1: % Note on use of B -> Ds Pi to determine tree amplitude
2: \documentclass[aps,prd,preprint,floats,superscriptaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6:
7: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
8: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
9: \def \bo{B^0}
10: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
11: \def \dz{D^0}
12: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
13: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
14: \def \epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
15: \def \hp{\hat{p}}
16: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
17: \def \ko{K^0}
18: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
19: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
20: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
21: \def \ds{D_s}
22: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
23: \def \ot{\overline{t}}
24: \def \pr{\parallel}
25: \def \ras{\rho_{A_1}^2}
26: \def \rfas{\rho_{F_A}^2}
27: \def \rfvs{\rho_{F_V}^2}
28: \def \rs{\rho^2}
29: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
30: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
31: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
32: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
33:
34: %\topmargin 0in
35: %
36:
37: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
38: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
39:
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44: \preprint{ANL-HEP-PR-02-037, EFI-02-83, hep-ph/0206006}
45: \preprint{June 2002}
46:
47: \title{$B \to D_s \pi$ and the tree amplitude in $B \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
48: \footnote{To be submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D (Brief Reports).}}
49:
50: \author{Cheng-Wei Chiang}
51: \email[e-mail: ]{chengwei@hep.uchicago.edu}
52: \affiliation{HEP Division, Argonne National Laboratory
53: 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439}
54: \affiliation{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
55: University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
56: \author{Zumin Luo}
57: \email[e-mail: ]{zuminluo@midway.uchicago.edu}
58: \affiliation{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
59: University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
60: \author{Jonathan L.\ Rosner}
61: \email[e-mail: ]{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}
62: \affiliation{Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics,
63: University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
64:
65: \date{\today}
66:
67: \begin{abstract}
68: The recently-observed decay $B^0 \to D_s^+ \pi^-$ is expected to proceed
69: mainly by means of a tree amplitude in the factorization limit: $B^0 \to \pi^-
70: {(W^+)}^*$, ${(W^+)}^* \to D_s^+$. Under this assumption, we predict the
71: corresponding contribution of the tree amplitude to $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. We
72: indicate the needed improvements in data that will allow a useful estimate of
73: this amplitude with errors comparable to those accompanying other methods.
74: Since the factorization hypothesis for this process goes beyond that proved in
75: most approaches, we also discuss independent tests of this hypothesis.
76: \end{abstract}
77:
78: \pacs{13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd, 11.30.Hv.}
79:
80: \maketitle
81:
82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
83:
84: %\section{Introduction}
85:
86: The two-body hadronic decay process $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ has been of great
87: interest for a long time in the search for CP violation in $B$ decays. Its
88: branching ratio, smaller than one typically estimates on the basis of
89: factorization and dominance of the tree-level amplitude $T$, may owe some
90: suppression to destructive interference between $T$ and the penguin amplitude
91: $P$ \cite{HHY,HSW,HY}. This interference could provide information on both the
92: weak phase $\alpha = \phi_2$ and the relative strong phase of the tree and
93: penguin amplitudes. Both quantities are helpful in testing the current picture
94: of CP violation based on phases in the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix.
95: However, to answer the question of tree-penguin interference in $B^0 \to \pi^+
96: \pi^-$ requires improved knowledge of $|T|$ and $|P|$. Since the tree
97: amplitude is the dominant contribution to $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, better
98: knowledge of its magnitude is a key step toward such an improvement.
99:
100: Within the factorization framework, if one simply takes form factor models and
101: computes the tree level amplitude of $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, a significant error
102: will be obtained because of the large uncertainties in the form factor at large
103: recoil, $F_0(q^2 \to 0)$, and in $|V_{ub}|$. Both of them have an error about
104: $\sim 25\%$, resulting in an error of more than $35\%$ on $|T|$.
105:
106: In this article, we use the newly measured mode $\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-$
107: \cite{Fabozzi:2002bv,Aubert} to estimate $\Gamma_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+
108: \pi^-)$. The uncertainty can be reduced because in the ratio of $\Gamma_{\rm
109: tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) / \Gamma(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-)$ the dominant error
110: comes from the weak decay constant of $D_s$. Within the next two years, the
111: CLEO-c program is expected to substantially improve the accuracy on various
112: charm sector parameter measurements, including $f_{D_s}$. Therefore, we
113: propose an alternative method to determine $T$ for the $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
114: decay. This method generally relies on a simple assumption about the pole
115: structure of the relevant $B \to \pi$ form factor to relate these two processes
116: at small and large recoil. The same method can be applied to determining $T_P$
117: for $B^0 \to \rho^+ \pi^-$, where the subscript $P$ indicates that the
118: spectator quark goes into a pseudoscalar meson in the final state.
119:
120: %\section{$\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-$ versus $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$}
121:
122: The $B \to \pi$ weak transition matrix element is conventionally parametrized
123: in the following way by two independent form factors:
124: %
125: \beq
126: \bra{\pi(p)} \bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}b \ket{B(p+q)} =
127: \left(2p+q-q\frac{m_B^2-m_{\pi}^2}{q^2}\right)_{\mu}F_+(q^2) +
128: q_{\mu}\frac{m_B^2-m_{\pi}^2}{q^2}F_0(q^2) .
129: \eeq
130: %
131:
132: % This is Figure 1
133: \begin{figure}%[ht]
134: \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{bdst.ps}
135: \caption{Feynman diagrams for tree decays of a $\bo$ meson to $\ds^+ \pi^-$ and
136: $\pi^+\pi^-$.
137: \label{fig:utrees}}
138: \end{figure}
139: %
140: Assuming factorization, the decay widths of $\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-$ and $\bo \to
141: \pi^+ \pi^-$(tree) decay (as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:utrees}) are given by:
142: %
143: \bea
144: \Gamma(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-)
145: & = & \frac{G_F^2}{32\pi}|V_{ub}^* V_{cs}|^2f_{D_s}^2
146: m_B\left(1-\frac{m_\pi^2}{m_B^2}\right)^2
147: \lambda(m_B^2,m_{D_s}^2,m_\pi^2) a_1^2 |F_0(m_{D_s}^2)|^2 ,
148: \label{dspi} \\
149: \Gamma_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)
150: & = & \frac{G_F^2}{32\pi}|V_{ub}^* V_{ud}|^2f_\pi^2
151: m_B\left(1-\frac{m_\pi^2}{m_B^2}\right)^2
152: \lambda(m_B^2,m_\pi^2,m_\pi^2) a_1^2 |F_0(m_\pi^2)|^2
153: \label{eqn:pipitree},
154: \eea
155: %
156: where $\lambda(a,b,c) \equiv \sqrt{a^2+b^2+c^2-2ab-2ac-2bc}$ and $a_1 \simeq 1$
157: is the Wilson coefficient. Note that only $F_0(q^2)$ contributes in these two
158: decay modes. To illustrate our method, we will use the form factor model
159: proposed in \cite{Becirevic:1999kt}, where $F_0(q^2)$ has the following single
160: pole structure:
161: %
162: \beq
163: F_0(q^2) = \frac{c_B(1-\alpha_B)}{1-q^2/(\beta_B m_{B^*}^2)} .
164: \eeq
165: %
166: A lattice calculation by Abada {\it et al} \cite{Abada:2000ty} gives
167: $F_0(0)=c_B(1-\alpha_B) = 0.26 \pm 0.05 \pm 0.04$ and $\beta_B=1.22 \pm
168: 0.14^{+0.12}_{-0.03}$.
169:
170: Let's define the ratio
171: %
172: \beq
173: \xi_B
174: \equiv \frac{{\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)}
175: {{\cal B}(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-)} \nonumber
176: = \frac{\lambda(m_B^2,m_\pi^2,m_\pi^2)}{\lambda(m_B^2,m_{D_s}^2,m_\pi^2)}
177: \left[ \frac{|V_{ud}|}{|V_{cs}|}
178: \frac{f_\pi \, F_0(m_\pi^2)}{f_{D_s} \, F_0(m_{D_s}^2)} \right]^2 .
179: \eeq
180: %
181: In this ratio, the dependence upon $F_0(q^2 = 0)$ and $|V_{ub}|$ disappears
182: and, therefore, some large sources of uncertainty are avoided. Neglecting the
183: errors on meson masses the pion decay constant, $f_\pi=131$ MeV, and the CKM
184: matrix elements (taking $|V_{ud}|=|V_{cs}|$ as suggested by unitarity), one
185: sees that the major error in $\xi_B$ comes from those of $f_{D_s}$ and
186: $\beta_B$. In comparison with the error from $\beta_B$, which is given by the
187: lattice determination as mentioned earlier, a good portion of the uncertainty
188: in the ratio $\xi_B$ resides in the experimental determination of the $D_s$
189: decay constant.
190:
191: Current experimental determination of $f_{D_s}$ uses the hadronic decay mode
192: $D_s^+ \to \phi \pi^+$ as a ``standard candle'' and measures the ratio of
193: ${\cal B}(D_s^+ \to \ell^+ \nu_{\ell}) / {\cal B}(D_s^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$.
194: Therefore, the systematic error is dominated by the knowledge of ${\cal B}
195: (D_s^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$, which has a $25\%$ error \cite{PDG}. Based on an
196: experimental average of rates for $D_s \to \mu \nu$ and $D_s \to \tau \nu$
197: \cite{Thaler:zc}, we will use $f_{D_s}=(270 \pm 16)\sqrt{{\cal B}(\ds^+ \to
198: \phi \pi^+)/3.6\%}$ MeV for our numerical calculation, where the error is
199: purely statistical. Here we single out the systematic error accompanying the
200: ${\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$ mode. We will discuss its impact on the
201: precision determination of ${\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$.
202:
203: We first take the current value ${\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)=(3.6 \pm
204: 0.9)\%$ \cite{PDG}. Since $f_{D_s}^2$ is proportional to the ratio ${\cal
205: B}(\ds^+ \to \mu^+(\tau^+) \nu)/{\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$, we predict
206: %
207: \beq \label{eqn:ratio}
208: \xi_B
209: =(0.216 \pm 0.027)\left[\frac{3.6\%}{{\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)}\right] ,
210: \eeq
211: %
212: where we have combined the statistical error from $f_{D_s}$ and the error from
213: $\beta_B$, leaving the systematic error of $f_{D_s}$ in the square bracket.
214: Although $\beta_B$ has an error of $\sim 13\%$ by itself, it only results in a
215: $\sim 3\%$ error in $\xi_B$. The statistical error of $f_{D_s}$, on the other
216: hand, gives a dominant $\sim 12\%$ error.
217:
218: The BaBar collaboration \cite{Fabozzi:2002bv,Aubert} has recently measured the
219: product
220: %
221: \beq
222: {\cal B}(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-) \times {\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)
223: = (1.11 \pm 0.37 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{-6}
224: \eeq
225: %
226: based on a data sample of $56.4~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ at $\Upsilon(4S)$ resonance,
227: where the first error is statistical and the second is systematic.
228: Using Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:ratio}), we immediately have
229: %
230: \beq
231: {\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)
232: = 6.7 (1 \pm 0.41) \times 10^{-6}
233: \left[\frac{3.6\%}{{\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)}\right]^2~~~.
234: \eeq
235: %
236: Adding all the errors in quadrature, including that in ${\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi
237: \pi^+)$, we obtain
238: %
239: \beq
240: {\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = 6.7(1 \pm 0.64) \times 10^{-6},
241: \qquad
242: |T| = 2.6(1 \pm 0.32) \times 10^{-3}.
243: \eeq
244: %
245: This is in good agreement with the values obtained in \cite{Luo:2001ek} and
246: \cite{Rosner:2000ky}. As stated before, direct calculation from
247: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:pipitree}) including the errors from $|V_{ub}|$ and $F_0(0)$ will
248: have an uncertainty in the branching ratio at least as big as $70\%$, which
249: would render the information useless.
250:
251: As is obvious from the above analysis, the accuracy on the branching ratio of
252: $\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+$ plays a crucial role in the determination of $|T|$. It
253: is thus of great importance to lower its error. The CLEO collaboration
254: proposes to explore the charm sector starting early 2003. CLEO-c
255: \cite{Shipsey:2002kc} will be able to reach an accuracy of $1.9\%$ on ${\cal
256: B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$ and in turn $1.7\%$ on $f_{D_s}$. This will
257: improve our determination of $|T|$ considerably. Moreover, if the data are
258: enlarged from the current 56.4 fb$^{-1}$ sample at BaBar to a combined BaBar
259: and Belle sample of 300 fb$^{-1}$, one expects to be able to bring down the
260: statistical error on ${\cal B}(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-) \times {\cal B}(\ds^+ \to
261: \phi \pi^+)$ by a factor of $\sim 2.3$.
262: With such reduced errors on $f_{D_s}$ and statistical error on the branching
263: ratio product, our knowledge of ${\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)$ can
264: be improved to give
265: %
266: \beq \label{eqn:T}
267: {\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = 6.7(1 \pm 0.25)\times 10^{-6},
268: \qquad
269: |T| = 2.6(1 \pm 0.13) \times 10^{-3}.
270: \eeq
271: %
272: Now the error is dominated by the uncertainty in ${\cal B}(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-)
273: \times {\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$. Aside from reducing the statistical
274: error as mentioned before, it is also possible to reduce the systematic error
275: by, for example, improving the tagging techniques.
276:
277: The anticipated error in Eq.\ (\ref{eqn:T}) is not as good as that (about 5\%)
278: foreseen in Ref.\ \cite{Luo:2001ek} on the basis of forthcoming studies of $B
279: \to \pi \ell \nu$. Instead, it provides a cross-check of the factorization
280: hypothesis for the case in which the weak current produces a $D_s$. Present
281: attempts to justify that hypothesis (see, e.g., \cite{BBNS}) do not expect it
282: to be valid when the weak current produces such a heavy color-singlet meson.
283: If we take the central values for the parameters appearing in Eq.\
284: (\ref{dspi}), however, we obtain ${\cal B}(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-) \simeq 2.9
285: \times 10^{-5}(|V_{ub}|/0.0036)^2$, consistent with the result presented in
286: Ref.\ \cite{Fabozzi:2002bv,Aubert}. Therefore, current data do not indicate
287: any breakdown of factorization for $D_s$ or $D_s^*$ production by the weak
288: current, but more conclusive tests are needed \cite{LRfact}.
289:
290: %\section{$B^0 \to D_s^{*+} \pi^-$ versus $B^0 \to \rho^+ \pi^-$}
291:
292: The above method can be similarly applied to the determination of the tree
293: amplitude $T_P$ in the $B^0 \to \rho^+ \pi^-$ decay using the experimental
294: branching ratio of $B^0 \to D_s^+ \pi^-$. Using the same notation introduced
295: before,
296: %
297: \bea
298: \Gamma_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \rho^+ \pi^-)
299: = \frac{G_F^2}{32\pi} |V_{ub}^* V_{ud}|^2 f_{\rho}^2
300: \left( \frac{\lambda(m_B^2,m_\rho^2,m_\pi^2)}{m_B} \right)^3
301: a_1^2 |F_+(m_\rho^2)|^2 ,
302: \label{eqn:rhopitree}
303: \eea
304: %
305: where $f_{\rho} = 208$ MeV (see, for example, Ref.~\cite{Chiang:2001ir}). We
306: consider an analogous ratio
307: %
308: \beq
309: \xi'_B
310: \equiv \frac{{\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \rho^+ \pi^-)}
311: {{\cal B}(\bo \to \ds^+ \pi^-)} \nonumber
312: = \frac{\lambda(m_B^2,m_\rho^2,m_\pi^2)^3}
313: {m_B^4 \lambda(m_B^2,m_{D_s}^2,m_\pi^2)}
314: \left( 1 - \frac{m_{\pi}^2}{m_B^2} \right)^{-2}
315: \left[ \frac{|V_{ud}|}{|V_{cs}|}
316: \frac{f_\rho \, F_+(m_\rho^2)}{f_{D_s} \, F_0(m_{D_s}^2)} \right]^2 .
317: \label{eqn:xiB2}
318: \eeq
319: %
320: This ratio generally involves additional model dependence because of
321: $F_+(q^2)$. Ref.~\cite{Abada:2000ty} suggests the following parametrization:
322: %
323: \beq
324: F_+(q^2) = \frac{c_B (1 - \alpha_B)}
325: {( 1 - q^2/m_{B^*}^2 )( 1 - \alpha_B q^2/m_{B^*}^2 )} ,
326: \eeq
327: %
328: where $\alpha_B$ has a value of $0.40 \pm 0.15 \pm 0.09$. Again, $F_+(0)$
329: cancels with $F_0(0)$ in the ratio in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:xiB2}) and we find
330: %
331: \beq
332: \xi'_B = (0.541 \pm 0.018 \pm 0.004)\left[ 1 \pm \left( \frac{\Delta {\cal B}
333: (D_s \to \ell \nu)}{{\cal B}(D_s \to \ell \nu)} \right) \right]
334: \left[\frac{3.6\%}{{\cal B}(\ds^+ \to \phi \pi^+)}\right] ,
335: \eeq
336: %
337: where the first error comes from $\beta_B$, the second error comes from
338: $\alpha_B$, and we have taken the central value of $f_{D_s}$ mentioned
339: previously. Considering the same physics reach at CLEO-c and BaBar discussed
340: in the previous section, we obtain
341: %
342: \beq
343: {\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \rho^+ \pi^-) = 16.7 (1 \pm 0.25)\times 10^{-6},
344: \qquad
345: |T_P| = 4.1 (1 \pm 0.13) \times 10^{-3},
346: \eeq
347: %
348: where the latter number agrees well with the estimate given in
349: Ref.~\cite{Chiang:2001ir}. One may also contemplate estimating the above
350: quantities using the ratio ${\cal B}_{\rm tree}(\bo \to \rho^+ \pi^-) / {\cal
351: B}(\bo \to D_s^{*+} \pi^-)$. This has the advantage that the dependence on
352: $\beta_B$ disappears because both of the $VP$ modes involves only the form
353: factor $F_+$. Although it is not observed yet, the branching ratio of $\bo \to
354: D_s^{*+} \pi^-$ is estimated to be of the same order as that of $\bo \to D_s^+
355: \pi^-$, except that it will have a bigger error due to the $\gamma$ detection
356: efficiency in $D_s^{*+}$ decay. Currently, the BaBar group observes a
357: $2.2\sigma$ hint of the decay and sets an upper limit ${\cal B}(B^0 \to
358: D_s^{*+} \pi^-) < 4.3 \times 10^{-5}$ at 90\% confidence level \cite{Aubert}.
359: Nevertheless, a measurement of the former mode will still serve as a useful
360: check.
361:
362: %\section{Summary}
363: We have shown in this Article that within large experimental uncertainties the
364: present measurement of the branching ratio for $B^0 \to D_s^+ \pi^-$ is
365: compatible with the factorization hypothesis for production of the heavy meson
366: $D_s^+$ by the weak current. Improvements in data [particularly in the
367: knowledge of ${\cal B}(D_s^+ \to \phi \pi^+)$] are pinpointed which will permit
368: a more conclusive test of this hypothesis. It is also shown how observation of
369: the decay $B^0 \to D_s^{*+} \pi^-$ can provide a value of the tree amplitude in
370: $B^0 \to \rho^+ \pi^-$ which can be compared with that obtained through other
371: means (see, e.g., Ref.\ \cite{Chiang:2001ir}) to further test factorization in
372: this unexpected domain of its validity.
373:
374: % \section*{Acknowledgments}
375:
376: We thank Z. Ligeti for a discussion which stimulated the present analysis.
377: This work was supported in part by the U.\ S.\ Department of Energy, High
378: Energy Physics Division, under Grant No.\ DE-FG02-90ER-40560 and Contract
379: W-31109-ENG-38.
380:
381: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
382: % Phys. Rev. D format
383: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
384: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
385: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
386: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
387: \def \art{and references therein}
388: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
389: \def \cn{Collaboration}
390: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
391: Singapore, 1989)}
392: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
393: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
394: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
395: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
396: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
397: Batavia, IL, 1979}
398: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
399: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
400: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
401: Amsterdam, 1988)}
402: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
403: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
404: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
405: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
406: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
407: IL, 1972)}
408: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
409: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
410: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
411: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
412: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
413: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
414: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
415: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
416: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
417: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
418: 1987)}
419: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
420: No.\ #2 (#3)}
421: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
422: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
423: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
424: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
425: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
426: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
427: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
428: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
429: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
430: \def \npps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
431: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
432: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
433: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
434: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
435: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
436: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
437: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
438: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
439: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
440: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
441: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
442: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
443: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
444: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
445: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
446: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
447: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
448: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
449: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
450: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
451: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
452: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
453: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
454: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
455: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
456: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
457: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
458: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
459: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
460: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
461: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
462: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
463: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
464: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
465: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
466: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
467: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
468: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
469: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
470: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
471:
472: % \newpage
473:
474: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
475:
476: \bibitem{HHY}
477: %\cite{He:1999mn}
478: %\bibitem{He:1999mn}
479: X.~G.~He, W.~S.~Hou and K.~C.~Yang,
480: %``Indications for Re V(ub) < 0 from rare B decay data,''
481: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1100 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9902256].
482: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902256;%%
483:
484: \bibitem{HSW}
485: %\cite{Hou:1999qp}
486: %\bibitem{Hou:1999qp}
487: W.~S.~Hou, J.~G.~Smith and F.~Wurthwein,
488: %``Determination of the phase of V(ub) from charmless hadronic B decay rates,''
489: National Taiwan University report NTU-HEP-99-25, arXiv:hep-ex/9910014,
490: submitted to Phys.~Rev.~Lett.
491: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9910014;%%
492:
493: \bibitem{HY}
494: %\cite{Hou:1999tf}
495: %\bibitem{Hou:1999tf}
496: W.~S.~Hou and K.~C.~Yang,
497: %``Tree-penguin interference and tests for cos(gamma) < 0 in rare B $\to$ P P, P V and V V decays,''
498: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 61}, 073014 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/9908202].
499: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908202;%%
500:
501: %\cite{Thaler:zc}
502: \bibitem{Thaler:zc}
503: J.~J.~Thaler, invited talk at Division of Particles and Fields Meeting,
504: Columbus, Ohio (2000),
505: %``Heavy Quarks And Tau,''
506: Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 16S1A}, 3 (2001).
507: %%CITATION = IMPAE,A16S1A,3;%%
508:
509: %\cite{Luo:2001ek}
510: \bibitem{Luo:2001ek}
511: Z.~Luo and J.~L.~Rosner, Enrico Fermi Institute preprint EFI 01-28,
512: %``Information on B $\to$ pi pi provided by the semileptonic process B $\to$
513: %pi l nu,''
514: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 054027 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0108024].
515: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0108024;%%
516:
517: \bibitem{PDG} \PDG.
518:
519: %\cite{Becirevic:1999kt}
520: \bibitem{Becirevic:1999kt}
521: D.~Becirevic and A.~B.~Kaidalov,
522: %``Comment on the heavy $\to$ light form factors,''
523: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 478}, 417 (2000); LPT - Orsay 99/32, ROMA 99/1248
524: [arXiv:hep-ph/9904490].
525: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904490;%%
526:
527: %\cite{Abada:2000ty}
528: \bibitem{Abada:2000ty}
529: A.~Abada, D.~Becirevic, P.~Boucaud, J.~P.~Leroy, V.~Lubicz and F.~Mescia,
530: %``Heavy $\to$ light semileptonic decays of pseudoscalar mesons from lattice QCD,''
531: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619}, 565 (2001); CERN report CERN-TH 99-186
532: [arXiv:hep-lat/0011065].
533: %%CITATION = HEP-LAT 0011065;%%
534:
535: %\cite{Fabozzi:2002bv}
536: \bibitem{Fabozzi:2002bv}
537: F.~Fabozzi [BABAR Collaboration], invited talk presented at the XXXVIIth
538: Rencontres de Moriond on QCD and Hadronic Interactions,
539: %``Hadronic B decays at BABAR,''
540: arXiv:hep-ex/0205007.
541: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205007;%%
542:
543: \bibitem{Aubert}
544: B.~Aubert [BABAR Collaboration], talk presented at the Flavor Physics and CP
545: Violation Conference, Philadelphia, arXiv:hep-ex/0205102
546: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0205102;%%
547:
548: %\cite{Rosner:2000ky}
549: \bibitem{Rosner:2000ky}
550: J.~L.~Rosner,
551: %``Comments on CKM elements,''
552: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 462}, 304 (2001)
553: [arXiv:hep-ph/0011184].
554: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011184;%%
555:
556: %\cite{Shipsey:2002kc}
557: \bibitem{Shipsey:2002kc}
558: I.~Shipsey,
559: %``CLEO-c and CESR-c: A new frontier in weak and strong interactions,''
560: arXiv:hep-ex/0203033, to appear in the proceedings of 9th International
561: Symposium on Heavy Flavor Physics, Pasadena, California, 10-13 Sep 2001;
562: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0203033;%%
563: %\cite{Benslama:2002xb}
564: %\bibitem{Benslama:2002xb}
565: %\cite{Briere:2001rn}
566: %\bibitem{Briere:2001rn}
567: R.~A.~Briere {\it et al.},
568: {\it {CLEO}--c and {CESR}--c: a new frontier of weak and strong interactions},
569: CLNS-01-1742.
570:
571: \bibitem{BBNS}
572: %\cite{Beneke:1999br}
573: %\bibitem{Beneke:1999br}
574: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
575: %``{QCD} factorization for B $\to$ pi pi decays: Strong phases and CP
576: %violation in the heavy quark limit,''
577: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9905312];
578: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905312;%%
579: %\cite{Beneke:2000ry}
580: %\bibitem{Beneke:2000ry}
581: %M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
582: %``QCD factorization for exclusive, non-leptonic B meson decays: General
583: %arguments and the case of heavy-light final states,''
584: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 591}, 313 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0006124];
585: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006124;%%
586: %\cite{Beneke:2001ev}
587: %\bibitem{Beneke:2001ev}
588: %M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
589: %``QCD factorization in B $\to$ pi K, pi pi decays and extraction of
590: %Wolfenstein parameters,''
591: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 606}, 245 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0104110].
592: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104110;%%
593:
594: \bibitem{LRfact}
595: %\cite{Luo:2001mc}
596: %\bibitem{Luo:2001mc}
597: Z.~Luo and J.~L.~Rosner,
598: %``Factorization in color-favored B meson decays to charm,''
599: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 094001 (2001) [arXiv:hep-ph/0101089].
600: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0101089;%%
601:
602: %\cite{Chiang:2001ir}
603: \bibitem{Chiang:2001ir}
604: C.~W.~Chiang and J.~L.~Rosner,
605: %``Updated analysis of some two-body charmless B decays,''
606: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 074035 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0112285].
607: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112285;%%
608:
609: \end{thebibliography}
610: \end{document}
611: #!/bin/csh -f
612: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
613: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
614: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
615: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., bpif.uu
616: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
617: # then say csh bpif.uu
618: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
619: # uudecode bpif.uu ; uncompress bpif.tar.Z ;
620: # tar -xvf bpif.tar
621: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
622: # filename in "begin" line below to bpif.tar_Z , then execute
623: # uudecode bpif.uu
624: # compress -d bpif.tar_Z
625: # tar -xvf bpif.tar
626: #
627: uudecode $0
628: chmod 644 bpif.tar.Z
629: zcat bpif.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
630: rm $0 bpif.tar.Z
631: exit
632:
633: