1:
2: %*******************
3: \documentstyle[preprint,floats,epsfig,aps]{revtex}
4: \begin{document}
5: \def\DESepsf(#1 width #2){\epsfxsize=#2 \epsfbox{#1}}
6: \input{epsf}
7:
8: %1:topic==================================================================
9: \begin{center}
10: \vskip 15mm
11: {\large CP violation in $B \to PP$ in the SM with
12: SU(3) symmetry}
13: \vskip 15mm
14: % \Large
15: Han-Kuei Fu, Xiao-Gang He, Yu-Kuo Hsiao, and Jian-Qing Shi\\
16: Physics Department, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C\\
17: \vskip 15mm
18: \end{center}
19: %abstract=================================================================
20:
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: In this paper we study CP violation in $B\to PP$ decays in the
24: Standard Model using SU(3) flavor symmetry.
25: With SU(3) symmetry only seven hadronic
26: parameters are needed to describe $B\to PP$ decays
27: in the SM when annihilation
28: contributions are neglected. The relevant hadronic parameters
29: can be determined using
30: known experimental data from $B\to \pi\pi$ and $B\to K \pi$.
31: We predict branching ratios and CP asymmetries for some of the unmeasured
32: $B \to PP$ decays. Some of the CP asymmetries can be large and measured
33: at B factories. The effects of annihilation contributions
34: can also be studied using present experimental data. Inclusion of
35: annihilation contributions introduces six more hadronic parameters.
36: We find that annihilation contributions are in general small,
37: but can have significant effects on CP asymmetries and some $B_s \to PP$.
38:
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41:
42: \newpage
43: \section{Introduction}
44: In this paper we study rare charmless hadronic
45: $B\to PP$ decays
46: using SU(3) flavor symmetry in the Standard Model (SM). Here $P$ is one of the
47: SU(3) octet pseudoscalar mesons.
48: SU(3) analysis for rare charmless B decays have been
49: studied by many groups and
50: have obtained several interesting results, such as relations between
51: different decay branching ratios, and ways to constrain and/or to
52: determine the phase $\gamma$\cite{1,2,3,4,5,6a}.
53: SU(3) symmetry for $B\to PP$ decays is expected to be a
54: good approximation because the energies released in these
55: decays are larger than the hadronization scale.
56: Test of SU(3) symmetry has been shown to be possible by using relations
57: predicted and also using some $B_s\to PP$ decays in an
58: electroweak model independent way\cite{4}. Here we will take SU(3)
59: symmetry as our working hypothesis.
60: We will also study how
61: SU(3) breaking effects affect the results.
62:
63: Recently it has been shown that if enough $B\to PP$ decay branching
64: ratios can be measured, in the frame work of SU(3) symmetry, the
65: associated hadronic parameters and
66: their CP conserving final state interaction (FSI) phases, can be
67: systematically studied\cite{6b}. The CP violating phase $\gamma$ in the KM matrix
68: can also be constrained. Comparison of the phase $\gamma$ constrained
69: this way with other constraints, the consistence of the SM
70: can be checked.
71: Once the hadronic parameters are determined, CP asymmetries in these
72: decays can be predicted. We will carry out an analysis
73: using the most recent data on rare charmless $B\to PP$ decays
74: to determine hadronic parameters, to predict several
75: other decay branching ratios and CP asymmetries in $B\to PP$ decays.
76:
77: We start with a few comments on the determination of the CP violating phase
78: $\gamma$ using information
79: from $\epsilon_K$ in $K^0-\bar K^0$ mixing, $B-\bar B$ mixings and $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$.
80: Very stringent constraint on the CP violating phase $\gamma$\cite{6b,8,10} can be
81: obtained by using experimental information on various KM matrix elements\cite{6b,10}.
82: Some of the most stringent constraint come from CP violating parameter
83: $\epsilon_K$, $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$, $\Delta m_B$.
84: The recently measured $\sin(2\beta)$ also provide important information.
85: Although $B_s -\bar B_s$ mixing has not been measured, one can still
86: use information on the upper bound on $\Delta m_{B_s}$ to constrain the
87: phase. One of the method to include $B_s - \bar B_s$ mixing information, in
88: a global $\chi^2$ fit of $\gamma$, is to use the amplitude
89: method\cite{ampmd}.
90: Using the input numerical values of the parameters in these processes
91: as in Ref. \cite{6b,10}, and the new
92: averaged value of $\sin(2\beta) = 0.78\pm 0.08$\cite{12,13,14,15},
93: we obtain the best fit value of $\gamma$ to be $59^\circ$.
94: The 68\% C.L. and 95\% C.L.
95: allowed regions, in the Wolfenstein parameters $\rho$ and $\eta$ plane,
96: are shown for this case in Figure 1.
97:
98:
99: %\scriptsize
100: \begin{figure}[htb]
101: \centerline{ \DESepsf(circle.eps width 8cm)}\label{contour}
102: \smallskip
103: \caption{The solid lines are for the fit with $\Delta
104: m_{B_s}$, and the dashed lines are for the fit without $\Delta
105: m_{B_s}$
106: The two regions from smaller to larger corresponds to the
107: the 68\% C.L. and
108: the 95\% C.L. allowed regions, respectively.}
109: \end{figure}
110:
111:
112: The usage of upper bound on $\Delta m_{B_s}$ to constrain $\gamma$
113: is not without controversy because the result depends on how the bound is
114: included. To avoid uncertainties due to this,
115: we propose to fit the value for $\gamma$ without the use of $\Delta M_{B_s}$
116: bound. As a by product one can obtain a prediction for the range of
117: $\Delta m_{B_s}$.
118: Carrying out an $\chi^2$ analysis, we find that the best values with 68\% C.L.
119: errors for $\gamma$ and
120: $\Delta M_{B_s}$, and their
121: 95\% C.L. ranges are given by
122:
123: \begin{eqnarray}
124: \gamma &=& 59^{+26^\circ}_{-16^\circ},\;\;\;\;
125: 39^\circ \sim 94^\circ, \mbox{ 95\% C.L. range};
126: \nonumber\\
127: \Delta M_{B_s} &=& 17.9^{+4.4}_{-3.9},\;\;\;\; 10.8<\Delta m_{B_s}<26.1,
128: \mbox{ 95\% C.L. range}.
129: \end{eqnarray}
130: In Figure 1. we also show the allowed region (the dashed lines)
131: in $\rho$ and $\eta$ plane.
132: Since experiments constrain $\Delta m_{B_s}$ to be larger than $14.9$ ps$^{-1}$\cite{19} at
133: the 95\% C.L., the range for $\Delta m_{B_s}$ should be taken to be
134: $14.9 \sim 26.1$ ps$^{-1}$ at the 95\% C.L..
135: This prediction is consistent with the prediction of $ \Delta m_{B_s}
136: = 29^{+16}_{-11}$ ps$^{-1}$\cite{20} from measurement of $\Delta \Gamma_s$
137: and lattice calculation of $\Delta \Gamma_s/\Delta m_{B_s}$.
138: The predicted range of $\Delta m_{B_s}$ can be measured at
139: future hadron colliders, such as LHCb, HERAb and BTeV. This will provide
140: an important test for the SM.
141:
142: The value of $\gamma$ obtained above will serve as a reference value for comparison
143: when we study $B\to PP$ decays. We will make use of the values obtained in two
144: ways. We will first study the consistence of the value obtained here and the
145: one to be obtained from $B\to PP$ decays.
146: The other way is to
147: fix $\gamma$ at its best fit value determined above and to use experimental data on
148: $B\to PP$ decays to fix hadronic parameters using SU(3) symmetry, and to predict other
149: unmeasured branching ratios and CP asymmetries.
150:
151: In Section II, we will briefly review the SU(3) parameterizations for $B\to PP$ decay
152: amplitudes in the SM, and
153: to study the consistence of $\gamma$ by comparing the constraint discussed earlier and that
154: from $B\to PP$ decays. In Section III we study SU(3) hadronic
155: parameters, the branching ratios and CP
156: asymmetries for $B\to PP$ decays. In Section IV, we study
157: the effects of annihilation amplitudes on $B\to PP$ decays. In Section V, we
158: discuss some of the implications from our studies and draw conclusions.
159:
160:
161: \section{SU(3) hadronic parameters and the phase $\gamma$}
162:
163: In SM the decay amplitudes for $B \to PP$ can be written as
164: \begin{eqnarray}
165: A(B\to PP) = <PP|H_{eff}^q|B> = {G_F\over \sqrt{2}}[V_{ub}V^*_{uq} T(q)
166: + V_{tb}V^*_{tq}P(q)],
167: \end{eqnarray}
168: where $B = (B_u, B_d, B_s) = (B^-, \bar B^0, \bar B^0_s)$.
169: $T(q)$ contains contributions from
170: the $tree$ operators as well as $penguin$ operators
171: due to charm and up
172: quark loop corrections to the matrix elements,
173: while $P(q)$ contains contributions purely from
174: $penguin$ due to top and charm quarks in loops.
175:
176: SU(3) flavor symmetry can relate different $B\to PP$ decays. Therefore,
177: knowing some of the branching ratios, other branching ratios and associated
178: CP violating rate asymmetries can be predicted.
179: As far as the SU(3) structure is concerned, the effective Hamiltonian
180: contains $\bar 3$, $6$, and $\overline{15}$ which define three types of
181: SU(3) invariant amplitudes. We use the notations in Ref. \cite{6b}.
182: In Table \ref{br}, we list $B\to PP$
183: decays in terms of the SU(3) invariant amplitudes.
184:
185: \begin{table}[htb]
186: \caption{SU(3) decay amplitudes for $B\to PP$ decays. \label{t1}
187: } \footnotesize
188: \begin{eqnarray}
189: \begin{array}{l}
190: \hspace{-3mm}
191: \left.
192: \begin{array}{l}
193: \Delta S = 0\\
194: T^{B_u}_{\pi^-\pi^0}(d) = {8\over \sqrt{2}}C^T_{\overline{15}},\\
195: T^{B_u}_{\pi^- \eta_8}(d)={2\over \sqrt{6}}
196: (C^T_{\bar 3} - C^T_6 + 3 A^T_{\overline {15}} + 3C^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
197: T^{B_u}_{K^- K^0}(d)=
198: C^T_{\bar 3} - C^T_6 + 3 A^T_{\overline {15}} -C^T_{\overline {15}},\\
199: T^{B_d}_{\pi^+\pi^-}(d) = 2A^T_{\bar 3} +C^T_{\bar 3}
200: + C^T_{6} + A^T_{\overline {15} } + 3 C^T_{\overline {15}},\\
201: T^{B_d}_{\pi^0\pi^0}(d)= {1\over \sqrt{2}} (2A^T_{\bar 3} +C^T_{\bar 3}
202: + C^T_{6} + A^T_{\overline {15} } -5 C^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
203: T^{B_d}_{K^- K^+}(d)= 2(A^T_{\bar 3} + A^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
204: T^{B_d}_{\bar K^0 K^0}(d)= 2A^T_{\bar 3} +
205: C^T_{\bar 3} - C^T_6 - 3 A^T_{\overline {15}} - C^T_{\overline {15}},\\
206: T^{B_d}_{\pi^0 \eta_8}(d)= {1\over \sqrt{3}}
207: (-C^T_{\bar 3} + C^T_6 + 5 A^T_{\overline {15}} + C^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
208: T^{B_d}_{\eta_8 \eta_8}(d)={1\over \sqrt{2}}
209: (2A^T_{\bar 3} + {1\over 3} C^T_{\bar 3} - C^T_6
210: -A^T_{\overline {15}} + C^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
211: T^{B_s}_{ K^+ \pi^-}(d) =
212: C^T_{\bar 3} + C^T_6 - A^T_{\overline {15}} +3 C^T_{\overline {15}},\\
213: T^{B_s}_{ K^0 \pi^0}(d) =
214: -{1\over \sqrt{2}}(C^T_{\bar 3} + C^T_6 - A^T_{\overline {15}}
215: -5 C^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
216: T^{B_s}_{K^0 \eta_8}(d)=
217: -{1\over \sqrt{6}}(C^T_{\bar 3} + C^T_6 - A^T_{\overline {15}}
218: -5 C^T_{\overline {15}}),
219: \end{array}
220: \right.
221: \left.
222: \begin{array}{l}
223: \Delta S = -1\\
224: T^{B_u}_{\pi^-\bar K^0}(s)= C^T_{\bar 3}
225: - C^T_{6} + 3A^T_{\overline {15}} - C^T_{\overline {15}
226: },\\
227: T^{B_u}_{\pi^0K^-}(s)= {1\over \sqrt{2}} (C^T_{\bar 3}
228: - C^T_{6} + 3A^T_{\overline {15} } +7 C^T_{\overline {15}
229: })\;,\\
230: T^{B_u}_{\eta_8K^-}(s)= {1\over\sqrt{6}}(-C^T_{\bar 3}
231: + C^T_{6} - 3A^T_{\overline {15}} +9 C^T_{\overline {15}
232: }),\\
233: T^{B_d}_{\pi^+ K^-}(s) = C^T_{\bar 3}
234: + C^T_{6} - A^T_{\overline {15}} + 3 C^T_{\overline {15}
235: },\\
236: T^{B_d}_{\pi^0\bar K^0}(s)= -{1\over \sqrt{2}} (C^T_{\bar 3}
237: + C^T_{6} - A^T_{\overline {15} } -5 C^T_{\overline {15} }),\\
238: T^{B_d}_{\eta_8 \bar K^0}(s)= -{1\over \sqrt{6}} (C^T_{\bar 3}
239: + C^T_{6} - A^T_{\overline {15} } -5 C^T_{\overline {15} }),\\
240: T^{B_s}_{\pi^+\pi^-}(s) = 2(A^T_{\bar 3}
241: + A^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
242: T^{B_s}_{\pi^0\pi^0}(s) = \sqrt{2}(A^T_{\bar 3}
243: + A^T_{\overline {15}}),\\
244: T^{B_s}_{K^+K^-}(s)= 2A^T_{\bar 3} +C^T_{\bar 3}
245: + C^T_{6} + A^T_{\overline {15} } + 3 C^T_{\overline {15}
246: },\\
247: T^{B_s}_{K^0\bar K^0}(s)= 2A^T_{\bar 3} +C^T_{\bar 3}
248: - C^T_{6} -3 A^T_{\overline {15} } - C^T_{\overline {15}
249: },\\
250: T^{B_s}_{\pi^0\eta_8}(s)= {2\over \sqrt{3}}
251: ( C^T_{6}
252: +2 A^T_{\overline {15}} - 2C^T_{\overline {15}
253: }),\\
254: T^{B_s}_{\eta_8\eta_8}(s)= \sqrt{2}(A^T_{\bar 3} +{2\over 3} C^T_{\bar 3}
255: - A^T_{\overline {15} } - 2C^T_{\overline {15}}).
256: \end{array}
257: \right.
258: \end{array}
259: \nonumber
260: \end{eqnarray}
261: \label{amp}
262: %\normalsize
263: \end{table}
264:
265: \normalsize
266: In general there are both tree and penguin amplitudes $C^{T,P}_{\bar 3,6,\overline{15}}$,
267: $A^{T,P}_{\bar 3, 6,\overline{15}}$. $C_{6}$ and
268: $A_6$ always appear as $C_6 - A_6$ and we
269: take this combination to be $C_6$. The amplitudes
270: $A_i$ are referred as annihilation amplitudes. In total there are
271: 10 complex hadronic parameters (20 real parameters with one of them to
272: be an overall unphysical phase).
273: However simplification can be made because the following relations in the
274: SM,
275:
276: \begin{eqnarray}
277: C^P_6 &=&
278: - {3\over 2}
279: {c_9^{tc} - c_{10}^{tc}\over
280: c_1-c_2-3(c_9^{uc}-c_{10}^{uc})/2}
281: C^T_6
282: \approx
283: - 0.013
284: C^T_6
285: \;,\nonumber\\
286: C^P_{\overline {15}}(A^P_{\overline {15}})
287: &=& -{3\over 2}
288: {c_9^{tc}+c_{10}^{tc}\over c_1+c_2-3(c^{uc}_9+c_{10}^{uc})/2}
289: C^T_{\overline {15}} (A^T_{\overline {15}})
290: \approx
291: +0.015 C^T_{\overline {15}} (A^T_{\overline {15}})
292: .
293: \label{P2T}
294: \end{eqnarray}
295: Here we have used the Wilson coefficients obtained in
296: Ref.\cite{dh}.
297: With the above relations, there are less independent parameters which
298: we choose them to be,
299: $C_{\bar 3}^{T,P}(A^{T,P}_{\bar 3})$, $C_6^T$, and $C^T_{\overline {15}}
300: (A^T_{\overline {15}})$. Using the fact that an overall phase can be removed
301: without loss of generality, we will set $C^P_{\bar 3}$ to be real, there
302: are in fact only 13 real independent parameters for $B\to PP$ in the
303: SM,\\[2 mm]
304: \hspace*{2 cm}$C_{\bar 3}^P,\;\;C_{\bar 3}^T e^{i\delta_{\bar 3}},\;\;
305: C^{T}_6e^{i\delta_6},\;\;
306: C^{T}_{\overline{15}}e^{i\delta_{\overline{15}}}\;\;
307: A^T_{\bar 3}e^{i\delta_{A^T_{\bar 3}}},\;\;
308: A^P_{\bar 3} e^{i\delta_{A^P_{\bar 3}}},\;\;
309: A^T_{\overline{15}} e^{i\delta_{A^T_{\overline{15}}}}.$\\[2 mm]
310: Further the amplitudes $A_i$ correspond to annihilation contributions and
311: are expected to be small. In this section, we neglect these amplitudes.
312: In this case there are
313: only 7 independent hadronic parameters
314:
315: \begin{eqnarray}
316: C_{\bar 3}^P,\;\;C_{\bar 3}^T e^{i\delta_{\bar 3}},\;\;
317: C^{T}_6e^{i\delta_6},\;\;
318: C^{T}_{\overline{15}}e^{i\delta_{\overline{15}}}.
319: \label{ci}
320: \end{eqnarray}
321: The phases in the above are defined in such a way that all $C_i^{T,P}$
322: are real positive numbers.
323: We will discuss how the annihilation contributions affect the decays in
324: Section IV.
325:
326:
327: SU(3) may not be an exact symmetry for $B\to PP$.
328: The amplitudes $C_i$ for $B\to \pi\pi$ and $B\to K \pi$ will be
329: different if SU(3) is broken.
330: At present it is not possible to calculate the breaking effects. To
331: have some idea about the size of the SU(3) breaking effects, we
332: work with the factorization estimate.
333: To leading order
334: the relation between the amplitudes for $B\to \pi\pi$ decays
335: $C_i(\pi\pi)$ and the amplitudes for $B\to K \pi$ decays
336: $C_i(K \pi)$ can be parameterized as $C_i(K \pi) = r C_i(\pi\pi)$,
337: and $r$ is approximately given by $r \approx {f_K\over f_\pi} = 1.22$.
338:
339: Here we have assumed that
340: the SU(3) breaking effects in $f_i$ and $F_0^{B\to i}$
341: are similar in magnitude,
342: that is, $f_K/f_\pi \approx F^{B\to K}_0/ F^{B\to \pi}_0$.
343: Using the above to represent SU(3) breaking effect, we can obtain
344: another set of fitting results.
345: Compared with $B\to K\pi$, there is also SU(3) breaking effect in
346: $B_s \to K \pi$ proportional to $F^{B_s \to K}/F^{B\to K}$ or
347: $F^{B_s \to \pi}/F^{B\to \pi}$. We will take them to be approximately 1.
348: There are different ways to
349: determine the hadronic parameters $C_i$ and $\delta_i$. A consistent and systematic
350: way of carrying out such an analysis is to perform a $\chi^2$ analysis by
351: taking into account all experimental data on $B\to PP$.
352: We will use this method to obtain the hadronic parameters
353: and also the CP violating phase $\gamma$.
354:
355: In Table \ref{br} we list present available experimental data on $B\to PP$ decays.
356: In general the errors for the experimental data in Table \ref{br} are correlated.
357: Due to the lack of knowledge of the error correlation from experiments, in
358: our analysis, for simplicity, we take them to be uncorrelated and
359: assume
360: the errors obey Gaussian distribution
361: taking the larger one between $\sigma_+$
362: and $\sigma_-$ to be on the conservative side. When combining from different
363: measurements, we take the weighted average.
364: For the data which only presented as upper bounds,
365: we assume them to obey Gaussian distribution and taking the
366: error $\sigma$ accordingly.
367:
368: We will carry out our $\chi^2$ analysis with the KM matrix elements $V_{us} = \lambda$,
369: $V_{cb} = A\lambda^2$, $V_{ub} = |V_{ub}| exp(-i\gamma)$ fixed
370: by\cite{8} $\lambda = 0.2196$,
371: $A = 0.835$ and $|V_{ub}| = 0.09|V_{cb}|$ and take $\gamma$ to
372: be a free parameter to be determined in this section. The total parameters to be
373: determined are the 7 hadronic parameters in Eq. (\ref{ci}) and $\gamma$.
374:
375: %\footnotesize
376: \scriptsize
377: \begin{table}%[htb]
378: \caption{The branching ratios for $B\to PP$ in units of $10^{-6}$.}\label{br}
379: \begin{center}
380: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
381: %\normalsize
382: Branching ratio and & Cleo&Belle& Babar &Averaged \\
383: CP asymmetries &\cite{21} &\cite{22} &\cite{23} & Value \\ \hline \hline
384: $Br(B_u\to \pi^-\pi^0)$ & $5.6^{+2.6}_{-2.3}\pm 1.7$ & $7.0\pm 2.2\pm 0.8$ & $4.1^{+1.1+0.8}_{-1.0-0.7}$ & $4.9\pm1.1$\\ \hline
385: $Br(B_u\to K^-K^0)$ & $<5.1(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $<3.8(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $<1.3(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $0\pm0.8$\\ \hline
386: $Br(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-)$ & $4.3^{+1.6}_{-1.4}\pm 0.5$ & $5.1\pm 1.1\pm 0.4$ & $5.4 \pm0.7 \pm0.4$ & $5.2\pm0.6$\\ \hline
387: $Br(B_d\to\pi^0\pi^0)$ & $2.2^{+1.7+0.7}_{-1.3-0.7}$ & $2.9 \pm 1.5 \pm 0.6$ & $0.9^{+0.9+0.8}_{-0.7-0.6}$ & $1.7\pm0.9$ \\ \hline
388: $Br(B_d\to K^-K^+)$ & $<1.9(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $<0.5(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $<1.1(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $0\pm0.3$\\ \hline
389: $Br(B_d\to\bar K^0 K^0)$ & $1.8^{+1.8}_{-1.2} \pm 1.8$ & $<13(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $<7.3(90\% \mbox{C.L.})$ & $1.8\pm2.5$\\ \hline
390: $Br(B_u\to \pi^-\bar K^0 )$ & $18.2^{+4.6}_{-4.0}\pm 1.6$ & $18.8\pm3.0\pm1.5$ & $17.5^{+1.8}_{-1.7}\pm 1.3$ & $17.9\pm 1.7$\\ \hline
391: $Br(B_u\to \pi^0K^-)$ & $11.6^{+3.0+1.4}_{-2.7-1.3}$ & $12.5 \pm 2.4 \pm 1.2$ & $11.1^{+1.3}_{-1.2}\pm 1.0$ & $11.5\pm 1.3$\\ \hline
392: $Br(B_d\to \pi^+K^-)$ & $17.2^{+2.5}_{-2.4}\pm 1.2$ & $21.8\pm1.8\pm1.5$ & $17.8\pm 1.1 \pm0.8$ & $18.6 \pm 1.1$\\ \hline
393: $Br(B_d\to \pi^0\bar K^0)$ & $14.6^{+5.9+2.4}_{-5.1-3.3}$ & $7.7 \pm 3.2\pm 1.6$ & $8.2^{+3.1}_{-2.7}\pm1.2$ & $8.8\pm 2.3$\\ \hline \hline
394: $A_{CP}(B_u\to \pi^-\pi^0)$ & & $0.31\pm0.31\pm0.05$ & $-0.02^{+0.27}_{-0.26}\pm 0.10$ & $0.13\pm0.21$\\ \hline
395: $A_{CP}(B_d\to \pi^+\pi^-)$ & & $0.94^{+0.25}_{-0.31}\pm0.09$ & $-0.02\pm0.29\pm0.07$ & $0.42\pm0.22$ \\ \hline
396: $A_{CP}(B_u\to \pi^-\bar K ^0)$ & $ 0.18\pm0.24$ & $0.46\pm0.15\pm0.02$ & $-0.17\pm0.10\pm0.02$ & $0.04\pm0.08$\\ \hline
397: $A_{CP}(B_u\to \pi^0K^-)$ & $-0.29\pm0.23$ & $-0.04\pm0.19\pm0.03$ & $0.00\pm0.11\pm0.02$ & $-0.05\pm0.09$\\ \hline
398: $A_{CP}(B_d\to \pi^+K^-)$ & $-0.04\pm0.16$ & $-0.06\pm0.08\pm0.01$ & $-0.05\pm0.06\pm0.01$ & $-0.05\pm0.05$
399: \end{tabular}
400: \end{center}
401: \end{table}
402:
403: \normalsize
404:
405: In Figure 2. we show the $\chi^2$ as a function of the phase $\gamma$. From
406: the figure we see that for the case with exact SU(3) symmetry
407: $\gamma$ between $20^\circ \sim 160^\circ$,
408: the $\chi^2$ is reasonably small and allowed at the one sigma level.
409: Although there are minimal points in the curve, they are not deep enough
410: to single out one point with high significance. $\gamma$ around $60^\circ$
411: is certainly allowed. There is no inconsistence between the allowed range
412: of $\gamma$ obtained here and that in the previous section.
413: For the case with broken SU(3) symmetry, the region with $\gamma$ around $110^\circ$
414: is not favored. But $\gamma$ around $60^\circ$ is still allowed at 90\% C.L..
415: Accurate experimental data in the near future will provide us with more information.
416:
417:
418: \begin{figure}[htb]
419: \centerline{ \DESepsf(chi.eps width 8cm)}
420: \smallskip
421: \caption {
422: $\chi^2$ vs. $\gamma$ phase without annihilation terms.
423: The solid line is for the case with exact SU(3) symmetry,
424: and the dotted line is for the case with SU(3)
425: breaking described in the text.} \label{chi}
426: \end{figure}
427:
428: \section{Branching ratios and CP asymmetries for $B\to PP$}
429:
430: In the previous section we have seen that the CP
431: violating phase $\gamma$ determined using
432: data from $B\to PP$ and from $\epsilon_K$, $B-\bar B$ mixing and
433: $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|$ are not in conflict.
434: One may want to combine these two to predict
435: a combined best fit value for $\gamma$. At present the fit from the first section
436: for $\gamma$ has a much better error range. The combined fit will give a
437: value for $\gamma$ similar to the one in the previous section\cite{6b}.
438: In this section we will use
439: the best fit value of $\gamma= 59^\circ$ from the first section as a known value to study in
440: more details about $B\to PP$ decays.
441:
442: The best fit values for the hadronic parameters are given in Table \ref{fp}.
443: The magnitudes of $C_i$ are the same order of magnitude as the factorization
444: predictions\cite{6b}. The CP conserving phases $\delta_i$, which can not be calculated
445: in factorization approximation, can be
446: determined from the $\chi^2$ analysis performed here. We see from Table \ref{fp} that
447: these CP conserving phases can be large.
448:
449: \begin{table}
450: \caption{The best fit values and their $1\sigma$ errors of the hadronic parameters
451: using all data in Table \ref{br} with
452: annihilation terms set to be zero and $\gamma = 59^\circ$.}\label{fp}
453: \begin{center}
454: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
455: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{SU(3) exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
456: & central value & error range & central value & error range \\ \hline
457: $ C^P_{\bar 3} $ & 0.138 & 0.003 & 0.113 & 0.003 \\ \hline
458: $ C^T_{\bar 3} $ & 0.248 & 0.111 & 0.245 & 0.074 \\ \hline
459: $ C^T_6 $ & 0.155 & 0.112 & 0.142 & 0.092 \\ \hline
460: $ C^T_{\overline{15}} $ & 0.142 & 0.014 & 0.145 & 0.014 \\ \hline
461: $ \delta_{ \bar 3} $ & $38.10^0$ & $29.69^0$ & $34.74^0$ & $23.51^0$ \\ \hline
462: $ \delta_ 6 $ & $83.17^0$ & $35.97^0$ & $71.59^0$ & $29.42^0$ \\ \hline
463: $ \delta_{\overline{15}} $ & $4.78^0$ & $17.84^0$ & $3.36^0$ & $15.31^0$
464: \end{tabular}
465: \end{center}
466: \end{table}
467:
468: Using the above determined hadronic parameters, one can easily obtain the branching ratios and
469: CP asymmetries for $B\to PP$.
470: We use the following definition for the CP violating rate asymmetry,
471: \begin{eqnarray}
472: A_{CP} = {\Gamma( B_i \to PP) - \Gamma(\bar B_i \to \bar P \bar P)\over
473: \Gamma(B_i\to PP) + \Gamma(\bar B_i\to \bar P\bar P)}.
474: \end{eqnarray}
475:
476: In general $P$ can be any one of
477: the SU(3) pseudoscalar octet mesons, $\pi$, $K$ and $\eta_8$. Here we will limit our study
478: to $P = \pi, K$ to avoid complications associated with $\eta_1$ and $\eta_8$ mixings.
479: In this case there are total 16 decay modes. Among them
480: the decay amplitudes for $B_d \to K^-K^+$, $B_s \to \pi^-\pi^+, \pi^0\pi^0$
481: only receive annihilation contributions.
482: Since we have neglected annihilation contributions they
483: would have vanishing branching ratios.
484: At present none of them have been measured experimentally. The present bound on
485: $B_d \to K^- K^+$ is consistent with this prediction.
486:
487: In Tables \ref{BB} and \ref{AA}
488: we show the results for the branching ratios and CP
489: asymmetries for the other 13 decays.
490: We see that the best fit values of the branching ratios for the ones have experimental
491: measurements are similar and agree with each other within error bars. We also predict
492: the branching ratios for $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-, K^0 \pi^0, K^-K^+, K^0 \bar K^0$
493: decays.
494: These decay modes are predicted to be large and
495: can be measured at hadron colliders, such as, CDF, HERAb and
496: LHCb. The SM and SU(3) flavor symmetry can be tested.
497:
498: SU(3) symmetry predicts some of the CP asymmetries to be equal. From Table \ref{amp}
499: we obtain
500:
501: \begin{eqnarray}
502: &&A_{CP}(B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0) = A_{CP}(B_u \to K^- K^0),\nonumber\\
503: &&A_{CP}(B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = A_{CP}(B_s \to K^+ \pi^-),\nonumber\\
504: &&A_{CP}(B_d \to \pi^0 \pi^0) = A_{CP}(B_s \to K^0 \pi^0),\nonumber\\
505: &&A_{CP}(B_d \to \pi^+ K^-) = A_{CP}(B_s \to K^+ K^-),\nonumber\\
506: &&A_{CP}(B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0) = A_{CP}(B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0).
507: \end{eqnarray}
508: When SU(3) is broken, in general these relations may no longer hold. However in the
509: special pattern of the SU(3) breaking we are dealing with the above relations
510: still hold. Experimental measurements of CP asymmetries for these modes can
511: provide important test for the SU(3) flavor symmetry.
512:
513: In the SU(3) limit there are also some relations between rate differences
514: defined as,
515: $\Delta (B_i\to PP) = \Gamma(B_i \to PP) - \Gamma(\bar B_i \to \bar P \bar P)$,
516: between $\Delta S = 0$ and $\Delta S = -1$ modes due to
517: a unique feature of the SM in the KM matrix element that\cite{js} $Im(V_{ub}V_{ud}^*V_{tb}^*V_{td})
518: = - Im(V_{ub}V_{us}^*V_{tb}^*V_{ts})$.
519: We find\cite{4}
520:
521: \begin{eqnarray}
522: &&\Delta (B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = -\Delta (B_d\to \pi^+ K^-),\nonumber\\
523: &&\Delta (B_d \to \pi^0 \pi^0) = -\Delta (B_d\to \pi^0 \bar K^0),\nonumber\\
524: &&\Delta (B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0) = -\Delta (B_u\to \pi^- \bar K^0).
525: \end{eqnarray}
526: These rate difference relations can also provide important information.
527:
528: The best fit values for $A_{CP}$ can be large with several of them reaching
529: 30\%, such as the asymmetries for $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-, \pi^0\pi^0$, and
530: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-, K^0 \pi^0$. $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ provides the best chance
531: to measure CP asymmetry. The fact that the size of $A_{CP}$ for these
532: modes are large, can be easily understood from the following.
533: Using the above relations, one would obtain
534:
535: \begin{eqnarray}
536: &&A_{CP}(B_d \to \pi^+\pi^-) = A_{CP}(B_s \to K^+ \pi^-)
537: =- A_{CP}(B_d\to \pi^+ K^-) {Br(B_d \to \pi^+ K^-)
538: \over Br(B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-)},\nonumber\\
539: &&A_{CP}(B_d \to \pi^0\pi^0) = A_{CP}(B_s \to K^0 \pi^0)
540: =- A_{CP}(B_d\to \pi^0\bar K^0) {Br(B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0)
541: \over Br(B_d \to \pi^0 \pi^0)}.
542: \end{eqnarray}
543: In all the above cases the ratio of the branching ratios are larger than one, a small
544: $A_{CP}$ of the decay modes on the right hand side can induce a
545: large $A_{CP}$ for the decay modes on the left hand side.
546: The situation with SU(3) breaking case is also similar.
547:
548: The cases for $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$, $B_d \to K^0 \bar K^0$
549: and $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$, $B_u \to K^- K^0$ are particularly
550: interesting. In the factorization approximation, the tree amplitude for these modes are
551: almost zero. In terms of the SU(3) amplitudes that implies
552: $\Delta C = C^T_{\bar 3} - C^T_6 - C^T_{\overline{15}}$ is close to zero.
553: CP asymmetries are predicted to be very small. $\Delta C$ is small, however,
554: does not follow from SU(3) symmetry. Rescattering effect may make it significantly deviate
555: from zero. From Table \ref{fp} we
556: can see that the best fit value for
557: $\Delta C =^{0.035-0.013\mbox{ $i$... for exact}}_{0.011-0.004\mbox{ $i$... for break}}$
558: is small, but within errors it can be away from zero. Translating this
559: into CP violating rate
560: asymmetries for $B_u \to \bar K^0 \pi^-$ and $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$, we see that the best fit
561: value is small,
562: but non-zero asymmetries can not be ruled out. This can lead to
563: large asymmetries for $B_u \to K^- K^0$ and $B_d \to K^0 \bar K^0$ within the error bars,
564: as can be seen from Table \ref{AA}
565: experiments.
566:
567: We note that the CP asymmetry for
568: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ is zero in Table \ref{AA} resulting
569: from SU(3) (or isospin) symmetry.
570: In principle it
571: should have a small asymmetry due to the different short distance strong and electroweak
572: penguins, but it is negligiblly small and have been neglected.
573:
574:
575:
576: \footnotesize
577: \begin{table}%[htb]
578: \caption{The prediction of the branching ratio
579: without annihilation terms and $\gamma$=$59^{\circ}$.}\label{BB}
580: \begin{center}
581: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
582: Branching ratio & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) Exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
583: & central value & Error( Max , Min ) & central value & Error( Max , Min ) \\ \hline
584: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ & 5.3 & ( 6.3 , 4.2 ) & 5.4 & ( 6.5 , 4.4 ) \\ \hline
585: $B_u \to K^- K^0$ & 0.7 & ( 1.1 , 0.6 ) & 1.1 & ( 1.4 , 1.0 ) \\ \hline
586: $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 5.1 & ( 5.7 , 4.5 ) & 5.0 & ( 5.6 , 4.4 ) \\ \hline
587: $B_d \to\pi^0 \pi^0$ & 1.3 & ( 2.1 , 0.7 ) & 1.1 & ( 1.9 , 0.6 ) \\ \hline
588: $B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0$ & 0.7 & ( 1.0 , 0.6 ) & 1.0 & ( 1.3 , 0.9 ) \\ \hline
589: $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ & 19.1 & ( 20.3 , 18.0 ) & 19.2 & ( 20.3 , 18.1 ) \\ \hline
590: $B_u \to \pi^0 K^-$ & 10.5 & ( 11.1 , 10.0 ) & 10.8 & ( 11.3 , 10.3 ) \\ \hline
591: $B_d \to \pi^+ K^-$ & 18.5 & ( 19.5 , 17.6 ) & 18.4 & ( 19.3 , 17.5 ) \\ \hline
592: $B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$ & 8.6 & ( 9.0 , 8.1 ) & 8.3 & ( 8.7 , 7.9 ) \\ \hline \hline
593: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-$ & 4.8 & ( 5.3 , 4.2 ) & 7.0 & ( 7.8 , 6.2 ) \\ \hline
594: $B_s \to K^0 \pi^0$ & 1.2 & ( 2.0 , 0.7 ) & 1.6 & ( 2.7 , 0.8 ) \\ \hline
595: $B_s \to K^+K^- $ & 17.4 & ( 18.3 , 16.5 ) & 26.6 & ( 27.9 , 25.3 ) \\ \hline
596: $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ & 16.8 & ( 17.9 , 15.8 ) & 25.9 & ( 27.4 , 24.5 ) \\ \hline
597: \end{tabular}
598: \end{center}
599: \end{table}
600:
601: \footnotesize
602: \begin{table}%[htb]
603: \caption{The prediction of the CP asymmetry without annihilation
604: terms and $\gamma$=$59^{\circ}$}\label{AA}
605: \begin{center}
606: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
607: Asymmetry & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) Exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
608: & Central value & Error (Max,Min) & Central value & Error (Max,Min) \\ \hline
609: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) \\ \hline
610: $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 0.32 & ( 0.46 , 0.18 ) & 0.24 & ( 0.35 , 0.12 ) \\ \hline
611: $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.05 , -0.04 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.04 , -0.03 ) \\ \hline
612: $B_u \to \pi^0 K^-$ & -0.01 & ( 0.06 , -0.10 ) & -0.01 & ( 0.06 , -0.10 ) \\ \hline
613: $B_d \to \pi^+ K^-$ & -0.09 & ( -0.05 , -0.13 ) & -0.10 & ( -0.05 , -0.14 ) \\ \hline \hline
614: $B_u \to K^- K^0$ & -0.09 & ( 0.85 , -0.91 ) & -0.03 & ( 0.74 , -0.78 ) \\ \hline
615: $B_d \to\pi^0 \pi^0$ & 0.37 & ( 0.64 , -0.58 ) & 0.32 & ( 0.56 , -0.38 ) \\ \hline
616: $B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0$ & -0.09 & ( 0.85 , -0.91 ) & -0.03 & ( 0.74 , -0.78 ) \\ \hline
617: $B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$ & -0.06 & ( 0.06 , -0.13 ) & -0.07 & ( 0.06 , -0.15 ) \\ \hline
618: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-$ & 0.32 & ( 0.46 , 0.18 ) & 0.24 & ( 0.35 , 0.12 ) \\ \hline
619: $B_s \to K^0 \pi^0$ & 0.37 & ( 0.64 , -0.58 ) & 0.32 & ( 0.56 , -0.38 ) \\ \hline
620: $B_s \to K^+K^- $ & -0.09 & ( -0.05 , -0.13 ) & -0.10 & ( -0.05 , -0.14 ) \\ \hline
621: $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.05 , -0.04 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.04 , -0.03 ) \\ \hline
622: \end{tabular}
623: \end{center}
624: \end{table}
625:
626: \normalsize
627:
628: At present no CP asymmetry in $B\to PP$ has been measured. To see how sensitive the
629: bounds on CP asymmetries in Table \ref{br} affect the analysis,
630: we carried out an analysis using mostly branching ratio information.
631: If we do not use any CP violating data, we find that the branching ratios are not affected
632: very much. However, in this case there is a degeneracy in identifying
633: particle and anti-particle branching ratios.
634: This implies that one can only determine the size of the asymmetries
635: but not the signs. To determine the sign, one should use at least one CP asymmetry
636: data point to left the degeneracy. For this purpose we select one CP asymmetry data point,
637: the asymmetry for $B_d \to \pi^+ K^- $, for which all experimental measurements have similar
638: central values although there is still a large error bar to establish the measurement.
639: We list the results in Tables
640: \ref{AAA}, \ref{CCC} and \ref{BBB}.
641: %test2---------------------------------------------
642: \begin{table}
643: \caption{The best fit values and their error ranges for the hadronic parameters
644: without annihilation terms and $\gamma = 59^\circ$ using
645: data on branching ratios and CP asymmetry on $B_d \to K^+ \pi^-$.}\label{AAA}
646: \begin{center}
647: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
648: \hline
649: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{SU(3) exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
650: & central value & error range & central value & error range \\ \hline
651: $ C^P_{\bar 3} $ & 0.139 & 0.003 & 0.114 & 0.003 \\ \hline
652: $ C^T_{\bar 3} $ & 0.280 & 0.112 & 0.271 & 0.074 \\ \hline
653: $ C^T_6 $ & 0.176 & 0.147 & 0.182 & 0.103 \\ \hline
654: $ C^T_{\overline{15}} $ & 0.141 & 0.014 & 0.143 & 0.014 \\ \hline
655: $ \delta_{ \bar 3} $ & $29.54^0$ & $29.86^0$ & $27.92^0$ & $19.86^0$ \\ \hline
656: $ \delta_ 6 $ & $75.15^0$ & $32.15^0$ & $65.18^0$ & $22.51^0$ \\ \hline
657: $ \delta_{\overline{15}} $ & $-13.33^0$ & $21.71^0$ & $-15.50^0$ & $19.03^0$ \\ \hline
658: \end{tabular}
659: \end{center}
660: \end{table}
661: From the Table \ref{AAA},
662: we see that the size of the hadronic parameters $C_i$ are not affected
663: very much, but the CP conserving phase $\delta_i$ can vary quite a lot, especially for
664: $\delta_{\overline{15}}$. In terms of the
665: branching ratios and CP asymmetries we find that branching ratios are similar, but
666: CP asymmetries can be quiet different which can be seen from Tables
667: \ref{CCC} and \ref{BBB}. The differences are largely caused by the
668: differences in $\delta_i$. It is therefore very important to have good
669: CP asymmetry measurement which not only provide information for CP violation but also
670: information for the detailed dynamics of hadronic physics.
671:
672:
673:
674:
675:
676:
677: %\newpage
678: \footnotesize
679: \begin{table}%[htb]
680: \caption{The prediction of the branching ratio without
681: annihilation terms and $\gamma$=$59^{\circ}$ using data on
682: branching ratios and CP asymmetry in $B_d\to K^+ \pi^-$.}\label{CCC}
683: \begin{center}
684: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
685: Branching ratio & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) Exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
686: & central value & Error( Max , Min ) & central value & Error( Max , Min ) \\ \hline
687: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ & 5.1 & ( 6.2 , 4.1 ) & 5.3 & ( 6.4 , 4.3 ) \\ \hline
688: $B_u \to K^- K^0$ & 0.8 & ( 1.2 , 0.7 ) & 1.1 & ( 1.5 , 1.0 ) \\ \hline
689: $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 5.1 & ( 5.7 , 4.6 ) & 5.1 & ( 5.7 , 4.5 ) \\ \hline
690: $B_d \to\pi^0 \pi^0$ & 1.6 & ( 2.5 , 0.8 ) & 1.5 & ( 2.4 , 0.7 ) \\ \hline
691: $B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0$ & 0.7 & ( 1.1 , 0.6 ) & 1.0 & ( 1.4 , 0.9 ) \\ \hline
692: $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ & 19.3 & ( 20.5 , 18.1 ) & 19.4 & ( 20.6 , 18.3 ) \\ \hline
693: $B_u \to \pi^0 K^-$ & 10.6 & ( 11.1 , 10.0 ) & 10.9 & ( 11.4 , 10.4 ) \\ \hline
694: $B_d \to \pi^+ K^-$ & 18.4 & ( 19.3 , 17.4 ) & 18.1 & ( 19.1 , 17.2 ) \\ \hline
695: $B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$ & 8.5 & ( 8.9 , 8.0 ) & 8.2 & ( 8.7 , 7.8 ) \\ \hline \hline
696: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-$ & 4.8 & ( 5.4 , 4.3 ) & 7.1 & ( 7.9 , 6.3 ) \\ \hline
697: $B_s \to K^0 \pi^0$ & 1.5 & ( 2.3 , 0.7 ) & 2.1 & ( 3.3 , 1.0 ) \\ \hline
698: $B_s \to K^+K^- $ & 17.3 & ( 17.9 , 16.4 ) & 26.2 & ( 27.6 , 24.9 ) \\ \hline
699: $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ & 17.0 & ( 18.1 , 16.0 ) & 26.3 & ( 27.9 , 24.8 ) \\ \hline
700: \end{tabular}
701: \end{center}
702: \end{table}
703:
704: %\newpage
705: \footnotesize
706: \begin{table}%[htb]
707: \caption{The prediction of the CP asymmetry without
708: annihilation terms and $\gamma$=$59^{\circ}$ using
709: data on branching ratios and CP asymmetry from $B_d \to K^+ \pi^-$.}\label{BBB}
710: \begin{center}
711: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
712: Asymmetry & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) Exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
713: & Central value & Error (Max,Min) & Central value & Error (Max,Min) \\ \hline
714: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) \\ \hline
715: $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 0.21 & ( 0.38 , 0.03 ) & 0.15 & ( 0.27 , 0.03 ) \\ \hline
716: $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.05 , -0.05 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.04 , -0.04 ) \\ \hline
717: $B_u \to \pi^0 K^-$ & 0.06 & ( 0.17 , -0.2 ) & 0.09 & ( 0.18 , -0.07 ) \\ \hline
718: $B_d \to \pi^+ K^-$ & -0.06 & ( -0.01 , -0.11 ) & -0.06 & ( -0.01 , -0.11 ) \\ \hline
719: $B_u \to K^- K^0$ & -0.01 & ( 0.94 , -0.94 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.79 , -0.79 ) \\ \hline
720: $B_d \to\pi^0 \pi^0$ & 0.60 & ( 0.77 , -0.85 ) & 0.53 & ( 0.67 , -0.17 ) \\ \hline
721: $B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0$ & -0.01 & ( 0.94 , -0.94 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.79 , -0.79 ) \\ \hline
722: $B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$ & -0.12 & ( 0.15 , -0.18 ) & -0.15 & ( 0.02 , -0.22 ) \\ \hline
723: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-$ & 0.21 & ( 0.38 , 0.03 ) & 0.15 & ( 0.27 , 0.03 ) \\ \hline
724: $B_s \to K^0 \pi^0$ & 0.60 & ( 0.77 , -0.85 ) & 0.53 & ( 0.67 , -0.17 ) \\ \hline
725: $B_s \to K^+K^- $ & -0.06 & ( -0.01 , -0.11 ) & -0.06 & ( -0.01 , -0.11 ) \\ \hline
726: $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.05 , -0.05 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.04 , -0.04 ) \\ \hline
727: \end{tabular}
728: \end{center}
729: \end{table}
730:
731: \normalsize
732: \newpage
733: \section{Effects of annihilation contributions}
734:
735: In the analyses of the previous sections we have
736: neglected annihilation contributions to
737: $B\to PP$ decays. In this section we study the effects
738: of the annihilation terms on $B\to PP$ decays.
739: The inclusion of annihilation contributions
740: introduce 6 more hadronic parameters. They are
741: \begin{eqnarray}
742: A^T_{\bar 3}e^{i\delta_{A^T_{\bar 3}}},
743: A^P_{\bar 3} e^{i\delta_{A^P_{\bar 3}}},
744: A^T_{\overline{15}} e^{i\delta_{A^T_{\overline{15}}}},
745: \end{eqnarray}
746: In total we would have 13 parameters. From Table \ref{br} we see that there are 15
747: experimental data points. In principle, the 13 hadronic parameters under consideration
748: can be determined. In Tables \ref{ann1}, \ref{ann3} and \ref{ann2} we show the results
749: on the hadronic parameters, $B\to PP$ branching ratios and CP asymmetries.
750:
751:
752: %\scriptsize
753: %\footnotesize
754: \normalsize
755: \begin{table}%[htb]
756: \caption{The best fit values and their errors for the hadronic parameters with
757: annihilation terms and $\gamma = 59^\circ$.}\label{ann1}
758: \begin{center}
759: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
760: \hline
761: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{SU(3) exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
762: & central value & error range & central value & error range \\ \hline
763: $ C^P_{\bar 3} $ & 0.138 & 0.004 & 0.113 & 0.003 \\ \hline
764: $ C^T_{\bar 3} $ & 0.208 & 0.181 & 0.225 & 0.112 \\ \hline
765: $ C^T_6 $ & 0.043 & 0.206 & 0.095 & 0.163 \\ \hline
766: $ C^T_{\overline{15}} $ & 0.141 & 0.014 & 0.143 & 0.014 \\ \hline
767: $ \delta_{ \bar 3} $ & $ 31.65 ^0$ & $ 57.7 ^0$ & $ 26.42 ^0$ & $ 35.94 ^0$ \\ \hline
768: $ \delta_ 6 $ & $ 97.74 ^0$ & $ 147.97 ^0$ & $ 81.90 ^0$ & $ 52.38 ^0$ \\ \hline
769: $ \delta_{\overline{15}} $ & $ 8.54 ^0$ & $ 21.67 ^0$ & $ 4.58 ^0$ & $ 16.75 ^0$ \\ \hline \hline
770: $ A^P_{\bar 3} $ & 0.025 & 0.042 & 0.017 & 0.022 \\ \hline
771: $ A^T_{\bar 3} $ & 0.061 & 0.143 & 0.039 & 0.082 \\ \hline
772: $ A^T_{\overline {15}} $ & 0.036 & 0.075 & 0.023 & 0.043 \\ \hline
773: $ \delta_{A^P_{\bar{3}}} $ & $ -13.78 ^0$ & $ 89.52 ^0$ & $ -42.27 ^0$ & $ 98.46 ^0$ \\ \hline
774: $ \delta_{A^T_{\bar{3}}} $ & $ 73.46 ^0$ & $ 107.18 ^0$ & $ 54.88 ^0$ & $ 113.5 ^0$ \\ \hline
775: $ \delta_{A^T_{\overline{15}}} $ & $ -131.12 ^0$ & $ 180.51 ^0$ & $ -175.94 ^0$ & $ 197.56 ^0$ \\ \hline
776: \end{tabular}
777: \end{center}
778: \end{table}
779:
780:
781: %\scriptsize
782: \footnotesize
783: \begin{table}
784: \caption{The prediction of the branching ratios with annihilation
785: terms and $\gamma$=$59^{\circ}$}\label{ann3}
786: \begin{center}
787: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
788: Branching ratio & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) Exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
789: & central value & Error( Max , Min ) & central value & Error( Max , Min ) \\ \hline
790: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ & 5.2 & ( 6.2 , 4.1 ) & 5.3 & ( 6.4 , 4.3 ) \\ \hline
791: $B_u \to K^- K^0$ & 0.7 & ( 1.0 , 0.6 ) & 1.0 & ( 1.3 , 0.9 ) \\ \hline
792: $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 5.2 & ( 5.8 , 4.5 ) & 5.1 & ( 5.7 , 4.5 ) \\ \hline
793: $B_d \to\pi^0 \pi^0$ & 1.4 & ( 2.2 , 0.7 ) & 1.2 & ( 2.0 , 0.6 ) \\ \hline
794: $B_d \to K^- K^+$ & 0.1 & ( 0.4 , 0.0 ) & 0.1 & ( 0.4 , 0.0 ) \\ \hline
795: $B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0$ & 1.9 & ( 4.4 , 0.4 ) & 2.2 & ( 4.5 , 0.8 ) \\ \hline
796: $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ & 18.9 & ( 20.2 , 17.5 ) & 18.8 & ( 20.0 , 17.6 ) \\ \hline
797: $B_u \to \pi^0 K^-$ & 10.3 & ( 11.1 , 9.6 ) & 10.6 & ( 11.2 , 10.0 ) \\ \hline
798: $B_d \to \pi^+ K^-$ & 18.6 & ( 19.7 , 17.6 ) & 18.6 & ( 19.5 , 17.6 ) \\ \hline
799: $B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$ & 8.6 & ( 9.6 , 8.1 ) & 8.4 & ( 8.9 , 7.9 ) \\ \hline \hline
800: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-$ & 4.1 & ( 6.7 , 2.6 ) & 6.4 & ( 8.8 , 4.7 ) \\ \hline
801: $B_s \to K^0 \pi^0$ & 1.1 & ( 2.2 , 0.4 ) & 1.4 & ( 2.6 , 0.6 ) \\ \hline
802: $B_s \to \pi^+\pi^- $ & 2.3 & ( 9.5 , 0.0 ) & 1.1 & ( 4.3 , 0.0 ) \\ \hline
803: $B_s \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ & 1.1 & ( 4.7 , 0.0 ) & 0.5 & ( 2.2 , 0.0 ) \\ \hline
804: $B_s \to K^+K^- $ & 31.8 & ( 51.9 , 7.1 ) & 41.3 & ( 66.6 , 14.8 ) \\ \hline
805: $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ & 30.9 & ( 50.7 , 6.5 ) & 39.6 & ( 65.0 , 13.5 ) \\ \hline
806: \end{tabular}
807: \end{center}
808: \end{table}
809:
810: \scriptsize
811: %\footnotesize
812: \begin{table}%[htb]
813: \caption{The prediction of the CP asymmetry with
814: annihilation terms and $\gamma$=$59^{\circ}$}\label{ann2}
815: \begin{center}
816: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
817: \hline
818: Asymmetry & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) Exact}\vline & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ SU(3) break}\vline \\ \hline
819: & Central value & Error (Max,Min) & Central value & Error (Max,Min) \\ \hline
820: $B_u \to \pi^- \pi^0$ & 0.00 & ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.00 , 0.00 ) \\ \hline
821: $B_d \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ & 0.41 & ( 0.61 , 0.20 ) & 0.37 & ( 0.52 , 0.18 ) \\ \hline
822: $B_u \to \pi^- \bar K^0$ & 0.01 & ( 0.05 , -0.04 ) & 0.00 & ( 0.04 , -0.03 ) \\ \hline
823: $B_u \to \pi^0 K^-$ & -0.03 & ( 0.05 , -0.14 ) & -0.02 & ( 0.06 , -0.12 ) \\ \hline
824: $B_d \to \pi^+ K^-$ & -0.06 & ( -0.01 , -0.11 ) & -0.07 & ( -0.02 , -0.12 ) \\ \hline \hline
825: $B_u \to K^- K^0$ & -0.24 & ( 0.82 , -0.96 ) & -0.08 & ( 0.73 , -0.81 ) \\ \hline
826: $B_d \to\pi^0 \pi^0$ & 0.19 & ( 0.72 , -0.99 ) & 0.19 & ( 0.62 , -0.86 ) \\ \hline
827: $B_d \to K^- K^+$ & 0.83 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) & 0.77 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) \\ \hline
828: $B_d \to \bar K^0 K^0$ & 0.78 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) & 0.40 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) \\ \hline
829: $B_d \to \pi^0 \bar K^0$ & -0.02 & ( 0.13 , -0.12 ) & -0.04 & ( 0.10 , -0.13 ) \\ \hline
830: $B_s \to K^+ \pi^-$ & 0.26 & ( 0.54 , 0.03 ) & 0.20 & ( 0.36 , 0.06 ) \\ \hline
831: $B_s \to K^0 \pi^0$ & 0.12 & ( 0.68 , -0.86 ) & 0.21 & ( 0.62 , -0.64 ) \\ \hline
832: $B_s \to \pi^+\pi^- $ & -0.04 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) & -0.04 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) \\ \hline
833: $B_s \to \pi^0 \pi^0$ & -0.04 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) & -0.04 & ( 1.00 , -1.00 ) \\ \hline
834: $B_s \to K^+K^- $ & -0.06 & ( -0.02 , -0.24 ) & -0.10 & ( -0.04 , -0.23 ) \\ \hline
835: $B_s \to K^0 \bar K^0$ & -0.05 & ( 0.18 , -0.22 ) & -0.02 & ( 0.11 , -0.14 ) \\ \hline
836: \end{tabular}
837: \end{center}
838: \end{table}
839:
840: \normalsize
841:
842: From Table \ref{ann1} we see that the size of
843: the best fit annihilation parameters $A_i$ are small
844: compared with the non-annihilation terms $C_{\bar 3,\overline{15}}$.
845: This confirms the conjecture that annihilation
846: contributions are small.
847: The allowed ranges are, however, large and therefore can not
848: rule out the possibility of having significant annihilation contributions.
849: We have to wait improved experiments to obtain more precise information.
850: We note that $A_i$ actually have similar size as $C^T_6$.
851:
852: The branching ratios for $B_d \to K^- K^+$, $B_s \to \pi^+\pi^-$ and $B_s \to
853: \pi^0\pi^0$ which only receive contribution from annihilation are not vanishing any more.
854: The branching ratios are expected to be small. From Table \ref{ann3},
855: we indeed find that these branching ratios are among the small ones.
856:
857: It is interesting to note that although the
858: annihilation amplitudes are small, in certain decay modes, such as
859: $B_s \to K^+K^-$ and $B_s \to K^0 \bar
860: K^0$, the effects on the branching ratios can be significant.
861: This is because that although $A^P_{\bar 3}$ is small
862: compared with $C_{\bar 3,\overline{15}}$, and is comparable with $C^T_{6}$, but
863: enhanced by a KM factor $|V_{tb}V_{ts}^*/V_{ub}V_{us}^*|$.
864: These modes provide good places to
865: study the annihilation contributions. It can be seen that
866: SU(3) breaking effects are also large in these decays. From
867: Table \ref{ann2}, we also see that CP violation can be affected significantly.
868: CP asymmetries in $B_d \to K^0\bar K^0 $ can be more than 50\% with a not
869: too small branching ratio.
870:
871: \section{Discussions and Conclusions}
872:
873:
874: We have studied branching ratios and CP violating rate asymmetries
875: in $B\to PP$ decays in the Standard Model using SU(3) flavor
876: symmetry. In the SM when annihilation
877: contributions are neglected only seven hadronic
878: parameters are needed to describe $B\to PP$ decays,
879: six more hadronic parameters are needed to include
880: the annihilation contribution.
881: We have shown that present experimental data on these
882: decays can be used to systematically determine hadronic
883: parameters, in particular the CP conserving FSI phases.
884:
885: Although great efforts have been made to understand the
886: dynamics of low energy strong interactions to calculate
887: theoretically the decay amplitudes and the CP conserving FSI
888: phases for $B\to PP$ decays, such as factorization approximation
889: with improvement from QCD corrections\cite{BBNS}. It is still far away from
890: being able to predict with high confidence level the amplitudes.
891: Still factorization calculations may provide some ideal
892: about the order of magnitude.
893: We have numerically studied the predictions of
894: factorization approximation for the size of the SU(3) invariant amplitudes.
895: We found that the size of the hadronic amplitudes
896: obtained in this paper are in the same order of magnitudes
897: as those from factorization calculations\cite{6b},
898: but the FSI phases, which can not be reliably
899: calculated in factorization approximation, can be
900: very different and large. We also found that the
901: annihilation contributions are generally small, but can have
902: significant effects on some decays,
903: such as $B_s \to K^+ K^-, K^0 \bar K^0$.
904:
905: We attempted to study SU(3) breaking effects
906: in $B\to PP$ decays by assuming a simple pattern for
907: the breaking effects. We found that although the general
908: features are not changed very much, in certain decays the
909: effects can be large, such as the branching ratios
910: for $B_s \to K^+ K^-, K^0 \bar K^0$. Therefore these modes can
911: be good modes to study SU(3) breaking effects.
912:
913: We predicted branching ratios for several $B_s \to PP$ decays.
914: These decay branching ratios can be measured at future hadron colliders.
915: The SM and SU(3) flavor symmetry can be tested.
916:
917: At present CP violating rate asymmetries in $B\to PP$ have not been
918: measured. The use of SU(3) flavor symmetry can also provide important
919: information on CP violation in the Standard Model. Using the best
920: fit values for the hadronic parameters, we also obtained CP violating rate
921: asymmetries for $B\to PP$ decays.
922: We found that some of the asymmetries can be large and within the reach of $B$
923: factories. CP asymmetry in $B_d \to \pi^+\pi^-$ can be as large as
924: 30\% and even larger ones for $B_d \to K K$.
925: It can be expected
926: that with more accurate experimental measurements, the study of
927: CP violating rate asymmetries can provide crucial information
928: about dynamics for $B$ decays in the Standard Model.
929:
930:
931: \begin{references}
932: \bibitem{1}
933: M. Savage and M. Wise, Phys. Rev.
934: {\bf D39}, 3346(1989); $ibid$ {\bf D40}, Erratum, 3127(1989);
935: X.-G. He, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C9}, 443(1999);
936: N. G. Deshpande, X.-G. He, and J.-Q. Shi, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 034018(2000).
937:
938:
939: \bibitem{2} M. Gronau et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D50}, 4529 (1994); {\bf D52},
940: 6356 (1995); $ibid$, 6374 (1995);
941: A.S. Dighe, M. Gronau and J. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4333 (1997); L.L. Chau et al.,
942: Phys. Rev. {\bf D43}, 2176 (1991); D. Zeppendfeld, Z. Phys. {\bf C8}, 77(1981).
943:
944: \bibitem{3} M. Gronau and D. London, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65},
945: 3381(1990);
946: M. Gronau and J. Rosner,
947: Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 6843(1998); $ibid$, {\bf D61}, 073008(2000);
948: Phys. Lett. {\bf B482}, 71(2000), M. Gronau, D. Pirjol and T.-M. Yan,
949: Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 034021(1999).
950:
951: \bibitem{4} X.-G. He, J.-Y. Leou and C.-Y. Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62},
952: 114015(2000); N. G. Deshpande and X.-G. He,
953: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 1703(1995).
954:
955: \bibitem{5} Y.-F. Zhou et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 054011(2001);
956: M. Bargiotti et al., e-print hep-ph/0204029.
957:
958:
959: \bibitem{6a} R. Fleischer and T. Mannel, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 2752(1998);
960: M. Neubert and J. Rosner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B441}, 403(1998);
961: M. Neubert and J. Rosner, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 5076(1998);
962: X.-G. He, C.-L. Hsueh and J.-Q. Shi, Phys. Rev. Lett.
963: {\bf 84} 18(2000); M. Gronau and J. Rosner, Phys. Rev. {\bf D57}, 6843(1998);
964: N.G. Deshpande and X.-G. He, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 3064(1995).
965:
966: \bibitem{6b} X.-G. He et al. ,Phys.Rev. {\bf D64} 034002(2001).
967:
968: %\bibitem{6} M. Kobayashi
969: %and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 49}, 652(1973).
970:
971: %\bibitem{7} N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 10}, 531(1963).
972:
973: \bibitem{8} Particle Data Group, Eur. Phys. J. {\bf C 15} 1(2000).
974:
975: %\bibitem{9} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 51}, 1945(1983).
976:
977: \bibitem{10} S. Mele, Phys.Rev. {\bf D59} 113011(1999);
978: A. Ali, D. London, Eur.Phys.J. {\bf C9} 687(1999); F. Parodi, P. Roudeau and A. Stocchi, Nuovo. Cim. {\bf A112}, 833(1999);
979: F. Caravaglios et al., e-print hep-ph/0002171.
980:
981:
982: \bibitem{ampmd} H. G. Moser and A. Roussani, Nucl. Inst. Meth. {\bf A384},491(1997).
983:
984:
985: %sin2\beta
986: \bibitem{12} T. Affolder et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 072205(2000).
987: \bibitem{13} The ALEPH Collaboration, Phys. Lett. {\bf 492}, 259(2000).
988:
989: \bibitem{14} The Babar Collaboration, e-print hep-ex/0203007.
990:
991: \bibitem{15} The Belle Collaboration, e-print hep-ex/0205020.
992:
993: \bibitem{19} http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC, CKM workshop February 2002, CERN, Geneva.
994:
995: \bibitem{20} G.Boix, e-print hep-ex/0104048.
996:
997: \bibitem{dh} N. Deshpande and X.-G. He, Phys. Lett. {\bf B336}, 471(1994).
998:
999: %cleo
1000: \bibitem{21}
1001: D. Cronin-Hennessy, et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 515(2000);
1002: D.M. Asner, et al. (CLEO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 031103(2002).
1003: %belle
1004: \bibitem{22}
1005: M.Z.Wang (Belle Collaboration), talk presented at
1006: Lake Louise Winter Institute 2002 on Fundamental Interactions,
1007: Lake Louise, Alberta, Canada, February (2002).
1008: %babar
1009: \bibitem{23}
1010: B. Aubert, et al. (Babar Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 151802 (2001).
1011: J. Olsen and M. Bona (Babar Collaboration), talks presented at
1012: American Physical Society's 2002 Meeting of The Division of Particles and Field,
1013: Williamsburg, Virginia, USA, May 24 - 28 (2002).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{js} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1093 (1985); Z.
1016: Phys. C29, 491 (1985); O.W. Greenberh, Phys, Rev. D 32, 1841
1017: (1985); D.-D. Wu, Phys, Rev. D 33,860 (1986).
1018:
1019: \bibitem{BBNS} M.~Beneke et al.,
1020: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1914 {1999}; Nucl. Phys. {\bf B591}, 313 (2000);
1021: Y.-Y. Keum, H.-n. Li and I. Sanda, Phys. Lett. {\bf B504},
1022: 6(2001); Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 054008(2001).
1023:
1024: \end{references}
1025:
1026: \end{document}
1027: %========================================================================
1028: