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 \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
14: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
15: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
16: \def \of{\overline{f}}
17: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
18: \def \ot{\overline{t}}
19: \def \pr{\parallel}
20: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
21: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
22: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
23: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
24: \textwidth 6in
25: \hoffset -0.2in
26: \voffset -0.5in
27: \textheight 9in
28: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
29: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
30: \begin{document}
31: %
32: \Large
33: \centerline {\bf Extraction of a Weak Phase from $B \to D^{(*)} \pi$
34: \footnote{ANL-HEP-PR-01-086, Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 01-35,
35: hep-ph/0110159. To be submitted to Physical Review D.}}
36: \normalsize
37: \bigskip
38:
39: \centerline {Denis A. Suprun$\,^a$~\footnote{d-suprun@uchicago.edu}, Cheng-Wei
40: Chiang$\,^{a,b}$~\footnote{chengwei@hep.uchicago.edu} and
41: Jonathan L. Rosner$\,^a$~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}
42: \vspace{0.5cm}
43: \centerline{\it $^a$ Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
44: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
45: \vspace{0.2cm}
46: \centerline{\it $^b$ HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory}
47: \centerline{\it 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439}
48: \bigskip
49:
50: \begin{quote}
51:
52: To observe CP-violating asymmetries through the interference of a weaker
53: amplitude with a stronger one in $\bo \to D^{(*)} \pi$ and $\ob \to D^{(*)}
54: \pi$ decays, one must collect enough events that the intensity
55: associated with the weaker amplitude would be statistically
56: significant. We show that provided the weaker amplitude is measured separately
57: in $B^\pm \to D^{(*)\pm} \pi^0$ decays, the time-integrated approach requires
58: around $2.5 \cdot 10^8 \ B \bar B$ pairs for measurements of the weak phase
59: $\sin(2\beta + \gamma)$ with an uncertainty of $0.05$ or better. We also
60: determine the optimal conditions for precise $2\beta + \gamma$ measurements
61: and discuss the possibilities for resolving a discrete ambiguity.
62:
63: \end{quote}
64:
65: \noindent
66: PACS Categories: 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd, 14.65.Fy, 12.15.Hh
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: The phases of elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
71: describing the weak charge-changing interactions of quarks are of fundamental
72: importance. Together with magnitudes of the matrix elements and masses of the
73: six quarks $(u,c,t)$ and $(d,s,b)$, these phases must be explained by any
74: theory which extends our knowledge beyond the Standard Model (SM) of
75: electroweak and strong interactions.
76:
77: Indirect information on CKM phases \cite{CKMrevs,JRTASI} is now being
78: supplemented by measurements of CP-violating asymmetries in $B$ decays
79: \cite{earlybeta,sin2beta,sin2betaBelle} which provide direct phase
80: measurements.
81: The weak phase $\beta \equiv {\rm Arg}(-V^*_{cb}V_{cd}/V^*_{tb}V_{td})$ is
82: determined by measurements of the rate asymmetry in decays such as $B^0 \to
83: J/\psi K_S$, while $\alpha \equiv {\rm Arg}(-V^*_{tb}V_{td}/V^*_{ub}V_{ud})$
84: will be determined by measurements in decays such as $B \to \pi \pi$ and $B
85: \to \rho \pi$. Information on all charge modes will be needed to separate
86: contributing amplitudes from one another
87: \cite{GrLSQS}.
88:
89: Information on $\gamma \equiv {\rm Arg}(-V^*_{ub}V_{ud}/V^*_{cb}V_{cd})$ is
90: more difficult to obtain. The decays $B^\pm \to D^0 K^\pm$, $B^\pm \to \od
91: K^\pm$, and $B^\pm \to D_{CP} K^\pm$, where $D_{CP}$ is a CP eigenstate, permit
92: one to perform a triangle construction to extract the weak phase $\gamma$
93: \cite{GW}. The interference of the Cabibbo-favored decay $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$
94: and the doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed decay $D^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ introduces an
95: important subtlety in this method \cite{but}. Numerous determinations of
96: $\gamma$ using nonstrange and strange $B$ decays to $\pi \pi$ and $K \pi$ are
97: subject to questions associated with SU(3) flavor violation, electroweak
98: penguin contributions, and rescattering \cite{JRTASI}.
99:
100: The Cabibbo-favored decays $B^0 \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+$ and $\ob \to D^{(*)+}
101: \pi^-$ and the corresponding doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed modes $\ob \to D^{(*)-}
102: \pi^+$ and $B^0 \to D^{(*)+}K \pi^-$ can provide information on the weak phase
103: $2 \beta +\gamma$ \cite{DR,DSetal,D98,ASY}. (One can substitute
104: $\rho^\pm$ or $a_1^\pm$ for the charged pion.) These methods typically
105: require measuring either a very small rate asymmetry (for the Cabibbo-favored
106: modes) or a very small rate (for the Cabibbo-suppressed modes). It was
107: therefore suggested recently \cite{LSS} that one instead measure $2 \beta +
108: \gamma$ via the interference of a small amplitude with a larger one in
109: decays of the form $B \to V_1 V_2$, where, for example, $V_1 = D^*$ and
110: $V_2 = \rho$. The interference is to be detected through characteristic
111: angular distributions in decay products of the vector mesons, and through
112: time-dependent measurements. Refs.\ \cite{ASY} and \cite{CW} contain some
113: useful results regarding these distributions.
114:
115: In the present paper we analyze the possibilities of precise measurements of
116: $2\beta + \gamma$ for the simplest case of $B \to D^{(*)} \pi$ decays.
117: We find the optimal conditions for measuring $2\beta + \gamma$. We also
118: estimate the number of $B \bar B$ pairs needed for such measurements that
119: will reduce the allowed range of $2\beta + \gamma$ values to the currently
120: achieved indirect bounds coming from measurements of other CKM parameters.
121:
122: A general feature of CP-violating asymmetries detected through the
123: interference of a weaker amplitude with a stronger one is that one must be able
124: to detect processes at the level of the {\it absolute square of the weaker
125: amplitude} \cite{EGR}. We find that this situation holds for $B \to D^{(*)}
126: \pi$ decays. One still has to be able to collect enough events such that the
127: absolute square of the Cabibbo-suppressed amplitude would be detectable with
128: good statistical significance. This translates to the need for several times
129: $10^8$ produced $B \bar B$ pairs. (Ref.~\cite{LSS} cites a figure of $10^8$
130: pairs for a useful measurement of $\sin(2 \beta + \gamma)$ using $B \to V_1
131: V_2$ decays.) In fact, our best determination makes use of a direct
132: measurement of the weaker amplitude through a factorization relation between
133: $B^0 \to D^{(*)+} \pi^-$ and $B^+ \to D^{(*)+} \pi^0$ \cite{D98}.
134: For both pseudoscalar and vector $D$ mesons in the final state, we employ
135: different models to anticipate the size of the weaker amplitude. However,
136: direct measurements of the rates for $B^+ \to D^+ \pi^0$ and $B^+ \to D^{*+}
137: \pi^0$ will eventually give us these amplitudes directly.
138:
139: In Section II we introduce our notation and predictions for decay rates of
140: neutral $B$ mesons in the framework of the time-integrated approach. We shall
141: quote results for $B \to D^* \pi$ decays because of advantages in $D^*$
142: detection, recognizing that many are also valid for $B \to D \pi$.
143: Decay rates as functions of a minimum vertex separation (expressed in terms of
144: proper time) are of particular interest to us in Section III as we try to find
145: the optimal conditions for measuring the weak phase $2\beta + \gamma$ with high
146: precision. In Section IV we circumvent the problem of measuring the small
147: weaker-to-stronger amplitude ratio $R$ by making a foray into charged $B$ meson
148: decays, using the process $B^+ \to D^{(*)+} \pi^0$. Estimates of the
149: minimum number of $B \bar B$ pairs required for precise measurements of $2\beta
150: + \gamma$ are obtained in Section V. These are convoluted with a finite
151: time-resolution function and realistic mistagging probabilities in Section VI.
152: In Section VII we discuss a possibility of partial resolution of an 8-fold
153: discrete ambiguity by separating $2\beta + \gamma$ and the strong phase
154: $\delta$ between Cabibbo-allowed and Cabibbo-suppressed modes. We summarize
155: our results in Section VIII.
156:
157: \section{Notation and predictions}
158:
159: The ``right-sign'' decays $\bo \to D^{*-} \pi^+$ and $\ob \to D^{*+} \pi^-$
160: are governed by the Cabibbo-favored combination of CKM matrix elements
161: $V^*_{cb}V_{ud}$ or charge-conjugate, while the ``wrong-sign'' decays $\ob \to
162: D^{*-} \pi^+$ and $\bo \to D^{*+} \pi^-$ are governed by the
163: doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed combination $V^*_{cd}V_{ub}$ or charge-conjugate.
164: We denote $f \equiv D^{*-} \pi^+$ and $\bar f \equiv D^{*+} \pi^-$. Then from
165: \beq
166: \mat{f}{\bo} = A_1 e^{i \phi_1} e^{i \delta_1}~~,~~~
167: \mat{f}{\ob} = A_2 e^{i \phi_2} e^{i \delta_2}
168: \eeq
169: it follows that
170: \beq
171: \mat{\bar f}{\ob} = A_1 e^{-i \phi_1} e^{i \delta_1}~~,~~~
172: \mat{\bar f}{\bo} = A_2 e^{-i \phi_2} e^{i \delta_2}~~,
173: \eeq
174: where the weak phases $\phi_i$ change sign under CP conjugation, while the
175: strong phases $\delta_i$ do not. The amplitudes are in the ratio
176: \beq
177: \label{def:r}
178: R \equiv \frac{A_2}{A_1} = \left| \frac{V^*_{cd}V_{ub}}{V^*_{cb}V_{ud}}
179: \right| r
180: = |- \lambda^2 (\rho - i \eta)| r \simeq 0.02 r~~,
181: \eeq
182: where $\lambda \simeq 0.22$, $\rho$, and $\eta$ are parameters \cite{WP}
183: which describe CKM matrix elements, and $r = {\cal O}(1)$ describes a
184: ratio of decay constants and form factors. The weak phase difference is
185: \beq
186: \phi_1 - \phi_2 = {\rm Arg} \left( \frac{V^*_{cb}V_{ud}}{V^*_{cd}V_{ub}}
187: \right) = \pi + \gamma~~.
188: \eeq
189:
190: We write the time-dependent decay amplitudes in terms of the functions
191: \cite{DR}
192: \beq
193: f_+(t) \equiv e^{- i m t} e^{- \Gamma t/2} \cos(\Delta m t/2)~~,~~~
194: f_-(t) \equiv e^{- i m t} e^{- \Gamma t/2} i \sin(\Delta m t/2)~~,
195: \eeq
196: where $m = (m_L + m_H)/2$ is the average of the two mass eigenvalues, $\Delta
197: m = m_H - m_L$ is their difference, $\Gamma = (\Gamma_1 + \Gamma_2)/2$ is
198: the average decay rate of the eigenstates, and we neglect $\Delta \Gamma =
199: \Gamma_H - \Gamma_L$. Then
200: \bea
201: \mat{f}{\bo(t)} & = & f_+(t) \mat{f}{\bo} + \frac{q}{p}f_-(t) \mat{f}{\ob}
202: \nonumber \\
203: & = & e^{-imt} e^{-\Gamma t/2} \left( A_1 e^{i \phi_1} e^{i \delta_1}
204: \cos \frac{\Delta m t}{2} + i \frac{q}{p} A_2 e^{i \phi_2} e^{i \delta_2}
205: \sin \frac{\Delta m t}{2} \right)~~, \\
206: \mat{\bar f}{\ob(t)} & = &f_+(t) \mat{\bar f}{\ob} + \frac{p}{q} f_-(t)
207: \mat{\bar f}{\bo} \nonumber \\
208: & = & e^{-imt} e^{-\Gamma t/2} \left( A_1 e^{-i \phi_1} e^{i \delta_1}
209: \cos \frac{\Delta m t}{2} + i \frac{p}{q} A_2 e^{-i \phi_2} e^{i \delta_2}
210: \sin \frac{\Delta m t}{2} \right)~~.
211: \eea
212: If $\bo$--$\ob$ mixing is described primarily by standard model loop
213: contributions dominated by intermediate $t \bar t$ pairs, we have $q/p =
214: e^{-2 i \beta}$, and
215: \bea
216: \left| \mat{f}{\bo(t)} \right|^2 & = &
217: \frac{A_1^2}{2} e^{-\Gamma t} \left[1 + R^2 + ( 1 - R^2 ) \cos \Delta m t
218: \right. \nonumber \\
219: & - & \left. 2R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma - \delta) \sin \Delta m t
220: \right]~~, \label{eqn:fbo}\\
221: \left| \mat{\bar f}{\ob(t)} \right|^2 & = & \frac{A_1^2}{2} e^{-\Gamma t}
222: \left[1 + R^2 + ( 1 - R^2 ) \cos \Delta m t \right. \nonumber \\
223: & + & \left. 2R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma + \delta) \sin \Delta m t \right]~~
224: \label{eqn:bfob},
225: \eea
226: where $\delta \equiv \delta_2 - \delta_1$.
227:
228: Retracing the above steps for the ``wrong-sign''decays $\bo \to D^{*+} \pi^-$
229: and $\ob \to D^{*-} \pi^+$, we find
230: \bea
231: \left| \mat{\bar f}{\bo(t)} \right|^2 & = & \frac{A_1^2}{2} e^{-\Gamma t}
232: \left[1 + R^2 - ( 1 - R^2 )
233: \cos \Delta m t \right. \nonumber \\
234: & - & \left. 2R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma + \delta) \sin \Delta m t
235: \right]~~,
236: \label{eqn:bfbo} \\
237: \left| \mat{f}{\ob(t)} \right|^2 & = & \frac{A_1^2}{2} e^{-\Gamma t}
238: \left[1 + R^2 - ( 1 - R^2 ) \cos
239: \Delta m t \right. \nonumber \\
240: & + & \left. 2R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma - \delta) \sin \Delta m t
241: \right]~~ \label{eqn:fob}.
242: \eea
243:
244: Let us now consider the production of a $\bo$$\ob$ pair in $e^+ e^-
245: \to \Upsilon(4S) \to \bo \ob$, so that the pair is in a state $\Psi_-$ of
246: negative charge-conjugation eigenvalue. Assume that we ``tag'' the initial
247: production of a $\ob(\hp)$ with a $\bo(-\hp)$, and the initial production
248: of a $\bo(\hp)$ with a $\ob(-\hp)$. Then if we define the proper decay time
249: of the state $f$ with center-of-mass direction $\hp$ as $t_f$, that of
250: the tagging state with direction $-\hp$ as $t_t$, and $t' \equiv t_f - t_t$,
251: $T \equiv t_f + t_t$, we find \cite{JRTASI,ASY,BaBartd}
252: \bea
253: |\mat{\bo(-\hp),D^{*\mp} \pi^\pm(\hp)}{\Psi_-}|^2 & = &
254: e^{- \Gamma T} |A_1|^2 \left[1 + R^2 \pm (1-R^2) \cos \Delta m t' \right.
255: \nonumber \\
256: & - & \left. 2R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma \mp \delta) \sin \Delta m t' \right]~~,
257: \nonumber \\
258: |\mat{\ob(-\hp),D^{*\pm} \pi^\mp(\hp)}{\Psi_-}|^2 & = &
259: e^{- \Gamma T} |A_1|^2 \left[1 + R^2 \pm (1-R^2) \cos \Delta m t' \right.
260: \nonumber \\
261: & + & \left. 2R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma \pm \delta) \sin \Delta m t' \right]~~.
262: \eea
263:
264: One can express the time-integrated decay rates as
265: \bea
266: \int_0^\infty dt_f \int_0^\infty dt_t |\mat{\bo(-\hp),D^{*\mp} \pi^\pm(\hp)}
267: {\Psi_-}|^2 & \propto & \int_{-\infty}^\infty
268: dt' e^{- \Gamma|t'|} [A_\pm(t') + B_\mp(t')]~~, \nonumber \\
269: \int_0^\infty dt_f \int_0^\infty dt_t |\mat{\ob(-\hp),D^{*\pm} \pi^\mp(\hp)}
270: {\Psi_-}|^2 & \propto & \int_{-\infty}^\infty
271: dt' e^{- \Gamma|t'|} [A_\pm(t') - B_\pm(t')]~~,
272: \eea
273: where
274: %
275: \beq
276: A_\pm(t') \equiv (1+R^2) \pm (1-R^2) \cos \Delta m t'~~,
277: \eeq
278: \beq
279: B_\pm (t') \equiv - 2 \, R \sin(2 \beta + \gamma \pm \delta) \sin \Delta m t'
280: \eeq
281: are even and odd functions of $t'$, respectively.
282:
283: Now we introduce notation for measurable decay numbers.
284: The number of $\bo \to D^{*-} \pi^+$ decays with vertex separation $t' > 0$ is
285: \beq
286: N^r_+ \propto \int_0^\infty dt' e^{- \Gamma |t'|} [A_+(t') + B_-(t')],
287: \label{eqn:npr}
288: \eeq
289: while those with $t' < 0$ is
290: \beq
291: N^r_- \propto \int_{-\infty}^0 dt' e^{- \Gamma |t'|} [A_+(t') + B_-(t')] =
292: \int_0^\infty dt' e^{- \Gamma |t'|} [A_+(t') - B_-(t')].
293: \eeq
294: Here the superscript ``$r$'' denotes right-sign decays. The corresponding
295: expressions $N^w_+$ for the wrong-sign (superscript ``$w$'') decays
296: $\bo \to D^{*+} \pi^-$ with $t' > 0$ and $N^w_-$ for $\bo \to D^{*+} \pi^-$
297: with $t' < 0$ are
298: \beq
299: N^w_\pm \propto \int_0^\infty dt' e^{- \Gamma |t'|} [ A_-(t') \pm B_+(t')].
300: \eeq
301: Similar expressions for $\ob$ decays are
302: \beq
303: \overline{N^r_\pm} \propto \int_0^\infty dt' e^{- \Gamma |t'|} [ A_+(t') \mp
304: B_+(t')],
305: \eeq
306: \beq
307: \overline{N^w_\pm} \propto \int_0^\infty dt' e^{- \Gamma |t'|} [ A_-(t') \mp
308: B_-(t')].
309: \label{eqn:npmwr}
310: \eeq
311: %
312: Note that the following 4 linear relations among the 8 decay numbers
313: \bea
314: N^{r,w}_+ + N^{r,w}_- = \overline{N^{r,w}_+} + \overline{N^{r,w}_-}, \\
315: N^{r,w}_+ - N^{r,w}_- = \overline{N^{w,r}_-} - \overline{N^{w,r}_+},
316: \eea
317: limit the number of independent quantities to 4. In principle, that allows one
318: to forgo measurements of $\ob$ decay numbers. However, that method would lead
319: to larger uncertainties in determination of $2\beta+\gamma$ and we shall not
320: use it.
321:
322: We shall investigate the dependence of the time-integrated rates on a minimum
323: vertex separation $t_0$. The aim of the calculation is to find the optimal
324: conditions for measuring $\sin(2\beta +\gamma)$. Fig.~1 shows that
325: indirect bounds on that weak phase coming from measurements of other CKM
326: parameters \cite{JRTASI,JRAndr} limit the expected value of $\sin(2 \beta +
327: \gamma)$ to the region between $0.89$ and $1$. To get in the same ballpark
328: with the indirect bounds we will calculate the number of $B \bar B$ pairs
329: required to determine $\sin(2 \beta + \gamma)$ with an uncertainty of $0.05$.
330: This is the main goal of the paper.
331: %
332: \begin{figure}
333: \centerline{\epsfysize = 4.5 in \epsffile{bdpi1.eps}}
334: \caption{Contours of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ (thin curves with values to the
335: right) in ($\rho$,$\eta$) plane. Thick lines denote current limits on CKM
336: matrix parameters \cite{JRTASI,JRAndr}. Solid circles denote limits on
337: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ from charmless $b$ decays, dashed circles denote limits on
338: $V_{td}$ from $\bo-\ob$ mixing, and the dotted circle denotes the lower limit
339: on $|V_{ts}/V_{td}|$ from the lower limit on $B_s-\overline B_s$ mixing.
340: Dot-dashed hyperbolae come from limits on CP-violating $K^0-\overline
341: K^0$ mixing (the parameter $\epsilon$). Two solid rays denote the recent world
342: average $\pm 1 \sigma$ limits $\sin(2\beta) = 0.79 \pm 0.10$ from neutral $B$
343: meson decays. The allowed range is shaded gray.}
344: \end{figure}
345:
346: \section{Decays with vertex separation greater than $t_0$}
347:
348: If one only takes into account decays with vertex
349: separation greater than $t_0$, Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:npr}--\ref{eqn:npmwr}) become
350: \beq
351: N^r_\pm(t_0) \propto \int_{t_0}^\infty dt'\,e^{-\Gamma |t'|}
352: [A_+(t') \pm B_-(t')],
353: \label{eqn:nr}
354: \eeq
355: \beq
356: N^w_\pm(t_0) \propto \int_{t_0}^\infty dt'\,e^{-\Gamma |t'|}
357: [A_-(t') \pm B_+(t')],
358: \eeq
359: \beq
360: \overline{N^r_\pm}(t_0) \propto \int_{t_0}^\infty dt'\,e^{-\Gamma |t'|}
361: [A_+(t') \mp B_+(t')],
362: \eeq
363: \beq
364: \overline{N^w_\pm}(t_0) \propto \int_{t_0}^\infty dt'\,e^{-\Gamma |t'|}
365: [A_-(t') \mp B_-(t')].
366: \label{eqn:nw}
367: \eeq
368: There are several ways to combine these decay numbers together into algebraic
369: sums. Some of the resulting combinations may include one of the following
370: expressions: $A_+(t') + A_-(t')$, $A_+(t') - A_-(t')$, $B_+(t') + B_-(t')$,
371: or $B_+(t') - B_-(t')$. Composing ratios of these algebraic sums (see
372: $f_1(t_0)$, $f_2(t_0)$ and $f_3(t_0)$ below), we can extract the parameters
373: $R$, $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$ and $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$:
374: \beq
375: R = \sqrt{\frac{a(t_0)-f_1(t_0)}{a(t_0)+f_1(t_0)}},
376: \eeq
377: \beq
378: SC \equiv \sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta = \frac{1+R^2}{2b(t_0)\,R}\,f_2(t_0),
379: \label{eqn:SC}
380: \eeq
381: \beq
382: CS \equiv \cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta = \frac{1+R^2}{2b(t_0)\,R}\,f_3(t_0),
383: \label{eqn:CS}
384: \eeq
385: where
386: \beq
387: a(t_0) \equiv \Gamma e^{\Gamma t_0} \int_{t_0}^\infty dt'\,e^{-\Gamma t'}
388: \cos(\Delta m t') =
389: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x_d^2}}\,\cos(x_d \Gamma t_0 + \Delta),
390: \eeq
391: %
392: \beq
393: b(t_0) \equiv \Gamma e^{\Gamma t_0} \int_{t_0}^\infty dt'\,e^{-\Gamma t'}
394: \sin(\Delta m t') =
395: \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+x_d^2}}\,\sin(x_d \Gamma t_0 + \Delta),
396: \eeq
397: %
398: \beq
399: \Delta=\arctan x_d, \qquad x_d \equiv \Delta m/\Gamma,
400: \eeq
401: %
402: and
403: %
404: \beq
405: f_1(t_0) \equiv \frac{(N^r_+ + N^r_- + \overline{N^r_+} + \overline{N^r_-}) -
406: (N^w_+ + N^w_- + \overline{N^w_+} + \overline{N^w_-})}
407: {N},
408: \eeq
409: \beq
410: f_2(t_0) \equiv \frac{(N^r_- + N^w_- + \overline{N^r_+} + \overline{N^w_+}) -
411: (N^r_+ + N^w_+ + \overline{N^r_-} + \overline{N^w_-})}
412: {N},
413: \label{eqn:f2}
414: \eeq
415: \beq
416: f_3(t_0) \equiv \frac{(N^r_+ + N^w_- + \overline{N^r_+} + \overline{N^w_-}) -
417: (N^r_- + N^w_+ + \overline{N^r_-} + \overline{N^w_+})}
418: {N},
419: \label{eqn:f3}
420: \eeq
421: with
422: \beq
423: \label{eqn:totalN}
424: N \equiv N^r_+ + N^r_- + \overline{N^r_+} + \overline{N^r_-} + N^w_+ + N^w_-
425: + \overline{N^w_+} + \overline{N^w_-}.
426: \eeq
427: We have suppressed $(t_0)$ after the decay numbers in the last four formulae.
428:
429: It has been noted in~\cite{D98,LSS} that $R$ is too small to be
430: determined by this method. Indeed, calculations show that the smallest
431: uncertainty in $R$ is achieved at $t_0=0$ and is equal to
432: \beq
433: \sigma(R)= \sqrt{\frac{x_d^2\,(2+x_d^2)}{16R^2}\,
434: \frac{1}{\epsilon({\cal B}^r+{\cal B}^w)N_B}}
435: \approx 0.03,
436: \eeq
437: with $\epsilon$ being the tagging efficiency. We take $\epsilon$ to be
438: $0.684
439: \pm 0.007$~\cite{sin2beta}. ${\cal B}^r$, the branching ratio of the
440: ``right-sign" decays $B^0 \to D^{*-} \pi^+$, equals $(2.76 \pm 0.21) \times
441: 10^{-3}$~\cite{PDG}. One can show that for $x_d \cong 0.756 \pm 0.012$
442: \cite{LEPBOSC} the branching ratio of ``wrong-sign" decays is
443: ${\cal B}^w=k{\cal B}^r \approx 0.61 \cdot 10^{-3}$, with
444: $k \approx x_d^2/(2+x_d^2) \approx 0.22$.
445:
446: The error $\sigma(R)=0.03$ is bigger than the approximate $R$ value itself
447: [Eq.~(\ref{def:r})]. Thus, one has to search for another method of
448: measuring $R$.
449:
450: \section{Ratio of amplitudes}
451:
452: The main reason one cannot get $R$ directly from the ratio of $\bo \to
453: D^{(*)+} \pi^-$ and $\bo \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+$ decay rates is that the large
454: $\bo \to \ob$ mixing amplitude in the former overwhelms the smaller
455: direct tree contribution. One can circumvent this obstacle by considering
456: decays of {\it charged} $B$ mesons, e.g. $B^{\pm} \to D^{(*)\pm} \pi^0$, as
457: suggested in~\cite{D98}. The tree amplitude is dominant in these decays and is
458: proportional to $A_2^2/2$. Thus, the ratio of $B^{\pm} \to D^{(*)\pm} \pi^0$
459: and $\bo \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+$ decay rates can be used to provide a simple way to
460: estimate $R$.
461:
462: The $B^+ \to D^{(*)+} \pi^0$ decay rate can be estimated by assuming
463: factorization:
464: %
465: \beq {\cal M} = \frac{G_F}{2} V_{ub}^* V_{cd} \mat{\pi(p-q)|\bar{b}\gamma_\mu
466: u} {B(p)}\mat{D^{(*)}|V_\mu}{0}~~~. \eeq
467: %
468: Using the standard parameterization \cite{BSW}, one obtains the ratio $r$
469: defined in Eq.~(\ref{def:r}):
470: %
471: \bea
472: r(D^* \pi) &=& \frac{f_{D^*}\,F_1^{B\pi}(m_{D^*}^2)}
473: {f_{\pi}\,A_0^{B D^*}(m_{\pi}^2)}, \nonumber \\
474: r(D \pi) &=& \frac{f_D\,(m_B^2-m_{\pi}^2)\,F_0^{B\pi}(m_D^2)}
475: {f_{\pi}\,(m_B^2-m_D^2)\,F_0^{BD}(m_{\pi}^2)}~~~.
476: \eea
477: %
478: In Table I, we give the values of $r$ for ${\bar B}^0 \to D^{(*)}\,\pi$ decays
479: in several models. In all cases, the models predict that $r$ is close to
480: unity, i.e.\ $R \sim 0.02$.
481: %
482: \begin{table}
483: \label{table:1}
484: \centerline {
485: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
486: \hline\hline
487: & $r$ ($D^* \pi$) & $r$ ($D \pi$) \\ \hline
488: Light Front Model \cite{JCCH} & 0.81 & 0.72 \\
489: BSW II Model \cite{NRSX} & 1.33 & 1.11 \\
490: NS Model \cite{NS} & 0.88 & 0.72 \\
491: LCSR Model \cite{LCSR} & 1.01 & 0.87 \\
492: MS Model \cite{MS} & 0.92 & 0.82 \\
493: \hline\hline
494: \end{tabular} \vspace{8pt}
495: }
496: \caption{The ratio $r$ evaluated in various models.}
497: \end{table}
498: %
499:
500: The error on $R$ can be estimated using the method described in the
501: beginning of this Section. Suppose that the number of detected $B^+ \to
502: D^{(*)+} \pi^0$ decays is $N_2$ out of $N$ tagged $B^+$'s, while the number
503: of
504: detected $\bo \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+$ decays is $N_1$ out of the same number $N$
505: of tagged $B^0$'s. Then, assuming equal charged and neutral $B$ production,
506: the value
507: %
508: \beq
509: R=\sqrt{2\frac{\tau_\bo}{\tau_{B^+}}\,\frac{N_2}{N_1}}
510: \eeq
511: %
512: has an uncertainty
513: %
514: \beq
515: \sigma(R)=\sqrt{2\frac{\tau_\bo}{\tau_{B^+}}}
516: \frac{1}{2\sqrt{N_1}}\sqrt{1+\frac{N_2}{N_1}}
517: \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{2N_1}}.
518: \eeq
519: %
520: Taking into account $B^- \to D^{(*)-} \pi^0$ and $\ob \to D^{(*)+} \pi^-$
521: decays increases statistics by a factor of $2$, leading to
522: $\sigma(R) = 1/\sqrt{2N_r}$, where $N_r=2N_1$ is the
523: number of $\bo \to D^{(*)-} \pi^+$ decays plus the number $\ob \to D^{(*)+}
524: \pi^-$ decays. To make connection with the total number $N_B$ of produced $B
525: \bar B$ pairs, note that the number of tagged events is $N_r=\epsilon\, {\cal
526: B}^r N_B$. Thus,
527: %
528: \beq
529: \label{errora2a1}
530: \sigma(R)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\epsilon {\cal B}^r N_B}}~~~.
531: \eeq
532: %
533: For $10^8$ produced $B \bar B$ pairs $\sigma(R)=0.17 \cdot 10^{-2}$,
534: i.e.\ less than $10\%$ of its value. Thus, measurements of $B^+ \to D^{(*)+}
535: \pi^0$ decay rates provide the ratio of amplitudes with a high precision.
536: This information may be used in the time-integrated approach discussed in the
537: previous Section. Now we can go a step further and estimate the uncertainty
538: in determination of $\sin(2 \beta + \gamma)\cos\delta$ and $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)
539: \sin\delta$.
540:
541: In the following analysis, we will take $r=1$ (corresponding to $R
542: \simeq 0.02$) and use Eq.~(\ref{errora2a1}) to estimate the error on the ratio
543: $R$.
544:
545: \section{Uncertainties in $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$ and
546: $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ with perfect time resolution
547: and no mistagging}
548:
549: The uncertainties in the ratios $f_2$ and $f_3$ [see
550: Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:f2}) and~(\ref{eqn:f3})] are
551: \beq
552: \sigma(f_2) \approx \sigma(f_3) \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{N(t_0)}} =
553: \sqrt{\frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon ({\cal B}^r+{\cal B}^w) N_B}} =
554: \sqrt{\frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon (1+k)\,{\cal B}^r N_B}}.
555: \eeq
556: Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:SC}) and~(\ref{eqn:CS}) allow an estimate of the values of
557: $f_2$ and $f_3$: $f_2 \approx 2R\,b(t_0)\,SC$, $f_3 \approx 2R\,b(t_0)\,CS$.
558: Now that Eq.~(\ref{errora2a1}) provides the error in $R$, we can calculate
559: the uncertainties in $SC$ and $CS$:
560: \beq
561: \sigma(SC) \approx \frac{1}{2b(t_0)}\sqrt{\frac{f_2^2(t_0)}{R^4}
562: \sigma^2(R) + \frac{\sigma^2(f_2)}{R^2}}
563: \leq \frac{1} {2b(t_0) \,R}
564: \sqrt{\frac{2(1+k)\,b^2(t_0)+e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon (1+k)\,{\cal B}^r
565: N^B}},
566: \eeq
567: %
568: \beq
569: \sigma(CS) \approx \frac{1}{2b(t_0)}\sqrt{\frac{f_3^2(t_0)}{R^4}
570: \sigma^2(R) + \frac{\sigma^2(f_3)}{R^2}}
571: \approx \frac{\sigma(f_3)}{2b(t_0)\,R}
572: \approx \frac{1}
573: {2b(t_0)\,R} \sqrt{\frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon (1+k)\,
574: {\cal B}^r N^B}}.
575: \eeq
576: Finally, one
577: can calculate the number of $B \bar B$ pairs needed to get any particular
578: precision $\sigma_0(SC)$:
579: %
580: \begin{figure}
581: \centerline{\epsfysize = 3.6 in \epsffile{bdpi2.eps}}
582: \caption{Number of produced $B \bar B$ pairs needed to achieve an uncertainty
583: of $0.1$ in measurements of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$ (solid line) and
584: $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ (dashed line) vs.\ minimum vertex separation
585: $t_0$. Perfect time resolution is assumed.}
586: \end{figure}
587: %
588: \beq
589: N_B \approx \frac{2(1+k)\,b^2(t_0)+e^{\Gamma t_0}}{4 \epsilon (1+k)\,
590: b^2(t_0)
591: R^2 {\cal B}^r \sigma_0^2(SC)},
592: \eeq
593: or $\sigma_0(CS)$:
594: \beq
595: N_B \approx \frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}}{4 \epsilon (1+k)\, b^2(t_0) R^2 {\cal B}^r
596: \sigma_0^2(CS)}.
597: \eeq
598: As seen from the figure, these two quantities have the same minimum location
599: because they only differ by a constant independent of $t_0$.
600: Here we have assumed that $f_3(t_0)$ is proportional to
601: $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$, which is expected to be small, and that $SC$
602: is close to 1. However, the neglected $SC$ and $CS$ dependence can be readily
603: put back if necessary, and one finds that the position of the minima would
604: remain the same, independent of the values of $SC$ and $CS$, for both curves.
605:
606: Fig.~2 shows the $N_B$ dependence on $t_0$ according to the above two
607: equations. The curves were calculated under the assumption that one needs to
608: get $\sigma_0=0.1$. We found out that this precision level is sufficient to
609: determine $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ with an uncertainty of $0.05$ (Section~VII).
610: The optimal conditions for both measurements are achieved if one only takes
611: into account decays with vertex separation greater than $\sim 0.45/\Gamma$.
612: That one needs fewer $B {\bar B}$ pairs to reach the same precision for
613: $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ as indicated in Fig.~2 reflects our previous
614: assumption of small $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$. Thus, the minimum
615: uncertainties one can obtain if $N_B$ $B \bar B$ pairs are available are
616: \beq
617: \sigma_{min}(SC) \simeq 0.1\sqrt{\frac{1.62\cdot10^8}{N_B}},
618: \eeq
619: \beq
620: \sigma_{min}(CS) \simeq 0.1\sqrt{\frac{0.96\cdot10^8}{N_B}}.
621: \eeq
622: Now we shall check how these formulae change if we take into account finite
623: time resolution and realistic mistagging probabilities.
624:
625: \section{Finite time resolution; mistagging}
626:
627: Measurements of the decay numbers are smeared by finite resolution of vertex
628: separation. For simplicity we shall assume a single Gaussian resolution
629: function. The observed decay numbers are given by
630: Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:nr})$-$(\ref{eqn:nw}) convoluted with the resolution function
631: %
632: \beq
633: R(t_0) \equiv \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\mu \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma}\,
634: e^{-(\mu-t_0)^2/2\sigma^2}.
635: \eeq
636: %
637: For example,
638: %
639: \beq
640: N^r_\pm(t_0) = N_0\,R(t_0) \otimes N^r_\pm(\mu),
641: \eeq
642: %
643: and similar convoluted relations for $N^w_\pm(t_0)$, $\overline{N^r_\pm}(t_0)$,
644: and $\overline{N^w_\pm}(t_0)$. Here $N_0$ is a normalization factor and
645: $\sigma$ is the resolution of time separation between vertices. For the BaBar
646: detector the average resolution of space separation between vertices is
647: $180\, \mu \mbox{m}$ \cite{sin2beta} while the average separation is
648: $\beta\gamma c \tau_{B^0}=260\, \mu \mbox{m}$, implying $\sigma\Gamma = 180/260
649: \cong 0.69$.
650:
651: The algebraic sums of decay numbers that enter Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:f2})
652: and~(\ref{eqn:f3}) have to be modified correspondingly. For example,
653: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:totalN}) becomes
654: %
655: \bea
656: N(t_0)
657: & = & 2\frac{N_0}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\mu \,
658: \Phi'\left(\frac{\mu-t_0}{\sqrt{2}\sigma}\right) \, \int_\mu^{+\infty}
659: dt'\,e^{-\Gamma |t'|} \left[ A_+(t')+A_-(t') \right] \nonumber \\
660: & = & 2\frac{N_0}{\Gamma}\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\tilde t\,\, e^{-|\tilde
661: t|} \left[ A_+(\tilde t/\Gamma)+A_-(\tilde t/\Gamma) \right]
662: \nonumber \\
663: & & \ {}+2\frac{N_0}{\Gamma}\,\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\tilde \mu\,\,\,
664: \Phi\left(\frac{\tilde \mu-\Gamma t_0}{\sqrt{2}\sigma\Gamma}\right)
665: e^{-|\tilde \mu|} \left[ A_+(\tilde \mu/\Gamma)+A_-(\tilde \mu/\Gamma)
666: \right]
667: \nonumber \\
668: & = & 4\frac{N_0}{\Gamma}\,\left(1+\frac{A^2_2}{A^2_1}\right)(J_1+J_2),
669: \label{eqn:sumr'}
670: \eea
671: %
672: Similarly, one obtains
673: %
674: \bea
675: (N^r_- + N^w_- + \overline{N^r_+} + \overline{N^w_+}) -
676: (N^r_+ + N^w_+ + \overline{N^r_-} + \overline{N^w_-})
677: &=& 8\frac{N_0}{\Gamma}\,R\,J_3\,SC, \\
678: (N^r_+ + N^w_- + \overline{N^r_+} + \overline{N^w_-}) -
679: (N^r_- + N^w_+ + \overline{N^r_-} + \overline{N^w_+})
680: &=& 8\frac{N_0}{\Gamma}\,R\,J_3\,CS.
681: \eea
682: In the above equations, $\Phi(x) \equiv (2/\sqrt{\pi})\int_0^x e^{-z^2}dz$ is
683: the error function and
684: %
685: \bea
686: J_1 &\equiv& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} e^{-|\tilde t|} \,\,d\tilde t = 2,
687: \label{eqn:j'1} \\
688: J_2 &\equiv& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\tilde \mu\,\,\,\Phi\left(\frac{\tilde
689: \mu-\Gamma t_0}{\sqrt{2}\sigma\Gamma}\right)
690: e^{-|\tilde \mu|}, \\
691: J_3 &\equiv& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\tilde \mu\,\,\,\Phi\left(\frac{\tilde
692: \mu-\Gamma t_0}{\sqrt{2}\sigma\Gamma}\right)
693: e^{-|\tilde \mu|} \sin x_d \tilde \mu,
694: \label{eqn:j'3}
695: \eea
696: %
697: The last two integrals have been numerically evaluated for different values
698: of $t_0$ in the range from $0$ to $1.5/\Gamma$. Now $SC$ and $CS$ can be
699: rewritten in terms of the ratios $f_2$ and $f_3$ as
700: %
701: \beq
702: SC,CS =
703: \frac{J_1+J_2}{2J_3}\, \frac{1+R^2}{R}\,f_{2,3}(t_0).
704: \eeq
705: %
706:
707: Next, we will take into account the mistagging factor. Mistagging refers to
708: the cases where a decay ($B^0 \to$~tag, $\ob \to D^{*-} \pi^+$) was
709: incorrectly identified as ($\ob \to$~tag, $B^0 \to D^{*-} \pi^+$), and vice
710: versa. Thus, one sees that decays labelled as $B^0 \to D^{*-} \pi^+$
711: (``right-sign" decays) actually contain some $\ob \to D^{*-} \pi^+$
712: (``wrong-sign" decays) events. As a result, experimental measurements only
713: provide decay numbers smeared by the mistagging effect. For instance, the
714: numbers of apparent right-sign events are
715: \beq
716: N^{r'}_\pm(t_0) = (1-w)N^r_\pm(t_0) + w \overline{N^w_\pm}(t_0),
717: \eeq
718: where $w$ is the mistagging probability. For the BaBar detector the tagging
719: efficiency is $\epsilon=\sum \epsilon_i = 0.684 \pm 0.007$ while the
720: effective tagging efficiency is $Q = \sum \epsilon_i (1-2w_i)^2=0.261 \pm
721: 0.012$~\cite{sin2beta}. For our purposes we will simplify calculations by
722: assuming the single tagging option with $\epsilon=0.684$ and
723: $Q=\epsilon(1-2w)^2=0.261$. Thus, the effective mistagging probability is
724: $w=0.191$.
725:
726: Note that the sum of all smeared decay numbers is still equal to $N$, the sum
727: of all physical decay numbers.
728: One can show that the ratios $f'_2$ and $f'_3$ composed of smeared decay
729: numbers are related to $f_2$ and $f_3$ by $f'_{2,3} = (1-2w)f_{2,3}$.
730: Thus, experimental measurements of smeared decay numbers allow
731: the direct calculations of $SC$ and $CS$:
732: \beq
733: {SC,CS} = \frac{1}{1-2w}\,\frac{J_1+J_2}{2J_3}\,
734: \frac{1+R^2}{R}\,f'_{2,3}(t_0).
735: \eeq
736: Assuming that experimental uncertainties are
737: $\sigma[N^{r'}_\pm(t_0)]=\sqrt{N^{r'}_\pm(t_0)}$,
738: $\sigma[N^{w'}_\pm(t_0)]=\sqrt{N^{w'}_\pm(t_0)}$, etc., we can estimate the
739: uncertainties in $f'_2$ and $f'_3$ measurements to be
740: \beq
741: \sigma(f'_2) \approx \sigma(f'_3) \approx \frac{1}{\sqrt{N(t_0)}} =
742: \sqrt{\frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon (1+k)\,{\cal B}^r N_B}}.
743: \eeq
744: The uncertainties in $SC$ and $CS$ measurements are
745: \beq
746: \sigma(SC) \leq \frac{1}{1-2w}\,\frac{J_1+J_2}{2J_3}\,\frac{1}{R}\,
747: \sqrt{\frac{2(1+k)\,[J_3/(J_1+J_2)]^2\,(1-2w)^2+e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon
748: (1+k)\,{\cal B}^r N^B}},
749: \eeq
750: %
751: \beq
752: \sigma(CS) \approx \frac{1}{1-2w}\,\frac{J_1+J_2}{2J_3}\,\frac{1}{R}\,
753: \sqrt{\frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}}{\epsilon (1+k)\,{\cal B}^r N^B}}.
754: \eeq
755: %
756: We assumed a small $CS$ in deriving the second equation. Finally, one can
757: calculate the number of $B \bar B$ pairs needed to get any particular
758: precision $\sigma_0(SC)$:
759: \beq
760: N_B \approx
761: \frac{2(1-2w)^2(1+k)\,J_3^2+e^{\Gamma t_0}\,(J_1+J_2)^2} {4\epsilon (1-2w)^2
762: (1+k)\,J_3^2\,R^2 {\cal B}^r \sigma_0^2(SC)},
763: \eeq
764: or $\sigma_0(CS)$:
765: \beq
766: N_B \approx
767: \frac{e^{\Gamma t_0}\,(J_1+J_2)^2} {4\epsilon (1-2w)^2 (1+k)\,J_3^2\,R^2
768: {\cal B}^r \sigma_0^2(CS)}.
769: \eeq
770: As in the previous Section,
771: the position of the minima is the same for both curves and is independent of
772: the values of $SC$ and $CS$.
773:
774: \begin{figure}
775: \centerline{\epsfysize = 3.6 in \epsffile{bdpi3.eps}}
776: \caption{Number of produced $B \bar B$ pairs needed to achieve the
777: uncertainty of $0.1$ in measurements of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$
778: (solid line) and $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ (dashed line) vs.\ minimum
779: vertex separation $t_0$.}
780: \end{figure}
781: %
782: Fig.~3 shows the $N_B$ dependence on $t_0$. The curves were calculated under
783: the assumption that one needs to get $\sigma_0=0.1$. The optimal conditions
784: for measurements are achieved if one only takes into account decays with
785: vertex separation greater than $0.44/\Gamma$. Then
786: \beq
787: \sigma_{min}(SC) \simeq 0.1\sqrt{\frac{5.06\cdot10^8}{N_B}},
788: \label{eqn:sigSC}
789: \eeq
790: \beq
791: \sigma_{min}(CS) \simeq 0.1\sqrt{\frac{4.40\cdot10^8}{N_B}}.
792: \label{eqn:sigCS}
793: \eeq
794:
795: If BaBar is able to improve its performance to the level quoted
796: in~\cite{Bas2b}, i.e.\ $\sigma(\Delta z)=110\ \mu \mbox{m}$, $\epsilon=0.767$
797: and $Q=0.279$, then the required minimum number of $B {\bar B}$ pairs reduces
798: by a factor of $\sim 1.4$ for both $SC$ and $CS$ measurements. Besides, the
799: position of the minima is shifted to a slightly larger value ($t_0 \sim
800: 0.53/\Gamma$) of vertex separation.
801:
802: \section{Extraction of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ and $\cos\delta$}
803:
804: \begin{figure}
805: \centerline{\epsfysize = 7.3 in \epsffile{bdpi4.eps}}
806: \caption{Contours of $s_-$, $s_+$, and their uncertainties $\sigma(s_-)$ and
807: $\sigma(s_+)$ in the ($SC$,$CS$) plane. Only the first quadrant of the plane
808: is shown. The plots in other quadrants are symmetric to those in the first
809: one since the plotted quantities only depend on the {\it absolute} values of
810: $SC$ and $CS$. The blank triangle above the line $SC+CS=1$ denotes the
811: forbidden region on the plane: $SC+CS=\sin(2\beta+\gamma+\delta)$ should
812: always be smaller or equal to $1$. When $CS=0\ $ $\sigma(s_-)$ achieves its
813: smallest values: $0.1$ and $0.07$ for plots (c) and (e) respectively.}
814: \end{figure}
815:
816: If one measures $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$ and
817: $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ values to be $SC$ and $CS$, then trigonometry
818: dictates the following values for $\sin^2(2\beta+\gamma)$ {\it and}
819: $\cos^2\delta$:
820: \beq
821: \sin^2(2\beta+\gamma),\cos^2\delta = s^2_{\pm} \equiv
822: \frac12\left(1+SC^2-CS^2\pm\sqrt{\lambda(1,SC^2,CS^2)}\right),
823: \label{eqn:ambiguity}
824: \eeq
825: where $\lambda(x,y,z) \equiv x^2+y^2+z^2-2xy-2yz-2zx$. When one root
826: corresponds to $\sin^2(2\beta+\gamma)$, the other corresponds to
827: $\cos^2\delta$.
828: There is an ambiguity: Which is which? One cannot resolve it without making
829: additional assumptions.
830:
831: If the value of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ is assumed to be in agreement with the
832: indirect bounds (Fig.~1) then it should be larger then $0.89$.
833: However, indications that $\cos\delta$ is large, too~\cite{KS}, do not allow
834: an easy distinction between the two quantities. Figs.~4(a,b) show the
835: contours of $s_-$ and $s_+$ values in the ($SC$,$CS$) plane. There is a big
836: region on the plane where $s_-<0.89$ while $s_+>0.89$. If the measured values
837: of $SC$ and $CS$ fall inside this region then $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ could
838: only be associated with $s_+$ and the ambiguity might be resolved. The
839: possibility of resolution also depends on the uncertainties $\sigma(s_-)$ and
840: $\sigma(s_+)$. Those are calculated from Eq.~(\ref{eqn:ambiguity}) with the
841: help of Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:sigSC})--(\ref{eqn:sigCS}). The contours of these
842: uncertainties are shown in Figs.~4(c,d,e,f) for two different numbers of $B
843: \bar B$ pairs. For example, if the number of produced $B \bar B$ pairs is
844: $5.06\cdot10^8$ and $(SC,CS)=(0.75,0.15)$, then we can calculate $s_+ = 0.97
845: \pm 0.04$ and
846: $s_- = 0.77 \pm 0.12$. In this case, $s_-$ does not take values that are
847: larger than $0.89$ within the $1\sigma$ level, and the solution favored for
848: consistency with Fig.~1 is $\sin^2(2\beta+\gamma)=s_+^2$,
849: $\cos^2\delta=s_-^2$. The 4-fold ambiguity in $2\beta+\gamma$ remains but
850: reduces to a 2-fold one when we take into account that only positive values
851: of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ are consistent with indirect bounds.
852: One can see from Fig.~1 that if $2\beta+\gamma<\pi/2$ then
853: $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ should be larger than $0.97$. This fact might
854: completely resolve the ambiguity in favor of $\pi/2<2\beta+\gamma<\pi$ if
855: values larger than $0.97$ are measured to be inconsistent with
856: $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ within the $1\sigma$ level.
857:
858: Of course, one cannot exclude the possibility that $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ is
859: inconsistent with indirect bounds and is substantially smaller than $0.89$
860: while $|\cos\delta|$ is close to unity. In that case, one would make a wrong
861: assignment of $s_+$ and $s_-$ to $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ and $\cos\delta$,
862: respectively. Therefore, it is preferable to make other measurements of
863: $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ in decays like $B \to D^{(*)} \rho$ or $B \to D^{(*)}
864: a_1$ where strong phase might differ from $\delta$ in $B \to D^{(*)} \pi$
865: decays.
866:
867: It is also worth noting that for the overwhelming part of the region where
868: $s_+>0.89$, the uncertainty in $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ is at most $0.05$ [cf.\
869: Figs.~4(b) and~4(d)]. Thus, for many values of $SC$ and $CS$ this method
870: allows a very precise determination of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ and a good
871: measurement of the strong phase $\delta$.
872:
873: Besides, the method can be used to detect deviations from the Standard Model.
874: If the measured values of $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$ and
875: $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ fall into the upper left corner of the
876: ($SC$,$CS$) plane, then both $s_-$ and $s_+$ would be inconsistent with the
877: $0.89-1.0$ range expected from the unitarity of the CKM matrix.
878:
879: \section{Conclusions}
880:
881: This paper has explored the optimal conditions for measurements of weak phase
882: angle $2\beta+\gamma$ and strong phase $\delta$ between Cabibbo-allowed and
883: doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed amplitudes in $B \to D^{(*)}\pi$ decays.
884: We have found that in the time-integrated approach it is advantageous to only
885: consider events with vertex separation greater than $t_0$ which is equal to
886: $0.44/\Gamma$ for the BaBar detection parameters. The loss in statistics is
887: outweighed by an increase in the integrated asymmetry.
888:
889: Fig.~3 shows that production of approximately $5 \cdot 10^8$ $B \bar B$ pairs
890: is needed to reduce the uncertainty in determination of
891: $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)\cos\delta$ to $0.1$ in $B \to D^* \pi$ decays. A smaller
892: error on $\cos(2\beta+\gamma)\sin\delta$ will be achieved at the same time
893: if its value is small. $B \to D\pi$ decays have the advantage of a slightly
894: higher branching ratio but a setback in $D$ meson detection. The combination
895: of both types of decays might reduce the number of needed $B \bar B$ pairs
896: to $2.5\cdot 10^8$, an amount within the reach of both BaBar and BELLE in
897: the next few years. A time-dependent analysis \cite{BaBartd} does not lead to
898: any improvement with respect to this figure.
899:
900: If the strong phase $\delta$ is not very close to $0$ or $\pi$, the ambiguity
901: between $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ and $\cos\delta$ can be resolved. This method
902: allows $\sin(2\beta+\gamma)$ to be determined with a precision of $0.05$ or
903: better.
904:
905:
906: \section*{Acknowledgments}
907:
908: We thank I. Dunietz, M. Gronau, Z. Ligeti, Z. Luo, S. Prell and A. Soffer for
909: helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the United States
910: Department of Energy through Grant Nos.\ DE-FG02-90ER-40560 and
911: W-31109-ENG-38. C.-W. C. would like to thank the Summer Visitor Program
912: held by the Theory Department at Fermilab for their hospitality, and J. L.
913: R. thanks the Aspen Center for Physics, where part of this work was done.
914:
915: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
916: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
917: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
918: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
919: \def \art{and references therein}
920: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
921: \def \cn{Collaboration}
922: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
923: Singapore, 1989)}
924: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
925: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
926: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
927: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
928: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
929: Batavia, IL, 1979}
930: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
931: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
932: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
933: Amsterdam, 1988)}
934: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
935: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
936: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
937: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
938: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
939: IL, 1972)}
940: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
941: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
942: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
943: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
944: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
945: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
946: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
947: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
948: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
949: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
950: 1987)}
951: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
952: No.\ #2 (#3)}
953: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
954: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
955: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
956: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
957: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
958: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
959: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
960: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
961: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
962: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
963: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
964: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
965: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
966: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
967: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
968: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
969: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
970: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
971: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
972: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
973: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
974: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
975: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
976: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
977: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
978: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
979: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
980: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
981: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
982: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
983: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
984: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
985: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
986: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
987: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
988: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
989: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
990: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass,
991: Colorado),
992: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
993: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
994: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
995: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
996: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
997: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
998: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
999: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
1000: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
1001: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1002: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
1003:
1004: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1005:
1006: \bibitem{CKMrevs} F. Gilman, K. Kleinknecht, and Z. Renk, mini-review on pp.\
1007: 110-114 of \PDG;
1008: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,110;%%
1009: A. Ali and D. London,
1010: DESY report DESY-00-026, hep-ph/0002167, in {\it Proceedings of the
1011: 3rd Workshop on Physics and Detectors for DAPHNE}, Frascati, Italy,
1012: Nov.\ 16--19, 1999, edited by S. Bianco \ite~(INFN, 1999), pp.\ 3--23;
1013: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002167;%%
1014: S. Stone, Conference Summary, Beauty 2000, to be published
1015: in Proceedings of Beauty 2000, Kibbutz Maagan, Israel, September 13--18,
1016: 2000, edited by S. Erhan, Y. Rozen, and P. E. Schlein, Nucl.\ Inst.\ Meth.\
1017: A {\bf 462}, 323 (2001);
1018: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012162;%%
1019: M. Ciuchini \ite, Orsay preprint LAL 00-77, JHEP {\bf 0107}, 013, (2001).
1020: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012308;%%
1021:
1022: \bibitem{JRTASI} J. L. Rosner, in {\it Flavor Physics for the Millennium}
1023: (Proceedings of the TASI-2000 Summer School, Boulder, CO, June 5--30, 2000),
1024: edited by J. L. Rosner (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001), p. 431.
1025: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011355;%%
1026:
1027: \bibitem{earlybeta} CDF \cn, T. Affolder \ite, \prd{61}{072005}{2000};
1028: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9909003;%%
1029: OPAL \cn, K. Ackerstaff \ite, \epjc{5}{379}{1998};
1030: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9801022;%%
1031: ALEPH \cn, R. Barate \ite, \plb{492}{259}{2000}.
1032: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0009058;%%
1033:
1034: \bibitem{sin2beta} BaBar Collaboration (B. Aubert \ite), \prl
1035: {87}{091801}{2001}.
1036: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107013;%%
1037:
1038: \bibitem{sin2betaBelle} BELLE Collaboration (K. Abe \ite), \prl
1039: {87}{091802}{2001}.
1040: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0107013;%%
1041:
1042: \bibitem{GrLSQS} M. Gronau and D. London, \prl{65}{3381}{1990};
1043: %%CITATION = PRLTA,65,3381;%%
1044: A. Snyder and H. Quinn, \prd{48}{2139}{1993};
1045: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D48,2139;%%
1046: H. Quinn and J. Silva, \prd{62}{054002}{2000}.
1047: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001290;%%
1048:
1049: \bibitem{GW} M. Gronau and D. Wyler, \plb{265}{172}{1991}.
1050: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B265,172;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{but} D. Atwood, I. Dunietz, and A. Soni, \prl{78}{3257}
1053: {1997}; \prd{63}{036005}{2001};
1054: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9612433;%%
1055: M. Gronau, \prd{58}{037301}{1998}.
1056: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802315;%%
1057:
1058: \bibitem{DR} I. Dunietz and J. L. Rosner, \prd{34}{1404}{1986}.
1059: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D34,1404;%%
1060:
1061: \bibitem{DSetal} I. Dunietz and R. G. Sachs, \prd{37}{3186}{1988};
1062: \ibj{D39}{3515(E)}{1989};
1063: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D37,3186;%%
1064: R. Aleksan, I. Dunietz, B. Kayser, and F. LeDiberder,
1065: \np{B361}{141}{1991};
1066: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B361,141;%%
1067: R. Aleksan, I. Dunietz, and B. Kayser, \zpc{54}{653}{1992}.
1068: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C54,653;%%
1069:
1070: \bibitem{D98} I. Dunietz, \plb{427}{179}{1998}.
1071: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712401;%%
1072:
1073: \bibitem{ASY} K. Abe, M. Satpathy, and H. Yamamoto, Univ.\ of Hawaii
1074: preprint UH-511-982-01, hep-ex/0103002 (unpublished).
1075: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103002;%%
1076:
1077: \bibitem{LSS} D. London, N. Sinha, and R. Sinha, \prl{85}{1807}{2000}.
1078: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005248;%%
1079:
1080: \bibitem{CW} C.-W. Chiang and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{61}{074031}{2000};
1081: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911338;%%
1082: C.-W. Chiang, \prd{62}{014017}{2000}.
1083: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002243;%%
1084:
1085: \bibitem{EGR} G. Eilam, M. Gronau, and J. L. Rosner, \prd{39}{819}{1989}.
1086: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D39,819;%%
1087:
1088: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
1089: %%CITATION = PRLTA,51,1945;%%
1090:
1091: \bibitem{BaBartd} {\it The BaBar Physics Book: Physics at an Asymmetric
1092: $B$ Factory}, edited by P. F. Harrison and H. R. Quinn, SLAC Report SLAC-504,
1093: 1998.
1094:
1095: \bibitem{JRAndr} J. L. Rosner, \efi 01-34, hep-ph/0108195, lectures presented
1096: at 55th Scottish Universities' Summer School in Physics, St.\ Andrews,
1097: Scotland, August 7--23, 2001, to be published by the Institute of Physics
1098: (U.K.)
1099: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108195;%%
1100:
1101: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
1102: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%
1103:
1104: \bibitem{LEPBOSC} See the web page http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/
1105: for the latest compilation of $B^0$--$\ob$ mixing data.
1106:
1107: \bibitem{BSW}
1108: M.~Wirbel, B.~Stech, and M.~Bauer, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 29}, 637 (1985).
1109: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C29,637;%%
1110:
1111: \bibitem{JCCH}
1112: W.~Jaus, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 41},3394 (1990);
1113: %%CITATION=PHRVA,D41,3394;%%
1114: W.~Jaus, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44},2851 (1991);
1115: %%CITATION=PHRVA,D44,2851;%%
1116: H.~Cheng, C.~Cheung, and C.~Hwang,
1117: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 55},1559 (1997).
1118: %%CITATION=HEP-PH 9607332;%%
1119:
1120: \bibitem{NRSX}
1121: M.~Bauer, B.~Stech and M.~Wirbel,
1122: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 34}, 103 (1987);
1123: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C34,103;%%
1124: M.~Bauer and M.~Wirbel,
1125: Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 42}, 671 (1989);
1126: %%CITATION = ZEPYA,C42,671;%%
1127: M.~Neubert, V.~Rieckert, B.~Stech and Q.~P.~Xu,
1128: HD-THEP-91-28.
1129:
1130: \bibitem{NS}
1131: M.~Neubert and B.~Stech, hep-ph/9705292.
1132: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9705292;%%
1133:
1134: \bibitem{LCSR}
1135: E.~Bagan, P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 417}, 154 (1998);
1136: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709243;%%
1137: P.~Ball, JHEP {\bf 9809}, 005 (1998);
1138: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9802394;%%
1139: P.~Ball and V.~M.~Braun, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094016 (1998).
1140: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805422;%%
1141:
1142: \bibitem{MS}
1143: D.~Melikhov and B.~Stech, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 014006 (2000).
1144: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001113;%%
1145:
1146: \bibitem{Bas2b} BaBar \cn, reported by D. Hitlin at \os,
1147: hep-ex/0011024.
1148: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0011024;%%
1149:
1150: \bibitem{KS}
1151: R.~N.~Cahn and M.~Suzuki, hep-ph/9708208.
1152: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9708208;%%
1153:
1154: \end{thebibliography}
1155: \end{document}
1156: #!/bin/csh -f
1157: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
1158: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
1159: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
1160: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., figs.uu
1161: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
1162: # then say csh figs.uu
1163: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
1164: # uudecode figs.uu ; uncompress figs.tar.Z ;
1165: # tar -xvf figs.tar
1166: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
1167: # filename in "begin" line below to figs.tar_Z , then execute
1168: # uudecode figs.uu
1169: # compress -d figs.tar_Z
1170: # tar -xvf figs.tar
1171: #
1172: uudecode $0
1173: chmod 644 figs.tar.Z
1174: zcat figs.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
1175: rm $0 figs.tar.Z
1176: exit
1177:
1178: