A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = - (t + p + e + pa)~~,~~~
109: A(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0) = - (t + c)/\s~~~,
110: $$
111: $$
112: A(B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0) = (p - c + e + pa)/\sqrt{2}~~,~~~
113: A(B^0 \to K^0 \ok) = p + pa~~~,
114: $$
115: $$
116: A(B^+ \to \ok K^+) = p + a~~,~~~
117: A(B^0 \to K^+ K^-) = -(e + pa)~~~.
118: $$
119: $$
120: A(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) = -(t' + p')~~,~~~
121: A(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) = p' + a'~~~,
122: $$
123: \beq
124: A(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0) = -(p' + a' + t' + c')/\s~~,~~~
125: A(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0) = (p' - c')/\s~~~,
126: \eeq
127: Here unprimed amplitudes denote $\Delta S = 0$ processes, while primed
128: amplitudes involve $|\Delta S| = 1$. The $B^0 \to K^+ K^-$ decay is expected
129: to be highly suppressed since it involves only amplitudes associated with
130: interactions with the spectator quarks. Measurement
131: of rates for this process can place upper limits on such spectator
132: amplitudes (equivalently, on effects of rescattering \cite{resc}).
133:
134: The quark subprocesses describing the above amplitudes for
135: $\bar b$ quark decay are summarized in Table \ref{tab:pha}.
136: We use the unitarity of the CKM matrix, $V^*_{tb}V_{tq} = - V^*_{cb}V_{cq} -
137: V^*_{ub}V_{uq}, (q=d,s)$, to eliminate elements involving the
138: top quark in favor of those involving the charm and up quarks in penguin
139: amplitudes, and then incorporate up quark contributions into redefined tree
140: contributions. In this convention tree amplitudes involve CKM factors
141: $V^*_{ub}V_{uq}$, while penguin and electroweak penguin amplitudes contain
142: factors $V^*_{cb}V_{cq}$. The weak phases of amplitudes for $B$ decays
143: occur in the last column of Table \ref{tab:pha}.
144:
145: % This is Table I
146: \begin{table}
147: \caption{Weak phases of amplitudes in the flavor decomposition.
148: \label{tab:pha}}
149: \begin{center}
150: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
151: Amplitude & Quark & CKM & Weak \\
152: & subprocess & element & phase \\ \hline
153: $T,~C$ & $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar d$ & $V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$ & $\gamma$ \\
154: $P,~P_{EW},~P_{EW}^c,~P^E_{EW}$ & $\bar b \to \bar d$ & $V^*_{cb}V_{cd}$ &
155: 0 \\
156: $E$ & $\bar b d \to \bar u u$ & $V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$ & $\gamma$ \\
157: $A$ & $\bar b u \to \bar d u$ & $V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$ & $\gamma$ \\
158: $PA,~P^A_{EW}$ & $\bar b d \to {\rm vacuum}$ & $V^*_{cb}V_{cd}$ & 0 \\
159: $T',C'$ & $\bar b \to \bar u u \bar s$ & $V^*_{ub}V_{us}$ & $\gamma$ \\
160: $P',~P'_{EW},~{P'}_{EW}^c,~{P'}^E_{EW}$ & $\bar b \to \bar s$ &
161: $V^*_{cb}V_{cs}$ & $\pi$ \\
162: $E'$ & $\bar b s \to \bar u u$ & $V^*_{ub}V_{us}$ & $\gamma$ \\
163: %JR | |
164: $A'$ & $\bar b u \to \bar s u$ & $V^*_{ub}V_{us}$ & $\gamma$ \\
165: $PA',~{P'}^A_{EW}$ & $\bar b s \to {\rm vacuum}$ & $V^*_{cb}V_{cs}$ &
166: $\pi$ \\
167: \hline
168: \end{tabular}
169: \end{center}
170: \end{table}
171:
172: A useful flavor SU(3) relation between tree and electroweak penguin amplitudes
173: holds when keeping only dominant $(V-A)(V-A)$ electroweak operators
174: in the effective weak Hamiltonian. Neglecting very small (a few percent)
175: electroweak penguin contributions from operators having a different chiral
176: structure, tree and electroweak penguin operators carrying a given SU(3)
177: representation are proportional to each other, and one finds in the SU(3)
178: limit \cite{NR}
179: \beq\label{tc}
180: t' + c' = (T' + C')\left (1 - \delta_{EW}e^{-i\gamma}\right )~~,
181: \eeq
182: where $\delta_{EW}$ is given in terms of ratios of Wilson coefficients and
183: CKM factors:
184: \beq\label{delEW}
185: \delta_{EW} = -\frac{3}{2}\frac{c_9 + c_{10}}{c_1 + c_2}
186: \frac{|V^*_{cb}V_{cs}|}{|V^*_{ub}V_{us}|} = 0.65 \pm 0.15~~.
187: \eeq
188: The central value is obtained for $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.09$.
189:
190: \section{Rate and asymmetry data and averages}
191:
192: \leftline{\bf A. Rates}
193: \medskip
194:
195: The CLEO \cite{CLrat}, Belle \cite{Berat}, and BaBar \cite{Barat,BaBHF9}
196: CP-averaged branching ratios for several $B \to PP$ modes are summarized in
197: Table \ref{tab:rat}, along with averages from Ref.\ \cite{JRTASI}. We first
198: note several general properties of these branching ratios.
199:
200: % This is Table II
201: \begin{table}
202: \caption{Branching ratios in units of $10^{-6}$ for $B^0$ or $B^+$ decays to
203: pairs of light pseudoscalar mesons. Averages over decay modes and their
204: CP-conjugates are implied. \label{tab:rat}}
205: \begin{center}
206: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
207: Mode & CLEO \cite{CLrat} & Belle \cite{Berat} & BaBar \cite{Barat,BaBHF9} &
208: Average \cite{JRTASI} \\ \hline
209: $\pi^+ \pi^-$ & $4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.4} \pm 0.5$ & $5.6^{+2.3}_{-2.0} \pm 0.4$ &
210: $4.1 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.7$ & $4.4 \pm 0.9$ \\
211: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ & $5.4 \pm 2.6$ & $7.8^{+3.8+0.8}_{-3.2-1.2}$ &
212: $5.1^{+2.0}_{-1.8} \pm 0.8$ & $5.6 \pm 1.5$ \\
213: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $17.2^{+2.5}_{-2.4} \pm 1.2$ & $19.3^{+3.4+1.5}_{-3.2-0.6}$ &
214: $16.7 \pm 1.6 \pm 1.3$ & $17.4 \pm 1.5$ \\
215: $K^0 \pi^+$ & $18.2^{+4.6}_{-4.0} \pm 1.6$ & $13.7^{+5.7+1.9}_{-4.8-1.8}$ &
216: $18.2^{+3.3}_{-3.0} \pm 2.0$ & $17.3 \pm 2.4$ \\
217: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $11.6^{+3.0+1.4}_{-2.7-1.3}$ & $16.3^{+3.5+1.6}_{-3.3-1.8}$ &
218: $10.8^{+2.1}_{-1.9} \pm 1.0$ & $12.2 \pm 1.7$ \\
219: $K^0 \pi^0$ & $14.6^{+5.9+2.4}_{-5.1-3.3}$ & $16.0^{+7.2+2.5}_{-5.9-2.7}$ &
220: $8.2^{+3.1}_{-2.2} \pm 1.2$ & $10.4 \pm 2.6$ \\
221: $\pi^0 \pi^0$ & $< 5.6 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & & & \\
222: $K^0 \ok$ & $< 6.1 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & & $< 7.3 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & \\
223: $K^+ K^-$ & $< 1.9 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & $< 2.7 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ &
224: $< 2.5 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & \\
225: $\ok K^+$ & $< 5.1 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & $< 5.0 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ &
226: $< 2.4 (90\% {\rm~c.l.})$ & \\
227: \hline
228: \end{tabular}
229: \end{center}
230: \end{table}
231:
232: \begin{enumerate}
233:
234: \item Dominance of $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ by the
235: color-favored tree amplitude would imply the relation
236: \beq \label{eqn:pirat}
237: \frac{2 \b(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0)}{\rt \b(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)} = 1~~~,
238: \eeq
239: where $\rt \equiv \tau_{B^+}/\tau_{B^0} = 1.068\pm 0.016$ is the ratio of $B^+$
240: and $B^0$ lifetimes \cite{Blifes}. The observed ratio corresponding to the
241: left-hand side of (\ref{eqn:pirat}) is $2.4 \pm 0.8$, or $1.7 \sigma$ above 1.
242: The color-suppressed tree amplitude $c$
243: with Re$(c/t) \simeq 0.2$ \cite{GHLR,BBNS} adds
244: about 44\% to the predicted $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ branching ratio,
245: converting the right-hand side of (\ref{eqn:pirat}) to 1.44 and reducing
246: the discrepancy to $1.2 \sigma$.
247:
248: \item Dominance of the $B \to K \pi$ decays by penguin amplitudes would imply
249: $$
250: \b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) = \b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)/\rt
251: $$
252: \beq
253: = 2 \b(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)/\rt = 2 \b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)~~~,
254: \eeq
255: while these quantities are in the ratio
256: \beq
257: 1.08 \pm 0.18~:~1~({\rm def.})~:~1.41 \pm 0.28~:~1.29 \pm 0.37
258: \eeq
259: (normalizing to the pure-penguin amplitude for $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$).
260: Thus the strongest evidence for amplitudes other than the penguin
261: appears at the $1.46 \sigma$ level in the ratio
262: \beq
263: R_c \equiv \frac{2 \b(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)}{\b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}
264: = 1.41 \pm 0.28~~~.
265: \eeq
266:
267: \item To first order in subleading amplitudes, one has the sum rule
268: \cite{HJLsum,GRcomb,JM}
269: $$
270: 2 \b(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)/\rt + 2 \b(B^0 \to K^0 \pi^0)
271: $$
272: \beq
273: = \b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)/\rt + \b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)~~~.
274: \eeq
275: The left- and right-hand sides of this relation are $(43.6 \pm 6.1) \times
276: 10^{-6}$ and $(33.6 \pm 2.7) \times 10^{-6}$, respectively. These relations are
277: fairly general, so any violation of them would most likely signal systematic
278: experimental errors.
279:
280: \end{enumerate}
281:
282: \leftline{\bf B. Asymmetries}
283: \medskip
284:
285: In Table \ref{tab:asy} we summarize data on CP asymmetries in $B \to PP$,
286: defined by
287: \beq
288: {\cal A}_{CP} \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\bar B \to \bar f) - \Gamma(B \to f)}
289: {\Gamma(\bar B \to \bar f) + \Gamma(B \to f)}~~~,
290: \eeq
291: while coefficients of $\sin \Delta m_d t$ and $\cos \Delta m_d t$ measured in
292: time-dependent CP asymmetries of $\pi^+ \pi^-$ states produced in asymmetric
293: $e^+ e^-$ collisions at the $\Upsilon(4S)$ are \cite{Gr}
294: \beq\label{CSpipi}
295: S_{\pi \pi} \equiv \frac{2 {\rm Im}(\lambda_{\pi \pi})}{1 + |\lambda_{\pi \pi}|
296: ^2}~~,~~~ C_{\pi \pi} \equiv \frac{1 - |\lambda_{\pi \pi}|^2}{1 +
297: |\lambda_{\pi \pi}|^2}~~~,
298: \eeq
299: where
300: \beq
301: \lambda_{\pi \pi} \equiv e^{-2i \beta} \frac{A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}
302: {A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}~~~.
303: \eeq
304:
305: % This is Table III
306: \begin{table}
307: \caption{Asymmetries ${\cal A}_{CP}$ for $B \to PP$ decays
308: \label{tab:asy}}
309: \begin{center}
310: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
311: Mode & CLEO \cite{CLEOasy} & BaBar \cite{BaBasy1,BaBasy2} & Belle \cite{Belasy}
312: & Average \\ \hline
313: $S_{\pi \pi}$ & & $0.03^{+0.53}_{-0.56} \pm 0.11$ & & $0.03 \pm 0.56$ \\
314: $C_{\pi \pi}$ & & $-0.25^{+0.45}_{-0.47} \pm 0.14$ & & $-0.25 \pm 0.48$ \\
315: $K^+ \pi^-$ & $-0.04 \pm 0.16$ & $-0.07 \pm 0.08 \pm 0.02$ &
316: $0.044^{+0.186+0.018}_{-0.167 - 0.021}$ & $-0.048 \pm 0.068$ \\
317: $K^+ \pi^0$ & $-0.29 \pm 0.23$ & $0.00 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.04$ &
318: $-0.059^{+0.222+0.055}_{-0.196-0.017}$ & $-0.096 \pm 0.119$ \\
319: $K^0 \pi^+$ & $0.18 \pm 0.24$ & $-0.21 \pm 0.18 \pm 0.03$ &
320: $0.098^{+0.430+0.020}_{-0.343-0.063}$ & $-0.047 \pm 0.136$ \\ \hline
321: \end{tabular}
322: \end{center}
323: \end{table}
324:
325: The smallness of these asymmetries will lead to useful constraints on CKM
326: parameters, though reduction of statistical errors will be quite helpful.
327: In some cases, however, the reduction of statistical errors on {\it ratios
328: of branching ratios} described in the previous Section will actually be of
329: greater use.
330:
331: \section{$B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$}
332:
333: The decay $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ is expected to be dominated by the penguin
334: amplitude, with a small contribution from the quark subprocess $\bar b u
335: \to \bar s u$ proportional to the ratio $f_B/m_B \simeq 1/25$. An equivalent
336: contribution is generated by rescattering, e.g., from such final states as
337: $K^+ \pi^0$. Since the weak phase of the annihilation and penguin amplitudes
338: are different, the annihilation amplitude can lead to a small CP asymmetry
339: in the rate for $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ vs.\ its CP-conjugate decay. There is no
340: evidence for such an asymmetry at present, but the experimental upper bounds
341: are no stronger than for processes in which the penguin amplitude is expected
342: to be accompanied by tree amplitudes, such as $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ and
343: $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$. Much larger CP asymmetries could occur in those processes
344: if strong phases were sufficiently large.
345:
346: A useful way to estimate the effect of the annihilation amplitude in $B^+ \to
347: K^0 \pi^+$ \cite{Usp} is to use the U-spin \cite{LLM,UMG} transformation
348: $s \leftrightarrow d$ to relate it to $B^+ \to \ok K^+$.
349: Under this substitution the penguin amplitude (proportional to
350: $V^*_{cb}V_{cd}$) is reduced by a factor of
351: $\lambda = |V_{cd}/V_{cs}|$, while the annihilation amplitude is {\it
352: increased} by a factor $\lambda^{-1} = |V_{ud}/V_{us}|$, where $\lambda \simeq
353: 0.22$. Thus, not only should the CP asymmetry in $B^+ \to \ok K^+$ be
354: substantially larger than that in $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, but if the annihilation
355: amplitude is large enough it could lead to an enhancement of the rate for
356: $B^+ \to \ok K^+$ over that expected if the penguin amplitude $P$ were
357: dominant, which corresponds to a branching ratio of about $\b(B^+ \to
358: \ok K^+) \simeq |V_{cd}/V_{cs}|^2 \b(B^+ \to K^0\pi^+) = 8 \times 10^{-7}$
359: \cite{DGR,CL}.
360: %JR
361: The present experimental limit \cite{Barat} is only a factor of three larger.
362:
363: Evidence for rescattering \cite{resc} would also be forthcoming from the
364: process $B^0 \to K^+ K^-$, for which the contributions of the $E$ and $PA$
365: amplitudes are expected to lead to a branching ratio below $10^{-7}$.
366: Present experimental limits are an order of magnitude above this value.
367:
368: \section{$B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$}
369:
370: Fleischer and Mannel \cite{FM} pointed out that a useful ratio giving
371: information on the weak phase $\gamma$ is
372: \beq
373: R \equiv \frac{\rt \left [\b(\ob \to K^- \pi^+) + \b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)
374: \right ]} {\b(B^- \to \ok \pi^-) + \b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}~~~.
375: \eeq
376: Within the assumption of a dominant penguin amplitude and a subdominant tree
377: amplitude, one finds
378: \beq \label{eqn:R}
379: R = 1 - 2 r \cos \gamma \cos \delta_0 + r^2~~~,
380: \eeq
381: where $r \equiv |T'/P'|$ is the ratio of tree to penguin amplitudes for
382: strangeness-changing $B$ decays to charmless final states, and $\delta_0
383: \equiv \delta_{T'} - \delta_{P'}$ is the strong final-state phase difference
384: between tree and penguin amplitudes. Independently of $r$ and $\delta_0$
385: it can then be shown \cite{FM} that $R \ge \sin^2 \gamma$, so that a value of
386: $R$ below 1 could place useful bounds on $\gamma$.
387:
388: The present experimental data summarized in Table \ref{tab:rat} indicate
389: $R = 1.08 \pm 0.18$, so that no useful bound arises from the Fleischer-Mannel
390: procedure. However, it was shown in Ref.\ \cite{GRKpi} that if one combined
391: data on $R$ with the CP pseudo-asymmetry
392: $$
393: A_0 \equiv \frac{\Gamma(\ob \to K^- \pi^+) - \Gamma(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)}
394: {\Gamma(B^- \to \ok \pi^-) + \Gamma(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}
395: = {\cal A}_{CP}(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-) R
396: $$
397: \beq
398: = -2 r \sin \gamma \sin \delta_0~~~,
399: \eeq
400: one could eliminate the strong phase difference between tree and penguin
401: amplitudes and obtain useful information on the weak phase $\gamma$.
402: The result is
403: \beq
404: R = 1 + r^2 \pm \sqrt{4 r^2 \cos^2 \gamma - A_0^2 \cot^2 \gamma}~~~.
405: \eeq
406: Plots of $R$ as a function of $\gamma$ for various values of $r$ and $A_0$
407: were given in Ref.\ \cite{GRKpi}. Note that this function is invariant
408: under the replacement $\gamma \to \pi - \gamma$, so it only need be plotted
409: for $0 \le \gamma \le 90^\circ$. However, the expression (\ref{eqn:R})
410: indicates that the upper branches of the curves correspond to $\cos \gamma
411: \cos \delta_0 < 0$, while the lower branches correspond to $\cos \gamma \cos
412: \delta_0 > 0$.
413:
414: Using the experimental asymmetries summarized in Table \ref{tab:asy}, one
415: finds $A_0 = -0.052 \pm 0.073$. In Ref.\ \cite{GRKpi} we estimated $r = 0.16
416: \pm 0.06$. Using the most recent experimental data for $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$
417: to estimate $|P'|$ and factorization in $B \to \pi l \nu$ \cite{LRfact}
418: and flavor SU(3) \cite{GHLR} to estimate $|T'|$, an updated result is
419: $r = 0.184 \pm 0.044$.
420:
421: % This is Figure 1
422: \begin{figure}[t]
423: \centerline{\epsfysize = 5 in \epsffile{R.ps}}
424: \caption{Behavior of $R$ for $r = 0.14$ and $A_0 = 0$ (dashed curves) or
425: $|A_0| = 0.125$ (solid curve) as a function of the weak phase $\gamma$.
426: Horizontal dashed lines denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental limits on $R$.
427: The upper branches of the curves correspond to the case $\cos \gamma
428: \cos \delta_0 <0$, while the lower branches correspond to $\cos \gamma
429: \cos \delta_0 >0$.
430: \label{fig:R}}
431: \end{figure}
432:
433: The most conservative bounds on $\gamma$ are obtained using the smallest
434: value of $r$ and the largest value of $|A_0|$. A plot of $R$ for $r = 0.14$
435: (the $1 \sigma$ lower bound) and both $A_0 = 0$ and $|A_0| = 0.125$ (the
436: $1 \sigma$ upper bound) is shown in Figure \ref{fig:R}. With present
437: experimental errors, no useful bound on $\gamma$ emerges from the consideration
438: of $R$ unless additional assumptions are made. Reduction of errors on $R$ by
439: roughly a factor of two could have a considerable impact even given
440: present errors on $A_0$ and $r$. Since the curves for $A_0 = 0$ and
441: $|A_0| = 0.125$ are fairly close to one another for a considerable range
442: of $\gamma$, improvement of bounds on $A_0$ is less likely to sharpen the
443: bounds on $\gamma$ unless that angle differs considerably from $90^\circ$.
444:
445: Theoretical estimates \cite{BBNS} of small final-state phases imply
446: $\cos \delta_0 > 0$, so that with $\gamma \le 90^\circ$ one
447: should have destructive tree-penguin interference in $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ and
448: thus should be on the lower branch of the curves in Fig.\ \ref{fig:R}. The
449: $1 \sigma$ lower bound on $R$ then would exclude
450: $31^\circ \le \gamma \le 60^\circ$.
451:
452: The expressions for $R$ and $A_0$ are invariant under the interchange of
453: $\gamma$ and $\delta_0$, so that Fig.\ \ref{fig:R} can also be used in
454: principle for bounds on $\delta_0$. At present, no useful bounds emerge.
455: However, writing $\sin \delta_0 = - A_0/(2 r \sin \gamma)$ and using the
456: $1 \sigma$ range $-0.125 \le A_0 \le 0.021$ and the lower bounds
457: $r \ge 0.14$ from the above discussion and $\gamma \ge 32^\circ$ from a fit
458: to CKM parameters \cite{JRStA}, one finds $- 8^\circ \le \delta_0
459: \le 57^\circ$
460: up to a discrete ambiguity which also permits a solution
461: $\delta_0 \to \pi - \delta_0$.
462:
463: \section{$B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$}
464:
465: The ratio
466: \beq
467: R_c \equiv \frac{2[\b(B^- \to K^- \pi^0) + \b(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)]}
468: {\b(B^- \to \ok \pi^-) + \b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}
469: \eeq
470: also contains useful information on the weak phase $\gamma$. Initially
471: it was proposed to use this ratio in an amplitude triangle construction
472: \cite{GLRKpi} in which the amplitude $t'+c' = - A(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)
473: - \s A(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)$ was evaluated using flavor SU(3) from the
474: corresponding amplitude $t + c = -\s A(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0)$. However,
475: this procedure neglected important electroweak penguin (EWP) contributions
476: \cite{EWP}. It was then shown that these could be taken into account
477: \cite{NR} through the SU(3) relation (\ref{tc}).
478: Neglecting $a'$ contributions in decay amplitudes, and writing
479: \beq
480: -\s A(B^+\to K^+\pi^0) = p' + (T' + C')\left (1 -
481: \delta_{EW}e^{-i\gamma}\right )~~,
482: \eeq
483: one finds
484: \beq
485: R_c = 1 - 2 r_c \cos \delta_c (\cos \gamma - \delta_{EW}) + r_c^2
486: (1 - 2 \delta_{EW} \cos \gamma + \delta_{EW}^2)~~~,
487: \eeq
488: where $r_c \equiv |T'+C'|/|p'|$, $\delta_c \equiv \delta_{T'+C'}
489: - \delta_{p'}$,
490: and $\delta_{EW}$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{delEW}). Note that the latter
491: parameter involves a sizable uncertainty from $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$.
492: In order to demonstrate possible constraints on weak and strong phases, we will
493: explore the effect of $\pm 1 \sigma$ deviations from the central value of
494: $\delta_{EW}=0.65 \pm 0.15$.
495:
496: The CP-violating asymmetry in $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$ decays
497: then provides a constraint on the relative strong phase $\delta_c$. We define
498: a pseudo-asymmetry
499: $$
500: A_c \equiv \frac{2[\b(B^- \to K^- \pi^0) - \b(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)]}
501: {\b(B^- \to \ok \pi^-) + \b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}
502: = R_c {\cal A}_{CP}(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)
503: $$
504: \beq
505: = - 2 r_c \sin \delta_c \sin \gamma~~~,
506: \eeq
507: and, using the experimental averages in Tables \ref{tab:rat} and
508: \ref{tab:asy}, we find $A_c = -0.13 \pm 0.17$.
509:
510: Eliminating $\delta_c$, we can plot $R_c$ as a function of $\gamma$ for
511: various values of $\delta_{EW}$, $r_c$ and $A_c$, to see if any constraints on
512: $\gamma$ emerge when taking a $1\sigma$ lower limit on $R_c$, $R_c \ge 1.13$.
513: The ratio $r_c$, obtained from \cite{GLRKpi}
514: \beq
515: r_c = \s \frac{V_{us}}{V_{ud}}\frac{f_K}{f_\pi}\left[\frac
516: {\b(B^- \to \pi^- \pi^0) + \b(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0)}
517: {\b(B^- \to \ok \pi^-) + \b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)}\right]^{1/2}~~,
518: \eeq
519: was estimated in Ref.\ \cite{NR} to be $r_c \equiv \epsilon_{3/2} = 0.24 \pm
520: 0.06$. We can update this estimate using the new branching
521: ratios quoted in Table \ref{tab:rat}, finding $r_c = 0.230 \pm 0.035$.
522: The resulting plot is shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:Rc} for the $+1 \sigma$ values
523: of $r_c$ and $\delta_{EW}$ (which lead to the weakest lower bound on $\gamma$),
524: both for $A_c = 0$ and for the $1 \sigma$ upper limit $A_c = 0.30$.
525: The weakest $1 \sigma$ bound on $\gamma$ in this case, as opposed to the
526: case of $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$, occurs when $A_c = 0$, and
527: is $\gamma \ge 50^\circ$. As a result of the electroweak penguin term, the
528: value of $R_c$ is not symmetric under the replacement $\gamma \to \pi -
529: \gamma$, in contrast to the case of $R$ for $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$. In Table
530: \ref{tab:gammas} we show the minimum values of $\gamma$ obtained on the basis
531: of the $1 \sigma$ inequality $R_c \ge 1.13$ for $r_c = 0.230 \pm 0.035$ and
532: $\delta_{EW} = 0.65 \pm 0.15$, both for $A_c = 0$ and for $A_c = 0.3$.
533:
534: % This is Figure 2
535: \begin{figure}
536: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4.9 in \epsffile{Rc.ps}}
537: \caption{Behavior of $R_c$ for $r_c = 0.265$ ($1 \sigma$ upper limit) and
538: $A_c = 0$ (dashed curves) or $|A_c| = 0.30$ (solid curve) as a function of the
539: weak phase $\gamma$. Horizontal dashed lines denote $\pm 1 \sigma$ experimental
540: limits on $R_c$. Upper branches of curves correspond to
541: $\cos \delta_c(\cos \gamma - \delta_{EW}) < 0$, while lower branches
542: correspond to $\cos \delta_c(\cos \gamma - \delta_{EW}) > 0$. Here we have
543: taken $\delta_{EW} = 0.80$ [the $1 \sigma$ upper limit in Eq.\ (3)], which
544: leads to the most conservative bound on $\gamma$.
545: \label{fig:Rc}}
546: \end{figure}
547:
548: % This is Table IV
549: \begin{table}
550: \caption{Minimum values of $\gamma$ (in degrees)
551: for $R_c \ge 1.13$, given central and $\pm
552: 1 \sigma$ values of $r_c$ and $\delta_{EW}$. First figure denotes value with
553: $A_c = 0$ while second figure denotes value with $|A_c| = 0.30$.
554: \label{tab:gammas}}
555: \begin{center}
556: \begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
557: \qquad $r_c$: & 0.195 & 0.230 & 0.265 \\
558: $\delta_{EW}$: & & & \\ \hline
559: 0.50 & 75/82 & 71/74 & 68/70 \\
560: 0.65 & 66/74 & 62/67 & 60/62 \\
561: 0.80 & 57/68 & 53/59 & 50/54 \\ \hline
562: \end{tabular}
563: \end{center}
564: \end{table}
565:
566: As in the case of $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$, there is little difference on the
567: bounds one obtains for zero CP asymmetry and for the maximum allowed value.
568: The greatest leverage on bounds would be provided by reducing the experimental
569: error on $R_c$, with some additional help associated with reduction of the
570: errors on $r_c$ and $\delta_{EW}$.
571: The limits of Table \ref{tab:gammas} correspond to the
572: branches of the curves that would be chosen if $\cos \delta > 0$, as
573: expected in some theoretical treatments \cite{BBNS}.
574:
575: One can place a one-sided $1 \sigma$ limit on the strong phase $\delta_c$ using
576: the present range $-0.30 \le A_c \le 0.04$. With
577: \beq
578: \sin \delta_c = - A_c/(2 r_c \sin \gamma)~~~,
579: \eeq
580: $\gamma \ge 32^\circ$, and $r_c \ge 0.195$ one has $-0.19 \le \sin \delta_c \le
581: 1.44$, so $\delta_c \ge -11^\circ$. The upper limit on $|A_c|$ [equivalently,
582: on $|{\cal A}_{CP}(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)$] must be reduced to about 2/3 of its
583: present value if a two-sided constraint on $\delta_c$ is to be obtained.
584:
585: \section{$B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$}
586:
587: The implications of the BaBar \cite{BaBasy2} limits on $S_{\pi \pi}$ and
588: $C_{\pi \pi}$ quoted in Table \ref{tab:asy} have been partially explored
589: in Ref.\ \cite{LRfact}. Here we review these limits, discuss their
590: implications for CKM parameters, and discuss prospects for their improvement.
591:
592: As mentioned in Section III, the present experimental ratio (\ref{eqn:pirat})
593: of $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ and $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratios is
594: somewhat larger than that expected from tree-dominance alone, even
595: accounting for a color-suppressed contribution to the former process. For
596: this reason, as well as for the purpose of estimating the ``penguin pollution"
597: correction to the time-dependent CP asymmetry in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, it is
598: useful to estimate the ratio $|P/T|$ of penguin to tree amplitudes in $\Delta S
599: = 0$ $B$ decays. Using this estimate it is then possible to place limits
600: on the weak phase $\alpha$ even given the crude limits on $S_{\pi \pi}$ and
601: $C_{\pi \pi}$ noted in Table \ref{tab:asy}.
602:
603: Many previous attempts have been made to estimate $|P/T|$ in a
604: model-independent way, including an isospin analysis requiring the measurement
605: of $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, $B^0 \to \pi^0 \pi^0$,
606: and corresponding charge-conjugate decays \cite{GL}, methods
607: which use only part of the above information \cite{GQ,Ch,GLSS}, and numerous
608: applications of flavor SU(3) \cite{GHLR,SilWo,SU}. There have been hints,
609: based on earlier data, that the penguin amplitude was interfering
610: destructively with the tree in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ \cite{dest}.
611:
612: The method of Ref.\ \cite{LRfact} is capable in principle of giving a good
613: value of $|T|$ based on na\"{\i}ve factorization and measurement of the
614: spectrum of $B \to \pi l \nu$ near $q^2 = 0$, where $q^2$ is the squared
615: effective mass of the $l \nu$ system. Present experimental measurements
616: and some theoretical estimates of form factor shapes based on lattice
617: gauge theory lead to an estimate $|T| = 2.7 \pm 0.6$, where all amplitudes are
618: quoted as square roots of $\bo$ branching ratios multiplied by $10^3$. This is
619: the same value obtained \cite{B2Kfact} from $B^+ \to
620: \pi^+ \pi^0$ with additional assumptions about the color-suppressed amplitude.
621:
622: The penguin amplitude can be estimated from $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$. The average
623: of the branching ratios for that process in Table \ref{tab:rat} is
624: \beq
625: {\cal B}(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) = (17.2 \pm 2.4) \times 10^{-6}~~~,
626: \eeq
627: leading to $|P'|^2 = (17.2 \pm 2.4)/\rt$, $|P'| = 4.02 \pm 0.28$,
628:
629: We now estimate the strangeness-preserving $\bar b \to \bar d$ amplitude $|P|$
630: which is proportional to the CKM factor $V_{cd} V^*_{cb}$ in our convention.
631: We find
632: \beq
633: |P/P'| = \left| \frac{V_{cd}}{V_{cs}} \right|
634: = 0.22~~,~~~|P| \simeq 0.91 \pm 0.06~~~,
635: \eeq
636: Assuming factorization of penguin amplitudes \cite{BBNS}, this estimate
637: is corrected by an SU(3) breaking factor of $f_{\pi}/f_K$ and becomes
638: $|P| \simeq 0.74 \pm 0.05$.
639:
640: With the present method of estimating errors on $|P|$ and $|T|$, we then
641: find $|P/T| = 0.34 \pm 0.08$ without introducing SU(3) breaking in
642: $P/P'$, or $|P/T| = 0.276 \pm 0.064$ when SU(3) breaking in $P/P'$ is
643: introduced through $f_\pi/f_K$. The latter number,
644: %JR
645: which will be used in the subsequent discussion,
646: is to be compared with a value of
647: $0.285 \pm 0.076$ obtained by \cite{BBNS} on the basis of a theoretical
648: calculation which includes small annihilation corrections. A value of
649: %JR | (We re-calculated the error)
650: $0.26 \pm 0.08$ was obtained \cite{LRfact} when defining $P$ and $P'$
651: as the amplitudes containing $V_{td}$ and $V_{ts}$, respectively, without
652: introducing SU(3) breaking in the ratio of these amplitudes.
653:
654: The decay amplitudes to $\pi^+ \pi^-$ for $B^0$ and $\ob$ are
655: $$
656: A(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -(|T|e^{i \delta_T} e^{i \gamma} +
657: |P| e^{i \delta_P})~~~,
658: $$
659: \beq
660: A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -(|T|e^{i \delta_T} e^{- i \gamma} +
661: |P| e^{i \delta_P})~~~,
662: \eeq
663: where $\delta_T$ and $\delta_P$ are strong phases of the tree and penguin
664: amplitudes, and
665: $\delta \equiv \delta_P - \delta_T$. The CP-averaged
666: branching ratio in Table \ref{tab:rat} then implies
667: \beq \label{eqn:pipirat}
668: |T|^2 + |P|^2 + 2 |TP| \cos \gamma \cos \delta = 4.4 \pm 0.9~~~,
669: \eeq
670: which suggests but does not prove, given our errors on $|T|$ and $|P|$,
671: that the tree and penguin amplitudes are interfering destructively with one
672: another in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. For $\cos \delta >0$ as favored
673: theoretically \cite{BBNS}, this would require $\cos \gamma < 0$, which is
674: not favored by CKM fits \cite{JRTASI}.
675:
676: The BaBar Collaboration \cite{BaBasy2} has recently reported the first results
677: for the CP-violating asymmetries (\ref{CSpipi}) in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
678: decays. Our expressions for the decay amplitudes imply
679: \beq
680: \lambda_{\pi \pi}=e^{2 i \alpha} \left( \frac{1 + |P/T| e^{i \delta}
681: e^{i \gamma}}{1 + |P/T| e^{i \delta} e^{-i \gamma}} \right)~~~.
682: \eeq
683: In the absence of the penguin amplitude we would have $S_{\pi \pi} = \sin(2
684: \alpha)$. If $|P/T| \ne 0$ but $\delta$ is small \cite{BBNS}, we
685: have $S_{\pi \pi} \simeq \sin(2 \alpha_{\rm eff}$),
686: where $\alpha_{\rm eff} = \alpha + \Delta \alpha$, with
687: \beq
688: \Delta \alpha = \tan^{-1} \left[ \frac{|P/T| \sin \gamma}{1 + |P/T| \cos
689: \gamma} \right]~~~.
690: \eeq
691: Using
692: \beq
693: \tan \alpha = \frac{\eta}{\eta^2 - \rho(1-\rho)}~~,~~~ \tan{\Delta \alpha}
694: = \frac{\eta|P/T|}{\sqrt{\rho^2 + \eta^2} + \rho|P/T|}~~~,
695: \eeq
696: we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:re} the $\pm 1 \sigma$ contours of $-0.53 \le S_{\pi
697: \pi} \le 0.59$, along with other CKM constraints taken from Ref.~\cite{JRTASI}.
698: The $1\sigma~S_{\pi \pi}$ bounds exclude about half of the $(\rho,\eta)$
699: parameter space allowed by all other constraints.
700: Similar constraints under slightly different technical
701: assumptions were obtained in Ref.\ \cite{LRfact}.
702:
703: % This is Figure 3
704: \begin{figure}[t]
705: \centerline{\epsfysize = 3 in \epsffile{re.ps}}
706: \caption{Constraints on parameters of the CKM matrix. Solid circles denote
707: limits on $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.090 \pm 0.025$ from charmless $b$ decays.
708: Dashed arcs denote limits from $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing. Dot-dashed arc denotes
709: limit from $B_s$--$\overline{B}_s$ mixing. Dotted hyperbolae are associated
710: with limits on CP-violating $K^0$--$\ok$ mixing (the parameter $\epsilon$).
711: Limits of $\pm 1 \sigma$ from CP asymmetries in $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$
712: leading to $\sin(2 \beta) = 0.79 \pm 0.10$ are shown by the solid rays.
713: The small dashed lines represent the constraint due to $S_{\pi \pi}$,
714: with $0.21 \le |P/T| \le 0.34$.
715: The plotted point lies in the middle of the allowed region.
716: \label{fig:re}}
717: \end{figure}
718:
719: The quantity $C_{\pi \pi}$ is also consistent at present with zero. Its
720: observed range is not yet tightly enough constrained to provide much
721: information, but reduction in errors will eventually be useful mainly
722: in constraining the strong phase difference $\delta$. For
723: one such example, see Ref.\ \cite{LRfact}.
724:
725: \section{Conclusions}
726:
727: While a CP-violating indirect asymmetry (associated with $B^0$--$\ob$ mixing)
728: has been observed in the decays $B^0 \to J/\psi K_S$, no direct asymmetries
729: have yet been observed in $B \to K \pi$ decays, and no asymmetries of any
730: sort have been seen in $B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. Nonetheless, the present upper
731: limits on $K \pi$ and $\pi \pi$ asymmetries, crude as they are, already are
732: beginning to provide useful information on CKM phases.
733: As one example, the deviation of the ratio $2 \b(B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0)/\b(B^+
734: \to K^0 \pi^+)$ from 1 is able at the $1 \sigma$ level to provide a lower
735: bound $\gamma \ge 50^\circ$
736: {\it independently} of the CP asymmetry in $B^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$.
737: The proximity of the ratio $(\tau_+/\tau_0)
738: \b(B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-)/\b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)$ to unity, when combined with
739: the expectation that the final-state strong phase is small in the $K^+ \pi^-$
740: system, allows one to exclude a range $31^\circ \le \gamma \le 60^\circ$ at the
741: $1 \sigma$ level. Finally, the $\pm 1 \sigma$ bounds on $S_{\pi \pi}$ allow
742: one to exclude (at the $1 \sigma$ level) roughly half of the parameter
743: space in the $(\rho,\eta)$ plane allowed by other observables. The $1 \sigma$
744: bound $\gamma \ge 60^\circ$ is the strongest constraint of these.
745:
746: Uncertainties in theoretical parameters, including the ratios of tree to
747: penguin amplitudes in $B\to K\pi$ and $B\to \pi\pi$, should be reduced
748: in the future with a larger amount of data. More severe constraints
749: are expected for small rescattering and color-suppressed electroweak
750: %JR
751: amplitudes in $B \to K \pi$, which were neglected in the present treatment.
752: With the increased data samples expected to be available from BaBar and Belle,
753: one can look forward to greatly improved limits on CKM parameters from
754: analyses such as ours even if no CP asymmetries are observed in $B \to K \pi$
755: and $B \to \pi \pi$ decays.
756:
757: \section*{Acknowledgments}
758:
759: We thank Martin Beneke, Alex Kagan and Vivek Sharma for discussions.
760: This work was performed in part at the Aspen Center for Physics. The work
761: of J. L. R. was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
762: through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560. This work was partially supported by
763: the Israel Science Foundation founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences and
764: Humanities and by the US - Israel Binational Science Foundation through
765: Grant No. 98-00237.
766:
767: % Journal definitions
768: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
769: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
770: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
771: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
772: \def \art{and references therein}
773: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
774: \def \cn{Collaboration}
775: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
776: Singapore, 1989)}
777: \def \econf#1#2#3{Electronic Conference Proceedings {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
778: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.}
779: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
780: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
781: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
782: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
783: Batavia, IL, 1979}
784: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
785: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
786: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
787: Amsterdam, 1988)}
788: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
789: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
790: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
791: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
792: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
793: IL, 1972)}
794: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
795: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
796: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
797: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
798: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
799: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14, 1999,
800: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
801: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
802: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
803: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
804: 1987)}
805: \def \kaon{{\it Kaon Physics}, edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein,
806: %U |
807: University of Chicago Press, 2001}
808: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.\
809: #2 (#3)}
810: \def \ky{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
811: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
812: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
813: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
814: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
815: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
816: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
817: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
818: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
819: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
820: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
821: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
822: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
823: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
824: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
825: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
826: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
827: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
828: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
829: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
830: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
831: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
832: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
833: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
834: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
835: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
836: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
837: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
838: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
839: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
840: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
841: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
842: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
843: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
844: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
845: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
846: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
847: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass,
848: Colorado),
849: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
850: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
851: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
852: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
853: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
854: \def \TASI{{\it TASI-2000: Flavor Physics for the Millennium}, edited by J. L.
855: Rosner (World Scientific, 2001)}
856: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
857: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
858: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
859: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
860: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
861: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
862:
863: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
864:
865: \bibitem{GRKpi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
866:
867: \bibitem{NR} M. Neubert and J. L. Rosner, \plb{441}{403}{1998};
868: \prl{81}{5076}{1998}; M. Neubert, \jhep{9902}{014}{1999};
869: M. Gronau, D. Pirjol and T. M. Yan, \prd{60}{034021}{1999}.
870:
871: \bibitem{GRpipi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{76}{1200}{1996};
872: A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{3309}{1996};
873: A. S. Dighe and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{4677}{1996}.
874:
875: \bibitem{PP} M. Gronau, J. Rosner and D. London, \prl{73}{21}{1994};
876: R. Fleischer, \plb{365}{399}{1996}; \prd{58}{093001}{1998};
877: R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752}{1998};
878: A. J. Buras, R. Fleischer, and T. Mannel, \np{B533}{3}{1998};
879: R. Fleischer and A. J. Buras, \epjc{11}{93}{1999};
880: M. Gronau and D. Pirjol, \prd{61}{013005}{2000};
881: A. J. Buras and R. Flesicher, \epjc{16}{97}{2000};
882: M. Gronau, \nima{462}{1}{2001};
883: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \plb{500}{247}{2001};
884: X.-G. He, Y. K. Hsiao, J. Q. Shi, Y. L. Wu, and Y. F. Zhou, \prd{64}{034002}
885: {2001}.
886:
887: \bibitem{CLEOasy} CLEO \cn, S. Chen \ite, \prl{85}{525}{2000}.
888:
889: % [6] updated
890: \bibitem{BaBasy1} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, \prl{87}{151802}{2001}.
891:
892: \bibitem{BaBasy2} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-8929,
893: hep-ex/0107074.
894:
895: % [8] updated
896: \bibitem{Belasy} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prd{64}{071101}{2001}.
897:
898: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
899: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}; \prd{52}{6374}{1995}.
900:
901: \bibitem{EWVP} M. Gronau, \prd{62}{014031}{2000}.
902:
903: \bibitem{resc} B. Blok, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prl{78}{3999}{1997};
904: \ibj{79}{1167}{1997}; M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{58}{113005}{1998}.
905:
906: \bibitem{CLrat} CLEO \cn, D. Cronin-Hennessy \ite, \prl{85}{515}{2000};
907: S. J. Richichi \ite, \prl{85}{520}{2000}; D. Cinabro, presented at XXX
908: International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan, July 27 --
909: August 2, 2000, hep-ex/0009045. The CLEO $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ branching
910: ratio is estimated by M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
911:
912: % [13] updated
913: \bibitem{Berat} Belle \cn, K. Abe \ite, \prl{87}{101801}{2001}
914:
915: \bibitem{Barat} BaBar \cn, T. Champion, Osaka Conf.\ \cite{CLrat},
916: hep-ex/0011018; G. Cavoto, XXXVI Rencontres de Moriond, March 17--24,
917: 2001 (unpublished); B. Aubert \ite, \cite{BaBasy1}.
918:
919: \bibitem{BaBHF9} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-8978,
920: hep-ex/0109005, submitted to the 9th International Symposium on Heavy Flavor
921: Physics, Sept.\ 10--13, 2001, Pasadena, CA.
922:
923: \bibitem{JRTASI} J. L. Rosner, lectures at TASI-2000, Boulder, Colorado,
924: June 5--30, 2000, \efi~2000-47, hep-ph/0011355, to be published in \TASI.
925:
926: \bibitem{Blifes} K. Osterberg, talk presented at the International Europhysics
927: Conference on High-Energy Physics, Budapest, Hungary, 12--18 July 2001,
928: to appear in the Proceedings.
929:
930: \bibitem{BBNS} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda,
931: \np{B606}{245}{2001}.
932:
933: \bibitem{HJLsum} H. J. Lipkin, \plb{445}{403}{1999}.
934:
935: \bibitem{GRcomb} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{59}{113002}{1999}.
936:
937: \bibitem{JM} J. Matias, Univ.\ of Barcelona report UAB-FT-514,
938: hep-ph/0105103 (unpublished).
939:
940: \bibitem{Gr} M. Gronau, \prl{63}{1451}{1989}.
941:
942: \bibitem{Usp} A. Falk, A. L. Kagan, Y. Nir, and A. Petrov,
943: \prd{57}{4290}{1998}.
944:
945: \bibitem{LLM} S. Meshkov, C. A. Levinson, and H. J. Lipkin, \prl{10}{361}
946: {1963}.
947:
948: \bibitem{UMG} M. Gronau, \plb{492}{297}{2000}.
949:
950: \bibitem{DGR} A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{79}{4333}{1997}.
951:
952: \bibitem{CL} A somewhat larger branching ratio was calculated recently
953: by C. H. Chen and H. N. Li, \prd{63}{014003}{2001}.
954:
955: \bibitem{FM} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \prd{57}{2752}{1998}.
956:
957: \bibitem{LRfact} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \efi~01-28, hep-ph/0108024,
958: submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
959:
960: \bibitem{JRStA} J. L. Rosner, \efi~01-34, hep-ph/0108195, based on five
961: lectures at the 55th Scottish Universities' Summer School in Particle Physics,
962: St.\ Andrews, Scotland, August 7--23, 2001, to be published by the
963: Institute of Physics (U.K.).
964:
965: \bibitem{GLRKpi} M. Gronau, D. London, and J. L. Rosner, \prl{73}{21}{1994}.
966:
967: \bibitem{EWP} R. Fleischer, \zpc{62}{81}{1994}; \plb{321}{259}{1994};
968: \ibj{332}{419}{1994}; \ibj{365}{399}{1994}; N. G. Deshpande and
969: X.-G. He, \prl{74}{26, 4099(E)}{1995}.
970:
971: \bibitem{GL} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381}{1990}.
972:
973: \bibitem{GQ} Y. Grossman and H. R. Quinn, \prd{58}{017504}{1998}.
974:
975: \bibitem{Ch} J. Charles, \prd{59}{054007}{1999}.
976:
977: \bibitem{GLSS} M. Gronau, D. London, N. Sinha, and R. Sinha, \plb{514}{315}
978: {2001}.
979:
980: \bibitem{SilWo} J. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{1151}{1994}.
981:
982: \bibitem{SU} See, e.g., Ref.\ \cite{GRpipi}.
983:
984: \bibitem{dest} W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, hep-ex/9910014;
985: X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K. C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100}{1999};
986: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{61}{073008}{2000}.
987:
988: \bibitem{B2Kfact} J. L. Rosner, \nima{462}{44}{2001}.
989:
990: \end{thebibliography}
991: \end{document}
992: #!/bin/csh -f
993: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
994: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
995: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
996: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., asym.uu
997: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
998: # then say csh asym.uu
999: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1000: # uudecode asym.uu ; uncompress asym.tar.Z ;
1001: # tar -xvf asym.tar
1002: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
1003: # filename in "begin" line below to asym.tar_Z , then execute
1004: # uudecode asym.uu
1005: # compress -d asym.tar_Z
1006: # tar -xvf asym.tar
1007: #
1008: uudecode $0
1009: chmod 644 asym.tar.Z
1010: zcat asym.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
1011: rm $0 asym.tar.Z
1012: exit
1013:
1014: