1: % M. Gronau and J. Rosner - C pi pi and S pi pi without T
2: % June 17, 2002
3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \textheight 9in
6: \textwidth 6in
7: \voffset -0.6in
8: \hoffset -0.3in
9: \def \app{D_{\pi \pi}}
10: \def \b{{\cal B}}
11: \def \bbpp{\overline{{\cal B}}_{\pi \pi}}
12: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
14: \def \bo{B^0}
15: \def \ko{K^0}
16: \def \bpb{\stackrel{(-)}{B^0}}
17: \def \cn{Collaboration}
18: \def \cpp{C_{\pi \pi}}
19: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
21: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
22: \def \kpb{\stackrel{(-)}{K^0}}
23: \def \lpp{\lambda_{\pi \pi}}
24: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
25: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
26: \def \rpp{R_{\pi \pi}}
27: \def \rt{r_{\tau}}
28: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
29: \def \spp{S_{\pi \pi}}
30: \begin{document}
31:
32: \begin{flushright}
33: TECHNION-PH-2002-21 \\
34: EFI 02-81 \\
35: hep-ph/0205323 \\
36: May 2002 \\
37: \end{flushright}
38:
39: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
40: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
41: \centerline{\bf CONVENTION-INDEPENDENT STUDY OF CP-VIOLATING}
42: \centerline{\bf ASYMMETRIES IN $B \to \pi \pi$}
43: \medskip
44: \centerline{Michael Gronau}
45: \centerline{\it Physics Department, Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology}
46: \centerline{\it 32000 Haifa, Israel}
47: \medskip
48: \centerline{Jonathan L. Rosner}
49: \centerline{\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
50: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637}
51: \bigskip
52:
53: \begin{quote}
54:
55: CP-violating asymmetries in the decay $B^0(t)\to \pi^+ \pi^-$ are a potentially
56: rich source of information about both strong and weak phases. In a previous
57: treatment by the present authors use was made of an assumption about the
58: relative magnitude of tree and penguin amplitudes contributing to this
59: process. This assumption involved an ambiguity in relating the tree amplitude
60: to the amplitude for $B \to \pi \ell \nu$. It is shown here that one can avoid
61: this assumption, which adopted a particular convention for tree and penguin
62: amplitudes, and that the results are convention-independent.
63:
64: \end{quote}
65:
66: \leftline{\qquad PACS codes: 12.15.Hh, 12.15.Ji, 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd}
67:
68: \section{Introduction}
69:
70: The study of CP-violating asymmetries in the decays $B^0(t) \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
71: has reached an interesting stage. Two collaborations working at asymmetric
72: $B$ factories, the Babar Collaboration at PEP-II (Stanford) \cite{CSBa} and
73: the Belle Collaboration at KEK-B (Tsukuba, Japan) \cite{bCSBe} have both
74: reported measurements of time-dependent asymmetries in this process and its
75: charge-conjugate which are potentially rich sources of information of both
76: strong and weak phases. The weak phases are those of elements in the
77: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix describing the weak charge-changing
78: couplings of quarks. At present these phases provide a satisfactory
79: description of all observed CP-violating phenomena in both $K$ and $B$ decays.
80:
81: In a previous article \cite{GR02} (for a more complete discussion, see also
82: \cite{GR01}), we analyzed these CP-violating asymmetries using assumptions
83: which included knowledge of the ratio of tree and penguin amplitudes
84: \cite{PT,FlMat}. This knowledge was obtained from other processes using the
85: factorization hypothesis. However, the nature of the tree amplitude
86: and the value of the above ratio depended on our convention for defining the
87: tree and penguin amplitudes, leading to some indeterminacy in the result.
88: Certain aspects of ambiguities following from the penguin amplitude convention
89: were discussed earlier in \cite{BF,CP,LSS}, and recently in \cite{DL}.
90:
91: In the present paper we find that one can obtain useful information from
92: CP-violating asymmetries in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ {\it independently} of
93: the penguin amplitude convention, and without prior knowledge of the
94: tree/penguin ratio. Some sacrifice in statistical power unavoidably occurs,
95: so that determination of the weak phase $\alpha = \phi_2$ to better than
96: $10^\circ$ is difficult without additional assumptions. Thus, $\Delta
97: \alpha \simeq 10^\circ$ seems to be an estimate of the theoretical systematic
98: error of the present method. This would still represent an improvement with
99: respect to the present situation, in which we estimated $\alpha$ to be
100: determined only within a $50^\circ$ range \cite{GR02}.
101:
102: The data which we use in the present determination consist of the
103: charge-averaged branching ratio $\bbpp$, the time-dependent asymmetries
104: $\spp$ and $\cpp$ which are coefficients of $\sin \Delta m t$ and
105: $\cos \Delta m t$, and the charge-averaged branching ratio ${\cal B}(B^\pm
106: \to K \pi^\pm)$. Similar inputs were also advocated in a previous analysis
107: by Charles \cite{JC}, which differs in details of correction factors and
108: which presents results in terms of the $\rho$ and $\eta$ variables of the
109: CKM matrix \cite{WP} rather than in terms of the phase $\alpha$.
110:
111: The paper is organized as follows. We introduce two different amplitude
112: conventions in Section II. We show that, while the tree amplitudes in the two
113: conventions are different, the corresponding penguin amplitudes are essentially
114: the same, up to a simple CKM factor. We write down a dictionary relating
115: the magnitudes and strong phases of corresponding tree amplitudes. In Section
116: III we specify our assumptions and explain the method for determining
117: the weak phases $\gamma$ or $\alpha$, as well as the relevant strong phase,
118: by including information about the penguin amplitude in $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$.
119: The only required assumptions are penguin dominance of this amplitude and
120: factorization of penguin amplitudes. We also summarize the present relevant
121: experimental data. In Section IV we then plot the two measured CP-violating
122: asymmetries as functions of strong and weak phases. We also plot
123: relations between strong phases in the two conventions.
124: While no use is made in this study of a prior knowledge of the ratio of
125: tree and penguin amplitudes, this ratio could be used as a cross check and
126: could resolve a possible discrete ambiguity in determining the weak phase.
127: Section V qualitatively compares uncertainties in evaluating this ratio in
128: the two conventions using other experimental inputs.
129: Experimental prospects and conclusions are contained in Section VI.
130:
131: \section{Notations and conventions}
132:
133: The expressions for the decay amplitudes of $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and $\ob
134: \to \pi^+\pi^-$ depend on the convention employed. We now describe two
135: different conventions used in the literature, denoted $c$ and $t$ conventions,
136: where $c$ and $t$ represent appropriate CKM factors governing penguin
137: amplitudes.
138: \bigskip
139:
140: \leftline{\bf A. $c$ convention}
141: \medskip
142:
143: In the convention of Refs.\ \cite{GR02,GR01}, one writes the decay amplitudes
144: in terms of a color-favored tree amplitude $T_c$ and a penguin amplitude $P_c$
145: as
146: $$
147: A(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -(|T_c|e^{i \delta^T_c} e^{i \gamma} +
148: |P_c| e^{i \delta^P_c})~~~,
149: $$
150: \beq \label{eqn:Bppc}
151: A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -(|T_c|e^{i \delta^T_c} e^{- i \gamma} +
152: |P_c| e^{i \delta^P_c})~~~,
153: \eeq
154: where we use the definitions in \cite{PDG} of weak phases $\alpha = \phi_2$,
155: $\beta = \phi_1$, and $\gamma = \phi_3$. The strong phases of the tree and
156: penguin amplitudes are $\delta^T_c$ and $\delta^P_c$, while $\delta_c \equiv
157: \delta^P_c - \delta^T_c$. Here the subscript $c$ refers to the convention
158: in which the weak phase of the strangeness-preserving ($\Delta S = 0$) penguin
159: amplitude in $\bar b \to \bar d q \bar q$ is defined to be that of $V^*_{cb}
160: V_{cd}$. The top quark in the $\bar b \to \bar d$ loop diagram has been
161: integrated out and the unitarity relation $V^*_{tb}V_{td} = -V^*_{cb}V_{cd}
162: -V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$ has been employed. The term $-V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$ has been
163: included in the tree amplitude, which has the same weak phase.
164: \bigskip
165:
166: \leftline{\bf B. $t$ convention}
167: \medskip
168:
169: A different convention has been commonly employed in the past \cite {SW} and
170: also quite recently \cite{LRpipi}. In this convention, one uses the unitarity
171: relation in the form $V^*_{cb}V_{cd} = -V^*_{tb}V_{td} -V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$ and
172: assumes the penguin amplitude to be dominated by the $t$ quark term
173: $V^*_{tb}V_{td}$. The tree amplitude, again, absorbs a penguin contribution
174: proportional to $V^*_{ub}V_{ud}$, but it is different than that in the previous
175: convention. For this convention we shall use a subscript $t$ on all
176: quantities. The expressions for the decay amplitudes are then
177: $$
178: A(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -(|T_t|e^{i \delta^T_t} e^{i \gamma} +
179: |P_t| e^{i \delta^P_t} e^{- i \beta})~~~,
180: $$
181: \beq \label{eqn:Bppt}
182: A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -(|T_t|e^{i \delta^T_t} e^{- i \gamma} +
183: |P_t| e^{i \delta^P_t} e^{i \beta})~~~,
184: \eeq
185: where one denotes $\delta_t \equiv \delta^P_t - \delta^T_t$.
186: \bigskip
187:
188: \leftline{\bf C. Equivalence of the two conventions}
189: \medskip
190:
191: It is obvious that the $c$ and $t$ conventions are equivalent. However, since
192: in general they imply different tree and penguin amplitudes, an assumption
193: about the tree amplitude in one convention is not equivalent to the same
194: assumption in the other convention. On the other hand, as we will show now,
195: the penguin amplitudes in the two conventions are equal, up to a trivial CKM
196: factor. Let us write the amplitude for $B^0\to\pi^+\pi^-$ in a most general
197: form in terms of the three CKM factors and corresponding three hadronic weak
198: amplitudes $A_i~(i = u, c, t)$ involving strong phases:
199: \beq
200: A(B^0\to \pi^+\pi^-) = V^*_{ub}V_{ud} A_u + V^*_{cb}V_{cd} A_c
201: + V^*_{tb}V_{td} A_t~~.
202: \eeq
203: Using unitarity, this can be written in the $c$ and $t$ conventions
204: as
205: \bea\label{c}
206: A(B^0 \to \pi^+\pi^-) &=& V^*_{ub}V_{ud} (A_u - A_t) + V^*_{cb}V_{cd} (A_c
207: -A_t)\\
208: \label{t}
209: &=& V^*_{ub}V_{ud} (A_u - A_c) + V^*_{tb}V_{td} (A_t
210: -A_c)~~.
211: \eea
212:
213: Comparing the second terms in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Bppc}) and (\ref{eqn:Bppt})
214: with the corresponding terms in Eqs.~(\ref{c}) and
215: (\ref{t}), one finds a simple relation between the two penguin amplitudes:
216: \beq\label{PtPc}
217: \frac{|P_t|}{|P_c|} = \frac{| V^*_{tb}V_{td}|}{|V^*_{cb}V_{cd}|} =
218: \frac{\sin\gamma}{\sin\alpha}~~,~~~~\delta^P_t = \delta^P_c~~.
219: \eeq
220: Namely, the penguin amplitudes in the two conventions involve a common
221: hadronic matrix element $A_t - A_c$ but different CKM factors.
222:
223: On the other hand, the relation between tree amplitudes in the
224: two conventions is more complicated. It can be obtained by subtracting the
225: first terms in Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:Bppc}) and (\ref{eqn:Bppt}) from each other
226: and comparing with Eq.~(\ref{c}) or (\ref{t}), in which the corresponding
227: difference is proportional to the penguin amplitudes, $A_t - A_c$,
228: \beq
229: |T_t|e^{-i\delta_t} - |T_c|e^{-i\delta_c} = \frac{|V^*_{ub}V_{ud}|}
230: {|V^*_{tb}V_{td}|} |P_t| = \frac{\sin\beta}{\sin\gamma} |P_t|
231: = \frac{\sin\beta}{\sin\alpha} |P_c|~~.
232: \eeq
233: As a consequence of these relations, one has a ``dictionary'' relating
234: the two conventions, with
235: \beq
236: |P_t| \sin \alpha = |P_c| \sin \gamma~~,~~~
237: |T_t| \sin \delta_t = |T_c| \sin \delta_c~~~,
238: \eeq
239: \beq
240: X_t \cos \delta_t \sin \gamma - X_c \cos \delta_c \sin \alpha = \sin \beta~~~,
241: \eeq
242: where we have defined $X_c \equiv |T_c/P_c|, X_t \equiv |T_t/P_t|$.
243: One consequence of these relations is
244: \beq \label{eqn:dct}
245: \cot \delta_t = \cot \delta_c + \frac{\sin \beta}{X_c \sin \alpha \sin
246: \delta_c}~~~,
247: \eeq
248: which we shall use when relating $\delta_t$ to $\delta_c$.
249:
250: \section{Measurables in terms of weak and strong phases}
251:
252: In the present section we derive expressions for the two CP asymmetries
253: in $\bo(t) \to \pi^+\pi^-$, $\spp$ and $\cpp$, in terms of a strong and a weak
254: phase. For completeness, expressions are given in the two equivalent
255: conventions, which imply identical constraints on $\alpha$. These
256: constraints do not require knowledge of the tree/penguin ratio. Information
257: about this ratio, which could resolve a certain discrete ambiguity in these
258: constraints, can be more useful in one convention than in the other.
259: This question is discussed in Section V.
260:
261: The time-dependent rate of an initially produced $B^0$ decaying to $\pi^+
262: \pi^-$ at time $t$ is given by \cite{MG}
263: \beq
264: \Gamma(B^0(t)\to\pi^+\pi^-) \propto e^{-\Gamma_d t}\left [1 + C_{\pi\pi}
265: \cos\Delta(m_d t) - S_{\pi\pi}\sin(\Delta m_d t)\right ]~~.
266: \eeq
267: The coefficients of $\sin \Delta m_d t$ and $\cos \Delta m_d t$, measured in
268: time-dependent CP asymmetries of $\pi^+ \pi^-$ states produced in asymmetric
269: $e^+ e^-$ collisions at the $\Upsilon(4S)$, are
270: \beq \label{eqn:CSpipi}
271: \spp \equiv \frac{2 {\rm Im}(\lpp)}{1 + |\lpp| ^2}~~,~~~
272: \cpp \equiv \frac{1 - |\lpp|^2}{1 + |\lpp|^2}~~~,
273: \eeq
274: where
275: \beq
276: \lpp \equiv e^{-2i \beta} \frac{A(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}
277: {A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}~~~.
278: \eeq
279:
280: The extraction of phases from data on $\spp$ and $\cpp$ now proceeds in
281: the following manner. As in Ref.\ \cite{GR02}, we define the charge-averaged
282: branching ratio,
283: \beq
284: \bbpp \equiv
285: [{\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) + {\cal B}(\ob \to \pi^+ \pi^-)]/2~~~.
286: \eeq
287: We use the convention
288: \beq\label{B0}
289: {\cal B}(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = |A(\bo \to \pi^+\pi^-)|^2
290: |\vec p_{\pi\pi}|\tau_0~~~,
291: \eeq
292: where $|\vec p_{\pi\pi}|$ is the pion center-of-mass momentum and $\tau_0$
293: is the $\bo$ lifetime.
294:
295: However, in contrast to the approach of Ref.\ \cite{GR02}, we no longer
296: normalize this branching ratio with respect to the corresponding tree value,
297: which is convention-dependent. Instead, we normalize all amplitudes by the
298: penguin amplitude $P_c$ or $P_t$, which we have shown to be
299: convention-independent, up to a CKM factor.
300:
301: Using broken flavor SU(3) \cite{SU3br} and factorization, the magnitude of the
302: penguin amplitude is obtained from the $|\Delta S| = 1$ penguin amplitude $P'$
303: which dominates the decay $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$ \cite{GHLR}. That is, our
304: approach relies on neglecting both rescattering effects in $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$
305: and nonfactorizable contributions in penguin amplitudes.
306: Several ways of testing the first assumption were discussed in \cite{rescat}.
307: We note that this assumption is also made in two detailed theoretical
308: schemes for calculating weak hadronic matrix elements \cite{BBNS,KLS}.
309: In the first scheme \cite{BBNS} factorization of penguin amplitudes is assumed
310: to hold to a good approximation and strong phases are small. In the second
311: framework \cite{KLS} nonfactorizable terms in penguin amplitudes are strongly
312: suppressed, but strong phases are sizable. Thus, while it may seem natural to
313: combine the assumption of factorization of penguin amplitudes with small
314: strong phases, we will not rely on the latter assumption.
315:
316: Within the above assumptions, one obtains for the penguin amplitude $|P_i|~
317: (i = c, t$) an expression in terms of measurable quantities,
318: \beq\label{Pi}
319: |P_i| = \frac{f_{\pi}}{f_K}\left | \frac{V^*_{ib}V_{id}}{V^*_{ib}V_{is}}
320: \right | |P'|~~,~~~|P'| = |A(B^+ \to K^0\pi^+)|~~.
321: \eeq
322: Here we use a convention similar to Eq.~(\ref{B0})
323: \beq\label{B+}
324: {\cal B}(B^+\to K^0\pi^+) \equiv |A(B^+ \to K^0\pi^+)|^2
325: |\vec p_{K\pi}|\tau_+~~~,
326: \eeq
327: where $|\vec p_{K\pi}|$ is the $\pi$ or $K$ center-of-mass momentum
328: and $\tau_+$ is the $B^+$ lifetime.
329:
330: Applying Eqs.~(\ref{B0}), (\ref{Pi}) and (\ref{B+}), one finds for the
331: normalized rates \cite{JC2}
332: \bea\label{eqn:bi}
333: b_i & \equiv &
334: \frac{|A(\bo \to \pi^+\pi^-)|^2 + |A(\ob \to \pi^+\pi^-)|^2}{2|P_i|^2}
335: \nonumber \\
336: & = & \frac{\bbpp}{{\cal B}(B^+ \to \ko \pi^+)}
337: \left |\frac{V^*_{ib}V_{is}}{V^*_{ib}V_{id}}\right |^2 \frac{f^2_K}{f^2_{\pi}}
338: \frac{|\vec p_{K\pi}|}{|\vec p_{\pi\pi}|} \frac{\tau_+}{\tau_0}~~.
339: \eea
340: The three measurables, $\spp,~\cpp$ and $\bbpp/{\cal B}(B^+\to K^0\pi^+)$ can
341: then be
342: expressed in terms of the three parameters $X_i,~\delta_i$ and a weak phase.
343: We now display these expressions for the two mentioned conventions.
344: \bigskip
345:
346: \leftline{\bf A. $c$ convention}
347: \medskip
348:
349: In this convention one has
350: \beq\label{Pc}
351: |P_c| = \frac{f_\pi}{f_K} \left| \frac{V^*_{cb} V_{cd}}{V^*_{cb} V_{cs}}
352: \right| |P'| = \frac{f_\pi}{f_K}\frac{\lambda}{1 - \frac{\lambda^2}{2}}
353: |A(B^+\to K^0\pi^+)|~~~,
354: \eeq
355: where $\lambda = 0.22$ is the parameter describing the hierarchy of CKM
356: elements \cite{WP}. Then, noting the
357: weak and strong phases of $T_c$ and $P_c$, and substituting $\alpha = \pi -
358: \beta - \gamma$ when convenient, we have
359: \beq
360: \lpp = e^{2 i \alpha} \left( \frac{X_c + e^{i \delta_c}
361: e^{i \gamma}}{X_c + e^{i \delta_c} e^{-i \gamma}} \right)~~~,
362: \eeq
363: \beq \label{eqn:bpc}
364: b_c = X_c^2 + 2 X_c \cos \delta_c \cos \gamma + 1~~~,
365: \eeq
366: \beq \label{eqn:sppc}
367: b_c \spp = X_c^2 \sin 2 \alpha + 2 X_c \cos \delta_c \sin(\beta -
368: \alpha) - \sin 2 \beta~~~,
369: \eeq
370: \beq \label{eqn:cppc}
371: b_c \cpp = 2 X_c \sin \delta_c \sin \gamma~~~.
372: \eeq
373: One can use Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bpc}) to eliminate $X_c$ using the experimental
374: values of $b_c$. Since $b_c$ is a number significantly greater than 1 [see
375: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:ratio}) below], only one solution of the quadratic equation is
376: relevant, and one finds
377: \beq\label{Xc}
378: X_c = - \cos \delta_c \cos \gamma + \sqrt{(\cos \delta_c \cos \gamma)^2
379: + b_c - 1}~~~.
380: \eeq
381: This value can then be substituted into the equations (\ref{eqn:sppc}) and
382: (\ref{eqn:cppc}) for $\spp$ and $\cpp$ and the resulting values plotted
383: against one another, e.g., as curves for specific values of $\alpha$
384: parametrized by $\delta_c$. We shall exhibit such curves in the next
385: Section.
386: \bigskip
387:
388: \leftline{\bf B. $t$ convention}
389: \medskip
390:
391: In the $t$ convention, one has
392: \beq
393: |P_t| = \frac{f_\pi}{f_K} \left| \frac{V^*_{tb} V_{td}}{V^*_{tb} V_{ts}}
394: \right| |P'| = \left| \frac{\sin \gamma}{\sin \alpha} \right| |P_c|
395: ~~~~\Rightarrow ~~~~b_t = b_c\left (\frac{\sin\alpha}{\sin\gamma}
396: \right )^2~~~,
397: \eeq
398: \beq
399: \lpp = \frac{X_t e^{i \alpha} - e^{i \delta_t}}{X_t e^{-i \alpha}
400: - e^{i \delta_t}}~~~,
401: \eeq
402: \beq \label{eqn:bpt}
403: b_t = X_t^2 - 2 X_t \cos \delta_t \cos \alpha + 1~~~,
404: \eeq
405: \beq\label{btspp}
406: b_t \spp = X_t^2 \sin 2 \alpha - 2 X_t \cos \delta_t \sin \alpha ~~~,
407: \eeq
408: \beq
409: b_t \cpp = 2 X_t \sin \delta_t \sin \alpha~~~.
410: \eeq
411: In solving Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bpt}) for $X_t$ one again takes the positive
412: square root:
413: \beq\label{Xt}
414: X_t = \cos \delta_t \cos \alpha + \sqrt{(\cos \delta_t \cos \alpha)^2
415: + b_t - 1}~~~.
416: \eeq
417: Here it is convenient to use the relation $b_t = b_c (\sin \alpha / \sin
418: \gamma)^2$ since $b_c$ is most directly related to an experimental input.
419:
420: Again, one may substitute the value of $X_t$ into the equations for
421: $\spp$ and $\cpp$ and plot them against one another. Moreover, in
422: this convention one may also eliminate both $X_t$ and $\delta_t$, thereby
423: obtaining an equation for $\alpha$ alone in terms of measurable quantities:
424: \bea\label{alphaEq}
425: b_t \spp &=& \frac{1}{2}\sin 4\alpha + (b_t - 1)
426: \sin 2\alpha
427: \nonumber \\
428: & \pm & \cos 2\alpha \sqrt{\sin^2 2\alpha + 4(b_t - 1) \sin^2\alpha -
429: (b_t \cpp)^2}~~.
430: \eea
431: This equation is derived in an analogous manner to one obtained recently
432: for the phase $\gamma$ in terms of measurables in $B_s(t) \to K^+K^-$ and
433: $B_s \to \ko \ok$ \cite{BsKK}.
434: \bigskip
435:
436: \leftline{\bf C. Experimental inputs}
437: \medskip
438:
439: The most recent measurements of $\spp$ and $\cpp$ \cite{CSBa,bCSBe}, together
440: with our average of them, are shown in Table \ref{tab:cs}.
441: (We have corrected the BaBar entry for $\spp$ misquoted by us in Ref.\
442: \cite{GR02}.)
443:
444: % This is Table I
445: \begin{table}
446: \caption{Values of $\spp$ and $\cpp$ from Refs.\ \cite{CSBa,bCSBe} and their
447: averages. \label{tab:cs}}
448: \begin{center}
449: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
450: Collab. & $\spp$ & $\cpp$ \\ \hline
451: BaBar & $-0.01 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.07$ & $-0.02 \pm 0.29 \pm 0.07$ \\
452: Belle & $-1.21^{+0.38+0.16}_{-0.27-0.13}$ &
453: $-0.94^{+0.31}_{-0.25} \pm 0.09$ \\
454: Average & $-0.64 \pm 0.26$ & $-0.49 \pm 0.21$ \\ \hline \hline
455: \end{tabular}
456: \end{center}
457: \end{table}
458:
459: The present world averages of $\bbpp$ and ${\cal B}(B^+\to K^0\pi^+)$,
460: combining measurements from the CLEO, Belle and BaBar collaborations,
461: are \cite{RB}
462: \beq
463: \bbpp = (5.2 \pm 0.6) \times 10^{-6}~~,~~~~~~~~
464: {\cal B}(B^+ \to K^0\pi^+) = (17.9 \pm 1.7) \times 10^{-6}~~~.
465: \eeq
466: Adding errors in quadrature, using $f_\pi = 130.7$ MeV, $f_K = 159.8$ MeV and
467: $\tau_+/\tau_0 = 1.068 \pm 0.016$ \cite{lifetime},
468: we find for the normalized rate in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:bi})
469: \beq \label{eqn:ratio}
470: b_c = 9.04 \pm 1.36~~~.
471: \eeq
472:
473: \section{CP-violating asymmetries}
474:
475: For a given value of $b_c$, Eqs.~(\ref{eqn:sppc})--(\ref{Xc}) [or %equivalently
476: Eqs.~(\ref{btspp})-(\ref{Xt})] can be used to plot $\spp$ and $\cpp$ as
477: functions of $\alpha$ and $\delta_c$ (or $\delta_t$). The values of $\spp$ and
478: $\cpp$ for the central and $\pm 1 \sigma$ values of the ratio $b_c$ in
479: (\ref{eqn:ratio}), and for values of $\alpha$ mostly lying within
480: the physical range \cite{Beneke} $\alpha = (97^{+30}_{-21})^\circ$, are plotted
481: in Fig.\ \ref{fig:cspd}. (For other values of $\alpha$ see, e.g., Ref.\
482: \cite{GR02}.) We use $\beta = 26^\circ$ based on the most recent average
483: $\sin 2 \beta = 0.78 \pm 0.08$ of Belle \cite{bCSBe} and BaBar \cite{betaBa}
484: values; the $\pm 4^\circ$ error on $\beta$ has little effect \cite{GR02}.
485: The large plotted point corresponds to the average in Table \ref{tab:cs}.
486: As expected, the curves are identical in the two conventions. The existence
487: of two
488: solutions for $\spp$, for given values of $b_c, \alpha$ and $\cpp$, can be
489: easily understood. This follows from the $\pm$ sign in Eq.~(\ref{alphaEq}).
490:
491: % This is Figure 1
492: \begin{figure}
493: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=7.5in]{cspd.ps}}
494: \caption{Plots of $|C_{\pi \pi}|$ versus $S_{\pi \pi}$ for various values
495: of $b_c$. Top panel: $b_c = 7.7$. Middle
496: panel: $b_c = 9.0$. Bottom panel: $b_c =
497: 10.4$. Curves correspond, from left to right, to values of $\alpha$
498: in $10^\circ$ steps ranging from $120^\circ$ to $60^\circ$. The value
499: $\beta = 26^\circ$ has been chosen. Large plotted point corresponds
500: to present average of BaBar and Belle data (see text). Small plotted points:
501: $\delta_c = \delta_t = 0$ (diamonds), $\delta_c = \delta_t = \pi$ (squares),
502: $\delta_c = \pi/2$ (crosses), $\delta_t = \pi/2$ (fancy + signs).
503: \label{fig:cspd}}
504: \end{figure}
505:
506: For strong phases $\delta_c$ or $\delta_t$ of 0 or $\pi$, the
507: predictions for $\spp$ and $\cpp$ depend only on $b_c$ and
508: $\alpha$. These points are marked with diamonds and squares, respectively.
509: A strong phase of $\pi$ would signify a relative sign of tree and penguin
510: amplitudes opposite to that obtained from factorization.
511: Such a phase is strongly disfavored relative to a zero phase.
512: For non-zero strong phases, the curves are identical in the two
513: conventions, but points on them correspond to different values of $\delta_c$
514: and $\delta_t$. Examples are shown for $\delta_c = \pi/2$ (crosses) and
515: $\delta_t = \pi/2$ (fancy $+$ signs).
516:
517: If $\cpp$ is indeed small, as suggested by the BaBar data \cite{CSBa}, $\alpha$
518: can be uncertain by as much as about $30^\circ$, depending on whether the
519: strong phase is near $0$ or $\pi$. This is seen in Fig.~1, where for $b_c=7.7$
520: the curves for $\alpha = 90^\circ$ and $\alpha = 120^\circ$ intersect near the
521: horizontal axis. In that case, additional theoretical input \cite{BBNS,KLS}
522: on strong phases can help resolve the ambiguity. Theoretically,
523: it is much more likely that the strong phase is near 0 than near $\pi$.
524: If the central value of $\cpp$ remains as large as suggested by the
525: present experimental average, the discrete ambiguity becomes less of a problem.
526: Nonetheless, as one can see from neighboring curves,
527: even a very tiny error ellipse in the $(\spp,\cpp)$ plane will not be able
528: to resolve values of $\alpha$ differing by $10^\circ$. This is a necessary
529: price for giving up prior information on the tree/penguin ratio.
530:
531: The values of $\delta_c$ and $\delta_t$ do not differ very much from one
532: another. When they are close to $\pi/2$, their difference is close to
533: maximal, but rarely exceeds $10^\circ$, as shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:ddict}.
534: We used Eq.~(\ref{eqn:dct}) in making these plots.
535:
536: % This is Figure 2
537: \begin{figure}
538: \centerline{\includegraphics[height=6.2in]{ddict.ps}}
539: \caption{Relations between $\delta_c$ and $\delta_t$ for various values
540: of $\alpha$ and $b_c$.
541: \label{fig:ddict}}
542: \end{figure}
543:
544: We have assumed factorization in obtaining the penguin amplitude. Any deviation
545: from factorization would result in a corrected value for $b_c$, for which we
546: have taken a 15\% error arising from experimental errors in branching ratios.
547: This would be equivalent to correcting the SU(3) breaking factor $f_K/f_\pi$ in
548: Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:bi}) by 7.5\%. That is, even assuming perfect measurements of
549: $\bbpp$ and ${\cal B}(B^+ \to \ko \pi^+)$, an irreducible uncertainty would
550: be associated with the assumption of factorization for penguin amplitudes.
551: If this uncertainty were 7.5\%, we would obtain for perfect branching ratio
552: measurements the range of possibilities shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig:cspd}.
553:
554: Let us assume that this 7.5\% is a reasonable estimate of the intrinsic
555: possible deviation from factorization. By comparing the three panels of Fig.\
556: \ref{fig:cspd}, one sees that if $\cpp$ is near its maximum, then $\spp$
557: is not very sensitive to the value of $b_c$ (and hence to the factorization
558: assumption), while if $\cpp$ is near zero, a given value of $\spp$ corresponds
559: to values of $\alpha$ differing by only a few degrees depending on the
560: value of $b_c$ (aside from the much-more-serious discrete ambiguity mentioned
561: earlier). In either case, the factorization assumption is not the source
562: of the limiting error on $\alpha$.
563:
564: \section{Defining and using a tree/penguin ratio}
565:
566: Although we have shown that one does not need to know the tree/penguin
567: ratio in order to extract useful information from $\bbpp$, $\spp$,
568: and $\cpp$, the error on $\alpha$ and the strong phase $\delta_c$ or
569: $\delta_t$ can be further reduced if one has some information on
570: $X_c$ or $X_t$. In the present section we first give an example of how
571: improved information would help, and then discuss the more difficult
572: questions of which parameter ($X_c$ or $X_t$) is capable of being specified
573: more precisely and how one would go about doing so.
574:
575: Let us take as an example an ambiguity associated with curves for $\alpha
576: = 90^\circ$ and $110^\circ$ which intersect for the central value of
577: $b_c = 9.0$ around $\spp = -0.4$ and $|\cpp| = 0.4$.
578: These correspond to different values of $X_c$ or $X_t$, as illustrated in
579: Table \ref{tab:comp}. We also show two different values of $\alpha$
580: ($90^\circ$ and $119^\circ$) giving rise to the same values of $\spp$
581: for $\cpp = 0$.
582:
583: % This is Table II
584: \begin{table}
585: \caption{Comparison of $X_c$ and $X_t$ values for pairs of $\alpha$ values
586: giving the same $\spp$ and $\cpp$. Here we have taken $b_c = 9.04$.
587: \label{tab:comp}}
588: \begin{center}
589: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
590: $\alpha$ & $\spp$ & $|\cpp|$ & $X_c$ & $\delta_c$ & $X_t$ & $\delta_t$ \\
591: \hline
592: $90^\circ$ & $-0.41$ & 0.40 & 2.6 & $51^\circ$ & 3.2 & $44^\circ$ \\
593: $110^\circ$ & $-0.41$ & 0.40 & 3.3 & $129^\circ$ & 4.1 & $122^\circ$ \\
594: \hline
595: $90^\circ$ & $-0.57$ & 0.0 & 2.4 & $0^\circ$ & 3.2 & $0^\circ$ \\
596: $119^\circ$ & $-0.57$ & 0.0 & 3.8 & $180^\circ$ & 4.9 & $180^\circ$ \\
597: \hline \hline
598: \end{tabular}
599: \end{center}
600: \end{table}
601:
602: From these examples, one sees that specification of $X_c$ or $X_t$ with an
603: error of $\pm 0.3$ would permit resolution of the ambiguity. In Ref.
604: \cite{GR02} we employed an estimate $X_c \simeq 3.6$ with about a 25\%
605: error. Reduction of this error to about $\pm 10\%$ is needed in order to
606: have a significant impact on resolving the ambiguity exhibited in
607: Table \ref{tab:comp}. Is such accuracy achievable?
608:
609: Our estimate of $b_c$ involves a 15\% error which consists of slightly less
610: than 10\% due to that in ${\cal B}(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)$, and slightly more than
611: 10\% due to that in $\bbpp$, added in quadrature. Clearly these errors will
612: shrink with improved statistics. However, the determination of $|T_c|$
613: from $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ using factorization is problematic
614: since $T_c \sim A_u - A_t$ [Eq.\ (4)] contains the short-distance
615: penguin contribution involving the top quark loop. It might seem more
616: reliable to estimate $T_t \sim A_u - A_c$ [Eq.\ (5)] using factorization
617: since its penguin contribution does not contain a large logarithm of $m_t$.
618: This is in fact the method advocated in Ref.\ \cite{LRpipi}, in which a
619: determination of $T_t$ with an accuracy of less than 6\% was deemed feasible
620: with about 500 $B \to \pi l \nu$ events. A corresponding accuracy for
621: $|P_t|$ would require improved accuracy for ${\cal B}(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+)$
622: (which gives $|P_c|$, not $|P_t|$) and then using the relation (\ref{PtPc}),
623: $|P_t| = |P_c| \sin \gamma/ \sin \alpha$.
624:
625: A potential problem with determining $T_t$ using
626: factorization is that while its contamination from the short-distance
627: penguin amplitude is less than that in $T_c$, there is no corresponding
628: guarantee for {\it long-distance} penguin contributions such as might be
629: introduced by rescattering from tree amplitudes, for example
630: via $B^0 \to D^{(*)+} D^{(*)-} \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. Other processes, such as
631: $B^0 \to K^+ K^-$, are expected to proceed {\it mainly} via rescattering or
632: else, if rescattering is unimportant, to be highly suppressed \cite{rescat}.
633: Present bounds on this last process are quite stringent
634: \cite{KKlim}:
635: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to K^+ K^-) \le 0.5 \times 10^{-6}$. It may be that one
636: must rely on theoretical treatments of factorization (e.g., \cite{BBNS})
637: in order to specify $|T_t|$ (or perhaps $|T_c|$) more precisely.
638:
639: \section{Experimental prospects and conclusions}
640:
641: We have shown that one can obtain useful information on weak and strong
642: phases by studying the observables in $B^0(t) \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ without
643: having to define in advance the ratio of tree and penguin amplitudes,
644: and in a manner which is independent of the convention adopted for the
645: penguin amplitudes. These observables consist of the flavor-averaged
646: branching ratio $\bbpp$ normalized by ${\cal B}(B^+ \to \ko \pi^+)$
647: and the quantities $\spp$ and $\cpp$ measured in
648: time-dependent asymmetries. We consider only information based on the
649: magnitude of $\cpp$; its sign determines the sign of the strong phase shift.
650:
651: The degree of information obtainable without auxiliary tree/penguin
652: information can be estimated from the curves in Figure 1 and depends on
653: whether $|\cpp|$ is near its maximum value (the envelope of the curves)
654: or zero. If $|\cpp| \simeq 0$, important discrete ambiguities in $\alpha$
655: exist, amounting to up to about $30^\circ$, which must be resolved using
656: additional information on the tree/penguin ratio or on the strong phase. If
657: $|\cpp|$ is near its maximum, the error on $\alpha$ appears to depend
658: roughly on the square root of the error in $|\cpp|$, as one can see by
659: measuring how far from the envelope of the curves the intersection point
660: of two curves for different $\alpha$ values lies. Thus, two curves for
661: $\alpha$ differing by $(10,20,30)^\circ$ intersect at points about $(0.04,%
662: 0.08,0.18)$ below the envelope along the $|\cpp|$ axis. To take one example,
663: if one wants to distinguish between two curves for $\alpha$ differing by
664: $20^\circ$ (as in the example of Table \ref{tab:comp}), one should be
665: prepared to measure $|\cpp|$ with an error of no more than $\pm 0.08$, which
666: is about 2.6 times less than the present error of $\pm 0.21$. One thus
667: would need $(2.6)^2$ times the data sample ($\simeq 100$ fb$^{-1}$) on which
668: Table \ref{tab:cs} was based, or about 700 fb$^{-1}$ from the total of
669: BaBar and Belle. This appears to be within the goals of the experiments.
670: Errors on $\spp$ in such a sample should be sufficiently small that they
671: will not play a major role in the errors in $\alpha$.
672:
673: \section*{Acknowledgments}
674:
675: M. G. wishes to thank The Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago
676: for its kind hospitality. We thank A. H\"ocker for asking the question which
677: led to this investigation, H. Jawahery for a communication regarding data,
678: and H. N. Li, S. Olsen and L. Wolfenstein for helpful discussions.
679: This work was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy
680: through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560, by the Israel Science Foundation founded
681: by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and by the US - Israel
682: Binational Science Foundation through Grant No. 98-00237.
683:
684: % Journal definitions
685: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
686: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
687: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
688: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
689: \def \art{and references therein}
690: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
691: \def \cn{Collaboration}
692: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
693: Singapore, 1989)}
694: \def \econf#1#2#3{Electronic Conference Proceedings {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
695: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.}
696: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
697: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
698: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
699: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
700: Batavia, IL, 1979}
701: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
702: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
703: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol. 3) (North-Holland,
704: Amsterdam, 1988)}
705: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
706: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
707: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
708: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
709: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
710: IL, 1972)}
711: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
712: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
713: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
714: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
715: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
716: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14, 1999,
717: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
718: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
719: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
720: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
721: 1987)}
722: \def \kaon{{\it Kaon Physics}, edited by J. L. Rosner and B. Winstein,
723: %U |
724: University of Chicago Press, 2001}
725: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1}, No.\
726: #2 (#3)}
727: \def \ky{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
728: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
729: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
730: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
731: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
732: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
733: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
734: \def \npb#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
735: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
736: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
737: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
738: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
739: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
740: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
741: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
742: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
743: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
744: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
745: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
746: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
747: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
748: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
749: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
750: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
751: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
752: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
753: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
754: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
755: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
756: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
757: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
758: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
759: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
760: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
761: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
762: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass,
763: Colorado),
764: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
765: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
766: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
767: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
768: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
769: \def \TASI{{\it TASI-2000: Flavor Physics for the Millennium}, edited by J. L.
770: Rosner (World Scientific, 2001)}
771: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
772: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
773: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
774: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
775: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
776: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
777:
778: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
779:
780: \bibitem{CSBa} BaBar \cn, presented by A. Farbin at XXXVIIth Rencontres de
781: Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France,
782: March 9--16, 2002; B. Aubert \ite, SLAC preprint SLAC-PUB-9229,
783: hep-ex/0205082 (unpublished).
784:
785: \bibitem{bCSBe} Belle \cn, presented by K. Trabelsi at XXXVIIth Rencontres de
786: Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France,
787: March 9--16, 2002; K. Abe \ite, Belle preprint 2002-8, hep-ex/0204002,
788: submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ Letters.
789:
790: \bibitem{GR02} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{093012}{2002}.
791:
792: \bibitem{GR01} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{013004}{2002}.
793:
794: \bibitem{PT} For several earlier theoretical studies, combining information
795: from CP asymmetries in $\bo \to \pi^+\pi^-$ with $B \to K\pi$ decays,
796: see J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{R1151}{1994};
797: M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{76}{1200}{1996};
798: A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{54}{3309}{1996};
799: J. Charles, \prd{59}{054007}{1999}; R. Fleischer, \epjc{16}{87}{2000}.
800:
801: \bibitem{FlMat} For two very recent discussions, see R. Fleischer and
802: J. Matias, hep-ph/0204101; C. D. L\"u and Z. Xiao, hep-ph/0205134.
803:
804: \bibitem{BF} A. J. Buras and R. Fleischer, \plb{341}{379}{1995}.
805:
806: \bibitem{CP} G. S. Branco, L. Lavoura and J. P. Silva, {\it CP Violation}
807: (Oxford Science Publications, 1999), p. 404.
808:
809: \bibitem{LSS} D. London, N. Sinha and R. Sinha, \prd{60}{074020}{1999}.
810:
811: \bibitem{DL} A. Datta and D. London, Univ.\ of Montreal preprint
812: UdeM-GPP-TH-02-97, hep-ph/0205282, presented by D. London at {\it Flavor
813: Physics and CP Violation (FPCP)}, Philadelphia, PA, 2002.
814:
815: \bibitem{JC} J. Charles \cite{PT}. For earlier suggestions, using also
816: information from $\bo \to K^+\pi^-$, see M. Gronau and
817: J. L. Rosner \cite{PT}; A. S. Dighe, M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner \cite{PT}.
818:
819: \bibitem{WP} L. Wolfenstein, \prl{51}{1945}{1983}.
820:
821: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
822:
823: \bibitem{SW} D. London and R. D. Peccei, \plb{223}{257}{1989};
824: M. Gronau, \plb{300}{163}{1993}; M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez,
825: D. London, and J. L. Rosner, \plb{333}{500}{1994};
826: J. P. Silva and L. Wolfenstein, \prd{49}{R1151}{1994}.
827:
828: \bibitem{LRpipi} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{054027}{2002}.
829:
830: \bibitem{MG} M. Gronau, \prl{63}{1451}{1989}.
831:
832: \bibitem{SU3br} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
833: \prd{52}{6356}{1995}.
834:
835: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
836: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}; \prd{52}{6374}{1995}.
837:
838: \bibitem{rescat} B. Blok, M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prl{78}{3999}{1997};
839: {\bf 79}, 1167 (1997); M. Neubert, \plb{424}{152}{1998}; A. J. Buras,
840: R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, \npb{533}{3}{1998}; A. F. Falk, A. L. Kagan,
841: Y. Nir and A. A. Petrov, \prd{57}{4290}{1998}; M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner,
842: \prd{57}{6843}{1998}; D {\bf 58}, 113005 (1998); A. Soni and D. Atwood,
843: \prd{58}{036005}{1998}; J. M. G\'erard and J. Weyers, \epjc{7}{1}{1999}.
844:
845: \bibitem{BBNS} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda,
846: \npb{606}{245}{2001}.
847:
848: \bibitem{KLS} Y. Y. Keum, H. N. Li and A. I. Sanda, \plb{504}{6}{2001}.
849:
850: \bibitem{JC2} A ratio similar to $b_c$, denoted by Charles \cite{PT} as
851: $1/R_P$, did not contain the last three factors in the second line and
852: assumed $|V_{cs}|^2 =1$.
853:
854: \bibitem{lifetime}
855: K.~Osterberg, talk presented at the International European Conference on
856: High-Energy Physics, Budapest, Hungary, 12--18 July 2001, to appear in the
857: Proceedings.
858:
859: \bibitem{BsKK} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, hep-ph/0203158, to be published in
860: Phys. Rev. D.
861:
862: \bibitem{RB} R. Bartoldus, ``Review of Rare Two-Body $B$ Decays,'' talk at
863: FPCP (Conference on Flavor Physics and CP Violation), Philadelphia, PA,
864: 2002.
865:
866: \bibitem{Beneke} M. Beneke, RWTH Aachen preprint PITHA 02/03,
867: hep-ph/0201337, talk presented at the International Europhysics
868: Conference on High Energy Physics, Budapest, July 2001, published in
869: {\it High Energy Physics 2001: Proceedings}, edited by D. Horvath, P. Levai,
870: and A. Patkos (JHEP, 2001), p.\ 294.
871:
872: \bibitem{betaBa} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, SLAC Report No.\ SLAC-PUB-9153,
873: hep-ex/0203007 (unpublished).
874:
875: \bibitem{KKlim} Belle \cn, presented by H. C. Huang at XXXVIIth Rencontres de
876: Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France,
877: March 9--16, 2002, preprint hep-ex/0205062 (unpublished).
878: \end{thebibliography}
879: \end{document}
880: #!/bin/csh -f
881: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
882: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
883: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
884: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., pcf.uu
885: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
886: # then say csh pcf.uu
887: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
888: # uudecode pcf.uu ; uncompress pcf.tar.Z ;
889: # tar -xvf pcf.tar
890: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
891: # filename in "begin" line below to pcf.tar_Z , then execute
892: # uudecode pcf.uu
893: # compress -d pcf.tar_Z
894: # tar -xvf pcf.tar
895: #
896: uudecode $0
897: chmod 644 pcf.tar.Z
898: zcat pcf.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
899: rm $0 pcf.tar.Z
900: exit
901:
902: