1: \documentclass{article}
2: \usepackage{frascatiphys}
3:
4: %\newcommand\doingARLO[2][]{\ifx\mmref\undefined #1\else #2\fi}
5:
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: % personal abbreviations and macros
8: \def\vev#1{\left\langle #1\right\rangle}
9: \def\Im{\mathop{\mbox{Im}}}
10: \def\Re{\mathop{\mbox{Re}}}
11: \def\Tr{\mathop{\mbox{Tr}}\,}
12: %
13: \def\qq{$\vev{\bar qq}$~}
14: \def\GG{$\vev{\alpha_s GG/\pi}$~}
15: \def\eoe{$\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$~}
16: \def\eps{$\varepsilon$~}
17: %
18: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
19: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
20: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
21: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
22: \def\eq#1{eq.~\ref{#1}}
23: \def\eqs#1#2{eqs.~\ref{#1,#2}}
24: % A useful Journal macro
25: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{\rm #1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
26: \def\etal{{\it et al. }}
27: % Some useful journal names
28: \def\NPB{Nucl. Phys. B}
29: \def\PLB{Phys. Lett. B}
30: \def\PRD{Phys. Rev. D}
31: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33:
34: \begin{document}
35:
36: \title{THEORY STATUS OF \eoe
37: %\footnote{Invited Talk,
38: %{\em 9$^{th}$ Int.\ Symposium on Heavy Flavour Physics}
39: %(Pasadena, CA, 10--13 September 2001)}
40: }
41: %
42: \author{Stefano Bertolini \\
43: {\em INFN and SISSA, Via Beirut 4, I-34013 Trieste, Italy}}
44: %
45: \maketitle
46: \baselineskip=11.6pt
47: \begin{abstract}
48: I shortly review the present status of the theoretical
49: calculations of \eoe
50: and the comparison with the present experimental results.
51: I discuss the role of higher order chiral
52: corrections and in general of non-factorizable contributions for
53: the explanation of the $\Delta I = 1/2$ selection rule
54: and direct CP violation in kaon decays.
55: Still lacking satisfactory lattice calculations,
56: analytic methods and phenomenological approaches are helpful in
57: understanding correlations among theoretical effects and
58: experimental data. Substantial progress from lattice QCD
59: is expected in the coming years.
60: \end{abstract}
61: %
62: \baselineskip=14pt
63: %
64: \section{Introduction}
65: The results obtained in the last few years by the NA48~\cite{NA48}
66: and the KTeV~\cite{KTeV} collaborations
67: have marked a great experimental achievement,
68: establishing some 35 years after the discovery of CP violation
69: in the neutral kaon system~\cite{Christenson}
70: the existence of a much smaller violation acting directly in the
71: decays:
72: \be
73: \label{eoenew}
74: \Re(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon) =
75: \left\{
76: \begin{array}{ll}
77: (15.3 \pm 2.6)\times 10^{-4} & {\rm (NA48)} \\
78: (20.7 \pm 2.8)\times 10^{-4} & {\rm (KTeV)} .
79: \end{array}
80: \right.
81: \ee
82: The average of these results with the previous measurements by
83: the NA31 collaboration at CERN
84: % $ ((23.0\pm 6.5)\cdot 10^{-4})$
85: and by the E731 experiment at Fermilab
86: % $ ((7.4\pm 5.9)\cdot 10^{-4})$
87: gives
88: \be
89: \label{eoewa}
90: \Re(\varepsilon'/\varepsilon) = (17.2 \pm 1.8)\times 10^{-4} .
91: \ee
92: While the Standard Model (SM) of strong and electroweak interactions
93: provides an economical and elegant understanding
94: of indirect~($\varepsilon$) and direct~($\varepsilon'$)
95: CP violation in term of a single phase,
96: the detailed calculation of the size of these effects
97: implies mastering strong interactions at a scale
98: where perturbative methods break down. In addition,
99: direct CP violation in $K\to\pi\pi$ decays
100: arises from a detailed balance of
101: two competing sets of contributions,
102: which may hopelessly inflate the uncertainties
103: related to the relevant hadronic matrix elements in the final outcome.
104: All that makes predicting \eoe a complex and
105: challenging task~\cite{review}.
106:
107: Just from the onset of the calculation the presence in the
108: definition of \eoe , written as
109: \be
110: \frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left\{
111: \frac{\langle ( \pi \pi )_{I=2} | {\cal H}_W | {K_L} \rangle}
112: {\langle ( \pi \pi )_{I=0} | {\cal H}_W | {K_L} \rangle}
113: -
114: \frac{\langle ( \pi \pi )_{I=2} | {\cal H}_W | {K_S} \rangle}
115: {\langle ( \pi \pi )_{I=0} | {\cal H}_W | {K_S} \rangle} \right\}\ ,
116: \label{eoedef}
117: \ee
118: of given ratios of isospin
119: amplitudes warns us of a longstanding and still unsolved
120: theoretical ``problem'':
121: the explanation of the $\Delta I = 1/2$ selection rule.
122:
123: The $\Delta I = 1/2$ selection rule in $K\to\pi\pi$ decays is known since
124: 45 years~\cite{Pais-Gell-Mann} and it states the experimental
125: evidence that kaons
126: are 400 times more likely to decay in the $I=0$ two-pion state
127: than in the $I=2$ component ($\omega \equiv A_2/A_0 \simeq 1/22$).
128: This rule is not justified by any
129: symmetry argument and, although it is common understanding
130: that its explanation must be rooted in the dynamics of strong interactions,
131: there is up to date no derivation of this effect from first principle QCD.
132:
133: Given the possibility that common systematic uncertainties may
134: a-priori affect the calculation of \eoe and the $\Delta I = 1/2$ rule
135: (see for instance the present difficulties in calculating on the lattice
136: the ``penguin contractions'' for CP violating as well as for
137: CP conserving amplitudes~\cite{Romapost})
138: a convincing calculation of \eoe must involve at the same time
139: a reliable explanation of the $\Delta I = 1/2$ selection rule.
140: Both observables indicate the need of large corrections
141: to factorization in the evaluation of the four-quark hadronic
142: transitions. Among these corrections
143: Final State Interactions (FSI) play a substantial role.
144: However, FSI alone are {\em not} enough to account
145: for the large ratio of the $I=0$ over $I=2$ amplitudes.
146: Other sources of large non-factorizable corrections are
147: therefore needed for the CP conserving
148: amplitudes~\cite{review,instanton}, which
149: might affect the determination of \eoe as well.
150: As a consequence, a self-contained calculation of \eoe should also address
151: the determination of the $K\to\pi\pi$ rates.
152:
153:
154: \section{OPE: an ``effective'' approach}
155:
156: The Operator Product Expansion (OPE) provides us with a very
157: effective way to address the calculation of hadronic transitions
158: in gauge theories. The integration of the ``heavy'' gauge and
159: matter fields allows us to write the relevant amplitudes in terms
160: of the hadronic matrix elements of effective quark operators and
161: of the corresponding Wilson coefficients (at a scale $\mu$), which
162: encode the information about those dynamical degrees of freedom
163: which are heavier than the chosen renormalization scale. According to the
164: SM flavor structure the $\Delta S = 1$ transitions are effectively
165: described by \be {\cal H}_{\Delta S = 1} = \frac{G_{\rm
166: F}}{\sqrt{2}} V_{ud}\,V^*_{us} \sum_i \Bigl[{z_i}(\mu) + {\tau}\
167: {y_i}(\mu) \Bigr] {Q_i} (\mu) \ . \label{Leff} \ee The entries
168: $V_{ij}$ of the $3\times 3$ Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
169: describe the flavour mixing in the SM and ${\tau} = -
170: {V_{td}V_{ts}^{*}}/V_{ud}V_{us}^{*}$. For $\mu < m_c$ ($q=u,d,s$),
171: the relevant quark operators are:
172: \be
173: \begin{array}{lcl}
174: \left.
175: \begin{array}{lcl}
176: {Q_{1}} & = & \left( \overline{s}_{\alpha} u_{\beta} \right)_{\rm V-A}
177: \left( \overline{u}_{\beta} d_{\alpha} \right)_{\rm V-A}
178: \\[1ex]
179: {Q_{2}} & = & \left( \overline{s} u \right)_{\rm V-A}
180: \left( \overline{u} d \right)_{\rm V-A}
181: \end{array}
182: \right\} &&\hspace{-1.6em} \mbox{Current-Current} \\[4ex]
183: \left.
184: \begin{array}{lcl}
185: {Q_{3,5}} & = & \left( \overline{s} d \right)_{\rm V-A}
186: \sum_{q} \left( \overline{q} q \right)_{\rm V\mp A}
187: \\[1ex]
188: {Q_{4,6}} & = & \left( \overline{s}_{\alpha} d_{\beta} \right)_{\rm V-A}
189: \sum_{q} ( \overline{q}_{\beta} q_{\alpha} )_{\rm V\mp A}
190: \end{array}
191: \right\} &&\hspace{-1.6em} \mbox{Gluon ``penguins''} \\[4ex]
192: %\end{array}
193: %\ee
194: %\be
195: \left.
196: \begin{array}{lcl}
197: {Q_{7,9}} & = & \frac{3}{2} \left( \overline{s} d \right)_{\rm V-A}
198: \sum_{q} \hat{e}_q \left( \overline{q} q \right)_{\rm V\pm A}
199: \\[1ex]
200: {Q_{8,10}} & = & \frac{3}{2} \left( \overline{s}_{\alpha}
201: d_{\beta} \right)_{\rm V-A}
202: \sum_{q} \hat{e}_q ( \overline{q}_{\beta} q_{\alpha})_{\rm V\pm A}
203: \end{array}
204: \right\} && \hspace{-1.6em} \mbox{Electroweak ``penguins''}
205: \end{array}
206: \label{quarkeff}
207: \ee
208: Current-current operators are induced by tree-level W-exchange whereas
209: the so-called penguin (and ``box'') diagrams are generated via an
210: electroweak loop.
211: Only the latter ``feel'' all three quark families via the virtual quark
212: exchange and are therefore sensitive to the weak CP phase.
213: Current-current operators control instead the CP conserving
214: transitions. This fact suggests already that the connection
215: between \eoe and the
216: $\Delta I = 1/2$ rule is by no means a straightforward one.
217:
218: Using the effective $\Delta S=1$ quark Hamiltonian we can write \eoe as
219: \be
220: \frac{{\varepsilon'}}{\varepsilon} =
221: e^{i \phi} \frac{G_{\rm F} \omega}{2|\epsilon|\Re{A_0}} \:
222: {\mbox{Im}\, \lambda_t} \: \:
223: \left[ {\Pi_0} - \frac{1}{\omega} \: {\Pi_2} \right]
224: \label{main}
225: \ee
226: where
227: \be
228: \begin{array}{lcl}
229: {\Pi_0} & = & \frac{1}{{\cos\delta_0}}
230: \sum_i {y_i} \,
231: \Re\langle Q_i \rangle _0\ (1 - {\Omega_{\rm IB}})
232: \\[1ex]
233: {\Pi_2} & = & \frac{1}{{\cos\delta_2}} \sum_i {y_i} \,
234: \Re\langle Q_i \rangle_2 \quad ,
235: \end{array}
236: \label{PI02}
237: \ee
238: and $\langle Q_i \rangle \equiv \langle \pi\pi | Q_i | K \rangle$.
239: The rescattering phases $\delta_{0,2}$ can be extracted from
240: elastic $\pi$-$\pi$
241: scattering data\cite{FSIphases} and are such that $\cos\delta_0 \simeq 0.8$
242: and $\cos\delta_2 \simeq 1$. Given that the phase of $\varepsilon$
243: ($\theta_\varepsilon$) is approximately $\pi/4$,
244: as well as the difference $\delta_0-\delta_2$,
245: the $\varepsilon'/\varepsilon$ phase
246: $\phi = \frac{\pi}{2} + {\delta_2} - {\delta_0} - \theta_\varepsilon$
247: turns out to be consistent with zero.
248: While $G_{\rm F}$, $\omega$, $|\varepsilon|$ and $\Re A_0$ are precisely
249: determined by experimental data, the first source of uncertainty that
250: we encounter in \eq{main} is the value of
251: {$\Im \lambda_t \equiv \Im (V_{ts}^*V_{td})$},
252: the combination of CKM elements
253: which measures CP violation in $\Delta S = 1$ transitions.
254: The determination of $\Im \lambda_t$ depends on B-physics
255: constraints and on $\varepsilon$~\cite{Ciuchinietal}.
256: In turn, the fit of $\varepsilon$ depends on the
257: theoretical determination of $B_K$, the $\bar K^0-K^0$ hadronic parameter,
258: which should be self-consistently determined within every analysis.
259: The theoretical uncertainty on $B_K$ was in the past
260: the main component of the final uncertainty on $\Im \lambda_t$.
261: The improved determination of the unitarity triangle
262: coming from B-factories and hadronic colliders~\cite{CKM}
263: has weakened and will eventually lift the dependence of $\Im \lambda_t$
264: on $B_K$, allowing for an experimental measurement of the latter from
265: \eps .
266: Within kaon physics, the decay {$K_L\to\pi^0\nu\bar\nu$} gives the cleanest
267: ``theoretical''
268: determination of $\Im\lambda_t$, albeit representing a great experimental
269: challenge. At present, a typical range of values for $\Im\lambda_t$
270: is $(0.94 - 1.60) \times 10^{-4}$~\cite{BurasLP01}.
271:
272: We come now to the quantities in the square brackets.
273: While the calculation of the Wilson coefficients is well under control,
274: thanks primarily to the work done in the early nineties
275: by the Munich \cite{MunichNLO}
276: and Rome \cite{RomaNLO} groups, the evaluation of the ``long-distance''
277: factors in \eq{PI02} is the crucial issue for the ongoing calculations.
278: The isospin breaking (IB)
279: parameter $\Omega_{\rm IB}$, gives at the leading-order (LO)
280: in the chiral expansion a $positive$ correction to the $A_2$
281: amplitude (proportional to $A_0$ via the $\pi^0-\eta$ mixing)
282: of about 0.13~\cite{LOpieta}.
283: At the next-to-leading order (NLO)
284: the full inclusion of the $\pi^0-\eta-\eta'$
285: mixing lift the value of $\Omega_{\rm IB}$ to $0.16\pm 0.03$~\cite{NLOpieta}.
286: On the other hand, the complete NLO calculation
287: of IB effects beyond the $\pi^0-\eta-\eta'$ mixing
288: (of strong and electromagnetic origin, among
289: which the presence of $\Delta I = 5/2$ transitions)
290: involves a number of unknown NLO chiral couplings and is
291: presently quite uncertain.
292: Dimensional estimates show that IB effects
293: may be large and affect \eoe sizeably in both directions
294: ~\cite{GardnerValencia}.
295: Although a partial cancellation
296: of the indirect ($\Delta\omega$) and direct $\Delta\Omega_{\rm IB}$
297: NLO isospin breaking corrections in \eq{main}
298: may reduce their final numerical impact on \eoe,
299: we must await for further analyses
300: in order to confidently assess their relevance.
301: At present one may use
302: $\Omega_{\rm IB}= 0.10\pm 0.20$~\cite{omegaNLOstr,omegaNLOmodel,omegaNLOem}
303: as a conservative estimate of the IB effects.
304:
305: The final basic ingredient for the calculation of \eoe
306: is the evaluation of the $K\to\pi\pi$ hadronic matrix elements
307: of the quark operators in \eq{quarkeff}.
308: A simple albeit naive approach to the problem is
309: the Vacuum Saturation Approximation (VSA),
310: which is based on two drastic assumptions:
311: the factorization of the four quark operators
312: in products of currents and densities and the saturation
313: of the intermediate states by the vacuum state.
314: As an example:
315: \bea
316: \langle \pi^+ \pi^-|Q_6| K^0 \rangle & = &
317: 2\ \langle \pi^-|\overline{u}\gamma_5 d|0 \rangle
318: \langle \pi^+|\overline{s} u |K^0 \rangle
319: - 2\ \langle \pi^+ \pi^-|\overline{d} d|0 \rangle
320: \langle 0|\overline{s} \gamma_5 d |K^0 \rangle
321: \nonumber \\
322: & & +\ 2 \left[\langle 0|\overline{s} s|0 \rangle -
323: \langle 0|\overline{d}d|0 \rangle\right]
324: \langle \pi^+ \pi^-|\overline{s}\gamma_5 d |K^0 \rangle
325: \eea
326: The VSA does not exhibit
327: a consistent matching of the renormalization scale and scheme dependences
328: of the Wilson coefficients
329: %(the HV and NDR results are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pre})
330: and it carries potentially
331: large systematic uncertainties~\cite{review}.
332: On the other hand it provides useful insights on the main
333: features of the problem.
334: %
335: \begin{figure}
336: \vspace{5.5cm}
337: \special{psfile=pie.eps voffset=-100 hoffset=20
338: hscale=45 vscale=45 angle=0}
339: %\includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{pie}
340: \caption{Anatomy of \eoe in the Vacuum Saturation Approximation.
341: In light (dark) gray the positive (negative) contributions of the
342: effective four-quark operators are shown with proportional weight.
343: }\label{fig:pie}
344: \end{figure}
345: %
346: A pictorial summary of the relative weights of the contributions
347: of the various operators to \eoe, as obtained in the VSA,
348: is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pie}.
349:
350: As we have already mentioned, CP violation involves loop-induced
351: operators ($Q_3 - Q_{10}$). From Fig. \ref{fig:pie} one clearly notices
352: the potentially large cancellation
353: among the strong and electroweak sectors and the leading
354: role played by the gluonic penguin operator $Q_6$ and the
355: electroweak operator $Q_8$.
356: Tipical range of values for \eoe, obtained using the VSA, are
357: shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pre} together with the three most updated
358: predictions available before 1999 (when the first KTeV and NA48
359: results became known)~\cite{Munichpre,Romapre,ts98b}.
360: The fact that the cancellation among the strong and electroweak sectors
361: turns out to be quite effective (in the VSA) warns us about
362: the possibility that the uncertainties in the determination of the
363: relevant hadronic matrix elements may be largely amplified in the
364: calculation of \eoe. It is therefore important to asses carefully the
365: approximations related to the various parts of the calculations.
366: In particular, the analysis of the problem suggests that factorization
367: may be highly unreliable.
368:
369:
370: \section{Beyond Factorization}
371:
372: \begin{figure}
373: \vspace{6.0cm}
374: \special{psfile=fig_pre.eps voffset=-320 hoffset=-30
375: hscale=65 vscale=65 angle=0}
376: %\includegraphics[height=.29\textheight]{fig_pre}
377: \caption{
378: The 1-$\sigma$ results of the
379: NA31 and E731 Collaborations (early 90's)
380: are shown by the gray horizontal bands.
381: The old M\"unchen, Roma and Trieste theoretical predictions for \eoe are
382: depicted by the vertical bars with their central values.
383: For comparison, the VSA estimate is shown using two renormalization schemes.
384: }\label{fig:pre}
385: \end{figure}
386:
387: The dark gray bars in Fig. \ref{fig:pre} depict the results
388: of three calculations of \eoe which are representative of approaches
389: that (in principle) allow us to go beyond naive factorization. They are based
390: from left to right on the large $N_c$
391: expansion~\cite{Munichpre,BBG},
392: on lattice regularization~\cite{Romapre,Roma},
393: and on phenomenological modelling of low-energy
394: QCD (the chiral quark model)~\cite{chiQM,PichEdR,ts98a,ts98b}.
395:
396:
397: The experimental and theoretical scenarios have changed substantially
398: after the first KTeV data and the subsequent NA48 results.
399: Fig.~\ref{fig:post} shows the present experimental world average
400: for \eoe compared with the revised or new theoretical calculations
401: that appeared during the last year.
402: Without entering into the details of the results (for a short summary
403: see~\cite{radcor00}) they all represent attempts to incorporate
404: non-perturbative information into the calculation of the hadronic
405: matrix elements, whether their are based on the large $N_c$ expansion
406: (M\"unchen~\cite{Munichpost}, Dortmund~\cite{Dortmund},
407: Beijing~\cite{Beijing}, Taipei~\cite{Taipei}, Valencia~\cite{Valencia}),
408: phenomenological modelling of low-energy QCD
409: (Dubna~\cite{Dubna}, Trieste~\cite{ts98b,ts00b}, Lund~\cite{Lund}),
410: QCD Sum Rules (Montpellier~\cite{Montpellier}) or, finally, on lattice
411: regularization (Roma~\cite{Romapost}, CP-PACS~\cite{CP-PACS},
412: RBC~\cite{RBC}).
413:
414: \begin{figure}
415: %\begin{center}
416: \vspace{5.5cm}
417: \special{psfile=expvsth.eps voffset=-330 hoffset=-30
418: hscale=65 vscale=65 angle=0}
419: %\includegraphics[height=.27\textheight]{expvsth}
420: \caption{
421: Recent theoretical calculations of \eoe are compared with
422: the combined 1-$\sigma$ average of the
423: NA31, E731, KTeV and NA48 results (\eoe = $17.2\pm 1.8\times 10^{-4}$),
424: depicted by the gray horizontal band.
425: }\label{fig:post}
426: %\end{center}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429:
430: Overall most of the theoretical calculations
431: are consistent with a non-vanishing positive effect in the SM
432: (with the exception of the recent lattice
433: results on which I will comment shortly).
434:
435: At a closer look however, if we focus our attention on
436: the central values,
437: many of the predictions
438: prefer the $10^{-4}$ regime, whereas only a few of them stand
439: above $10^{-3}$.
440: Is this just ``noise'' in the theoretical calculations?
441: Without entering the many details on which the estimates are based,
442: most of the aforementioned difference can be explained in terms
443: of a single effect: the different size of the
444: hadronic matrix element of the gluonic penguin $Q_6$ as
445: obtained in the various approaches. In turn, this can be understood
446: in terms of sizeable higher order chiral contributions (NLO in
447: the $1/N_c$ expansion) to the $I=0$ amplitudes.
448:
449: This effect was stigmatized well
450: before the latest experimental round
451: by the work of the Trieste group~\cite{ts98a,ts98b},
452: and appears clearly
453: in the comparison of the leading $1/N_c$ and lattice
454: results with the chiral quark model analysis in Fig.~\ref{fig:pre}.
455: The chiral quark model approach, together
456: with the fit of the CP conserving amplitudes which
457: normalizes phenomenologically the matching and the model parameters,
458: allows us to carry the calculation of the hadronic matrix elements
459: beyond the leading order in the chiral expansion (including the needed
460: local counterterms). Non-factorizable chiral contributions
461: (missing in the leading $1/N_c$ or lattice calculations)
462: were shown to produce a substantial enhancement
463: of the $I=0$ transitions thus lifting the expectation of \eoe
464: at the $10^{-3}$ level.
465:
466: Since then a number of groups have attempted to improve
467: the calculation of $K\to\pi\pi$ matrix elements in a
468: model independent way.
469: Table \ref{tab:B6B8} presents a comparison of
470: different calculations of the relevant matrix elements.
471: Due to the leading role played by $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ we may write a
472: simplified version of \eq{main}, %namely
473: \be
474: \frac{\varepsilon'}{\varepsilon} \approx 13
475: \left(\frac{\Lambda_{\overline{MS}}^{(4)}}{340\ {\rm MeV}}\right)
476: \Im \lambda_t \left[\frac{110\ {\rm MeV}}{m_s\ (2\ {\rm
477: GeV})}\right]^2\ \left[{B_6} (1-\Omega_{\rm IB}) - 0.4
478: {B_8^{(2)}}\right]\ ,
479: \vspace*{-1ex}
480: \ee
481: which although
482: ``not be used for any serious analysis''~\cite{Munichpost} gives
483: an effective and practical way to test and compare different
484: calculations.
485:
486: The B-factors $B_i \equiv \vev{Q_i}/\vev{Q_i}_{\rm VSA}$
487: represent a convenient parametrization of the hadronic matrix
488: elements, albeit tricky, in that their values are in general scale
489: and renormalization-scheme dependent,
490: and a spurious dependence on the quark masses is
491: introduced in the result whenever quark densities are involved.
492: The latter is the case for the $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ penguins.
493: As a consequence the VSA normalization
494: may vary from author to author thus introducing systematic
495: ambiguities.
496: By taking the VSA matrix elements at the scale $\mu=2$ GeV
497: we obtain~\cite{review}
498: \be
499: \begin{array}{lcl@{}}
500: \hspace*{-3em} &&
501: \vev{(\pi\pi)_{2} | Q_8 | K^0}_{\rm VSA} = \sqrt{6}\ f\ m_K^4\
502: (m_s+m_d)^{-2} \simeq 1.1\ {\rm GeV}^3 \ , \\[1ex]
503: \hspace*{-3em} &&
504: \vev{\pi\pi| Q_6 | K^0}_{\rm VSA}/
505: \vev{(\pi\pi)_{2} | Q_8 | K^0}_{\rm VSA}
506: = -2\sqrt{2}\ (f_K-f_\pi)/f_\pi \simeq -0.63 \ ,
507: \end{array}
508: \label{VSAnorm}
509: \ee
510: where I have used
511: {$(m_s+m_d)(2\ {\rm GeV}) = 110\ {\rm MeV}$} and
512: the chiral value $f = 86$ MeV for the octet decay constant.
513:
514: It is known that $B_6$ and $B_8^{(2)}$ are
515: perturbatively very weakly dependent on the
516: renormalization scale~\cite{review}. Therefore it makes sense
517: to compare the $B$'s obtained in different approaches, where
518: the matrix elements $\vev{Q_i}$ are computed at different scales.
519: The results for the
520: relevant penguin matrix elements coming from various approaches
521: are collected in Table~\ref{tab:B6B8}, paying
522: care to normalizing the data in a homogeneous way (as far as detailed
523: information on definitions and renormalization schemes was available).
524:
525: As a guiding information, taking $\Im \lambda_t = 1.3\times 10^{-4}$,
526: the present experimental central value of \eoe is reproduced by
527: $B_6\ (1-\Omega_{\rm IB}) - 0.4\ B_8^{(2)} \approx 1 $.
528:
529: \begin{table}[t]
530: \label{tab:B6B8}
531: \caption{Comparison of various calculations of penguin matrix elements.
532: The data marked by the star are rescaled by a factor $\sqrt{3/2}$, to
533: account for a different definition of the isospin matrix elements.}
534: \begin{tabular}{@{}lllll}
535: \hline
536: Method & {$B_{6}$} (NDR) & & {$B_{8}^{(2)}$} (NDR) & \\
537: \hline
538: Lattice (DWF, $K\to\pi$) & {$< 0.3$} & & $\sim 0.9$ &
539: CP-PACS\cite{CP-PACS} \\
540: Lattice (DWF, $K\to\pi$) & $\sim 0.4$ & & $\sim 1$ &
541: RBC\cite{RBC}\\
542: Lattice ($K\to\pi + \chi$PT)& $-$ & & $0.58\pm 0.06$ * &
543: APE\cite{APE} \\
544: Lattice ($K\to\pi + \chi$PT)& $-$ & & $0.56\pm 0.07$ * &
545: SPQcdR\cite{SPQcdR} \\
546: Lattice ($K\to\pi\pi$) & $-$ & & $0.64\pm 0.07$ * &
547: SPQcdR\cite{SPQcdR} \\
548: Large $N_c$+LMD ($\chi$-limit) & $-$ & & $2.6 \pm 0.8$ * &
549: Marseille\cite{PerisEdR} \\
550: Dispersive+data ($\chi$-limit) & $-$ & & $2.5\pm 0.8$ * &
551: Amherst\cite{CDGM} \\
552: Dispersive+data ($\chi$-limit) & $-$ & & {$1.4\pm 0.6$} &
553: Lund\cite{BGP} \\
554: Large $N_c$ + data & $1.0\pm 0.3 $ & & $0.8\pm 0.2$ &
555: Munich\cite{Munichpost} \\
556: NLO $1/N_c$ CHPT & $1.5 \sim 1.7$ & & $0.4 \sim 0.7$ &
557: Dortmund\cite{Dortmund} \\
558: NLO $1/N_c$ ENJL ($\chi$-limit) & $2.9\pm 0.5$ & & $1.5\pm 0.2$ &
559: Lund\cite{Lund} \\
560: NLO $\chi$QM + $\chi$PT & $1.5\pm 0.4$ & & $0.84\pm 0.04$ &
561: Trieste\cite{ts98b} \\
562: Large $N_c$ + FSI & $1.55\pm 0.10$ & & $0.92\pm 0.03$ &
563: Valencia\cite{Valencia} \\
564: \hline
565: \end{tabular}
566: \end{table}
567:
568: The most important fact is the first evidence of a signal in lattice
569: calculations of $\vev{\pi|Q_6|K}$, obtained by the CP-PACS~\cite{CP-PACS}
570: and RBC~\cite{RBC} collaborations.
571: Both groups use the Domain Wall Fermion approach
572: which allows to control the chiral symmetry on the lattice as a volume
573: effect in a fifth dimension. This approach softens in principle
574: the problem of large power subtractions which affects the lattice
575: extraction of $I=0$ amplitudes (penguin contractions).
576: Still only the $\vev{\pi|Q_i|K}$ transition is computed
577: on the lattice and LO chiral perturbation theory is used to extrapolate
578: it to the physical amplitude. The two groups obtain comparable values
579: of the $Q_6$ and $Q_8$ matrix elements leading both to a negative \eoe
580: (and do not agree on the CP conserving $I=0$ amplitude).
581: On the other hand the calculations are at an early stage and do not
582: include higher order chiral dynamics which may be responsible
583: for the enhancement of $I=0$ amplitudes (as large $N_c$
584: approaches beyond LO and the Chiral Quark Model strongly suggest).
585: The SPQcdR collaboration has reported a result for the $Q_8$
586: matrix element from direct calculation of the $K\to\pi\pi$
587: amplitude on the lattice. This result agrees with previous
588: lattice data, albeit it does not yet include the chiral
589: corrections relevant to quenching and to the extrapolation to the physical
590: pion mass~\cite{SPQcdR}.
591:
592: Among the analytic approaches
593: important results have been obtained using data on spectral functions
594: in connection with QCD sum rules and dispersive relations in the attempt
595: to obtain model independent information on the relevant matrix elements.
596: These approaches have produced as of today calculations of $Q_8$
597: (in the chiral limit)
598: which are subtantially larger than the factorization (and lattice)
599: results. While there is still disagreement among
600: the different analysis,
601: we must await the calculation of the $Q_6$ matrix element and a
602: quantitative assessment of chiral breaking effects before drawing
603: conclusions on these as well as lattice results.
604:
605: Calculations which sofar have allowed for the determination of all
606: relevant parameters,
607: %beyond LO in the large $N_c$ expansion,
608: based on chiral perturbation theory and/or models of low-energy
609: QCD, have shown the crucial role of higher order non-factorizable corrections
610: in the enhancement of the $I=0$ matrix
611: elements \cite{ts98b,Dortmund,Valencia,Lund}. Chiral loop corrections
612: drive the final value of \eoe in the ballpark of the present data.
613: However the calculation of higher order chiral effects cannot be
614: fully accomplished in a model independent way due to the many unknown
615: NLO local couplings. In the chiral quark model approach all needed
616: local interactions are computed in terms of quark masses, meson decay constants
617: and a few non-perturbative parameters as quark and gluon condensates.
618: The latter are determined self-consistently in a phenomenological way
619: via the fit of the CP conserving $K\to\pi\pi$ amplitudes, thus encoding
620: the $\Delta I =1/2$ rule in the calculation~\cite{ts98a,ts98b}.
621: The analysis shows that
622: the role of local counterterms is subleading to the chiral logs when using
623: the Modified Minimal Subtraction (as opposed to the commonly used
624: Gasser-Leutwyler prescription). The phenomenological
625: fit is crucial in stabilizing the numerical prediction~\cite{ts98b}.
626: The fact that
627: the model parameters (quark and gluon condesates, constituent quark mass)
628: turn out to be in the expected range, shows that the explicitly included
629: chiral (and $1/N$ gluon condensate)
630: corrections represent the largest non-factorizable effect.
631:
632: Among higher order corrections FSI play a leading role.
633: As a matter of fact, one should in general expect an enhancement of
634: \eoe with respect to the naive VSA due to FSI.
635: As Fermi first argued~\cite{Fermi}, in potential scattering
636: the isospin $I=0$ two-body~states feel an
637: attractive interaction, of a sign opposite to that of the $I=2$
638: components thus affecting the size of the corresponding amplitudes.
639: This feature is at the root of the enhancement of the
640: $I=0$ amplitude over the $I=2$ one and of the corresponding enhancement
641: of \eoe beyond factorization.
642: An attempt to resum these effects in a model independent way
643: has been worked out by the authors of ref.~\cite{Valencia},
644: using a dispersive approach a la Omn\`es-Mushkelishvili~\cite{Omnes,Truong}.
645: Their analysis shows that resummation does not substantially modify
646: the one-loop perturbative result and, as it appears from Table \ref{tab:B6B8},
647: a 50\% enhancement of the gluonic penguin matrix element is found over
648: the factorized result.
649: However,
650: the calculation suffers from a sistematic uncertainty due to
651: the indetermination of the off-shell amplitude
652: which is identified with the large $N_c$ result~\cite{FSIcritics}.
653: Even when the authors in the most recent work match the dispersive
654: resummation with the on-shell perturbative one-loop calculation,
655: thus including $1/N_c$ effects, again
656: a systematic uncertainty remains in the unknown polinomial
657: parts of the local chiral counterterms.
658: %In this respect it is important to stress that gauging the scheme dependence
659: %of the result by varying the renormalization scale in the chiral logs
660: %cannot account for the arbitrariness related to the chiral-loop subtraction
661: Therefore, a model-independent complete calculation of chiral loops
662: for $K\to\pi\pi$ is still missing.
663:
664: Finally, it has been recently emphasized~\cite{dim8}
665: that cut-off based approaches should
666: pay attention to higher-dimension
667: operators which become relevant for matching scales below 2 GeV
668: and may represent one of the largest sources of uncertainty in present
669: calculations. The results of refs. \cite{CDGM,BGP} include these effects.
670: The calculations based on dimensional regularization
671: may be safe if phenomenological input is used in order to encode
672: in the relevant hadronic matrix elements the physics at all scales
673: (this is done in the Trieste approach).
674:
675: In summary, while model dependent calculations suggest no conflict
676: between theory and experiment for \eoe, a precise and "pristine" prediction
677: of the observable is still quite ahead of us.
678:
679:
680: \section{Outlook and Conclusions}
681:
682: Higher-order chiral corrections are taking the stage of $K\to\pi\pi$ physics.
683: They are needed in order to asses the size of crucial parameters
684: (as $\Omega_{\rm IB}$) and the effect of non-factorizable contributions
685: in the penguin matrix elements.
686:
687: Lattice, as a regularization of QCD, is {\em the} first-principle
688: approach to the problem. However,
689: lattice calculations still heavily depend
690: on chiral perturbation theory \cite{Golterman}.
691: Presently, very promising developments are being undertaken
692: to circumvemt the technical and conceptual shortcomings related
693: to the calculation of weak matrix elements~\cite{SPQcdR,Sachrajda}.
694: Among those are the Domain Wall Fermion
695: approach~\cite{DWF} which allows us to decouple the chiral symmetry
696: from the continuum limit, and the very interesting observation that
697: the Maiani-Testa theorem~\cite{MaianiTesta} can be overcomed using the fact that
698: lattice calculations are performed in finite volume~\cite{LellouchLuscher},
699: thus allowing for the direct calculation of the physical $K\to\pi\pi$ amplitude
700: on the lattice.
701: All these developments need a tremendous effort in machine power
702: and in devising faster algorithms. Preliminary results
703: for lattice calculations of both \eoe
704: and the $\Delta I = 1/2$ selection rule
705: are already available and others are currently under way \cite{SPQcdR}.
706:
707: In the meantime analytical and semi-phenomenological approaches
708: have been crucially helpful in driving the attention of the
709: community on some systematic short-comings of "first-principle"
710: calculations. The amount of theoretical work triggered by the
711: NA48 and KTeV data promises rewarding and perhaps exciting results
712: in the forthcoming years.
713:
714:
715: %\section{Acknowledgments}
716:
717: %\bibliography{hql}
718:
719: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
720:
721: \bibitem{NA48}
722: %V. Fanti \etal, \Journal{\PLB}{465}{335}{1999};
723: A. Lai \etal, \Journal{Eur. Phys. J. C}{22}{231}{2001};
724: S. Giudici, these Proceedings.
725:
726: \bibitem{KTeV}
727: A. Alavi-Harati \etal, \Journal{\PRL}{83}{22}{1999};
728: S. Giudici, in 1).
729:
730: \bibitem{Christenson}
731: J.H. Christenson \etal, \Journal{\PRL}{13}{138}{1964}.
732:
733: \bibitem{review}
734: S. Bertolini, J.O. Eeg and M. Fabbrichesi,
735: \Journal{Rev. Mod. Phys.}{72}{65}{2000};
736: A.J. Buras, {\it Erice School Lectures 2000}, hep-ph/0101336.
737:
738: \bibitem{Pais-Gell-Mann}
739: M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, \Journal{Proc. Glasgow Conf.}{}{342}{1955}.
740:
741: \bibitem{Romapost} M. Ciuchini and G. Martinelli,
742: \Journal{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}{99B}{27}{2001}.
743: %hep-ph/0006056.
744:
745: \bibitem{FSIphases}
746: J. Gasser and U.G. Meissner, \Journal{\PLB}{258}{219}{1991};
747: E. Chell and M.G. Olsson, \Journal{\PRD}{48}{4076}{1993}.
748:
749: \bibitem{instanton} J.-M. G\'erard and J. Weyers,
750: \Journal{\PLB}{503}{99}{2001};
751: N.I. Kochelev and V. Vento, \Journal{\PRL}{87}{111601}{2001}.
752:
753: \bibitem{Ciuchinietal} M. Ciuchini \etal, \Journal{JHEP}{0107}{013}{2001}.
754:
755: \bibitem{CKM} K. Kleinknecht, these Proceeedings.
756:
757: \bibitem{BurasLP01} A.J. Buras, Proc. {\it Kaon 2001} Conf.,
758: Pisa, Italy, hep-ph/0109197.
759:
760: \bibitem{MunichNLO} A.J. Buras \etal, \Journal{\NPB}{370}{69}{1992};
761: \Journal{\NPB}{400}{37}{1993}; \Journal{\NPB}{400}{75}{1993};
762: \Journal{\NPB}{408}{209}{1993}.
763:
764: \bibitem{RomaNLO} M. Ciuchini \etal, \Journal{\PLB}{301}{263}{1993};
765: \Journal{\NPB}{415}{403}{1994}.
766:
767: \bibitem{LOpieta} J. Gasser and H. Leutwyler, \Journal{\NPB}{250}{465}{1985}.
768:
769: \bibitem{NLOpieta} G. Ecker \etal, \Journal{\PLB}{467}{88}{2000}.
770:
771: \bibitem{GardnerValencia} S. Gardner and G. Valencia,
772: \Journal{\PLB }{466}{355}{1999}.
773:
774: \bibitem{omegaNLOstr}{ S. Gardner and G. Valencia},
775: \Journal{\PRD}{62}{094024}{2000}.
776:
777: \bibitem{omegaNLOmodel}{ K. Maltman and C. Wolfe},
778: \Journal{\PLB}{482}{77}{2000}; \Journal{\PRD}{63}{014008}{2001}.
779:
780: \bibitem{omegaNLOem}{ V. Cirigliano, J.F. Donoghue and E. Golowich},
781: \Journal{\PLB}{450}{241}{1999}; \Journal{\PRD}{61}{093001}{2000};
782: \Journal{\PRD}{61}{093002}{2000}; \Journal{Eur. Phys. J. C}{18}{83}{2000}.
783:
784: \bibitem{Munichpre} A.J. Buras, M. Jamin and E. Lautenbacher,
785: \Journal{\PLB}{389}{749}{1996}.
786:
787: \bibitem{Romapre} Ciuchini \etal, \Journal{Z. Phys. C}{68}{239}{1995};
788: \Journal{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}{59}{149}{1997}.
789:
790: \bibitem{BBG} W.A. Bardeen, A.J. Buras and J.M. Gerard,
791: \Journal{\NPB }{293}{787}{1987}.
792:
793: \bibitem{Roma} G. Martinelli, Proc. {\it Kaon 99} Conf.,
794: Chicago, USA, hep-ph/9910237.
795:
796: \bibitem{chiQM}
797: S. Weinberg, \Journal{Physica} A {96}{327}{1979};
798: A. Manhoar and H. Georgi, \Journal{\NPB }{234}{189}{1984}.
799:
800: \bibitem{PichEdR}
801: A. Pich and E. de Rafael, \Journal{\NPB }{358}{311}{1991}.
802:
803: \bibitem{ts98a}
804: S. Bertolini \etal, \Journal{\NPB }{514}{63}{1998}.
805:
806: \bibitem{ts98b}
807: S. Bertolini \etal, \Journal{\NPB }{514}{93}{1998};
808: \Journal{\PRD}{63}{056009}{2001}.
809:
810: \bibitem{radcor00} S. Bertolini, Proc. {\it RADCOR 2000},
811: Carmel, USA, eConf C000911, hep-ph/0101212.
812:
813: \bibitem{Munichpost}
814: A.J. Buras, Proc. {\it Kaon 99} Conf., Chicago, USA,
815: hep-ph/9908395.
816:
817: \bibitem{Dortmund}
818: T. Hambye \etal, \Journal{\PRD}{58}{014017}{1998};
819: \Journal{\NPB }{564}{391}{2000}.
820:
821: \bibitem{Beijing} Yue-Liang Wu, \Journal{\PRD}{64}{016001}{2001}.
822:
823: \bibitem{Taipei} H.Y. Cheng, \Journal{Chin. J. Phys.}{38}{1044}{2000}.
824:
825: \bibitem{Valencia}
826: E. Pallante and A. Pich, \Journal{\PRL}{84}{2568}{2000};
827: \Journal{\NPB}{592}{294}{2000};
828: E. Pallante, A. Pich and I. Scimemi, \Journal{\NPB}{617}{441}{2001}.
829:
830: \bibitem{Dubna} A.A. Bel'kov \etal, hep-ph/9907335.
831:
832: %\bibitem{ts00a}
833: %S. Bertolini, J.O. Eeg and M. Fabbrichesi, \Journal{\PRD}{63}{056009}{2001}.
834:
835: \bibitem{ts00b}
836: M. Fabbrichesi, \Journal{\PRD}{62}{097902}{2000}.
837:
838: \bibitem{Lund} J. Bijnens and J. Prades, \Journal{JHEP}{0006}{035}{2000}.
839:
840: \bibitem{Montpellier} S. Narison, \Journal{\NPB}{593}{3}{2001}.
841:
842: \bibitem{CP-PACS} J. Noaki \etal, hep-lat/0108013.
843:
844: \bibitem{RBC} T. Blum \etal, hep-lat/0110075.
845:
846: \bibitem{APE}
847: A. Donini \etal, %V. Gimenez, L. Giusti and G. Martinelli,
848: \Journal{\PLB}{470}{233}{1999}.
849:
850: \bibitem{SPQcdR} G. Martinelli, \Journal{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}{106}{98}{2002},
851: %Also in {\it Berlin 2001, Lattice Field Theory} 98-110,
852: hep-lat/0112011.
853:
854: \bibitem{PerisEdR}
855: %S. Peris, M. Perrottet and E. de Rafael, \Journal{JHEP}{9805}{011}{1998};
856: %M. Knecht, S. Peris and E. de Rafael, \Journal{\PLB}{443}{255}{1998},
857: %\Journal{\PLB}{457}{227}{1999};
858: %S. Peris and E. de Rafael, \Journal{\PLB}{490}{213}{2000}.
859: M. Knecht, S. Peris and E. de Rafael, \Journal{\PLB}{508}{117}{2001};
860: S. Peris, hep-ph/0204181.
861:
862: \bibitem{CDGM}
863: V. Cirigliano, J.F. Donoghue, E. Golowich and K. Maltman,
864: \Journal{\PLB}{522}{245}{2001}.
865:
866: \bibitem{BGP}
867: J. Bijnens, E. Gamiz and J. Prades, \Journal{JHEP}{0110}{009}{2001}.
868:
869: \bibitem{Fermi} E. Fermi, \Journal{Suppl. Nuovo Cim.}{2}{17}{1955}.
870:
871: \bibitem{Omnes}
872: N.I. Mushkelishvili, {\it Singular Integral Equations}
873: (Noordhoff, Gronigen, 1953), p. 204;
874: R. Omn\`es, \Journal{Nuovo Cim.}{8}{316}{1958}.
875:
876: \bibitem{Truong} T.N. Truong, \Journal{\PLB}{207}{495}{1988};
877: U. Meissner, in
878: ``Perspectives in Nucl. Physics at Intermediate Energies'' 385-398,
879: Trieste 1991.
880:
881:
882: \bibitem{FSIcritics} {A.~J. Buras \etal}, \Journal{\PLB}{480}{80}{2000};
883: M. Buechler \etal, \Journal{\PLB}{521}{29}{2001}.
884:
885: \bibitem{dim8}{ V. Cirigliano, J.F. Donoghue and E. Golowich},
886: \Journal{JHEP}{0010}{048}{2000}.
887:
888: \bibitem{Golterman}
889: %EFFECTS OF QUENCHING AND PARTIAL QUENCHING ON QCD PENGUIN MATRIX ELEMENTS.
890: M. Golterman and E. Pallante, \Journal{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}{106}{335}{2002},
891: %Also in {\it Berlin 2001, Lattice field theory} 335-337,
892: hep-lat/0110183.
893:
894: \bibitem{Sachrajda} C.T. Sachrajda, Proc.
895: {\it Lepton-Photon 2001}, Roma, Italy, hep-ph/0110304.
896:
897: \bibitem{DWF} D. Kaplan, \Journal{\PLB}{288}{342}{1992}.
898:
899: \bibitem{MaianiTesta} L. Maiani and M. Testa, \Journal{\PLB}{245}{585}{1990}.
900:
901: \bibitem{LellouchLuscher} L. Lellouch and M. L\"uscher,
902: \Journal{Comm. Math. Phys.}{219}{31}{2001}.
903:
904:
905: \end{thebibliography}
906:
907:
908: \end{document}
909: