1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \def \b{{\cal B}}
4: \def \bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
5: \def \beq{\begin{equation}}
6: \def \bo{B^0}
7: \def \bra#1{\langle #1 |}
8: \def \cpp{C_{\pi \pi}}
9: \def \dz{D^0}
10: \def \eea{\end{eqnarray}}
11: \def \eeq{\end{equation}}
12: \def \epp{\epsilon^{\prime}}
13: \def \hp{\hat{p}}
14: \def \ket#1{| #1 \rangle}
15: \def \ko{K^0}
16: \def \mat#1#2{\langle #1 | #2 \rangle}
17: \def \ob{\overline{B}^0}
18: \def \od{\overline{D}^0}
19: \def \of{\overline{f}}
20: \def \ok{\overline{K}^0}
21: \def \ot{\overline{t}}
22: \def \pr{\parallel}
23: \def \ras{\rho_{A_1}^2}
24: \def \rfas{\rho_{F_A}^2}
25: \def \rfvs{\rho_{F_V}^2}
26: \def \rpp{R_{\pi \pi}}
27: \def \rs{\rho^2}
28: \def \s{\sqrt{2}}
29: \def \spp{S_{\pi \pi}}
30: \def \st{\sqrt{3}}
31: \def \sx{\sqrt{6}}
32: \def \tl{\tilde{\lambda}}
33: \textwidth 6.2in
34: \hoffset -0.4in
35: \voffset -0.4in
36: \textheight 8.8in
37: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
38: \renewcommand{\thetable}{\Roman{table}}
39: \begin{document}
40: \begin{flushright}
41: EFI 03-25 \\
42: hep-ph/0305262 \\
43: May 2003 \\
44: \end{flushright}
45: \medskip
46:
47: %
48: \centerline {\bf THE FACTORIZABLE AMPLITUDE IN $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
49: \footnote{To be submitted to Physical Review D.}}
50: \bigskip
51:
52: \centerline {Zumin Luo~\footnote{zuminluo@midway.uchicago.edu} and
53: Jonathan L. Rosner~\footnote{rosner@hep.uchicago.edu}}
54: \centerline {\it Enrico Fermi Institute and Department of Physics}
55: \centerline{\it University of Chicago, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637}
56: \bigskip
57:
58: \begin{quote}
59:
60: Using the measured spectrum shape for $B \to \pi \ell \nu$, the
61: rate for $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, information on the
62: Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix element $|V_{ub}|$, and
63: theoretical inputs from factorization and lattice gauge theory, we
64: obtain an improved estimate of the ``tree'' contribution to $B^0
65: \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. We find the branching ratio $\b(B^0 \to \pi^+
66: \pi^-)|_{\rm tree} = (5.25^{+1.67}_{-0.50}) \times 10^{-6}$, to be
67: compared with the experimental value $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) =
68: (4.55 \pm 0.44) \times 10^{-6}$. The fit implies $|V_{ub}| = (3.62
69: \pm 0.34) \times 10^{-3}$. Implications for tree-penguin interference in $\bo
70: \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and for other charmless $B$ decays are discussed.
71: \end{quote}
72: \bigskip
73:
74: \noindent
75: PACS Categories: 13.25.Hw, 14.40.Nd, 14.65.Fy, 11.30.Er
76: \bigskip
77:
78: \centerline{\bf I. INTRODUCTION}
79: \bigskip
80:
81: The semileptonic process $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ involves a form
82: factor $F_+(q^2)$ related for $q^2 = m_\pi^2$ to the factorized
83: color-favored ``tree'' contribution in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
84: \cite{Vol,BJ,BS}. In previous work \cite{bpilnu} we obtained an
85: estimate of this contribution implying a branching ratio $\b(\bo
86: \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree} = (7.3 \pm 3.2) \times 10^{-6}$. A
87: measurement of the spectrum $d \Gamma(B \to \pi \ell \nu)/dq^2$
88: has now been presented by the CLEO Collaboration \cite{CLEOsl03}
89: working at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring. Further results are
90: expected from the BaBar and Belle Collaborations at asymmetric $e^+ e^-$
91: colliders. Using the CLEO measurement and other inputs, we find in the present
92: paper an improved estimate implying $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm
93: tree} =(5.25^{+1.67}_{-0.50}) \times 10^{-6}$, to be compared with
94: the observed branching ratio $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = (4.55 \pm
95: 0.44) \times 10^{-6}$. This result has a number of implications
96: for tree-penguin interference in $\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ and for
97: other charmless $B$ decays.
98:
99: %JR simplified slightly
100: We review theoretical inputs, including constraints
101: from factorization and lattice gauge theory calculations, in Sec. II, while
102: data are discussed in Sec.\ III. We perform a global fit to these inputs in
103: Sec.\ IV. The consequences of this fit are discussed for $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$
104: and other charmless $B$ decays in Sec.\ V. We conclude in Sec.\ VI.
105: % \bigskip
106: \newpage
107:
108: %JR simplified slightly
109: \centerline{\bf II. THEORETICAL INPUTS}
110: \bigskip
111:
112: The $B \to \pi$ matrix element is parametrized by two independent form factors:
113: %
114: \beq
115: \bra{\pi(p)} \bar{u}\gamma_{\mu}b \ket{B(p+q)} =
116: \left(2p+q-q\frac{m_B^2-m_{\pi}^2}{q^2}\right)_{\mu}F_+(q^2) +
117: q_{\mu}\frac{m_B^2-m_{\pi}^2}{q^2}F_0(q^2)~ ,
118: \eeq
119: %
120: For massless leptons (assumed here), only $F_+(q^2)$ contributes to the
121: differential decay rate
122: %
123: \beq \label{eqn:diff}
124: \frac{d\Gamma}{dq^2}(B^0 \to \pi^-\ell^+ \nu_{\ell}) =
125: \frac{G_F^2|V_{ub}|^2}{24\pi^3}|\vec{p}_{\pi}|^3|F_+(q^2)|^2~~ ,
126: \eeq
127: %
128: where $V_{ub}$ is the relevant CKM matrix element. In the factorization
129: hypothesis, one replaces the lepton pair with a pion, giving what we term
130: the ``tree'' contribution $T$ (in the notation of \cite{GHLR}) to
131: the nonleptonic decay $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. In the limit of small
132: $m_{\pi}$, the two processes are related by \cite{BJ}
133: %
134: \beq \label{eqn:pipi}
135: \Gamma_{\mathrm{tree}}(B^0 \to \pi^+
136: \pi^-)=6\pi^2f_{\pi}^2|V_{ud}|^2|a_1|^2\left.\frac{d\Gamma(B^0 \to \pi^-
137: \ell^+ \nu_{\ell})}{dq^2}\right|_{q^2=m_{\pi}^2} .
138: \eeq
139: %
140: where $|a_1|$ is a QCD correction which we shall take equal to 1.
141: The majority of QCD effects are expected to be associated with the form
142: factors $F_{+,0}(q^2)$ and thus are taken into account by the factorization
143: {\it ansatz}.
144:
145: Other contributions to charmless strangeness-preserving $B$ decays which we
146: shall consider include color-suppressed tree ($C$) and penguin ($P$)
147: amplitudes. The corresponding strangness-changing amplitudes are denoted
148: by primes. We neglect smaller amplitudes which involve spectator quarks.
149: For these and other details, see, e.g., Ref.\ \cite{GHLR}. The amplitude
150: for $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ is then
151: %
152: \beq
153: A(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = - (T + P) = - |T|e^{i \gamma} - |P|e^{-i \beta}
154: e^{i \delta}~~~,
155: \eeq
156: %
157: where we have introduced phases of CKM elements, assuming the phase of the
158: $\bar b \to \bar d$ penguin to be dominated by the top quark, and $\delta$
159: denotes a relative strong phase. A question which has been of interest
160: for some time \cite{bpilnu,GRdest,Hdest} is whether the small branching ratio
161: for $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ reflects the effect of destructive tree-penguin
162: interference. If so, by combining this information with CP-violating
163: asymmetries in $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$, one can learn a good deal about both weak
164: (i.e., CKM) and strong phases \cite{GRpipi}.
165:
166: We use notation in which the square of an amplitude directly gives a $B^0$
167: branching ratio in units of $10^{-6}$. The observed branching ratio
168: $\b(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-) = (4.55 \pm 0.44) \times 10^{-6}$ (see Sec.\ III)
169: then corresponds to $|T+P| = 2.13 \pm 0.10$ in our units. In previous work
170: \cite{bpilnu} we found $|T| = 2.7 \pm 0.6$, too large an error to display
171: any possible tree-penguin interference.
172:
173: Another amplitude which will be of use to us is $A(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0) = -
174: (T+C)/\s$. The color-suppressed amplitude $C$ is expected to have small phase
175: and magnitude relative to $T$ \cite{BBNS}. We shall use only the conservative
176: range \cite{MN} $0.08 < |C/T| < 0.37$. This will provide a useful bound on $T$
177: based on $\b(B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0)$.
178:
179: Lattice gauge theories predict not only the shape, but also the
180: normalization, of the $B \to \pi$ form factors at large $q^2$ or
181: small pion recoil momentum in the $B$ rest frame \cite{UKQCD, APE,
182: FNAL, JLQCD}. These predictions turn out to be very helpful in
183: constraining parameters on the basis of the $q^2$ spectrum in $B
184: \to \pi l \nu$. However, they do not address the key question of
185: the form factor behavior at small $q^2$ or large pion recoil.
186:
187: The CKM parameter $V_{ub}$ is another key input whose determination is for the
188: moment still subject to theoretical uncertainties. Good understanding of
189: the $B \to \pi$ form factor would reduce these uncertainties. Independently
190: of $B \to \pi l \nu$ (or the more complex process $B \to \rho l \nu$), however,
191: various inclusive methods have been employed to extract $V_{ub}$ from
192: semileptonic $b \to u$ decays, including the study of leptons with energy
193: exceeding the endpoint for $b \to c l \nu$, the rejection of events with
194: recoil mass above charm threshold, and the use of the photon energy
195: distribution in $b \to s \gamma$ to measure the ``Fermi distribution'' of $b$
196: quarks inside a $B$ meson. These are summarized in a subsection of the
197: Review of Particle Physics \cite{BG}.
198:
199: The form factor $F_+(q^2)$ is expected to have a $B^*$ pole, as
200: well as possible higher-lying poles in $q^2$. In Ref.\
201: \cite{bpilnu} we approximated it with a dipole form proposed by
202: Becirevic and Kaidalov \cite{BK} on the basis of lattice gauge
203: theory calculations:
204: %
205: \beq F_+(q^2) =
206: \frac{c_B(1-\alpha_B)}{(1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2)(1-\alpha_B
207: q^2/m_{B^*}^2)}~~~. \eeq
208: %
209: A value of $\alpha_B$ between 0 and 1 would correspond to a pole
210: lying above $m_{B^*}^2$.
211: However, we were unable to achieve a good fit to the CLEO $B \to
212: \pi l \nu$ spectrum with this form. (The $\chi^2$ of the fit is
213: more than 3 for one degree of freedom.) A generalization of the
214: above form factor is to multiply it by $(1+a q^2/m_{B^*}^2)$,
215: where $a$ is an additional parameter. The resulting form factor is
216: equivalent to an explicit dipole:
217: %
218: \beq F_+(q^2) = \frac{R_1}{1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2} +
219: \frac{R_2}{1-\alpha_B q^2/m_{B^*}^2}~~~. \eeq
220: %
221: However, we were unable to achieve any fit for any physical
222: $\alpha_B$ to the numerical inputs in Sec.\ III
223: which represented any improvement over the single pole with this
224: form. We thus choose instead the two-parameter form
225: %
226: \beq F_+(q^2) = \frac{F(0)}{1-q^2/m_{B^*}^2}(1 + a
227: q^2/m_{B^*}^2)~~~. \eeq
228: %
229:
230: \bigskip
231:
232: \centerline{\bf III. NUMERICAL INPUTS}
233: \bigskip
234:
235: We summarize some information on $B \to \pi \pi$ branching ratios
236: \cite{Babrs,Bebrs,CLbrs} in Table I. The central value of the
237: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ branching ratio exceeds that of $\pi^+ \pi^-$
238: despite the fact that the coefficient of its dominant $T$ term is
239: divided by $\s$ (see Sec.\ II). To extract an amplitude for
240: comparison with $B^0$ decays we must first divide all $B^+$
241: branching ratios by the $B^+/B^0$ lifetime ratio \cite{LEPBOSC}
242: $\tau_+/\tau_0 = 1.073 \pm 0.014$ .
243:
244: % This is Table I
245: \begin{table}
246: \caption{Branching ratios for some charmless two-body $B$ decays, in units of
247: $10^{-6}$.
248: \label{tab:brs}}
249: \begin{center}
250: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline \hline
251: Mode & BaBar \cite{Babrs} & Belle \cite{Bebrs} & CLEO \cite{CLbrs} & Average \\
252: \hline
253: $\pi^+ \pi^-$ & $4.7 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.2$ & $4.4 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.3$ &
254: $4.5^{+1.4+0.5}_{-1.2-0.4}$ & $4.55 \pm 0.44$ \\
255: $\pi^+ \pi^0$ & $5.5 \pm 1.0 \pm 0.6$ & $5.3 \pm 1.3 \pm 0.5$ &
256: $4.6^{+1.8+0.6}_{-1.6-0.7}$ & $5.27 \pm 0.79$ \\ \hline \hline
257: \end{tabular}
258: \end{center}
259: \end{table}
260:
261: Our estimate of $|T|$ based on $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$ then proceeds as follows.
262: After correcting for the lifetime ratio, we find $|T+C| = 3.13 \pm 0.24$.
263: With \cite{MN} $|T+C| = |T|(1.23 \pm 0.15)$ we then obtain $|T| = 2.55 \pm
264: 0.37$. This is consistent with our previous determination \cite{bpilnu} but
265: with smaller errors. (The estimate $|T| = 3.0 \pm 0.3$ of Ref.\ \cite{xiao}
266: uses too restrictive a value of $|C/T|$ in our opinion.) We seek further
267: information from the $B \to \pi l \nu$ spectrum shape and other sources. This
268: value would imply $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree} = (6.5 \pm 1.9) \times
269: 10^{-6}$, only $1 \sigma$ above the experimental branching ratio.
270:
271: The CLEO Collaboration \cite{CLEOsl03} measured $d \b(B \to \pi l \nu)
272: /dq^2$ in three $q^2$ bins, each about 8 GeV$/c^2$ wide. The results are not
273: very sensitive to the choice of form factor and we quote them for the form
274: factor \cite{Ball01} which appears to fit the data best:
275: %
276: \beq \int dq^2 \frac{d \b}{d q^2}(B^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l) =
277: \left\{
278: \begin{array}{l l} (0.431 \pm 0.106) \times 10^{-4} & (0 \le q^2 \le
279: 8~{\rm GeV}^2)
280: \\ (0.651 \pm 0.105) \times 10^{-4} & (8 \le q^2 \le 16~{\rm GeV}^2)
281: \\ (0.245 \pm 0.094) \times 10^{-4} & (16~{\rm GeV}^2 \le q^2)
282: \end{array} \right.
283: \eeq
284: %
285: Only statistical errors (dominant) are shown. These sum to a
286: branching ratio of $\b(B^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l) = (1.33 \pm 0.18
287: \pm 0.11 \pm 0.01 \pm 0.07) \times 10^{-4}$, where the errors are
288: statistical, experimental systematic, pion form factor
289: uncertainty, and $\rho$ form factor uncertainty.
290:
291: Lattice calculations of the form factor $F_+(q^2)$ have been
292: presented in the past few years by the UKQCD \cite{UKQCD}, APE
293: \cite{APE}, Fermilab \cite{FNAL} and JLQCD \cite{JLQCD}
294: Collaborations. Numerical values of $F_+(q^2)$ are computed in the
295: range $13.6\ {\rm GeV}^2 \le q^2 \le 23.4\ {\rm GeV}^2$. Although
296: small variations are present among the four different
297: calculations, all results are consistent with each other within
298: errors. We will include them all in our fits.
299:
300: For $|V_{ub}|$ we combine determinations presented in Ref.\
301: \cite{BG} in the following manner. All numbers will be quoted in
302: units of $10^{-3}$. The inclusive LEP average is $4.09 \pm 0.37
303: \pm 0.44 \pm 0.34$ while the inclusive CLEO value is $4.12 \pm
304: 0.34 \pm 0.44 \pm 0.33$, where the errors are statistical,
305: experimental systematic, $b \to c$ uncertainty, and $b \to u$
306: uncertainty. In addition there are theoretical uncertainties
307: estimated to range up to 15\%. Combining the two inclusive
308: numbers before folding in the theoretical uncertainties, and
309: treating the last two errors as common, we obtain $4.11 \pm 0.61$.
310: We shall use this in our fits. We do not include some preliminary results
311: presented by CLEO \cite{Bornheim:2002jk} and Belle \cite{Limosani:2003cc}.
312:
313: An earlier CLEO exclusive determination of $|V_{ub}|$ utilizes
314: both $\pi l \nu$ and $\rho l \nu$ decays \cite{BG}. Its result,
315: which we do not use in the present fit, amounts to an average of $3.25$
316: with experimental and theoretical errors comparable to those in the
317: inclusive determinations. Averaging it with the inclusive value noted
318: above, we should expect a global fit to give $10^3~|V_{ub}| \simeq 3.68
319: \pm 0.43$ with an additional 15\% theoretical error, or approximately a
320: 20\% error overall. We shall see that a modest improvement upon this
321: error is possible, while the central value does not change much.
322: % \bigskip
323: \newpage
324:
325: \centerline{\bf IV. GLOBAL FIT}
326: \bigskip
327:
328: We perform an overall three-parameter $\chi^2$ fit to the
329: above-mentioned $B \to \pi l \nu$ branching fractions in the three
330: $q^2$ bins, the averaged inclusive $|V_{ub}|$, and 26 lattice data
331: points on $F_+(q^2)$. We neglect the small correlations among the
332: three branching fractions. The quality of the fit is fairly good,
333: with $\chi^2 = 8.7$ for 27 degrees of freedom. The $\chi^2$'s
334: contributed by specific sources are summarized in Table
335: \ref{tab:chisq}. More than 50\% of the $\chi^2$ comes from the
336: Fermilab lattice points, which appear to be of a somewhat
337: different pattern from the other three lattice determinations.
338:
339: % This is Table II
340: \begin{table}
341: \caption{Sources of $\chi^2$ in global fit to $F_+(q^2)$.
342: \label{tab:chisq}}
343: \begin{center}
344: \begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
345: Source & $\chi^2$ & Reference \\ \hline
346: $B \to \pi l \nu$ spectrum & 2.42 & \cite{CLEOsl03} \\
347: Inclusive $|V_{ub}|$ values & 0.65 & \cite{BG} \\
348: UKQCD lattice data & 0.74 & \cite{UKQCD}\\
349: APE lattice data & 0.12 & \cite{APE}\\
350: Fermilab lattice data & 4.53 & \cite{FNAL} \\
351: JLQCD lattice data & 0.21 & \cite{JLQCD}\\ \hline \hline
352: \end{tabular}
353: \end{center}
354: \end{table}
355: %
356:
357: The results of the fit are
358: %
359: \bea
360: a & = & 1.14^{+0.72}_{-0.42}~~,\\
361: F(0) & = & 0.23 \pm 0.04~~,\\
362: |V_{ub}| & = & (3.62 \pm 0.34) \times 10^{-3}~~,\\
363: \b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree} & = & (5.25 \pm 1.67) \times 10^{-6} ~~,\\
364: |T| & = & 2.29 \pm 0.36~~.
365: \eea
366: %
367: A theoretical error of $\simeq 15\%$ must be added to $|V_{ub}|$.
368: The value of $|T|$ overlaps that ($|T| = 2.55 \pm 0.37$) obtained
369: in Sec.\ III from $B^+ \to \pi^+ \pi^0$, but the $\pi^+ \pi^0$
370: value indicates that $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree}$ is no
371: smaller than $4.75 \times 10^{-6}$. Hence we shall truncate our
372: parameter space at this lower limit, and quote
373: %
374: \bea \b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree} & = &
375: (5.25^{+1.67}_{-0.50}) \times 10^{-6} ~~,\\ |T| & = &
376: 2.29^{+0.36}_{-0.11}~~. \eea
377: %
378: The ranges of parameters contributing to the global fit are
379: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ellipses}, where we show the points
380: corresponding to minimum $\chi^2 = 8.7$ and the ellipses
381: corresponding to $\Delta \chi^2 = 1$. The various projections are
382: helpful in visualizing the full range of parameter variation. In
383: particular, the value of $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree}$ can
384: vary substantially as a result of the uncertainty in $F(0)$, which
385: is still not well constrained by the data. However, its $1
386: \sigma$ upper limit of $6.92 \times 10^{-6}$ is well below that
387: implied by the previous estimate of Ref.\ \cite{bpilnu}.
388:
389: % This is Figure 1
390: \begin{figure}
391: \begin{center}
392: \includegraphics[height=7.5in]{ellipses.eps} \\
393: \caption{Left column: projections of error ellipsoid for global fit on the
394: plane of two parameters for central values of the third. Right
395: column: ellipses involving the tree amplitude corresponding to the
396: variations shown in the left column. Note that $|T|^2 =
397: \b(B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm tree}$ in units of $10^{-6}$.
398: \label{fig:ellipses}}
399: \end{center}
400: \end{figure}
401: \bigskip
402:
403: In Fig.~\ref{fig:br} we show our best fit to the CLEO data
404: \cite{CLEOsl03} for the $B^0 \to \pi^- l^+ \nu_l$ spectrum (in
405: three $q^2$ bins). The data favor a rather lower value of $F(0)$
406: than in our previous discussion \cite{bpilnu}, accounting for the
407: lower magnitude of the tree amplitude in the present treatment. In
408: Fig.~\ref{fig:ff} we show the comparison of the lattice data
409: points with our best-fit form factor $F_+(q^2)$.
410: As a consequence of the internal variations within the lattice
411: results, a $\chi^2$ of about 5.5 (contributed by the lattice data)
412: should be common for all fits; see Table II. Therefore, since the
413: $B \to \pi l \nu$ spectrum is the second largest $\chi^2$ source,
414: a significantly better overall fit can be achieved only if the
415: measured $B \to \pi l \nu$ branching ratios in the three $q^2$
416: bins are fitted better. This will require the addition of a fourth
417: parameter to affect the shape of $d \b(B \to \pi l \nu) /dq^2$ so
418: that it is suppressed at both low and high $q^2$ ends and enhanced
419: in the middle while relatively unchanged in the region $13.6\ {\rm
420: GeV}^2 \le q^2 \le 23.4\ {\rm GeV}^2$ where lattice data exist;
421: see Fig.~\ref{fig:br}. Consequently smaller tree amplitudes are
422: implied and we regard them as disfavored by the lower limit as
423: obtained earlier.
424:
425: % This is Figure 2
426: \begin{figure}
427: \begin{center}
428: \includegraphics[height=4.4in]{br.eps} \\
429: \caption{Fit to $\int dq^2 \frac{d \b}{d q^2}(B^0 \to \pi^- l^+
430: \nu_l)$ values obtained for three $q^2$ bins in Ref.\
431: \cite{CLEOsl03}. \label{fig:br}}
432: \end{center}
433: \end{figure}
434: \bigskip
435:
436: \centerline{\bf V. HOW KNOWING THE TREE AMPLITUDE HELPS}
437: \bigskip
438:
439: The ratio $\rpp$ of the observed $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$ branching ratio to its
440: value in the presence of the tree amplitude alone helps to establish the
441: relative magnitude and strong and weak phase of the penguin amplitude in this
442: process \cite{GRpipi}. On the basis of the previous determination of the tree
443: amplitude \cite{bpilnu} and the present world average for $\b(B^0 \to \pi^+
444: \pi^-)$ we quoted \cite{mor} $\rpp = 0.62 \pm 0.28$, which indicated that
445: tree-penguin interference was not required but, if present in the rate, would
446: be destructive. The new information on $|T|$ allows us to refine this estimate
447: to obtain $\rpp =0.87^{+0.11}_{-0.28}$, a value still consistent with both
448: possibilities.
449:
450: % This is Figure 3
451: \begin{figure}
452: \begin{center}
453: \includegraphics[height=4.4in]{ff.eps} \\
454: \caption{Comparison of lattice data points with our best-fit form
455: factor $F_+(q^2)$. Lattice data are from UKQCD (squares), APE
456: (stars), Fermilab (circles) and JLQCD (diamonds). \label{fig:ff}}
457: \end{center}
458: \end{figure}
459:
460: The ratio $|P/T|$ of penguin to tree amplitudes quoted in Ref.\
461: \cite{mor} was $|P/T| = 0.28 \pm 0.06$. This ratio is useful in
462: interpreting CP-violating asymmetries in the decay $B^0 \to \pi^+
463: \pi^-$ (see, e.g., \cite{GRpipi}). With the new world average
464: \cite{mor} $\b(B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+) = (19.6 \pm 1.4) \times 10^{-6}$
465: and the prescription \cite{GRpipi} $|P/P'| = (f_\pi/f_K)
466: \lambda/(1 - \lambda^2/2)$ we find for $f_\pi = 130.7$ MeV, $f_K =
467: 159.8$ MeV, and \cite{Battaglia} $\lambda = 0.224$ the values
468: $|P'| = 4.28 \pm 0.16$, $|P| = 0.80 \pm 0.03$, and $|P/T| =
469: 0.35^{+0.02}_{-0.06}$. (Here the prime denotes a $|\Delta S| = 1$
470: amplitude.) The ``penguin pollution'' thus is slightly greater
471: than estimated previously. Corrections to the CKM phase $\alpha$
472: obtained from the asymmetry parameter $S_{\pi \pi}$ and the direct
473: asymmetry parameter $A_{\pi \pi}$ both can be slightly larger than
474: in Refs.\ \cite{GRpipi} and \cite{mor}.
475:
476: The tree/penguin ratio in $B^0 \to K^+ \pi^-$ is also affected. By a similar
477: analysis we found $r = |T'/P'| = 0.173 \pm 0.039$ in Ref.\ \cite{mor}; the new
478: value is $0.151^{+0.024}_{-0.009}$. A bound on the CKM phase $\gamma$ quoted
479: in Ref.\ \cite{mor} relied on the lower limit of $r$, which is slightly raised,
480: so the bound is strengthened slightly. Since it was only at the $1 \sigma$
481: level, we do not present it here.
482:
483: A further implication of the improved upper bound on $T$ is a lower bound on
484: $C$. Given the $1 \sigma$ bound $|T+C| \ge 2.89$ based on the $B^+ \to \pi^+
485: \pi^0$ branching ratio (see Sec.\ III) and the $1 \sigma$ upper bound $|T|
486: \le 2.65$ based on the present analysis, we conclude that if $C$ and $T$
487: have a small relative phase \cite{BBNS}, then Re($C/T) \stackrel{>}{\sim}
488: 0.1$.
489: \bigskip
490:
491: \centerline{\bf VI. CONCLUSIONS}
492: \bigskip
493:
494: The measurement of the $B \to \pi \ell \nu$ spectrum by the CLEO
495: Collaboration \cite{CLEOsl03} has provided valuable information
496: allowing us to improve the determination of the ``tree''
497: contribution to $B^0 \to \pi^+ \pi^-$. Combining this information
498: with inclusive determinations of the CKM matrix element $|V_{ub}|$
499: and lattice gauge theory calculations of the $B \to \pi$ form
500: factor $F_+(q^2)$, we have found $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-)|_{\rm
501: tree} = (5.25^{+1.67} _{-0.50}) \times 10^{-6}$, not significantly
502: greater than the experimental value $\b(\bo \to \pi^+ \pi^-) =
503: (4.55 \pm 0.44) \times 10^{-6}$. The fit implies $|V_{ub}| = (3.62 \pm 0.34)
504: \times 10^{-3}$, with an additional theoretical error of 15\%. The relative
505: strength of the penguin amplitude in this process, gauged using flavor SU(3)
506: from the rate for $B^+ \to K^0 \pi^+$, is slightly larger than
507: estimated previously, amounting to $(35^{+2}_{-6})\%$ in
508: amplitude. However, the need for strong destructive interference
509: between this amplitude and the tree contribution is somewhat
510: diminished in comparison with earlier estimates.
511: \bigskip
512:
513: \centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
514: \bigskip
515:
516: We thank Michael Gronau for helpful discussions.
517: This work was supported in part by the United
518: States Department of Energy through Grant No.\ DE FG02 90ER40560.
519:
520: % Journal and other miscellaneous abbreviations for references
521: % Phys. Rev. D format
522: \def \ajp#1#2#3{Am.\ J. Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
523: \def \apny#1#2#3{Ann.\ Phys.\ (N.Y.) {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
524: \def \app#1#2#3{Acta Phys.\ Polonica {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
525: \def \arnps#1#2#3{Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
526: \def \art{and references therein}
527: \def \cmts#1#2#3{Comments on Nucl.\ Part.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
528: \def \cn{Collaboration}
529: \def \cp89{{\it CP Violation,} edited by C. Jarlskog (World Scientific,
530: Singapore, 1989)}
531: \def \efi{Enrico Fermi Institute Report No.\ }
532: \def \epjc#1#2#3{Eur.\ Phys.\ J. C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
533: \def \f79{{\it Proceedings of the 1979 International Symposium on Lepton and
534: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Fermilab, August 23-29, 1979, ed. by
535: T. B. W. Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,
536: Batavia, IL, 1979}
537: \def \hb87{{\it Proceeding of the 1987 International Symposium on Lepton and
538: Photon Interactions at High Energies,} Hamburg, 1987, ed. by W. Bartel
539: and R. R\"uckl (Nucl.\ Phys.\ B, Proc.\ Suppl., vol.\ 3) (North-Holland,
540: Amsterdam, 1988)}
541: \def \ib{{\it ibid.}~}
542: \def \ibj#1#2#3{~{\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
543: \def \ichep72{{\it Proceedings of the XVI International Conference on High
544: Energy Physics}, Chicago and Batavia, Illinois, Sept. 6 -- 13, 1972,
545: edited by J. D. Jackson, A. Roberts, and R. Donaldson (Fermilab, Batavia,
546: IL, 1972)}
547: \def \ijmpa#1#2#3{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
548: \def \ite{{\it et al.}}
549: \def \jhep#1#2#3{JHEP {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
550: \def \jpb#1#2#3{J.\ Phys.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
551: \def \lg{{\it Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on
552: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, August 9--14 1999,
553: edited by J. Jaros and M. Peskin (World Scientific, Singapore, 2000)}
554: \def \lkl87{{\it Selected Topics in Electroweak Interactions} (Proceedings of
555: the Second Lake Louise Institute on New Frontiers in Particle Physics, 15 --
556: 21 February, 1987), edited by J. M. Cameron \ite~(World Scientific, Singapore,
557: 1987)}
558: \def \kdvs#1#2#3{{Kong.\ Danske Vid.\ Selsk., Matt-fys.\ Medd.} {\bf #1},
559: No.\ #2 (#3)}
560: \def \ky85{{\it Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lepton and
561: Photon Interactions at High Energy,} Kyoto, Aug.~19-24, 1985, edited by M.
562: Konuma and K. Takahashi (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1985)}
563: \def \mpla#1#2#3{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
564: \def \nat#1#2#3{Nature {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
565: \def \nc#1#2#3{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
566: \def \nima#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth. A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
567: \def \np#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
568: \def \npbps#1#2#3{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
569: \def \os{XXX International Conference on High Energy Physics, Osaka, Japan,
570: July 27 -- August 2, 2000}
571: \def \PDG{Particle Data Group, D. E. Groom \ite, \epjc{15}{1}{2000}}
572: \def \pisma#1#2#3#4{Pis'ma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [JETP
573: Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #4 (#3)]}
574: \def \pl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
575: \def \pla#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ A {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
576: \def \plb#1#2#3{Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
577: \def \pr#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
578: \def \prc#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
579: \def \prd#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
580: \def \prl#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
581: \def \prp#1#2#3{Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
582: \def \ptp#1#2#3{Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
583: \def \rmp#1#2#3{Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
584: \def \rp#1{~~~~~\ldots\ldots{\rm rp~}{#1}~~~~~}
585: \def \si90{25th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Singapore,
586: Aug. 2-8, 1990}
587: \def \slc87{{\it Proceedings of the Salt Lake City Meeting} (Division of
588: Particles and Fields, American Physical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1987),
589: ed. by C. DeTar and J. S. Ball (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987)}
590: \def \slac89{{\it Proceedings of the XIVth International Symposium on
591: Lepton and Photon Interactions,} Stanford, California, 1989, edited by M.
592: Riordan (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)}
593: \def \smass82{{\it Proceedings of the 1982 DPF Summer Study on Elementary
594: Particle Physics and Future Facilities}, Snowmass, Colorado, edited by R.
595: Donaldson, R. Gustafson, and F. Paige (World Scientific, Singapore, 1982)}
596: \def \smass90{{\it Research Directions for the Decade} (Proceedings of the
597: 1990 Summer Study on High Energy Physics, June 25--July 13, Snowmass, Colorado),
598: edited by E. L. Berger (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992)}
599: \def \tasi{{\it Testing the Standard Model} (Proceedings of the 1990
600: Theoretical Advanced Study Institute in Elementary Particle Physics, Boulder,
601: Colorado, 3--27 June, 1990), edited by M. Cveti\v{c} and P. Langacker
602: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991)}
603: \def \yaf#1#2#3#4{Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf#1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\
604: {\bf #1}, #4 (#3)]}
605: \def \zhetf#1#2#3#4#5#6{Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}, #2 (#3) [Sov.\
606: Phys.\ - JETP {\bf #4}, #5 (#6)]}
607: \def \zpc#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ C {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
608: \def \zpd#1#2#3{Zeit.\ Phys.\ D {\bf#1}, #2 (#3)}
609:
610: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
611:
612: \bibitem{Vol} M. B. Voloshin, \yaf{50}{166}{1983}{105}.
613:
614: \bibitem{BJ} J. D. Bjorken, in {\it New Developments in High-Energy Physics},
615: Proc.~IV International Workshop on High-Energy Physics, Orthodox Academy of
616: Crete, Greece, 1--10 July 1988, edited by E. G. Floratos and
617: A. Verganelakis, \npbps{11}{325}{1989}.
618:
619: \bibitem{BS} D. Bortoletto and S. Stone, \prl{65}{2951}{1990}.
620:
621: \bibitem{bpilnu} Z. Luo and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{054027}{2002}.
622:
623: \bibitem{CLEOsl03} CLEO Collaboration, S. B. Athar \ite, Cornell University
624: Report No.\ CLNS 03/1819, hep-ex/0304019, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
625:
626: \bibitem{GHLR} M. Gronau, O. F. Hern\'andez, D. London, and J. L. Rosner,
627: \prd{50}{4529}{1994}.
628:
629: \bibitem{GRdest} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{57}{6843}{1998}.
630:
631: \bibitem{Hdest} W.-S. Hou, J. G. Smith, and F. W\"urthwein, hep-ex/9910014;
632: X.-G. He, W.-S. Hou, and K. C. Yang, \prl{83}{1100}{1999}.
633:
634: \bibitem{GRpipi} M. Gronau and J. L. Rosner, \prd{65}{093012}{2002};
635: \ibj{66}{053003}{2002}; \ibj{66}{119901(E)}{2002}.
636:
637: \bibitem{BBNS} M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert, and C. T. Sachrajda,
638: \np{B606}{245}{2001}.
639:
640: \bibitem{MN} M. Neubert, private communication.
641:
642: \bibitem{UKQCD}
643: K.~C.~Bowler {\it et al.} [UKQCD Collaboration], Phys.\ Lett.\ B
644: {\bf 486}, 111 (2000), hep-lat/9911011.
645:
646: \bibitem{APE}
647: A.~Abada {\it et al.}, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 619}, 565 (2001),
648: hep-lat/0011065.
649:
650: \bibitem{FNAL}
651: A.~X.~El-Khadra {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 014502
652: (2001), hep-ph/0101023.
653:
654: \bibitem{JLQCD}
655: S.~Aoki {\it et al.} [JLQCD Collaboration], Phys.\ Rev.\ D
656: {\bf 64}, 114505 (2001), hep-lat/0106024; D.~Becirevic,
657: S.~Prelovsek and J.~Zupan, Orsay Report No.\ 03-19,
658: hep-lat/0305001.
659:
660: \bibitem{BG} M. Battaglia and L. Gibbons, in Particle Data Group, {\it
661: Review of Particle Physics}, \prd{66}{010001-706}{2002}.
662:
663: \bibitem{BK} D. Becirevic and A. B. Kaidalov, \plb{478}{2000}{417}.
664:
665: \bibitem{Babrs} BaBar \cn, B. Aubert \ite, quoted by S. Playfer at LHCb
666: Workshop, CERN, February 2003.
667:
668: \bibitem{Bebrs} Belle \cn, presented by T. Tomura, XXXVIII Rencontres de
669: Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France
670: March 15--22, 2003, to be published in the Proceedings.
671:
672: \bibitem{CLbrs} CLEO \cn, A. Bornheim \ite, Cornell Laboratory of Nuclear
673: Science Report No.\ CLNS-03-1816, hep-ex/0302026, submitted to Phys.\ Rev.\ D.
674:
675: \bibitem{LEPBOSC} LEP B Oscillations Working Group,
676: {\tt http://lepbosc.web.cern.ch/LEPBOSC/}.
677:
678: \bibitem{xiao} Z.-j. Xiao, C.-D. Lu, and L. Guo, Beijing Institute of High
679: Energy Physics Report No.\ BIHEP-TH-200307, hep-ph/0303070.
680:
681: \bibitem{Ball01} P. Ball and R. Zwicky, \jhep{0110}{019}{2001}.
682:
683: \bibitem{Bornheim:2002jk}
684: A.~Bornheim {\it et al.} [CLEO Collaboration],
685: arXiv:hep-ex/0207064.
686:
687: \bibitem{Limosani:2003cc}
688: A.~Limosani, arXiv:hep-ex/0305037.
689:
690: \bibitem{mor} J. L. Rosner, \efi 03-16, hep-ph/0304200, invited talk at
691: XXXVIII Rencontres de Moriond on Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories,
692: Les Arcs, France, 15--22 Mar 2003, to be published in the Proceedings.
693:
694: \bibitem{Battaglia} M.~Battaglia {\it et al.}, arXiv:hep-ph/0304132.
695:
696: \end{thebibliography}
697: \end{document}
698: #!/bin/csh -f
699: # this uuencoded Z-compressed .tar file created by csh script uufiles
700: # for more information, see e.g. http://xxx.lanl.gov/faq/uufaq.html
701: # if you are on a unix machine this file will unpack itself:
702: # strip off any mail header and call resulting file, e.g., tree.uu
703: # (uudecode ignores these header lines and starts at begin line below)
704: # then say csh tree.uu
705: # or explicitly execute the commands (generally more secure):
706: # uudecode tree.uu ; uncompress tree.tar.Z ;
707: # tar -xvf tree.tar
708: # on some non-unix (e.g. VAX/VMS), first use an editor to change the
709: # filename in "begin" line below to tree.tar_Z , then execute
710: # uudecode tree.uu
711: # compress -d tree.tar_Z
712: # tar -xvf tree.tar
713: #
714: uudecode $0
715: chmod 644 tree.tar.Z
716: zcat tree.tar.Z | tar -xvf -
717: rm $0 tree.tar.Z
718: exit
719:
720: