1: % \documentstyle[12pt]{article}

2: % \documentstyle[preprint,aps,float,epsf]{revtex}

3: % \documentstyle[prd,aps,float,epsf]{revtex}

4: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: 

8: \def\NCA{Nuovo Cimento }

9: \def\NIM{Nucl. Instrum. Methods }

10: \def\NIMA{Nucl. Instrum. Methods A }

11: \def\NPB{Nucl. Phys. B }

12: \def\PLB{Phys. Lett. B }

13: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett. }

14: \def\PRD{Phys. Rev. D }

15: \def\ZPC{Z. Phys. C }

16: 

17: \def\etal{{\it et.~al.}}

18: \def\ie{{\it i.e.}}

19: \def\eg{{\it e.g.}}

20: 

21: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

22: \def\sst{\scriptscriptstyle}

23: \def\mco{\multicolumn}

24: \def\epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}

25: \def\vep{\varepsilon}

26: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

27: \def\vp{{\bf p}}

28: \def\as{\alpha_S}

29: \def\Ld{\Lambda}

30: \def\ld{\lambda}

31: 

32: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

33: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

34: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

35: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

36: \def\bean{\begin{eqnarray*}}

37: \def\eean{\end{eqnarray*}}

38: \def\bary{\begin{array}}

39: \def\eary{\end{array}}

40: \def\bi{\bibitem}

41: \def\bit{\begin{itemize}}

42: \def\eit{\end{itemize}}

43: \def\b{{\cal B}}

44: \def\lan{\langle}

45: \def\ran{\rangle}

46: \def\lra{\leftrightarrow}

47: \def\la{\leftarrow}

48: \def\ra{\rightarrow}

49: \def\dash{\mbox{-}}

50: 

51: \def\re{\rm Re}

52: \def\im{\rm Im}

53: \def\ne{\nu_e}

54: \def\nm{\nu_{\mu}}

55: \def\nt{\nu_{\tau}}

56: \def\nebar{{\bar \nu}_e}

57: \def\nmbar{{\bar \nu}_{\mu}}

58: \def\ntbar{{\bar \nu}_{\tau}}

59: \def\eps{\epsilon}

60: \def\vareps{\var\epsilon}

61: \def\Ld{\Lambda}

62: \def\Ldbar{\bar\Lambda}

63: \def\Ldqcd{\Lambda_{QCD}}

64: \def\ld{\lambda}

65: \def\Dt{\Delta}

66: \def\dt{\delta}

67: 

68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

69: % Some conventions

70: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

71: 

72: \def\vud{V_{ud}}

73: \def\vus{V_{us}}

74: \def\vub{V_{ub}}

75: \def\vcd{V_{cd}}

76: \def\vcs{V_{cs}}

77: \def\vcb{V_{cb}}

78: \def\vtd{V_{td}}

79: \def\vts{V_{ts}}

80: \def\vtb{V_{tb}}

81: \def\ub{{\bar u}}

82: \def\cb{{\bar c}}

83: \def\tb{{\bar t}}

84: \def\db{{\bar d}}

85: \def\sb{{\bar s}}

86: \def\bb{{\bar b}}

87: 

88: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}

89: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}

90: 

91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

92: \topmargin 0in

93: \textheight 8.7in

94: \textwidth 6.2in

95: \hoffset -0.4in

96: 

97: \begin{document}

98: \rightline{ANL-HEP-PR-01-098}

99: \rightline{EFI-01-48}

100: \rightline{hep-ph/0110394}

101: \rightline{October 2001}

102: \bigskip

103: \centerline{\bf FINAL-STATE PHASES IN DOUBLY-CABIBBO-SUPPRESSED}

104: \centerline{\bf CHARMED MESON NONLEPTONIC DECAYS}

105: \bigskip

106: 

107: \centerline {Cheng-Wei Chiang$\,^{a,b}$~\footnote{chengwei@hep.uchicago.edu}

108: and

109: Jonathan L. Rosner$\,^a$~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}

110: \vspace{0.5cm}

111: \centerline{\it $^a$ Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}

112: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}

113: \vspace{0.2cm}

114: \centerline{\it $^b$ HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory}

115: \centerline{\it 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439}

116: 

117: \begin{quote}

118: Cabibbo-favored nonleptonic charmed particle decays exhibit large final-state

119: phase differences in $\bar K \pi$ and $\bar K^* \pi$ but not $\bar K \rho$

120: channels.  It is of interest to know the corresponding pattern of final-state

121: phases in doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed decays, governed by the $c \to d u \bar s$

122: subprocess.  An experimental program is outlined for determining such phases

123: via measurements of rates for $D \to K^* \pi$ and $K (\rho, \omega,\phi)$

124: channels, and determination of interference between bands in Dalitz plots.

125: Such a program is feasible at planned high-intensity sources of charmed

126: particles.

127: \end{quote}

128: 

129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

130: \section{Introduction}

131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

132: 

133: The observation of direct CP violation in decays of particles containing

134: heavy $(c,b)$ quarks requires two or more channels differing in both strong

135: and weak phases.  Whereas the weak phases can be anticipated within the

136: Standard Model based on the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix, the strong

137: phases must in general be extracted from experiment.  This is particularly

138: so in the case of charmed particle decays, where phases in some channels

139: have been shown to be large.  (For particles containing $b$ quarks, schemes

140: for calculating such phases have been proposed recently \cite{BBNS,KLS}.)

141: 

142: In Cabibbo-favored decays of charmed particles, governed by the subprocess $c

143: \to s u \bar d$, the pattern of final-state phases differs from channel to

144: channel.  In the decays $D \to \bar K \pi$ and $D \to \bar K^* \pi$, the

145: final states with isospins $I = 1/2$ and $I = 3/2$ have relative phases

146: close to $90^\circ$, while in $D \to \bar K \rho$, the $I = 1/2$ and $I = 3/2$

147: final states have relative phases close to zero.  This behavior has been

148: traced using an SU(3) flavor analysis \cite{Rosner:1999xd} to a sign flip in

149: the contribution of one of the amplitudes contributing to the $\bar K \rho$

150: processes in comparison with its contribution to the other two.

151: 

152: The corresponding final-state phases for doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed charmed

153: particle decays, governed by the subprocess $c \to d u \bar s$, are

154: of interest for several reasons.  First, they are needed whenever one wishes to

155: study CP asymmetries in such decays.  Such asymmetries are not expected in the

156: Standard Model, but the low rate for such processes makes them especially

157: sensitive in their CP asymmetries to non-standard contributions.  Second, the

158: question of whether final-state phases are the same in CP-conjugate states

159: such as $K^+ \pi^-$ and $K^- \pi^+$ \cite{CC,BP,FNP,GRU} is of current

160: interest in interpreting $D^0$--$\bar D^0$ mixing results.  Proposals for

161: shedding light on this question include using the correlations between $D^0$

162: and $\bar D^0$ at the $\psi(3770)$ \cite{GGR}, and assuming relations among

163: phase shifts in different $K^* \pi$ channels with the same isospin \cite{GP}.

164: 

165: It is easy to determine relative final-state phases in Cabibbo-favored

166: $D$ decays since there are three charge states (such as $D^0 \to K^- \pi^+$,

167: $D^0 \to \bar K^0 \pi^0$, and $D^+ \to \bar K^0 \pi^+$) and only two

168: independent amplitudes.  The amplitudes for the three processes thus form a

169: triangle in the complex plane as a result of the definite isospin of the $c \to

170: s u \bar d$ subprocess:  $\Delta I = \Delta I_3 = 1$.  We shall refer to such

171: decays as ``right-sign.''  In contrast, the subprocess $c \to d u \bar s$

172: governing doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed decays, which we shall call ``wrong-sign,''

173: has $\Delta I_3 = 0$

174: and either $\Delta I = 0$ or $\Delta I = 1$.  There are four charge states

175: (e.g., $D^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$, $D^0 \to K^0 \pi^0$, $D^+ \to K^+ \pi^0$, and

176: $D^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$) and three isospin amplitudes (two with $I = 1/2$ and

177: one with $I = 3/2$), so that the amplitudes form a quadrangle.  Without

178: additional assumptions or information, one cannot learn relative phases.

179: 

180: The right-sign amplitude triangle for two final-state pseudoscalar mesons

181: is related by a U-spin transformation \cite{Usp} $(d \leftrightarrow s)$ to

182: a corresponding triangle involving the two wrong-sign $D^0$ decays (to $K^+

183: \pi^-$ and $K^0 \pi^0$) and the decay $D_s \to K^0 K^+$ \cite{GRU}.  However,

184: the final states involving $K^0$ cannot be distinguished from the

185: much-more-copious right-sign final states involving $\bar K^0$.  If one

186: replaces a $K^0$ by a $K^{*0}$, one can learn its flavor by its decay to

187: $K^+ \pi^-$.  However, in the case of $D$ decays to a vector meson and a

188: pseudoscalar meson, the U-spin transformation turns out not to give a

189: useful relation because of the lack of symmetry under interchange of the two

190: final particles.  One can estimate final-state phases for the wrong-sign $D \to

191: K \pi$ decays with the help of information about direct-channel resonances

192: and form factors \cite{GRU}.

193: 

194: Using the wrong-sign decays $D \to K^* \pi$, for which one can determine the

195: flavor of the $K^*$ for all four charge states, Golowich and Pakvasa \cite{GP}

196: obtained a constraint sufficient to specify relative phases of amplitudes

197: (given measurements of all four rates) by assuming that the final-state phases

198: in the two $I = 1/2$ $K^* \pi$ amplitudes are equal.  Since this assumption is

199: risky for a highly inelastic channel such as $K^* \pi$ at the mass of the $D$,

200: we seek an alternative method which employs only experimental data.  We have

201: found such a method which relies upon interference of $K^*$ bands in the

202: $K^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ Dalitz plot.  In the course of this study, we find that

203: all the relative phases of wrong-sign $D$ decay amplitudes with one

204: pseudoscalar meson $P$ and one vector meson $V$ in the final state can be

205: specified using just $K \pi \pi$ and $K K \bar K$ final states.  These

206: predictions can then be checked in cases where a $\pi^0$ is replaced by an

207: $\eta$ or $\eta'$.

208: 

209: We begin in Section II with a decomposition of amplitudes for $D \to P P$ and

210: $D \to P V$ final states.  We point out relations among these in Section III,

211: and discuss experimental prospects for testing them in Section IV.

212: Section V concludes.

213: 

214: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

215: \section{Amplitude Decompositions}

216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

217: 

218: We can categorize decay amplitudes according to the topology of Feynman

219: diagrams \cite{GHLR}: (1) a color-favored tree amplitude $T$, (2) a

220: color-suppressed tree amplitude $C$, (3) an exchange amplitude $E$, and (4) an

221: annihilation amplitude $A$.  $E$ only contributes to $D^0$ decays, and $A$ only

222: to Cabibbo-favored $D_s^+$ decays and Cabibbo-suppressed $D^+$ decays.  The

223: Cabibbo-favored non-leptonic two-body decays are governed by the subprocess $c

224: \to s u \db$ involving the weak coupling $\vcs^* \vud$, while the

225: doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed ones are governed by the subprocess $c \to d u \sb$

226: involving the weak coupling $\vcd^* \vus$.  We use notation introduced in

227: Ref.\ \cite{DGR98} for $PV$ decays in which a subscript denotes the meson ($P$

228: or $V$) containing the spectator quark. 

229: 

230: We can decompose the decay amplitudes both in terms of their topological

231: characters and in terms of isospin structure.  We use the

232: following quark content and phase conventions \cite{GHLR}:

233: \begin{itemize}

234: \item{

235: {\it Charmed mesons}: $D^0=-c\ub$, $D^+=c\db$, $D_s^+=c\sb$;}

236: \item{

237: {\it Pseudoscalar mesons}: $\pi^+=u\db$, $\pi^0=(d\db-u\ub)/\sqrt{2}$,

238:  $\pi^-=-d\ub$, $K^+=u\sb$, $K^0=d\sb$, ${\bar K}^0=s\db$, $K^-=-s\ub$,

239:  $\eta=(s\sb-u\ub-d\db)/\sqrt{3}$, $\eta^{\prime}=(u\ub+d\db+2s\sb)/\sqrt{6}$;}

240: \item{

241: {\it Vector mesons}: $\rho^+=u\db$, $\rho^0=(d\db-u\ub)/\sqrt{2}$,

242:  $\rho^-=-d\ub$, $\omega=(u\ub+d\db)/\sqrt{2}$, $K^{*+}=u\sb$, $K^{*0}=d\sb$,

243:  ${\bar K}^{*0}=s\db$, $K^{*-}=-s\ub$, $\phi=s\sb$.}

244: \end{itemize}

245: The wrong-sign (WS) $D$ decays are listed in Tables \ref{tab:WSPP} and

246: \ref{tab:WSVP}, where $SU(3)$ flavor symmetry is assumed.  We distinguish the

247: amplitudes obtained through $I=1$ and $I=0$ currents by superscripts 1 and 0

248: on the amplitudes $A_{1/2}$ and $B_{1/2}$.  We list the isospin decompositions

249: only for $K \pi$ and $K^* \pi$ modes.  It is the amplitudes $B^1_{1/2}$ and

250: $B^0_{1/2}$ which were assumed to have the same strong phases in Ref.\

251: \cite{GP}.  As mentioned, we make no such assumption.

252: For some of the other decays we list simplified expressions

253: which arise from assuming relations between different $E$ or $A$ amplitudes.

254: As in Ref.\ \cite{Rosner:1999xd}, we omit contributions of flavor topologies

255: in which $\eta$ and $\eta'$ exchange no quark lines with the rest of the

256: diagram, and couple through their SU(3)-singlet components.

257: This assumption, which goes beyond a purely SU(3)-based analysis, appeared to

258: give a self-consistent description in the case of most right-sign decays with

259: the exception of $D_s^+ \to \rho^+ \eta'$.  We shall see that it can be

260: tested in the case of WS decays, since the individual $T$, $C$, $E$, and $A$

261: amplitudes can be predicted independently of modes involving $\eta$ and

262: $\eta'$.

263: 

264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

265: \section{Amplitude Relations}

266: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

267: 

268: % This is Table I

269: {\footnotesize

270: \begin{table}

271: \caption{Amplitudes for WS decay modes of charmed mesons to two pseudoscalar

272:  mesons.

273: \label{tab:WSPP}}

274: \begin{center}

275: \begin{tabular}{lcc} \hline\hline

276: Mode & $A_{\rm topology}$ & $A_{\rm isospin}$ \\

277: \hline

278: $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ & $T+E$ & $\frac13 \left( A_{3/2}-A^1_{1/2} \right)-

279: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} A^0_{1/2}$ \\

280: $D^0 \to K^0\pi^0$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(C-E)$ & $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}A_{3/2}+

281: \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}A^1_{1/2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}A^0_{1/2} $ \\

282: $D^0 \to K^0\eta$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}C$ &  \\

283: $D^0 \to K^0\eta^{\prime}$ & $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(C+3E)$ & \\

284: \hline

285: $D^+ \to K^0\pi^+$ & $C+A$ & $\frac13 \left( A_{3/2}-A^1_{1/2} \right)+

286: \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}A^0_{1/2}$ \\

287: $D^+ \to K^+\pi^0$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(T-A)$ & $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}A_{3/2}+

288: \frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}A^1_{1/2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}A^0_{1/2} $ \\

289: $D^+ \to K^+\eta$ & $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}T$ &  \\

290: $D^+ \to K^+\eta^{\prime}$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(T+3A)$ & \\

291: \hline

292: $D_s^+ \to K^+K^0$ & $T+C$ & \\

293: \hline\hline

294: \end{tabular}

295: \end{center}

296: \end{table}

297: }

298: 

299: % This is Table II

300: {\footnotesize

301: \begin{table}

302: \caption{Amplitudes for WS decay modes of charmed mesons to one

303: vector meson and one pseudoscalar meson.

304: \label{tab:WSVP}}

305: \begin{center}

306: \begin{tabular}{lll} \hline\hline

307: Mode & $A_{\rm topology}$ & $A_{\rm isospin}$ \\ \hline

308: $D^0 \to K^{*+}\,\pi^-$ & $T_P+E_V$ & 

309: $\frac13 \left( B_{3/2}-B^1_{1/2} \right)-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} B^0_{1/2}$ \\

310: $D^0 \to K^{*0}\,\pi^0$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( C_P-E_V \right)$ &

311: $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}B_{3/2}+\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}B^1_{1/2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}

312: B^0_{1/2}$ \\

313: $D^+ \to K^{*0}\,\pi^+$ & $C_P+A_V$ &

314: $\frac13 \left( B_{3/2}-B^1_{1/2} \right)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}B^0_{1/2}$ \\

315: $D^+ \to K^{*+}\,\pi^0$ & $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( T_P-A_V \right)$ &

316: $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}B_{3/2}+\frac{1}{3\sqrt{2}}B^1_{1/2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}

317: B^0_{1/2}$ \\

318: \hline

319: Mode & $A_{\rm topology}$ & $A_{\rm simplified}$ \\ \hline

320: $D^0 \to \phi\,K^0$ & $-E_V$ & \\

321: $D^0 \to \rho^-\,K^+$ & $T_V+E_P$ & $= T_V-E_V$ \\

322: $D^0 \to \rho^0\,K^0$ & 

323: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(C_V-E_P)$ & $= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(C_V+E_V)$ \\

324: $D^0 \to \omega\,K^0$ & 

325: $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(C_V+E_P)$ & $= -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(C_V-E_V)$ \\

326: $D^0 \to K^{*0}\,\eta$ & 

327: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(C_P-E_P+E_V)$ & $= \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(C_P+2E_V)$ \\

328: $D^0 \to K^{*0}\,\eta^{\prime}$ & 

329: $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(C_P+2E_P+E_V)$ & $= -\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(C_P-E_V)$ \\

330: \hline

331: $D^+ \to \phi\,K^+$ & $A_V$ & \\

332: $D^+ \to \rho^+\,K^0$ & $C_V+A_P$ & $= C_V-A_V$ \\

333: $D^+ \to \rho^0\,K^+$ & 

334: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(T_V-A_P)$ & $= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(T_V+A_V)$ \\

335: $D^+ \to \omega\,K^+$ & 

336: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(T_V+A_P)$ & $= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(T_V-A_V)$ \\

337: $D^+ \to K^{*+}\,\eta$ & 

338: $-\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(T_P-A_P+A_V)$ & $= -\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(T_P+2A_V)$ \\

339: $D^+ \to K^{*+}\,\eta^{\prime}$ & 

340: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(T_P+2A_P+A_V)$ & $= \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}(T_P-A_V)$ \\

341: \hline

342: $D_s^+ \to K^{*+}\,K^0$ & $T_P+C_V$ & \\

343: $D_s^+ \to K^{*0}\,K^+$ & $T_V+C_P$ & \\

344: \hline\hline

345: \end{tabular}

346: \end{center}

347: \end{table}

348: }

349: 

350: The RS $D \to \bar K^* \pi$ decays give the sum rule

351: \be

352: \label{eqn:RS-DK*pi}

353: A(D^0 \to K^{*-}\pi^+) + \sqrt{2}A(D^0 \to {\bar K}^{*0}\pi^0)

354: - A(D^+ \to {\bar K}^{*0}\pi^+) = 0,

355: \ee

356: which forms a triangle in the amplitude complex plane.  This triangle, and

357: corresponding ones for $D \to \bar K \pi$ and $D \to \bar K \rho$, have been

358: used to obtain relative phases between the unique $I = 1/2$ and $I = 3/2$

359: amplitudes contributing to each set of processes \cite{Rosner:1999xd,Suz98}.

360: 

361: The sum rules for WS $D \to PP$ decays \cite{HJLPC},

362: \bea

363: 3 \sqrt{2}A(K^+\pi^0) + 4\sqrt{3}A(K^+\eta) + \sqrt{6}A(K^+\eta^{\prime})

364:  &=& 0, \\

365: 3 \sqrt{2}A(K^0\pi^0) - 4\sqrt{3}A(K^0\eta) - \sqrt{6}A(K^0\eta^{\prime}) &=&0,

366: \eea

367: allow one to form triangles.  

368: In terms of amplitudes of different topologies, these are, respectively,

369: \bea

370: 3(T-A) - 4T + (T+3A) &=& 0, \\

371: 3(C-E) - 4C + (C+3E) &=& 0.

372: \eea

373: The sum rules

374: \bea

375: &A(K^+\pi^-) + \sqrt{2}A(K^0\pi^0) 

376: = A(K^0\pi^+) + \sqrt{2}A(K^+\pi^0)& \nonumber \\

377: &= \sqrt{3}[A(K^0\eta)-A(K^+\eta)]

378: = A(K^+K^0)&

379: \label{eqn:wstrisum}

380: \eea

381: give triangles all sharing one side.

382: This can be seen from the decomposed amplitudes

383: \be

384: (T+E) + (C-E) = (C+A) + (T-A) = T+C.

385: \ee

386: We also find from these WS $D \to PP$ modes the following relations:

387: \bea

388: |T|^2 &=& 3|A(K^+\eta)|^2, \\

389: |C|^2 &=& 3|A(K^0\eta)|^2, \\

390: |A|^2 &=& \frac12 \left[ |A(K^+\pi^0)|^2 + |A(K^+\eta^{\prime})|^2 \right] -

391:  |A(K^+\eta)|^2, \\

392: |E|^2 &=& \frac12 \left[ |A(K^0\pi^0)|^2 + |A(K^0\eta^{\prime})|^2 \right] -

393:  |A(K^0\eta)|^2, \\

394: \cos\delta_{TC} &=& \frac{1}{2|T||C|}

395: \left[ |A(K^+K^0)|^2 - 3|A(K^+\eta)|^2 - 3|A(K^0\eta)|^2 \right], \\

396: \cos\delta_{TA} &=& \frac{1}{2|T||A|}

397: \left[ 2|A(K^+\eta)|^2 + \frac12|A(K^+\eta^{\prime})|^2 -

398:  \frac32|A(K^+\pi^0)|^2 \right], \\

399: \cos\delta_{CE} &=& \frac{1}{2|C||E|}

400: \left[ 2|A(K^0\eta)|^2 + \frac12|A(K^0\eta^{\prime})|^2 -

401:  \frac32|A(K^0\pi^0)|^2 \right], \\

402: \cos\delta_{TE} &=& \frac{1}{2|T||E|}

403: \left\{ |A(K^+\pi^-)|^2 - 3|A(K^+\eta)|^2 \right. \nonumber \\

404: && \qquad \left. - \frac12 \left[ |A(K^0\pi^0)|^2 + |A(K^0\eta^{\prime})|^2

405:  \right] + |A(K^0\eta)|^2 \right\}, \\

406: \cos\delta_{CA} &=& \frac{1}{2|C||A|}

407: \left\{ |A(K^0\pi^+)|^2 - 3|A(K^0\eta)|^2 \right. \nonumber \\

408: && \qquad \left. - \frac12 \left[ |A(K^+\pi^0)|^2 + |A(K^+\eta^{\prime})|^2

409:  \right] + |A(K^+\eta)|^2 \right\}.

410: \eea

411: Therefore, knowing the absolute value of the decay amplitudes one could

412: completely determine the above triangles.  However, all decays involving a

413: $K^0$ will be overwhelmed by Cabibbo-favored decays involving a $\bar K^0$,

414: with no way to distinguish between them since one detects only a $K_S$.  Thus

415: in practice one is able to determine only $|T|$, $|A|$, and $\delta_{TA}$,

416: which is still a useful piece of information relevant to final-state

417: interactions.  We shall discuss the prospects for this determination in

418: Section IV.

419: 

420: %

421: The WS $D \to K^* \pi$ decays give the sum rule

422: \bea

423: &A(K^{*+}\pi^-) + \sqrt{2}A(K^{*0}\pi^0)

424: = A(K^{*0}\pi^+) + \sqrt{2}A(K^{*+}\pi^0)&

425: \nonumber \\

426: &= (T_P + E_V) + (C_P - E_V) = (C_P + A_V) + (T_P - A_V) = T_P + C_P,&

427: \label{eqn:quadsum}

428: \eea

429: which forms a quadrangle in the complex plane, as shown in Fig.\

430: \ref{fig:quad}.

431: 

432: \begin{figure}

433: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=3in]{quad.ps}}

434: \caption{Quadrangle illustrating amplitude relations for $D \to K^* \pi$

435: decays.  The other diagonal (not shown) corresponds to the combination

436: $E_V + A_V$.

437: \label{fig:quad}}

438: \end{figure}

439: 

440: Knowing the lengths of the four sides in a quadrangle does not fix the shape;

441: one still needs information about relative angles among the sides.  In

442: principle such information could be obtained from other sum rules involving any two of the decay modes related to the sides of the quadrangle

443: in which we are interested.  However, these were searched for in Ref.\

444: \cite{GRU}, and no such triangle sum rule exists for these WS decays.

445: 

446: Fortunately, one can use interference between the two $K^*$ bands on the Dalitz

447: plot for $D^0 \to K^+ \pi^- \pi^0$, a final state recently reported by the CLEO

448: Collaboration \cite{Brandenburg:2001ze}, to measure the relative phase $\phi$

449: between the amplitudes for $D^0 \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ and $D^0 \to K^{*0} \pi^0$.

450: This method is analogous to the use of the decay $D^0 \to K_S \pi^+ \pi^-$

451: in which the interference between $K^{*+} \pi^-$ and $K^{*-} \pi^+$ bands

452: provides direct information on the relative strong phase difference between

453: the two channels \cite{DMA,Palano}.  Once the angle $\phi$ in Fig.\

454: \ref{fig:quad} is

455: specified, the shape of the quadrangle is fixed up to a folding about the

456: diagonal.  However, this is still not sufficient to specify each individual

457: amplitude $T_P$, $C_P$, $E_V$, or $A_V$.

458: 

459: One way to help resolve the above ambiguity is to compare the WS quadrangle

460: with the RS triangle [Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:RS-DK*pi})].  Denote the relative phase

461: between $D^0 \to K^{*-} \pi^+$ and $D^0 \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ by $\theta_0$, that

462: between $D^+ \to {\bar K}^{*0} \pi^+$ and $D^+ \to K^{*+} \pi^0$ by $\theta_+$,

463: and that between $D^0 \to K^{*-} \pi^+$ and $D^+ \to {\bar K}^{*0} \pi^+$ by

464: $\psi$.  $\theta_0$ can be obtained by analyzing the $K^{*+}$ and $K^{*-}$

465: bands in the Dalitz plot of the final state $D^0 \to K_S \pi^+ \pi^-$;

466: $\theta_+$ can be similarly measured from the Dalitz plot of $D^+ \to K_S \pi^+

467: \pi^0$.  With $\psi$ given by the RS triangle, the relative phase between $D^0

468: \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ and $D^+ \to K^{*+} \pi^0$ is then $\psi \pm |\theta_0| \pm

469: |\theta_+|$.  Therefore, except for singular cases, the angle between the left

470: and bottom sides of the quadrangle in Fig.\ \ref{fig:quad} can be determined.

471: 

472: One also makes further progress by assuming \cite{Rosner:1999xd} that (1)

473: $A_P=-A_V$

474: and/or (2) $E_P=-E_V$.  These assumptions are valid if these amplitudes involve

475: an intermediate quark-antiquark state \cite{HJLeta}.

476: 

477: If only $A_P=-A_V$ is imposed, several of the expressions for

478: $D^+$ decays are simplified.  We find $A(K^{*+}\pi^0) = \sqrt{3}A(K^{*+}

479: \eta^{\prime})$ and the following sum rules:

480: \bea

481: A(K^{*0}K^+) - \sqrt{2}A(\omega K^+) - A(K^{*0}\pi^+) &=& 0,

482: \label{eqn:xsumDp1} \\

483: \sqrt{2}A(\rho^0 K^+) - \sqrt{2}A(\omega K^+) - 2A(\phi K^+) &=& 0,

484: \label{eqn:xsumDp2} \\

485: \sqrt{3}A(K^{*+} \eta) + \sqrt{2}A(K^{*+}\pi^0) + 3A(\phi K^+) &=& 0.

486: \label{eqn:xsumDp3}

487: \eea

488: In terms of amplitudes, these read, respectively,

489: \bea

490: (T_V + C_P) - (T_V - A_V) - (C_P + A_V) & = & 0, \\

491: (T_V + A_V) - (T_V - A_V) - 2 A_V       & = & 0, \\

492: -(T_P + 2 A_V) + (T_P - A_V) + 3 A_V    & = & 0.

493: \eea

494: The first two of these are illustrated in Fig.\ \ref{fig:quadtri}. Measurement

495: of the corresponding rates for $D_s \to K^{*0}K^+$ and $D^+ \to (\rho^0,\omega,

496: \phi) K^+$ along with the four $D \to K^* \pi$ rates and the relative phase of

497: $D^0 \to K^{*+} \pi^-$ and $D^0 \to K^{*0} \pi^0$ mentioned earlier can

498: specify the individual amplitudes up to the discrete ambiguity associated

499: with reflection about the dashed diagonal of the quadrangle.  This ambiguity

500: affects only the phase and magnitude of $E_V$ with respect to the other

501: amplitudes.  Since we have not used Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:xsumDp3}) in this

502: construction, we obtain a prediction for the amplitude $A(K^{*+} \eta)$.

503: The residual ambiguity can be removed if one assumes a certain magnitude

504: hierarchy among $T$, $C$ and $E$.

505: 

506: \begin{figure}

507: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=3in]{quadtri.ps}}

508: \caption{Amplitude triangles illustrating amplitude relations 

509: between $D^+ \to K^* \pi$ decays and other $D^+$ or $D_s^+$ decays.  The

510: dotdashed lines represent the individual amplitudes.

511: \label{fig:quadtri}}

512: \end{figure}

513: 

514: Under the assumption $A_P = - A_V$ we also find from the WS $D^+ \to VP$ modes

515: the following relations:

516: \bea

517: |A_V|^2 &=& |A(\phi K^+)|^2, \\

518: |T_V|^2 &=& |A(\rho^0 K^+)|^2 + |A(\omega K^+)|^2 - |A(\phi K^+)|^2, \\

519: |T_P|^2 &=& 4|A(K^{*+}\eta^{\prime})|^2 + |A(K^{*+}\eta)|^2 - 2|A(\phi K^+)|^2, \\

520: \cos\delta_{T_V A_V} &=& \frac{1}{2|T_V||A_V|}

521: \left[ |A(\rho^0 K^+)|^2 - |A(\omega K^+)|^2 \right], \\

522: \cos\delta_{T_P A_V} &=& \frac{1}{2|T_P||A_V|}

523: \left[ |A(K^{*+}\eta)|^2 - 2|A(K^{*+}\eta^{\prime})|^2 - |A(\phi K^+)|^2

524:  \right].

525: \eea

526: As in the WS $D^+ \to PP$ decays, we can learn both the magnitudes and the

527: relative phases of the $T$ and $A$ amplitudes directly from decay rates

528: involving observable final states.

529:  

530: If now $E_P = - E_V$ is assumed, some of the expressions in $D^0$ decays are

531: simplified.  One finds $A(K^{*0}\pi^0) = -\sqrt{3}A(K^{*0}\eta^{\prime})$ and

532: the following sum rules:

533: \bea

534: A(K^{*+}\pi^-)-\sqrt{2}A(\omega K^0)-A(K^{*+}K^0)&=&0,

535: \label{eqn:xsumD01} \\

536: \sqrt{2}A(\rho^0K^0)+\sqrt{2}A(\omega K^0)+2A(\phi K^0)&=&0,

537: \label{eqn:xsumD02} \\

538: \sqrt{3}A(K^{*0}\eta)-\sqrt{2}A(K^{*0}\pi^0)+3A(\phi K^0)&=&0.

539: \label{eqn:xsumD03}

540: \eea

541: These have the following form in terms of amplitudes:

542: \bea

543: (T_P + E_V) + (C_V - E_V) - (T_P + C_V) & = & 0, \\

544: (C_V + E_V) - (C_V - E_V) - 2E_V & = & 0, \\

545: (C_P + 2 E_V) - (C_P - E_V) - 3 E_V & = & 0.

546: \eea

547: 

548: For these modes, we obtain the following relations

549: \bea

550: |E_V|^2 &=& |A(\phi K^0)|^2, \\

551: |C_V|^2 &=& |A(\rho^0 K^0)|^2 + |A(\omega K^0)|^2 - |A(\phi K^0)|^2, \\

552: |C_P|^2 &=& 4|A(K^{*0}\eta^{\prime})|^2 + |A(K^{*0}\eta)|^2 - 2|A(\phi K^0)|^2, \\

553: \cos\delta_{C_V E_V} &=& \frac{1}{2|C_V||E_V|}

554: \left[ |A(\rho^0 K^0)|^2 - |A(\omega K^0)|^2 \right], \\

555: \cos\delta_{C_P E_V} &=& \frac{1}{2|C_P||E_V|}

556: \left[ |A(K^{*0}\eta)|^2 - 2|A(K^{*0}\eta^{\prime})|^2 - |A(\phi K^0)|^2

557:  \right].

558: \eea

559: 

560: These relations all suffer from the presence of a $K^0$ in at least one of

561: their amplitudes, and contamination by the corresponding mode with $\bar K^0$

562: makes them unusable.  However, the fact that with $E_P = - E_V$ we also

563: have amplitudes for the observable processes $D^0 \to (\rho^- K^+, K^{*0} \eta,

564: K^{*0} \eta')$, all of which involve $E_V$ and amplitudes which have been

565: previously specified, should allow the resolution of the last remaining

566: discrete ambiguity except in singular cases.

567: 

568: An analysis of SU(3) breaking based on the method of Ref.\ \cite{GRU} may be

569: able to provide direct information on relative strong phases in

570: Cabibbo-favored and doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed $D \to PV$ decays.  One needs

571: information on direct-channel resonances with $J^P = 0^-$, which is the

572: only channel which can decay to the $J = 0$ $PV$ state.  A candidate for

573: such a state around 1830 MeV (i.e., not far from the $D$ mass) has been

574: reported in the $K \phi$ channel \cite{Arm} but needs confirmation.

575: 

576: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

577: \section{Experimental prospects}

578: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

579: 

580: At present, the following WS modes are quoted by the Particle

581: Data Group: \cite{Groom:2000in}

582: \bea

583: \b(D^0 \to K^+\pi^-) &=& (1.46 \pm 0.30) \times 10^{-4}, \nonumber \\

584: \b(D^+ \to K^{*0}\pi^+) &=& (3.6 \pm 1.6) \times 10^{-4}, \nonumber \\

585: \b(D^+ \to \rho^0K^+) &=& (2.5 \pm 1.2) \times 10^{-4}, \nonumber \\

586: \b(D^+ \to \phi K^+) &<& 1.3 \times 10^{-4}.

587: \qquad ({\rm CL}=90\%) \nonumber

588: \eea

589: If one assumes that the amplitude $T$ is dominant in $PP$ modes, from the

590: branching ratio of $D^0 \to K^+\pi^-$ one would infer $\b(D^+ \to K^+\pi^0)

591: \simeq 1.8\times10^{-4}$ and $\b(D^+ \to K^+\eta) \simeq 1.2\times10^{-4}$.  A

592: substantial deviation from these expected values would indicate the importance

593: of $E$ and/or $A$ contributions.

594: 

595: Since the peak cross section for $e^+e^- \to \psi(3770) \to D {\bar D}$ is

596: about 10 nb and the foreseen integrated luminosity for a charm factory

597: operating at this energy is about 3 fb${}^{-1}$, one expects to collect

598: $3\times10^7$ $D{\bar D}$ pairs, giving about 15 million $D^0\,({\bar D}^0)$

599: and 15 million $D^+\,(D^-)$.  With branching ratios of $O(10^{-4})$ for the WS

600: decays, we would have $\sim 3000$ events for each type.  The $D^0$ decays must

601: be flavor-tagged through study of the flavor of the opposite-side neutral $D$.

602: 

603: Tagging via the chain $D^{*+} \to \pi^+ D^0$ is possible if one

604: operates at higher c.m. energy.  Indeed, it is estimated that in CLEO II.V

605: with 6 fb$^{-1}$ on the $\Upsilon(4S)$ and 3 fb$^{-1}$ in the continuum below

606: the $\Upsilon(4S)$, 34 million charmed mesons were produced \cite{DMA}.

607: BaBar and Belle should be able to accumulate an even larger sample.

608: 

609: In the analysis of $D \to PV$  decays, one needs to analyze the branching

610: ratios and resonant channel fractions of the set of 3-body final states listed

611: in Table \ref{tab:3bodymodes}.  Examples of recent progress in studying these

612: states are noted in Refs.\ \cite{Brandenburg:2001ze,Palano,FOCUS01,FOCUS99}.

613: 

614: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

615: \section{Conclusions}

616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

617: 

618: As we have seen, doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed (``wrong-sign,'' or WS) decays with

619: a final neutral $K$ meson in general suffer from overwhelming backgrounds of

620: Cabibbo-favored (``right-sign,'' or RS) decays.

621: It is thus preferable to extract information from decay modes with charged $K$

622: mesons in the final states.  We have shown that the amplitudes for the $D^+$

623: decay modes ${K^+\pi^0,K^+\eta,K^+\eta'}$ form a triangle in the complex plane.

624: These charged $D$ decays provide a good place to study the amplitudes $|T|$,

625: $|A|$ and the relative strong phase $\cos\delta_{TA}$.  It will be interesting

626: to see whether in the case of WS $D$ decays one still observes $A$ and $E$ with

627: comparable amplitudes to $T$ and $C$ as in the RS decays \cite{Rosner:1999xd}.

628: It will also be useful to compare U-spin related RS and WS triangles to see

629: whether they are similar, from which one could learn final state interaction

630: patterns and U-spin breaking effects.

631: 

632: % This is Table III

633: \begin{table}

634: {\caption{Summary of doubly-Cabibbo-suppressed 3-body modes required for

635: extracting amplitudes in $D \to PV$ decays.  All modes with a $K^0$ have $\bar

636: K^0$ backgrounds.  $D^+$ and $D_s^+$ modes with a $K^+$ are self-tagging.}

637: \label{tab:3bodymodes}}

638: \begin{center}

639: \begin{tabular}{ccc} \hline\hline

640:  & Final state & Branching ratio \\

641: \hline

642: $D^0$ &

643: \begin{tabular}{l}

644: $K^0\pi^+\pi^-$ \\ $K^+\pi^-\pi^0$ \\ $K^+\pi^-\eta$ \\ $K^+\pi^-\eta'$

645: \end{tabular} &

646: \begin{tabular}{l}

647: \\

648: $ (6.0\pm1.0)\times10^{-4}$ \cite{Brandenburg:2001ze} \\ 

649: $$ \\ $$

650: \end{tabular} \\

651: \hline

652: $D^+$ &

653: \begin{tabular}{l}

654:  $K^0\pi^+\pi^0$ \\

655:  $K^0\pi^+\eta$ \\

656:  $K^0\pi^+\eta'$ \\

657:  $K^+\pi^0\pi^0$ \\

658:  $K^+\pi^0\eta$ \\

659:  $K^+\pi^0\eta'$ \\

660:  $K^+\pi^-\pi^+$ \\

661:  $K^+K^+K^-$

662: \end{tabular} &

663: \begin{tabular}{l}

664:  \\

665:  \\

666:  \\

667:  \\

668:  \\

669:  \\

670:  $ (6.8\pm1.5)\times10^{-4}$ \cite{Groom:2000in}; see also \cite{FOCUS01} \\

671:  $ (1.41 \pm 0.27) \times 10^{-4}$ \cite{FOCUS99}

672: \end{tabular} \\

673: \hline

674: $D_s^+$ &

675: \begin{tabular}{l}

676:  $K^0K^0\pi^+$ \\

677:  $K^0 K^+ \pi^0$ \\

678:  $K^+ K^+ \pi^-$  

679: \end{tabular} &

680: \begin{tabular}{l}

681:  \\

682:  \\

683: \end{tabular} \\

684: \hline\hline

685: \end{tabular}

686: \end{center}

687: \end{table}

688: 

689: We also observed that without further assumptions, one could only form

690: quadrangle relations from the amplitudes for $D \to PV$ decays.  For example,

691: the four $D \to K^* \pi$ amplitudes form a quadrangle.  The relative phase

692: between the neutral $D$ amplitudes can be obtained by analyzing the $D^0 \to

693: K^+ \pi^- \pi^0$ Dalitz plot.  This fixes the quadrangle up to a two-fold

694: ambiguity corresponding to folding about the diagonal.

695: By further assuming $A_P=-A_V$, we can obtain three triangle relations and

696: determine $|T_V|$, $|T_P|$, $|A_V|$, $\cos\delta_{T_VA_V}$, and $\cos

697: \delta_{T_PA_V}$.  The two-fold quadrangle ambiguity can be resolved by

698: assuming $E_P = - E_V$ and measuring the rate for $D^0 \to K^+ \rho^-$.

699: Many cross-checks of the method are possible by measuring further WS

700: rates for three-body decays involving $\eta$ or $\eta'$ and by analyses of

701: interferences between right-sign and wrong-sign $K^* \pi$ contributions to

702: Dalitz plots.

703: 

704: \vspace{0.5cm}

705: {\it Acknowledgments:} We thank David Asner for stimulating discussions

706: and Michael Gronau, John Cumalat, and Harry Lipkin for helpful comments.

707: This work was supported in part by the United States

708: Department of Energy through Grants No.\ DE-FG02-90ER-40560 and W-31109-ENG-38.

709: 

710: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

711: 

712: %\cite{BBNS}

713: \bibitem{BBNS}

714: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,

715: %``QCD factorization in B $\to$ pi K, pi pi decays and extraction of

716: % Wolfenstein parameters,''

717: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001)

718: [hep-ph/0104110].

719: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104110;%%

720: 

721: %\cite{KLS}

722: \bibitem{KLS}

723: Y.~Y.~Keum, H.~n.~Li and A.~I.~Sanda,

724: %``Fat penguins and imaginary penguins in perturbative QCD,''

725: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 504}, 6 (2001)

726: [hep-ph/0004004];

727: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004004;%%

728: %``Penguin enhancement and B $\to$ K pi decays in perturbative QCD,''

729: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 054008 (2001)

730: [hep-ph/0004173].

731: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0004173;%%

732: 

733: %\cite{Rosner:1999xd}

734: \bibitem{Rosner:1999xd}

735: J.~L.~Rosner,

736: %``Final-state phases in charmed meson two-body nonleptonic decays,''

737: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 114026 (1999)

738: [hep-ph/9905366].

739: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905366;%%

740: 

741: %\cite{CC}

742: \bibitem{CC}

743: L.~L.~Chau and H.~Y.~Cheng,

744: %``SU(3) breaking effects in charmed meson decays,''

745: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 333}, 514 (1994)

746: [hep-ph/9404207].

747: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404207;%%

748: 

749: %\cite{BP}

750: \bibitem{BP}

751: T.~E.~Browder and S.~Pakvasa,

752: %``Experimental implications of large CP violation and final state interactions in the search for D0 - anti-D0 mixing,''

753: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 383}, 475 (1996)

754: [hep-ph/9508362].

755: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9508362;%%

756: 

757: %\cite{FNP}

758: \bibitem{FNP}

759: A.~F.~Falk, Y.~Nir and A.~A.~Petrov,

760: %``Strong phases and D0 anti-D0 mixing parameters,''

761: JHEP {\bf 9912}, 019 (1999)

762: [hep-ph/9911369].

763: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9911369;%%

764: 

765: %\cite{GRU}

766: \bibitem{GRU}

767: M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,

768: %``U-spin symmetry in doubly Cabibbo-suppressed charmed meson decays,''

769: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 500}, 247 (2001)

770: [hep-ph/0010237].

771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010237;%%

772: 

773: %\cite{GGR}

774: \bibitem{GGR}

775: M.~Gronau, Y.~Grossman and J.~L.~Rosner,

776: %``Measuring D0 - anti-D0 mixing and relative strong phases at a charm

777: % factory,''

778: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 508}, 37 (2001)

779: [hep-ph/0103110].

780: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103110;%%

781: 

782: %\cite{GP}

783: \bibitem{GP}

784: E.~Golowich and S.~Pakvasa,

785: %``Phenomenological issues in the determination of Delta(Gamma(D)),''

786: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 505}, 94 (2001)

787: [hep-ph/0102068].

788: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102068;%%

789: 

790: \bibitem{Usp} S. Meshkov, C. A. Levinson, and H. J. Lipkin, Phys.\ Rev.\

791: Lett,\ {\bf 10}, 361 (1963).

792: 

793: %\cite{GHLR}

794: \bibitem{GHLR}

795: M.~Gronau, O.~F.~Hernandez, D.~London and J.~L.~Rosner,

796: %``Decays of B mesons to two light pseudoscalars,''

797: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 50}, 4529 (1994)

798: [hep-ph/9404283].

799: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9404283;%%

800: 

801: %\cite{DGR98}

802: \bibitem{DGR98}

803: A.~S.~Dighe, M.~Gronau and J.~L.~Rosner,

804: %``B decays to charmless V P final states,''

805: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 1783 (1998)

806: [hep-ph/9709223].

807: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9709223;%%

808: 

809: %\cite{Suz98}

810: \bibitem{Suz98} 

811: M.~Suzuki,

812: %``The final-state interaction phases of the two-body B decay: The bounds

813: % from the updated data,''

814: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 111504 (1998)

815: [hep-ph/9808303].

816: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808303;%%

817: 

818: \bibitem{HJLPC} H. J. Lipkin (private communication) has pointed out that

819: the linear combination of $\eta$ and $\eta'$ which enter these sum rules

820: is just the octet component, which should also be true for other choices

821: of octet-singlet mixing for the $\eta$ and $\eta'$.

822: 

823: %\cite{Brandenburg:2001ze}

824: \bibitem{Brandenburg:2001ze}

825: G.~Brandenburg {\it et al.}  [CLEO Collaboration],

826: %``Rate measurement of D0 $\to$ K+ pi- pi0 and constraints on D0 anti-D0

827: %  mixing,''

828: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 87}, 071802 (2001)

829: [hep-ex/0105002].

830: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0105002;%%

831: 

832: \bibitem{DMA} D. M. Asner, private communication.

833: 

834: %\cite{Palano}

835: \bibitem{Palano}

836: A.~Palano  [BABAR Collaboration], presented at Hadron 2001, IX International

837: Conference on Hadron Spectroscopy, August 25 -- September 1, 2001, Protvino,

838: Russia, SLAC report SLAC-PUB-9034, hep-ex/0111003.

839: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0111003;%%

840: 

841: %\cite{HJLeta}

842: \bibitem{HJLeta}

843: H.~J.~Lipkin,

844: %``FSI rescattering in B+- decays via states with eta, eta' omega and Phi,''

845: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 433}, 117 (1998);

846: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B433,117;%%

847: %\cite{Lipkin:1999ie}

848: %\bibitem{Lipkin:1999ie}

849: %H.~J.~Lipkin,

850: %``A useful approximate isospin equality for charmless strange B decays,''

851: {\it ibid.} {\bf 445}, 403 (1999)

852: [hep-ph/9810351].

853: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810351;%%

854: 

855: %\cite{Arm}

856: \bibitem{Arm}

857: T.~Armstrong {\it et al.}  [Bari-Birmingham-CERN-Milan-Paris-Pavia Collaboration],

858: %``A Partial Wave Analysis Of The K- Phi System Produced In The Reaction K- P $\to$ K+ K- K- P At 18.5-Gev/C,''

859: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 221}, 1 (1983).

860: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B221,1;%%

861: 

862: %\cite{FOCUS01}

863: \bibitem{FOCUS01}

864: K. Stenson [FOCUS Collaboration], presented at 9th International Symposium on

865: Heavy Flavor Physics, Caltech, Pasadena, CA, September 10--13, 2001.

866: 

867: %\cite{FOCUS99}

868: \bibitem{FOCUS99}

869: L.~Moroni [FOCUS Collaboration], presented at International Europhysics

870: Conference on High Energy Physics (EPS--HEP 99), Tampere, Finland, 15--21 July,

871: 1999.  Published in {\it High Energy Physics 99:  Proceedings}, edited by K.

872: Huitu, H. Kurki-Suonio, and J.  Maalampi (IOP, Bristol, 2000), p.\ 625.  A

873: more up-to-date branching ratio is in process (J. Cumalat, private

874: communication).

875: 

876: %\cite{Groom:2000in}

877: \bibitem{Groom:2000in}

878: D.~E.~Groom {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

879: %``Review of particle physics,''

880: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 15}, 1 (2000).

881: %%CITATION = EPHJA,C15,1;%%

882: 

883: \end{thebibliography}

884: \end{document}

885: #!/bin/csh -f

886: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script  uufiles

887: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html

888: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:

889: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., DK.uu

890: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)

891: # then say        csh DK.uu

892: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):

893: #    uudecode DK.uu ;   uncompress DK.tar.Z ;

894: #    tar -xvf DK.tar

895: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the

896: # filename in "begin" line below to DK.tar_Z , then execute

897: #    uudecode DK.uu

898: #    compress -d DK.tar_Z

899: #    tar -xvf DK.tar

900: #

901: uudecode $0

902: chmod 644 DK.tar.Z

903: zcat DK.tar.Z | tar -xvf -

904: rm $0 DK.tar.Z

905: exit

906: 

907: