1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%
2: %
3: % $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $
4: %
5: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
6: \usepackage{espcrc2}
7:
8: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09
9: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}
10:
11: % if you want to include PostScript figures
12: \usepackage{graphicx}
13: % if you have landscape tables
14: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
15: \usepackage{graphicx,psfrag,amssymb}
16: % put your own definitions here:
17: % \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}
18: % \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]
19: % ...
20: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
21: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
22: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
23:
24: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list
25: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}
26:
27: % declarations for front matter
28: \title{Direct CP asymmetry of $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to d\gamma$
29: in models beyond the Standard Model}
30:
31: \author{A.G. Akeroyd\address{KIAS, Cheongryangri-dong 207-43,
32: Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-012, Republic of Korea},
33: S. Recksiegel\address{KEK Theory Group,
34: Tsukuba, Japan 305-0801}}
35:
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40: We study the direct CP asymmetry of the decays $b\to s\gamma$ and
41: $b\to d\gamma$ in the context of two models: i) a supersymmetric (SUSY)
42: model with unconstrained SUSY phases, and ii) a model with a single
43: generation of vector quarks. In both the above models we show that
44: $b\to d\gamma$ can sizeably influence the combined asymmetry (i.e.\
45: that of a sample containing both $b\to s\gamma$ and $b\to d\gamma$),
46: and in case (ii) may in fact be the dominant contribution.
47: \vspace{1pc}
48: \end{abstract}
49:
50: % typeset front matter (including abstract)
51: \maketitle
52:
53: \section{Introduction}
54:
55: Theoretical studies of rare decays of $b$ quarks have attracted
56: increasing attention since the start of the physics programme at the
57: $B$ factories at KEK and SLAC.
58: Many rare decays will be observed for the first time
59: over the next few years, and in this talk we summarize our
60: work on the decays $b\to d\gamma$ and $b\to s\gamma$ in the context
61: of two models: i) a supersymmetric (SUSY)
62: model with unconstrained SUSY phases \cite{Akeroyd:2001cy}, and
63: ii) a model with a single generation of vector quarks \cite{Akeroyd:2001gf}.
64:
65: There is considerable motivation for measuring the
66: BR and CP asymmetry (${\cal A}_{CP}$) of the inclusive channel
67: $B\to X_d\gamma$. In particular we highlight the following:
68:
69: \begin{itemize}
70:
71: \item[{(i)}] $b\to d\gamma$ transitions sizeably affect
72: the measurements of ${\cal A}_{CP}$ for $b\to s\gamma$ \cite{Coan:2001pu}.
73: Therefore
74: knowledge of ${\cal A}_{CP}$ for $b\to d\gamma$ is essential, in order to
75: compare experimental data with the theoretical prediction
76: in a given model.
77:
78: \item[{(ii)}] ${\cal A}_{CP}$ for the
79: combined signal of $B\to X_s\gamma$ and
80: $B\to X_d\gamma$ is expected to be close to zero in the
81: Standard Model (SM)
82: \cite{Soares:1991te,Kagan:1998bh,Hurth:2001yb}, due the
83: real Wilson coefficients and the unitarity of the CKM matrix.
84: Both of these conditions can be relaxed in models beyond the SM.
85:
86: \end{itemize}
87:
88: \section{The decays $b\to d\gamma$ and $b\to s\gamma$}
89:
90: There is much theoretical and experimental motivation to
91: study the ratio
92: \begin{equation}
93: R={BR(B\to X_d\gamma)\over {BR(B\to X_s\gamma)}}
94: \end{equation}
95: because it provides a clean handle on the ratio
96: $|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2$ \cite{Ali:1998rr}.
97: In the context of the SM, $R$ is expected to be in the
98: range $0.017 < R < 0.074$, corresponding
99: to BR$(B\to X_d\gamma)$ of order $10^{-5}$.
100: $R$ stays confined to this range
101: in many popular models beyond the SM. This is because new
102: particles such as charginos and charged Higgs bosons in SUSY models
103: contribute to $b\to s(d)\gamma$
104: with the same CKM factors. Therefore $C_7$ is universal to both
105: decays and cancels out in the ratio $R$.
106: In a model with vector quarks this is not the case, and we
107: shall see that $R$ can be suppressed or enhanced
108: with respect to the SM.
109:
110: ${\cal A}^{d\gamma(s\gamma)}_{CP}$ is given by:
111: \begin{equation}
112: {{\Gamma(\overline B\to X_{d(s)}\gamma)-
113: \Gamma(B\to X_{\overline d(\overline s)}\gamma)}
114: \over {\Gamma(\overline B\to X_{d(s)}\gamma)+\Gamma(B\to X_{\overline
115: d(\overline s)}\gamma)}}={\Delta\Gamma_{d(s)}\over \Gamma^{tot}_{d(s)}}
116: \label{ACPdef} \end{equation}
117: In the SM ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ is expected to lie in the
118: range $-5\%\le {\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}\le -28\%$
119: \cite{Ali:1998rr}, where the uncertainty arises from
120: varying the Wolfenstein parameters
121: $\rho$ and $\eta$ in their allowed ranges.
122: Therefore ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ is much larger than
123: ${\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma}$ ($\le 0.6\%$).
124:
125: If $b\to d\gamma$ and $b\to s\gamma$
126: cannot be properly separated, then only $A_{CP}$ of
127: a combined sample can be
128: measured. It has been shown \cite{Soares:1991te,Kagan:1998bh,Hurth:2001yb}
129: that ${\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma}$ and
130: $A_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ approximately cancel each other in the SM,
131: leading to a combined asymmetry close to zero.
132:
133: A reliable prediction of
134: ${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ in a given model is necessary
135: since it contributes to the measurement of ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$.
136: The CLEO result \cite{Coan:2001pu} is sensitive to a weighted sum of
137: CP asymmetries, given by:
138: \begin{equation}
139: {\cal A}^{exp}_{CP}=0.965{\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}+0.02{\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}
140: \label{CLEOeq} \end{equation}
141: The latest measurement stands at $-27\% < {\cal A}^{exp}_{CP} < 10\%$
142: (90\% C.L.) \cite{Coan:2001pu}.
143: The small coefficient of ${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ is caused by
144: the smaller BR$(B\to X_d\gamma)$ (assumed to be $1/20$ that
145: of BR$(B\to X_s\gamma)$) and inferior detection efficiencies.
146:
147: If the detection efficiencies for both decays were identical,
148: this measured quantity would coincide with the weighted sum of the asymmetries
149: \begin{equation}
150: {\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma+d\gamma} = { {\rm BR}^{s\gamma} {\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma}
151: +{\rm BR}^{d\gamma} {\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma} \over {\rm BR}^{s\gamma} +{\rm BR}^{d\gamma}}\,.
152: \label{ACPcombined} \end{equation}
153:
154: The two terms in eqs.~(\ref{CLEOeq},\ref{ACPcombined}) can
155: be of equal or of opposite sign, i.e.\ they can contribute
156: constructively or destructively to the combined asymmetry.
157: The non--negligible contribution of
158: $b\to d\gamma$ to this combined asymmetry
159: should be verifiable at proposed future high luminosity
160: runs of $B$ factories.
161:
162: \section{Results}
163: We now show numerical results for the two models considered.
164: \subsection{Effective SUSY model}
165:
166: In Fig.~1 we plot ${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ against
167: $m_{\tilde t_1}$, which clearly shows that a light $\tilde t_1$ may
168: drive ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ positive, reaching maximal
169: values close to $+40\%$. For $\tilde t_1$ heavier than 250 GeV
170: the ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ lies within the SM range, which
171: is indicated by the two horizontal lines.
172: In Fig.~2 we plot ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ against
173: ${\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma}$.
174: One can see that both ${\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma}$ and
175: ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ may have either sign, resulting
176: in constructive or destructive interference in eq.~(\ref{CLEOeq}).
177:
178: In Fig.~3 we plot the ${\cal A}_{CP}^{exp}$
179: (defined in eq.~(\ref{CLEOeq})) against ${\cal A}_{CP}^{s\gamma}$.
180: If the contribution from ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ were ignored
181: in eq.~(\ref{CLEOeq}), then Fig.~3 would be a straight
182: line through the origin. The ${\cal A}_{CP}^{d\gamma}$ contribution
183: broadens the line to a thin band of width $\approx 1\%$, an effect
184: which should be detectable at proposed higher luminosity runs of the
185: $B$ factories.
186:
187:
188: \subsection{Vector quark model}
189:
190: In Fig.~4 we plot ${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$
191: against ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$.
192: It can be seen that ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$
193: does not substantially differ from its SM value,
194: while ${\cal A}^{ d\gamma}_{CP}$ can vary over a much larger
195: range. The correlation between ${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ and
196: BR$^{d\gamma}$ is studied in detail in Fig.~5,
197: where it can be seen that $|{\cal A}^{ d\gamma}_{CP}| >45 \%$
198: occurs only for BR$^{d\gamma} < 10^{-6}$. Branching ratios
199: of this magnitude would require $\gg 10^8$ $b\bar b$ pairs
200: to be detected which is beyond the discovery potential of
201: current $B$ factories.
202:
203: In Fig.~6 we plot the combined CP asymmetry as defined
204: in eqn.(\ref{ACPcombined}) against the argument of $V_{Ud}^*V_{Ub}$.
205: Note that in our analysis BR$^{s\gamma}$ and
206: ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$ are close to their SM values.
207: The huge variations in ${\cal A}^{s\gamma+d\gamma}_{CP}$
208: stem from the variation in BR$^{d\gamma}$. In wide ranges
209: of our parameter space, $b\to d\gamma$ actually dominates
210: the combined asymmetry ! Any large signal observed in
211: ${\cal A}^{s\gamma+d\gamma}_{CP}$ is a sign of physics
212: beyond the SM, but although BR$^{s\gamma+d\gamma}$ is
213: strongly dominated by $b\to s \gamma$, a non--SM value
214: for ${\cal A}^{s\gamma+d\gamma}_{CP}$ can stem from both
215: $b\to s \gamma$ and $b\to d \gamma$.
216:
217: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
218:
219: %\cite{Akeroyd:2001cy}
220: \bibitem{Akeroyd:2001cy}
221: A.~G.~Akeroyd, Y.~Y.~Keum and S.~Recksiegel,
222: %``Effect of supersymmetric phases on the direct CP asymmetry of
223: %B $\to$ X/d gamma,''
224: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 507}, 252 (2001).
225: %[hep-ph/0103008].
226: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103008;%%
227:
228: %\cite{Akeroyd:2001gf}
229: \bibitem{Akeroyd:2001gf}
230: A.~G.~Akeroyd and S.~Recksiegel,
231: %``Direct CP asymmetry of B $\to$ X/d,s gamma in a model with vector quarks,''
232: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 525}, 81 (2002).
233: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0109091].
234: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109091;%%
235:
236: %\cite{Coan:2001pu}
237: \bibitem{Coan:2001pu}
238: T.~E.~Coan {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
239: %``CP asymmetry in $b \to s \gamma$ decays,''
240: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86}, 5661 (2001).
241: %[hep-ex/0010075].
242: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0010075;%%
243:
244: %\cite{Soares:1991te}
245: \bibitem{Soares:1991te}
246: J.~M.~Soares,
247: %``CP violation in radiative b decays,''
248: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 367}, 575 (1991).
249: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B367,575;%%
250:
251: %\cite{Kagan:1998bh}
252: \bibitem{Kagan:1998bh}
253: A.~L.~Kagan and M.~Neubert,
254: %``Direct CP violation in B $\to$ X/s gamma decays as a
255: %signature of new physics,''
256: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 094012 (1998).
257: %[hep-ph/9803368].
258: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803368;%%
259:
260: %\cite{Hurth:2001yb}
261: \bibitem{Hurth:2001yb}
262: T.~Hurth and T.~Mannel,
263: %``CP asymmetries in b $\to$ (s/d) transitions as a test of
264: %CKM CP violation,''
265: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 511}, 196 (2001);
266: %[hep-ph/0103331].
267: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103331;%%
268: T.~Hurth and T.~Mannel, hep-ph/0109041.
269: %\cite{Ali:1998rr}
270:
271: \bibitem{Ali:1998rr}
272: A.~Ali, H.~Asatrian and C.~Greub,
273: %``Inclusive decay rate for B $\to$ X/d + gamma in next-to-leading
274: % logarithmic order and CP asymmetry in the standard model,''
275: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 87 (1998).
276: %[hep-ph/9803314].
277: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803314;%%
278: \end{thebibliography}
279:
280: \newpage
281:
282: \begin{figure}
283: \begin{center}
284: \psfrag{XXX}{$m_{\tilde t_1}$} \psfrag{YYY}
285: {${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$}
286: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{mst1dependence.eps}
287: \end{center}
288: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
289: \caption{${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ against $m_{\tilde t_1}$}
290: \label{mst1}
291: \end{figure}
292:
293: \begin{figure}
294: \begin{center}
295: \psfrag{XXX}{${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$} \psfrag{YYY}
296: {${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$}
297: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{doughnut.eps}
298: \end{center}
299: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
300: \caption{${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ against ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$}
301: \label{doughnut}
302: \end{figure}
303: %
304: \begin{figure}
305: \begin{center}
306: \psfrag{XXX}{${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$} \psfrag{YYY}
307: {${\cal A}^{exp}_{CP}$}
308: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{CLEOline_detail.eps}
309: \end{center}
310: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
311: \caption{CLEO ${\cal A}^{exp}_{CP}$ against
312: ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$}
313: % ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$}
314: \label{ACPCLEO}
315: \end{figure}
316:
317: \begin{figure}
318: \begin{center}
319: \psfrag{XXX}{${\cal A}^{\rm s\gamma}_{CP}$} \psfrag{YYY}
320: {${\cal A}^{\rm d\gamma}_{CP}$}
321: \includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{scatter.eps}
322: \end{center}
323: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
324: \caption{${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ against ${\cal A}^{s\gamma}_{CP}$}
325: \label{scatter}
326: \end{figure}
327:
328: \begin{figure}
329: \begin{center}
330: \psfrag{XXX}{BR$(b\to d\gamma)\,[10^{-5}]$} \psfrag{YYY}
331: {${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$} \psfrag{ZZZ} {$|V_{Ud}^*V_{Ub}|$}
332: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{contours.eps}
333: \end{center}
334: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
335: \caption{${\cal A}^{d\gamma}_{CP}$ against
336: BR($b\to d\gamma$)}
337: \label{contours}
338: \end{figure}
339:
340: \begin{figure}
341: \begin{center}
342: \psfrag{XXX}{Arg $V_{Ud}^*V_{Ub}\,\,[\pi]$} \psfrag{YYY}
343: {${\cal A}^{s\gamma+d\gamma}_{CP}$} \psfrag{ZZZ} {$|V_{Ud}^*V_{Ub}|$}
344: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{hill.eps}
345: \end{center}
346: \vspace*{-1.2cm}
347: \caption{${\cal A}^{s\gamma+d\gamma}_{CP}$ against Arg $V_{Ud}^*V_{Ub}$}
348: \label{hill}
349: \end{figure}
350:
351: \end{document}
352:
353:
354:
355: