1: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,superscriptaddress,tightenlines]{revtex4}
2: %\usepackage{graphicx}
3: %\usepackage{bm}
4: %\usepackage{epsfig}
5: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
6: \usepackage{epsfig,float}
7: \hoffset=-1.4cm
8: \voffset=-2cm
9: \textheight=22.5truecm
10: \textwidth=16.5truecm
11: \baselineskip=16pt % (1pt=2.5/72 cm)
12: \parskip=5pt
13: \headheight=12pt
14: \footskip=24pt
15:
16: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}
17: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
19: \def \branch{{\cal B}}
20: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
21: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
22: \def \branch{{\cal B}}
23: \def \Im{{\hbox{Im}}\,}
24: \def \Re{{\hbox{Re}}\,}
25: \def \gev{{\hbox{GeV}}}
26: \def \mev{{\hbox{MeV}}}
27: \def \tev{{\hbox{TeV}}}
28: \def \cl#1{{#1\%\ \mathrm{C.L.}}}
29: \def \eq#1{Eq.~(\ref{#1})}
30: \def \eqs#1#2{Eqs.~(\ref{#1})--(\ref{#2})}
31: \def \fig#1{Fig.~\ref{#1}}
32: \def \figs#1#2{Figs.~\ref{#1}--\ref{#2}}
33: \def \nn{\nonumber}
34: \def \rf{Ref.~\cite}
35: \def \rfs{Refs.~\cite}
36: \def \bit{\begin{itemize}}
37: \def \eit{\end{itemize}}
38: \def \lu{\lambda_u}
39: %
40: \def \a{\alpha}
41: \def \b{\beta}
42: \def \D{\Delta}
43: \def \g{\gamma}
44: \def \G{\Gamma}
45: \def \d{\delta}
46: \def \e{\epsilon}
47: \def \k{\kappa}
48: \def \l{\lambda}
49: \def \La{\Lambda}
50: \def \m{\mu}
51: \def \n{\nu}
52: \def \o{\omega}
53: \def \p{\pi}
54: \def \r{\rho}
55: \def \s{\sigma}
56: \def \S{\Sigma}
57: \def \t{\tau}
58: \def \z{\zeta}
59: \def \et{\eta}
60:
61: \begin{document}
62:
63: \begin{titlepage}
64:
65: \begin{flushright}
66: DESY 02-089
67: \end{flushright}
68:
69: \begin{center}
70: \bf \large Implications of $B \to \rho \gamma$ measurements in
71: the \\ Standard Model and Supersymmetric Theories
72: \end{center}
73:
74: \bigskip
75:
76: \begin{center}
77: \large
78: A. Ali\footnote{E-mail address: ali@mail.desy.de} ~and
79: E. Lunghi\footnote{E-mail address: lunghi@mail.desy.de}
80: \end{center}
81:
82: \begin{center}
83: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, DESY, \\
84: Notkestrasse 85, D-22607 Hamburg, Germany
85: \end{center}
86:
87:
88: \bigskip
89:
90: \begin{abstract}
91: We study the implications of the recently improved upper limits on
92: the branching ratios for the decays $B \to \rho \gamma$, expressed
93: as $R(\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)\equiv {\cal B}(B \to \rho
94: \gamma)/{\cal B}(B \to K^* \gamma) <0.047$. We work out the
95: constraints that the current bound on $R(\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)$
96: implies on the parameters of the quark mixing matrix in the standard
97: model (SM). Using the present profile of the unitarity triangle, we
98: predict this ratio to be $R(\rho\gamma/K^*\gamma)=0.023 \pm 0.012$.
99: We also work out the correlations involving $R(\rho \gamma/K^*
100: \gamma)$, the isospin-violating ratio $\Delta (\rho \gamma)$, and
101: the direct CP-violating asymmetry $A_{\rm CP}(\rho \gamma)$ in $B
102: \to \rho \gamma$ decays in the SM, in the minimal supersymmetric
103: extension of the SM (MSSM), and in an extension of the MSSM
104: involving an additional flavor-changing structure in $b \to d$
105: transitions.
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: \end{titlepage}
109:
110:
111:
112:
113: \section{Introduction}
114: Recently, the BABAR collaboration has reported a significant
115: improvement on the upper limits of the branching ratios for the
116: decays $B^0(\bar B^0) \to \rho^0\gamma$ and $B^\pm \to \rho^\pm
117: \gamma$. Averaged over the charge conjugated modes, the current
118: $\cl{90}$ upper limits are~\cite{babar:convery}:
119: \bea
120: {\cal B}(B^0 \to \rho^0 \gamma) &<& 1.4 \times 10^{-6} \; , \\
121: {\cal B}(B^\pm \to \rho^\pm \gamma) &<& 2.3 \times 10^{-6} \; , \\
122: {\cal B}(B^0 \to \omega \gamma) &<& 1.2 \times 10^{-6} \; .
123: \eea
124: %
125: They have been combined,
126: using isospin weights for $B \to \rho \gamma$ decays and assuming
127: ${\cal B}(B^0 \to \omega \gamma)={\cal B}(B^0 \to \rho^0 \gamma)$,
128: to yield the improved upper limit
129: %
130: \beq
131: {\cal B}(B \to \rho \gamma) < 1.9 \times 10^{-6}\; .
132: \eeq
133: %
134: The current measurements of the branching
135: ratios for $B \to K^* \gamma$ decays by BABAR~\cite{babar:grauges},
136: %
137: \bea
138: {\cal B}(B^0 \to K^{*0} \gamma)&=&(4.23 \pm
139: 0.40 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{-5} \; , \\
140: {\cal B}(B^+ \to K^{*+} \gamma) &=&(3.83 \pm 0.62 \pm 0.22) \times 10^{-5}\; ,
141: \eea
142: %
143: are then used to
144: set a $\cl{90}$ upper limit on the ratio of the branching ratios~\cite{babar:convery}
145: \bea
146: & & R(\rho \gamma/K^*\gamma) \equiv \frac{{\cal B}(B \to \rho \gamma)}{{\cal B}(B
147: \to K^* \gamma)} < 0.047 \; .
148: \eea
149: %
150: This bound is typically a factor 2 away from the SM
151: estimates~\cite{bdgAP}, which we quantify more precisely in this
152: letter. In beyond-the-SM scenarios, this bound provides a highly
153: significant constraint on the relative strengths of the $b \to d
154: \gamma$ and $b \to s \gamma$ transitions.
155:
156: The impact of the measurement of $R(\rho \gamma/K^*\gamma)$ on the
157: parameters of the quark mixing matrix (henceforth called the
158: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa CKM matrix) has been long anticipated (see,
159: for example, \cite{Ali:vd}). This quantity measures essentially the
160: CKM matrix element ratio $\vert V_{td}\vert^2/\vert V_{ts}\vert^2$ in
161: the SM. However, one expects significant long-distance contributions
162: in $R(\rho \gamma/K^*\gamma)$ entering in the decay $B \to \rho
163: \gamma$. They are dominated by the annihilation diagrams $b\bar{u}
164: \to d\bar{u} \gamma$ in the decays $B^- \to \rho^- \gamma$
165: \cite{Ali:1995uy,Khodjamirian:1995uc,Grinstein:2000pc,Beyer:2001zn},
166: which depend on the CKM matrix elements $V_{ub}V_{ud}^*$. The
167: corresponding annihilation contribution in the decays $B^0 \to \rho^0
168: \gamma$ (and its charge conjugate) is parametrically suppressed due to
169: the electric charge of the spectator quark in $B^0$ and the
170: unfavorable color factors. QCD corrections to the decay widths for $B
171: \to \rho \gamma$ also introduce a dependence on $V_{ub}V_{ud}^*$ in
172: both the charged and neutral $B$-meson decays. As the relevant CKM
173: matrix element ratio $\lambda_u \equiv V_{ub}V_{ud}^*/V_{tb}V_{td}^*$
174: is of $O(1)$, these modifications are important and have to be taken
175: into account in the analysis of $R(\rho \gamma/K^*\gamma)$ and other
176: observables in $B\to \rho \g$ decays.
177:
178: Recently, the $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections in the decay widths for $B \to
179: V \gamma$ $(V=K^*,\rho)$ have been calculated in the context of a QCD
180: factorization framework~\cite{Beneke:1999br}, taking into account the
181: explicit $O(\alpha_s)$ and $1/M_B$ corrections to the penguin
182: amplitudes \cite{bdgAP,Bosch:2001gv,Beneke:2001at}. Using the
183: theoretical results at hand, we analyze the impact of the current
184: upper limit $R(\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)< 0.047$ in the context of the
185: SM, where it yields constraints on the CKM parameters $\bar{\rho}$ and
186: $\bar{\eta}$ \cite{bdgAP}, and in some popular extensions of the SM,
187: such as the minimal flavor violating minimal supersymmetric standard
188: model (MFV-MSSM)~\cite{mfvCDGG}, and in an Extended--MFV-MSSM scenario
189: (EMFV) ~\cite{emfvAL}, having a non-CKM flavor-changing structure
190: involving the $b \to d$ transition. We also present the correlations
191: involving $R(\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)$, the isospin-violating ratio
192: $\Delta (\rho \gamma)$, and the direct CP-violating asymmetry $A_{\rm
193: CP}(\rho \gamma)$ in $B \to \rho \gamma$ decays, in the three models
194: just mentioned. Precise measurements of these correlations would
195: provide a strong discrimination among the competing models.
196:
197: \section{Observables}
198: The effective Hamiltonian for the radiative decays
199: $B \to \rho \gamma$ (equivalently $b \to d \gamma$ decay) can be seen
200: for the SM in \cite{bdgAP}. We shall invoke this effective Hamiltonian
201: also for the MFV-MSSM and the EMFV cases, which differ from the SM in
202: the Wilson coefficients (WC's), in particular in the effective WC's
203: for the magnetic moment operator, $C_7^s$ (for $b \to s \gamma)$ and
204: $C_7^d$ (for $b \to d \gamma)$. While this is certainly not the most
205: general operator basis, it is a sufficient basis to illustrate the
206: beyond-the-SM effects that may arise in these decays. Restricting
207: ourselves to this basis, we first present the $O(\alpha_s)$-corrected
208: expressions for the observables in the $B\to \r\g$ decays, worked out
209: in the SM in \cite{bdgAP,Bosch:2001gv}, but now generalized to the
210: case of complex Wilson coefficients.
211: %
212: \begin{table}[!t]
213: \begin{center}
214: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|} \hline
215: $\z = 0.76 \pm 0.10$ & $L^u_R = -0.095 \pm 0.022 $ \cr
216: $A^{(1)K^*} = -0.113 - i 0.043$ & $A^{(1)t} = -0.114 - i 0.045$ \cr
217: $A^u = -0.0181 + i 0.0211$ & \cr \hline
218: $\eta_{tt} = 0.57$ & $\eta_{cc} = 1.38 \pm 0.53$ \cr
219: $\eta_{tc} = 0.47 \pm 0.04$ & $\hat B_K = 0.86 \pm 0.15$ \cr
220: $\eta_B = 0.55$ & $f_{B_d} \sqrt{\hat B_{B_d}} = 235 \pm 33^{+0}_{-24}\; \mev$ \cr
221: $\xi_s= 1.18 \pm 0.04^{+0.12}_{-0}$ & \cr \hline
222: $\l = 0.221 \pm 0.002$ & $|V_{ub}/V_{cb}| = 0.097 \pm 0.010$ \cr
223: $\epsilon_K = (2.271 \pm 0.017) \; 10^{-3}$ & $\D M_{B_d} = 0.503 \pm
224: 0.006 \; {\rm ps}^{-1}$ \cr
225: $a_{\psi K_s} = 0.734 \pm 0.054$ & $\D M_{B_s} \geq 14.4 \; {\rm ps}^{-1}
226: \; (\cl{95})$ \cr \hline
227: \end{tabular}
228: \caption{\it Theoretical parameters and measurements used in $B\to
229: \r\g$ observables and in the CKM unitarity fits.}
230: \label{inputs}
231: \end{center}
232: \end{table}
233: %
234:
235: Here and in the following we will always consider quantities averaged
236: over the charge conjugated modes (with the obvious exception of the
237: CP asymmetries). Starting from the decay widths
238: $\Gamma (B^+ \to V^+ \g)$, $\Gamma (B^- \to V^- \g)$,
239: $\Gamma (B^0 \to V^0 \g)$ and $\Gamma (\bar B^0 \to \bar V^0 \g)$ (with
240: $V=\rho,\; K^*$), we construct
241: %
242: \bea
243: \Gamma^\pm (B \to V \g) = \frac{\Gamma (B^+ \to V^+ \g)+\Gamma (B^- \to V^- \g)}{2} \; , \\
244: \Gamma^0 (B \to V \g) = \frac{\Gamma (B^0 \to V^0 \g)+\Gamma (\bar B^0 \to \bar V^0 \g)}{2} \; .
245: \eea
246: %
247: We will define the various observables in terms of these quantities.
248: Note that, up to the NLO approximation, this procedure is equivalent to
249: defining two
250: distinct observables for the charge conjugate modes and {\em then}
251: performing the average.
252: It is preferable to use the above definitions since they involve quantities
253: (the CP averaged decay widths) that are much easier to measure than the
254: widths of the individual channels, which would require tagging the
255: $B$-meson.
256:
257: The expression for the ratios $R (\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)$ is~\cite{bdgAP}
258: %
259: \bea
260: R^\pm (\rho \gamma/K^ \gamma) &=& \left| V_{td} \over V_{ts} \right|^2
261: {(M_B^2 - M_\r^2)^3 \over (M_B^2 - M_{K^*}^2)^3 } \z^2
262: (1 + \D R^\pm) \; , \\
263: R^0 (\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma) &=& {1\over 2} \left| V_{td} \over V_{ts} \right|^2
264: {(M_B^2 - M_\r^2)^3 \over (M_B^2 - M_{K^*}^2)^3 } \z^2
265: (1 + \D R^0) \; ,
266: \label{rapp}
267: \eea
268: %
269: where $\z=\xi_{\perp}^{\rho}(0)/\xi_{\perp}^{K^*}(0)$, with
270: $\xi_{\perp}^{\rho}(0) (\xi_{\perp}^{K^*}(0))$ being the form factors
271: (at $q^2=0$) in the effective heavy quark theory for the decays $B \to
272: \rho (K^*)\gamma$. Noting that in the SU(3) limit one has $\z=1$,
273: some representative estimates of the SU(3)-breaking and the resulting
274: values of $\z$ are: $\z=0.76 \pm 0.06$ from the light-cone QCD
275: sum rules~\cite{Ali:1995uy}; a theoretically improved estimate in the
276: same approach yields \cite{Ball:1998kk}: $\z=0.75 \pm 0.07$;
277: $\z =0.88 \pm 0.02$ using hybrid QCD sum
278: rules~\cite{Narison:1994kr}, and $\z=0.69 \pm 10\%$ in the quark
279: model~\cite{Melikhov:2000yu}. Except for the hybrid QCD
280: sum rules, all other approaches yield a significant SU(3)-breaking in the
281: magnetic moment form factors. In the light-cone QCD sum rule approach,
282: this is anticipated due to the appreciable differences in the wave
283: functions of the $K^*$ and $\rho$-mesons. To reflect the current
284: dispersion in the theoretical estimates of $\z$, we take its value as
285: $\z=0.76 \pm 0.10$, given in Table~\ref{inputs}. We stress that the error
286: ($\pm 0.10)$ is not on $\z=0.76$, but rather on the deviation of $\z$ from
287: its SU(3) limit, i.e., $1-\z=0.24$, and amounts to an error of $\pm 42\%$
288: on the SU(3)-breaking in the ratio of form factors in radiative decays.
289: As this is the dominant theoretical error on the ratios $R^\pm (\rho
290: \gamma/K^ \gamma)$ and $R^0 (\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)$, it is imperative
291: to reduce it. A lattice-QCD based estimate of the form factors, and hence
292: $\z$, is highly desirable.
293:
294: The quantity $(1 +\Delta R)$ entails
295: the explicit $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections, encoded through the functions
296: $A_{\rm R}^{(1)K^*}$, $A_{\rm R}^{(1) t}$ and $A_{\rm R}^{u}$, and the
297: long-distance contribution $L_{\rm R}^{u}$. For the decays $B^\pm \to
298: \rho^\pm \gamma$ and $B^\pm \to K^{*\pm} \gamma$, this can be written
299: after charge conjugated averaging as
300: %
301: \beq
302: 1 + \D R^\pm = \left| C_7^d + \lu L^u_R \over C_7^s \right|^2
303: \left( 1 - 2 A^{(1)K^*}_R {\Re C_7^s \over |C_7^s|^2} \right)
304: + {2 \; \Re \left[ (C_7^d + \lu L^u_R)
305: (A^{(1)t}_R + \lu^* A^u_R) \right]\over |C_7^s|^2} \; .
306: \label{dr}
307: \eeq
308: %
309: The definitions of the quantities $A^{(1)K^*}$, $A^{(1)t}$, $A^u$ and
310: $L^u_R$ can be seen in \cite{bdgAP}. Their default values
311: are summarized in Table~\ref{inputs}, where we have
312: also specified the theoretical errors in the more sensitive of
313: these parameter $L^u_R$. The quantity $1 + \D R^0$ is obtained from
314: Eq.~(\ref{dr})
315: in the limit $L^u_R = 0$.
316:
317: The isospin breaking ratio is given by
318: %
319: \bea
320: \D (\r\g) &=& {\Gamma^\pm (B \to \r \g) \over 2 \; \Gamma^0 (B \to \r \g)} -1 \\
321: &=&
322: \left| C_7^d + \lu L^u_R \over C_7^d \right|^2
323: \left( 1 - {2 \Re C_7^d ( A^{(1)t}_R + \lu^* A^u_R)\over |C_7^d|^2} \right) \nn \\
324: & & +{2 \; \Re \left[ (C_7^d + \lu L^u_R) (A^{(1)t}_R + \lu^* A^u_R) \right]\over |C_7^d|^2}-1\; ,
325: \label{dnlo}
326: \eea
327: %
328: and the CP asymmetry in the charged modes is
329: %
330: \bea
331: A^\pm_{CP} (\r\g) &=& \frac{\branch (B^- \to \r^- \g) -
332: \branch (B^+ \to \r^+ \g) }{\branch (B^- \to \r^- \g) + \branch (B^+
333: \to \r^+ \g) } \\
334: &=& - {2 \Im \left[ (C_7^d + \lu L^u_R) (A^{(1)t}_I + \lu^* A^u_I) \right]
335: \over |C_7^d + \lu L^u_R|^2} \; .
336: \label{acp}
337: \eea
338: %
339: The CP asymmetry in the neutral modes
340: %
341: \bea
342: A^0_{CP} (\r\g) &=& \frac{\branch (B^0 \to \r^0 \g) -
343: \branch (\bar B^0 \to \r^0 \g) }{\branch (B^0 \to \r^0 \g) + \branch (\bar B^0
344: \to \r^0 \g) }
345: \eea
346: %
347: is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{acp}) in the limit $L^u_R = 0$.
348:
349: %
350: \begin{figure}[!t]
351: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=\linewidth \hbox{\epsfbox{utsm.eps}} }}
352: \vskip 0.2cm
353: \caption[1]{\it Unitary triangle fit in the SM and
354: the resulting 95\% C.L. contour in the $\bar \rho$ - $\bar \eta$
355: plane. The impact of the $R(\r\g/K^*\g) < 0.047$ constraint is
356: also shown.}
357: %
358: \label{fig:utsm}
359: \vskip -0.2cm
360: \end{figure}
361: %
362: %
363: %
364: %
365: %
366: %
367: \begin{figure}[!t]
368: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=0.8 \linewidth \hbox{\epsfbox{rappsm.eps}} }}
369: \vskip 0.2cm {
370: %
371: \caption[1]{ \it Extremal values of $R(\r\g/K^*\g)$ that are compatible with
372: the SM unitarity triangle analysis.}
373: %
374: \label{fig:rappsm} }
375: \vskip -0.2cm
376: \end{figure}
377: %
378: %
379: %
380: Note, that as in the EMFV model there are additional contributions to
381: the effective Wilson coefficients $C_7$, entering through the mass
382: insertion parameters $\delta^{u}_{13}$ (for the $b \to d \gamma$ case)
383: and $\delta^{u}_{23}$ (for the $b \to s \gamma$ case), which are in
384: general different, we have introduced two different magnetic moment WC's
385: for
386: the $d$ and $s$ sectors. For $C_7^d = C_7^s = C_7^{\rm SM}$ we
387: reproduce the formulae presented in \rf{bdgAP} with the only exception
388: of $\D R (\r\g)$; in this case, the factor in the parentheses in the
389: first line of \eq{dr} is missing in \rf{bdgAP}. This, however, has
390: only a small numerical effect, as can be judged from the values
391: $\Delta R^\pm =0.055 \pm 0.130$ and $\Delta R^0=0.015 \pm 0.110$ that
392: we have obtained here and which are in quite good agreement with the
393: corresponding values given in \rf{bdgAP}.
394:
395: \section{Impact on the unitarity triangle}
396: In this section, we present an
397: updated analysis of the constraints in the $(\bar \r, \bar \et)$ plane
398: from the unitarity of the CKM matrix, including the measurements of
399: the CP asymmetry $a_{\psi K_s}$ in the decays $B^0/\overline{B^0} \to
400: J/\psi K_s$ (and related modes), and show the impact of the upper
401: limit $R(\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma) \leq 0.047$~\cite{babar:convery}.
402:
403: The SM expressions for $\epsilon_K$ (CP-violating parameter in $K$
404: decays), $\D M_{B_d}$ ($B_d^0$-$\bar B_d^0$ mass difference), $\D
405: M_{B_s}$ ($B_s^0$-$\bar B_s^0$ mass difference) and $a_{\psi K_s}$ are
406: fairly standard and can be found, for instance, in \rf{utAL}, where
407: also references to the various theoretical input parameters which have
408: not changed since then can be found.
409: Note that for the hadronic parameters $f_{B_d} \sqrt{\hat{B}_{B_d}}$
410: and $\xi_s$, we use the recent lattice estimates
411: \cite{Lellouch:2002} which into account
412: uncertainties induced by the so-called chiral logarithms
413: \cite{Kronfeld:2002ab}.
414: These errors are highly asymmetric and, once taken into account, reduce
415: sizeably the impact of the $\Delta M_{B_s}/ \Delta M_{B_d}$ lower bound
416: on the unitarity triangle analysis. The experimental inputs
417: for the quantities $\lambda$ and $\epsilon_K$
418: are taken from the Particle Data Group~\cite{Hagiwara:pw}. The measurement
419: of the CP asymmetry $a_{\psi K_s}$ in the decays
420: $B^0/\overline{B^0} \to J/\psi K_s$ (and related modes) is now dominated
421: by the BABAR~\cite{Aubert:2002ic} and BELLE~\cite{Abe:2002}
422: collaborations; taking into account
423: the earlier measurements yield the current world average $a_{\psi K_s}
424: =0.734 \pm 0.054$~\cite{Nir:2002gu}. The indicated value of the mass
425: difference $\D M_{B_d} =0.503 \pm 0.006$ ps$^{-1}$ is the current
426: world average~\cite{Stocchi:2002} and the 95\% C.L. lower bound $\D
427: M_{B_s} \geq 14.4$ ps$^{-1}$ has been recently updated this summer
428: ~\cite{Willocq:2002cj}. The values of the theoretical parameters and
429: experimental
430: measurements that we use are summarized in Table~\ref{inputs}.
431:
432: The SM fit of the unitarity triangle is presented in \fig{fig:utsm}, where
433: we show explicitly what happens to the allowed regions once the errors
434: associated with the chiral logs are taken into account. The $\cl{95}$
435: contour is drawn taking into account chiral logarithm uncertainties.
436: The fitted values for the Wolfenstein parameters, the angles $\a$ and $\b$,
437: $\D M_{B_s}$ and the CKM ratio $|V_{tb}/ V_{ub}|$ are given below where
438: we also show the resulting values that we obtain
439: without including the chiral logarithms uncertainties:
440: %
441: \begin{center}
442: \begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline
443: & $\chi$-logs & no $\chi$-logs \cr \hline
444: $\bar\rho$ & $0.22 \pm 0.07$ & $0.25 \pm 0.07$ \cr $\bar\eta $ & $
445: 0.34 \pm 0.04$ & $ 0.34 \pm 0.04$ \cr $ \a$ & $ (98\pm 10)^{\rm
446: o}$ & $(101\pm 10)^{\rm o} $ \cr $ \b $ & $(24.2 \pm 1.8)^{\rm o}
447: $ & $ (25.0 \pm 1.9)^{\rm o}$ \cr $ \g $ & $(60 \pm 10)^{\rm 0} $
448: & $ (56 \pm 10)^{\rm o}$ \cr $ \D M_{B_s}$ & $(19.6^{+4.4}_{-1.3}
449: )~{\rm ps}^{-1} $ & $ (21.0^{+4.8}_{-1.4} )~{\rm ps}^{-1}$ \cr $
450: \left| V_{td} \over V_{ub} \right|$ & $ 1.75 \pm 0.15 $ & $ 1.61
451: \pm 0.14$ \cr \hline
452: \end{tabular}
453: \end{center}
454: %
455: The main effect of the chiral logs is that they decrease the central value
456: of $\bar \rho$ by about half a sigma with $\bar \eta$ remaining
457: practically unchanged. The largest impact of this shift is in
458: the increased value of the CKM matrix element ratio $ \left|
459: V_{td} \over V_{ub} \right|$, whose central value moves up by about 1
460: sigma.
461:
462: As the bound from the current upper limit on $R(\rho \gamma/K^* \gamma)$ is
463: not yet competitive to the ones from either the measurement of $\Delta
464: M_{B_d}$, or the current bound on $\Delta M_{B_s}$, we use the allowed
465: $\bar \r - \bar \et$ region in order to work out the SM predictions
466: for the observables in the radiative $B$-decays described above.
467: Taking into account these errors and the uncertainties on the
468: theoretical parameters presented in Table~\ref{inputs}, we find the
469: following SM expectations for the radiative decays:
470: %
471: \bea
472: R^\pm (\r \g /K^* \g) &=& 0.023 \pm 0.012 \; ,\\
473: R^0 (\r \g /K^* \g) &=& 0.011\pm 0.006 \; ,\\
474: \D (\r \g ) &=& 0.04^{+0.14}_{-0.07} \; ,\\
475: A_{CP}^\pm (\r\g) &=& 0.10^{+0.03}_{-0.02} \; , \\
476: A_{CP}^0 (\r\g) &=& 0.06 \pm 0.02 \; .
477: \eea
478: %
479: It is interesting to work out the extremal values of $R(\rho
480: \gamma/K^* \gamma)$ compatible with the SM UT-analysis. This is
481: geometrically shown in \fig{fig:rappsm} where we draw the bands
482: corresponding to the values $0.038\pm 0.009$ and $0.013\pm 0.003$ (the
483: errors are essentially driven by the uncertainty on $\z$). The meaning
484: of this figure is as follows: any measurement of $R(\rho \gamma/K^*
485: \gamma)$, whose central value lies in the range $(0.013,0.038)$ would
486: be compatible with the SM, irrespective of the size of the
487: experimental error. The error induced by the imprecise determination
488: of the isospin breaking parameter $\z$ limits currently the
489: possibility of having a very sharp impact from $R(\rho
490: \gamma/K^*\gamma)$ on the UT analysis.
491: %
492: %
493: %
494: \begin{figure}[!t]
495: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=0.8 \linewidth \hbox{\epsfbox{rapp_delta.eps}} }}
496: \vskip 0.2cm {
497: %
498: \caption[1]{ \it Correlation between $R(\r\g/K^*\g)$ and
499: $\Delta(\rho\gamma)$ in the SM and in MFV and EMFV models. The
500: light-shaded regions are obtained varying $\bar \rho$, $\bar \eta$,
501: the supersymmetric parameters (for the MFV and EMFV models) and using
502: the central values of all the hadronic quantities. The darker regions
503: show the effect of $\pm 1 \sigma$ variation of the hadronic
504: parameters.}
505: %
506: \label{fig:rapp_delta} }
507: \vskip -0.2cm
508: \end{figure}
509: %
510: %
511: %%
512: %
513: \begin{figure}[!t]
514: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=0.8 \linewidth
515: \hbox{\epsfbox{rapp_acp.eps}} }}
516: \vskip 0.2cm {
517: %
518: \caption[1]{ \it Correlation between $R(\r\g/K^*\g)$ and
519: $A_{CP}^\pm(\rho\gamma)$.
520: See the caption in Fig.~\ref{fig:rapp_delta} for further details.}
521: %
522: \label{fig:rapp_acp} }
523: \vskip -0.2cm
524: \end{figure}
525: %
526:
527: \section{Analysis in supersymmetry} We focus on two variants of the MSSM
528: called in the literature as MFV~\cite{mfvCDGG} and
529: Extended-MFV~\cite{emfvAL} models. In MFV models all the flavor
530: changing sources, other than the CKM matrix, are neglected and the
531: remaining parameters (that are assumed to be real) are the common mass
532: of the heavy squarks other than the lightest stop ($M_{\tilde q}$),
533: the mass of the lightest stop ($M_{\tilde t}$), the stop mixing angle
534: ($\theta_{\tilde t}$), the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of
535: the two Higgs bosons ($\tan \b_S$), the two parameters of the chargino
536: mass matrix ($\m$ and $M_2$) and the charged Higgs mass
537: ($M_{H^\pm}$). In this class of models there are essentially no
538: additional contributions (on top of the SM ones) to $a_{\psi K_S}$ and
539: $\D M_{B_s}/\D M_{B_d}$, while the impact on $\epsilon_K$, $\D
540: M_{B_d}$ and $\D M_{B_s}$ is described by a single parameter $f$,
541: whose value depends on the parameters of the supersymmetric
542: models~\cite{utAL}.
543:
544: In EMFV models, there is an additional parameter
545: %
546: \beq
547: \d_{\tilde u_L \tilde t} = {M^2_{\tilde u_L \tilde t} \over M_{\tilde t} M_{\tilde q}}
548: {V_{td} \over |V_{td}|} \; .
549: \eeq
550: %
551: With the inclusion of this new parameter, the
552: description of the UT-related observables needs one more complex
553: parameter, $g = g_R + i g_I$~\cite{emfvAL}. A signature of these
554: models is the presence of a new phase in the $B_d^0-\bar B_d^0$ mixing
555: amplitude. Using the parametrization $M_{12}^d = r_d^2 e^{2 i
556: \theta_d} M_{12}^{\rm SM}$, we get $r_d^2 = |1+f+g|$ and $\theta_d =
557: 1/2 \arg (1 + f + g)$. This implies supersymmetric contributions to
558: the CP asymmetry $a_{\psi K_s}$, which we quantify below.
559:
560: We analyze the phenomenology of the MFV and EMFV models by means of scatter plots
561: over the supersymmetric parameter space. In the MFV case, we scan over
562: the following ranges ($M_{\tilde q}$ is set to $1\; \tev$, likewise
563: $M_{\tilde g}$ is $O(1\;\tev)$):
564: %
565: \bea
566: M_ {\tilde t} &=& [0.1\div 1]\; \tev \; , \\
567: \theta_{\tilde t}&=&[-\p \div \p] \; , \\
568: \tan \b_S &=& [3 \div 50] \; , \\
569: M_2 &=& [0.1 \div 1] \; \tev\; , \\
570: M_{H^\pm} &=& [0.1 \div 1] \; \tev \; .
571: \eea
572: %
573: In the EMFV case, we limit the range of the
574: stop mixing angle to $\theta_{\tilde t}=[-0.3 \div 0.3]$ (see
575: discussion in \rf{emfvAL}) and add the scan over $|\d_{\tilde u_L
576: \tilde t}|=[0\div 1]$ and $\arg \d_{\tilde u_L \tilde t} = [-\p \div
577: \p]$.
578: %
579: %
580: \begin{figure}[!t]
581: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=0.8 \linewidth
582: \hbox{\epsfbox{rapp_acp0.eps}} }} \vskip 0.2cm {
583: %
584: \caption[1]{ \it Correlation between $R(\r\g/K^*\g)$ and $A_{CP}^0(\rho\gamma)$.
585: See the caption in Fig.~\ref{fig:rapp_delta} for
586: further details.}
587: %
588: \label{fig:rapp_acp0} }
589: \vskip -0.2cm
590: \end{figure}
591: %
592: %
593: We scan also over $\bar \rho$ and $\bar \eta$ and require that each
594: point satisfies the bounds that come from direct searches, from the
595: $B\to X_s \g$ branching ratio, and from the UT related observables
596: summarized in Table~\ref{inputs}. The surviving regions are presented
597: in Figs.~\ref{fig:rapp_delta}-\ref{fig:rapp_acp0}. In each figure, the
598: light shaded regions are obtained using the central values of the
599: input parameters given in Table~\ref{inputs} while the dark shaded
600: ones result from the inclusion of their one sigma errors. Note that in
601: the two figures showing the correlations between $A_{\rm
602: CP}^\pm(\rho\gamma)$ and $R(\rho\gamma/K^*\gamma)$, and $A_{\rm
603: CP}^0(\rho\gamma)$ and $R(\rho\gamma/K^*\gamma)$, respectively, the CP
604: asymmetries tend to increase as expected in the limit of small
605: branching ratios. In the MFV case, there are two distinct regions that
606: correspond to the negative (SM-like) and positive $C_7^s$ cases. For
607: $C_7^s<0$, the allowed regions in MFV almost coincide with the SM ones
608: and we do not draw them. For $C_7^s>0$, the allowed regions are
609: different and, in general, a change of sign of both the CP-asymmetries
610: (compared to the SM) is expected. We note that the latter scenario
611: needs very large SUSY contributions to $C_7^s$, arising from the
612: chargino-stop diagrams, and for fixed values of $\tan \b_S$ it is
613: possible to set an upper limit on the mass of the lightest stop
614: squark. In \fig{fig:tbmst}, we show the points that survive the $B\to
615: X_s \g$ constraint with a positive $C_7^s$ in the MFV scenario. We
616: have also imposed the additional constraint coming from the upper
617: limit $\branch (B_s \to \m^+\m^-) < 2.6 \times 10^{-6}$ at
618: $\cl{90}$~\cite{bsmm}, and find that the allowed region is essentially
619: unaffected. Note that in the $C_7^s>0$ scenario the mass of the
620: lightest stop has an upper bound of $500\;\gev$ for $\tan \b_S< 50$.
621:
622:
623: What concerns the allowed values of the phase $\theta_d$, comparing
624: the SM allowed range from the UT fit $\sin 2 \b = 0.76 \pm 0.06$,
625: implying $\b = 25^\circ \pm 3^\circ$, with the current experimental
626: value $a_{\psi K_s} = 0.734\pm 0.054$, yields $\theta_d \in
627: (-5^\circ,8^\circ)$. The other solution for $a_{\psi K_s}$ shown in
628: \fig{fig:utsm} yields $\theta_d \in (33^\circ, 46^\circ)$. The
629: additional contributions in $M_{12}^d$ impact on the dilepton charge
630: asymmetry~\cite{allRS}
631: %
632: $$
633: A_{\ell\ell} \equiv
634: {\ell^{++} - \ell^{--} \over \ell^{++} +\ell^{--} } =
635: \left(\D \G_d \over \D M_d \right)_{\rm SM} { r_d^2 \sin
636: 2 \theta_d \over 1 + 2 r_d^2 \cos 2 \theta_d + r_d^4} \; ,
637: $$
638: %
639: where $\ell^{++}(\ell^{--})$ are the numbers of $\ell^+ \ell^+ (
640: \ell^- \ell^-)$ observed in the decay of a $B \bar B$ pair,
641: and $\D \G_d$ is the difference in the decay widhts of the two mass
642: eigenstate. We have
643: computed for each point the value of the dilepton asymmetry
644: $A_{\ell\ell}$ and found that the allowed range in the EMFV model is
645: $A_{\ell\ell} \in [-0.1,0.7] \times 10^{-2}$. This expectation has to
646: be compared with the current experimental bound, $A_{\ell\ell}^{\rm
647: exp} = (0.46 \pm 1.18 \pm 1.43) \times 10^{-2}$ \cite{sekula:2002}. We
648: see that the experimental precision has to be improved by one order of
649: magnitude in order to test the EMFV models. Note that $(\D \G_d / \D
650: M_d )_{\rm SM} = (1.3\pm 0.2) \times 10^{-2}$, yielding typically
651: $A_{\ell\ell} = O(10^{-3})$ in the SM.
652: %
653: \begin{figure}[!t]
654: \centerline{\mbox{\epsfxsize=0.8 \linewidth \hbox{\epsfbox{tbmst.eps}} }}
655: \vskip 0.2cm {
656: %
657: \caption[1]{ \it Correlation between $\tan \b_S$ and $M_{\tilde t}$
658: (in GeV) in the MFV-SUSY model for the $C_7^s>0$ scenario.}
659: %
660: \label{fig:tbmst} }
661: \vskip -0.2cm
662: \end{figure}
663: %
664:
665: \section{Summary}
666: We have presented here an analysis of the ratio $R(\rho
667: \gamma/K^* \gamma)$, involving the decays $B \to \rho \gamma$ and $B
668: \to K^* \gamma$, the isospin-violating asymmetry in $B \to \rho
669: \gamma$ decays $\Delta(\rho \gamma)$, and direct CP asymmetries
670: $A_{\rm CP}^\pm (\rho \gamma)$ and $A_{\rm CP}^0 (\rho \gamma)$ in the
671: charged and neutral $B$-meson decays in the SM and two variants of
672: supersymmetric theories. They illustrate the current and impending
673: interest in the radiative decays $B \to \rho \gamma$, which will
674: provide powerful constraints on the CKM parameters and allow to search
675: for physics beyond-the-SM.
676:
677: \section*{Acknowledgments}
678: We would like to thank David London and
679: Alexander Parkhomenko for helpful correspondence and
680: discussions. E.L. thanks Frank Kr\"uger and Athanasios Dedes for
681: useful discussions, and acknowledges financial support from the
682: Alexander von Humboldt foundation.
683: %
684:
685: \begin{thebibliography}{}
686:
687: \bibitem{babar:convery}
688: B. Aubert {\it et al} [BABAR Collaboration], BABAR-CONF-02/024, SLAC-PUB-9319, hep-ex/0207073.
689:
690: \bibitem{babar:grauges}
691: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf
692: 88}, 101805 (2002).
693: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0110065;%%
694:
695: \bibitem{bdgAP}
696: A.~Ali and A.~Y.~Parkhomenko, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 23}, 89 (2002).
697: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105302;%%
698:
699: \bibitem{Ali:vd}
700: A.~Ali, V.~M.~Braun and H.~Simma, Z.\ Phys.\ C {\bf 63}, 437 (1994).
701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9401277;%%
702:
703: \bibitem{Ali:1995uy}
704: A.~Ali and V.~M.~Braun, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 359}, 223 (1995).
705: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506248;%%
706:
707: \bibitem{Khodjamirian:1995uc}
708: A.~Khodjamirian, G.~Stoll and D.~Wyler, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 358}, 129 (1995).
709: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9506242;%%
710:
711: \bibitem{Grinstein:2000pc}
712: B.~Grinstein and D.~Pirjol, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 093002 (2000).
713: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002216;%%
714:
715: \bibitem{Beyer:2001zn}
716: M.~Beyer, D.~Melikhov, N.~Nikitin and B.~Stech, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 094006 (2001).
717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106203;%%
718:
719: \bibitem{Beneke:1999br}
720: M.~Beneke, G.~Buchalla, M.~Neubert and C.~T.~Sachrajda,
721: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 83}, 1914 (1999).
722: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905312;%%
723:
724: \bibitem{Bosch:2001gv}
725: S.~W.~Bosch and G.~Buchalla, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 621}, 459 (2002).
726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106081;%%
727:
728: \bibitem{Beneke:2001at}
729: M.~Beneke, T.~Feldmann and D.~Seidel, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 612}, 25 (2001).
730: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106067;%%
731:
732: \bibitem{mfvCDGG}
733: M.~Ciuchini, G.~Degrassi, P.~Gambino and G.~F.~Giudice, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 534}, 3 (1998).
734: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9806308;%%
735:
736: \bibitem{emfvAL}
737: A.~Ali and E.~Lunghi, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 683 (2001).
738: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105200;%%
739:
740: \bibitem{Ball:1998kk}
741: P. Ball and V. Braun,
742: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58} (1998) 094016.
743: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9805422;%%
744:
745: \bibitem{Narison:1994kr}
746: S.~Narison, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 327} (1994) 354.
747: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9403370;%%
748:
749: \bibitem{Melikhov:2000yu}
750: D. Melikhov and B. Stech,
751: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62} (2000) 014006.
752: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0001113;%%
753:
754: \bibitem{utAL}
755: A.~Ali and D.~London, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 9}, 687 (1999);
756: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 320}, 79 (1999).
757: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9903535;%%
758: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907243;%%
759:
760: %
761: \bibitem{Lellouch:2002}
762: See, for example, L. Lellouch, plenary talk at the 31st.~International
763: Conference on High Energy Physics, July 24 - 31, 2002, Amsterdam, The
764: Netherlands.
765: %
766: %\cite{Kronfeld:2002ab}
767: \bibitem{Kronfeld:2002ab}
768: A.~S.~Kronfeld and S.~M.~Ryan,
769: %``Remark on the theoretical uncertainty in B0 anti-B0 mixing,''
770: hep-ph/0206058.
771: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206058;%%
772:
773: %\cite{Hagiwara:pw}
774: \bibitem{Hagiwara:pw}
775: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group Collaboration),
776: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''
777: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 010001.
778: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%
779: %
780: \cite{Aubert:2002ic}
781: \bibitem{Aubert:2002ic}
782: B.~Aubert {\it et al.} [BABAR Collaboration],
783: %``Measurement of the CP-violating asymmetry amplitude sin 2beta,''
784: hep-ex/0207042.
785: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0207042;%%
786: %
787: %\cite{Abe:2002}
788: \bibitem{Abe:2002}
789: K.~Abe {\it et al.} [BELLE Collaboration],
790: %``An improved measurement of mixing-induced CP Violation in the neutral
791: % B meson systems,''
792: hep-ex/0208025.
793: %
794: \bibitem{Nir:2002gu}
795: Y.~Nir,
796: %``CP Violation: The CKM Matrix and New Physics,''
797: hep-ph/0208080.
798: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0208080;%%
799: %
800: %\cite{Stocchi:2002}
801: \bibitem{Stocchi:2002}
802: A.~Stocchi, plenary talk at the 31st. International Conference on High
803: Energy Physics, July 24-31, 2002, Amsterdam, The netherlands.
804: %
805: %\cite{Willocq:2002cj}
806: \bibitem{Willocq:2002cj}
807: S.~Willocq,
808: %``B/s0 oscillation results,''
809: hep-ex/0208008.
810: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0208008;%%
811:
812: \bibitem{allRS}
813: L.~Randall and S.-f.~Su, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 540}, 37 (1999).
814: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807377;%%
815:
816: \bibitem{bsmm}
817: F. Abe {\it et al.} (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 3811 (1998).
818:
819: \bibitem{sekula:2002}
820: S. Sekula (BABAR Collaboration), talk presented at the 2nd. Int. Workshop
821: on B Physics and CP Violation, National Taiwan University, Taipei,
822: June 7-9, 2002.
823:
824: \end{thebibliography}
825:
826: \end{document}
827: